Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

No one likes manipulative or forceful rhetoric, lets put it like that.

[Reelya]

Right, she's trying to show that the tropes are widespread by showing lots of examples.  It's why she briefly analyzes lots of games rather than trying to prove any single game harmful.

She shows a few examples, spread over several decades, whereas the 2012 study on gender representation cited in wikipedia looked a 669 games released all around the same time, they found only a featured a solely female lead, but about 50% of the games released at that time gave the option of choosing either gender. So, that's 300 games released around 2012 that at least give the choice. The "male lead only" games got more marketing budget and sold better, but the optional-female games got better review scores, than ones where you can only play one genre. So might as well go buy the female-optional ones and not worry about the sales figures - the female-optional ones are better games anyway it seems.

The way Anita talks (repeating series of very similar examples in the 2nd video, with similar, tired-sounding language) you get the impression that a vast bulk of games are ALL using the exact tropes she cites, rather than a few examples she's hand-picked out of tens of thousands of titles spanning decades.

And she definitely states it in a way that implies that the few examples she's hand-picked are completely representative, which is definitely stating things in a rather misleading fashion. She also, in the current video #2 talks about how single female deaths in games are fostering a culture of violence against women, yet she completely ignores that you probably massacre 100's if not 1000's of male characters in each of those games. One thing that strikes me, is that if I was making a highly violent action game I might be tempted to put exactly zero female characters in it, to avoid any accusation of fostering violence against women, for the same reason you don't see many little kids in shooters. I have to wonder if this is one reason you don't see more female antagonists in shooters.

[penguinofhonor]

She's also not talking about black people, so I'm going to assume she hates them as well.

[Reelya]

I'm not sure where that's meant to come from? She says "games do X" which is a generalization about "games". She never attempts to make any sort of caveat, so she is in effect claiming to be talking about games as a whole.

If you want to use race as an analogy: Imagine I said "black people - they commit lots of crimes" and I list an bunch of black people who were violent criminals. But I don't make any attempt to say "but there are many other black people who never committed any crime", instead, I say "and that's just the tip of the iceberg". (which incidentally is an exact quote from Anita). And then, someone else tries and justifies my position by saying "yeah, but he was only referring to those black people who commit crimes, when he said 'black people' ". What i said was factually correct - there have been many crimes committed by black people in the USA. But it's also misleading, even though i cannot be said to have "lied". Omitting counter-examples to your claim is actually misleading when you're claiming to make general observations.

The closest Anita gets to indicating such tropes she list aren't 100% universal is saying "occasionally a game comes along which isn't sexist" and she lists like 2-3 examples. But, when doing this she implies the complete opposite to her tone when implying the negative traits are universal - at one point she list 3 examples of "good" games and said "sadly, such games are rare". so in the case of "positive" games she implies that the ones she listed are exclusively the only good games in existence, but when protraying a "bad" game, she implies that the negative trait is shared by all games, whether she's listed them or not.

Race as an analogy again: would be to follow up my "black people are criminals" speech with a caveat: "occasionally a black person who isn't a criminal can be found - as in the case of Mr So-and-So. Unfortunately, such cases are rare!"

The only positive examples given by Anita are categorically stated to be isolated examples, no exceptions allowed. Whilst for the negative tropes she makes very different caveats:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Over the course of this series I will be offering critical analysis of many popular games and characters, but please keep in mind that it’s both possible (and even necessary) to simultaneously enjoy a piece of media while also being critical of it’s more problematic or pernicious aspects.

I just want to caution viewers that as we delve into more modern games we will be discussing examples that employ some particularly gruesome and graphic depictions of violence against women.

In our previous episode we explored the history of the Damsel in Distress and how the trope became so pervasive in classic era games from the 80s and early 90s.

Now it might be tempting to think the Damsel in Distress was just a product of its time, and that by now surely the trope must be a thing of the past. Well, while we have seen a moderate increase in the number of playable female characters, the plot device has not gone away. In fact the Damsel in Distress has even seen a bit of a resurgence in recent years

*lists examples* And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; suffice it to say the trope is alive and well even today.

And since the majority of these titles focus of delivering crude, unsophisticated male power fantasies,

Ok so we know that the Damsel in Distress is alive and well in gaming but that’s not the full picture, there’s even more insidious side to the story.

This trading of female characters lives for something meant to resemble male character development is of course part of a long media tradition, but the gruesome death of women for shock value is especially prevalent in modern gaming.

The Damsel in the Refrigerator is part of larger trend of throwing women under the bus in increasingly gruesome ways in an apparent attempt to interject what I’ll loosely refer to as “mature themes”.

The Euthanized Damsel is the darkest and edgiest of these trope-hybrids but it’s also an extension of a larger pattern in gaming narratives where male protagonists are forced to fight their own loved ones who have been possessed or brainwashed by villains.

Even though most of the games we’re talking about don’t explicitly condone violence against women, nevertheless they trivialize and exploit female suffering as a way to ratchet up the emotional or sexual stakes for the player.

Despite these troubling implications, game creators aren’t necessarily all sitting around twirling their nefarious looking mustaches while consciously trying to figure out how to best misrepresent women as part of some grand conspiracy.

Most probably just haven’t given much thought to the underlying messages their games are sending

So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated and victimized women over and over and over again

Consequently violent revenge based narratives, repeated ad nauseum,

The “dark and edgy” trope-cocktails we’ve discussed in this episode are not isolated incidents, or obscure anomalies; instead they represent an ongoing recurring pattern in modern gaming narratives.

Okay, above are all the quotes from the lasted transcript where she discusses the prevalence of the negative tropes. In each case, she attempts to imply that the prevalence is vastly greater than the examples she gives, and pervade the industry as a whole.

There are some games that try to explore loss, death and grief in more genuine or authentic ways that do not sensationalize or exploit victimized women. Dear Esther, The Passage and To The Moon are a few indie games that investigate these themes in creative, innovative and sometimes beautiful ways. These more contemplative style games are a hopeful sign but they’re still largely the exception to the rule. A sizable chunk of the industry is still unfortunately trapped in the established pattern of building game narratives on the backs of brutalized female bodies.

Okay ... so the games that don't brutalize women are "the exception to the rule" (and apparently mainly consists of the 3 indie games she listed) and a "sizeable chunk" of the industry is "building game narratives" on the "backs of brutalized female bodies". She's making a pretty bold case here, and one can infer that all non-indie games are built "on backs of brutalized female bodies".

[Rolan7]

Right, she's trying to show that the tropes are widespread by showing lots of examples.  It's why she briefly analyzes lots of games rather than trying to prove any single game harmful.

She shows a few examples, spread over several decades, whereas the 2012 study on gender representation cited in wikipedia looked a 669 games released all around the same time, they found only a featured a solely female lead, but about 50% of the games released at that time gave the option of choosing either gender. So, that's 300 games released around 2012 that at least give the choice. The "male lead only" games got more marketing budget and sold better, but the optional-female games got better review scores, than ones where you can only play one genre. So might as well go buy the female-optional ones and not worry about the sales figures - the female-optional ones are better games anyway it seems.

That study selected 669 games.  I wasn't able to find out their selection criteria, but it's reasonable assume they're generally successful and well funded.  Even in this limited selection, males can play their own gender in 96% of the games, and females in 49%.  Plus, as you say, the female-targeted ones are less marketed.  I would be willing to bet that less well funded games, with tighter margins, are even less likely to risk a female PC or pay for both options.

Still, it's impractical for both genders to be available in most games.  It just ought to be more balanced than 4% female-only to 51% male-only, since female-only games apparently do fine with less budget (if I'm understanding that study correctly).

The harmful tropes are a much more important issue, however.  If 50% of new games were like the new Tomb Raider and Metroid Other M, there'd still be very little for me to play.

The way Anita talks (repeating series of very similar examples in the 2nd video, with similar, tired-sounding language) you get the impression that a vast bulk of games are ALL using the exact tropes she cites, rather than a few examples she's hand-picked out of tens of thousands of titles spanning decades.

And she definitely states it in a way that implies that the few examples she's hand-picked are completely representative, which is definitely stating things in a rather misleading fashion. She also, in the current video #2 talks about how single female deaths in games are fostering a culture of violence against women, yet she completely ignores that you probably massacre 100's if not 1000's of male characters in each of those games. One thing that strikes me, is that if I was making a highly violent action game I might be tempted to put exactly zero female characters in it, to avoid any accusation of fostering violence against women, for the same reason you don't see many little kids in shooters. I have to wonder if this is one reason you don't see more female antagonists in shooters.

She didn't actually say fictional violence against women was fostering anything in the real world, the closest part was this:

It’s important to remember that these comics don’t exist in a vacuum, that they are created by writers and artists who live in the same sexist social systems we all do and that’s reflected in the characters and the stories.  It is saddening to see how flippantly and trivially violence against women is treated in comic book pages (even with the most powerful of female superheroes) especially when violence against women in the real world are at epidemic levels.  We have to remember that the Women in Refrigerators list was created for us to identify, understand and resist the variety of ways that women and our fictional representations are disempowered and victimized.

I’m not saying women can’t ever die in comic books but it matters how and why they die.

In fact the video (we're talking about "#2 Women in Refrigerators", right?) only mentions video games briefly:

In video games such as God of War 1, Splinter Cell, and Fable 2 the narrative revolves around a man seeking revenge the death of female family members.

The point of the video is not that violence against women is in fiction is inherently bad at all, but that it's treated differently than violence against men.  Men recover, and come back stronger.  Women get killed off or crippled solely to encourage male heroes to seek vengeance.

She doesn't tie it to video games in general very well.  She only points out three examples, and says there are "many more".  Not a strong case that it's true for video games - but the video is about comic books.

[Neonivek]

The point of the video is not that violence against women is in fiction is inherently bad at all, but that it's treated differently than violence against men.  Men recover, and come back stronger.  Women get killed off or crippled solely to encourage male heroes to seek vengeance

Basically the reason why Other M was so terrible. Where the insulting part was they assumed that a woman who had PTSD (which is never seen in game mind you, you had to find this out in interviews after the game was made) would act defenseless.

Though I don't think that was the point Anita was hinting at.

[Reelya]

What on Earth are you talking about? We're discussing the series of videos called 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games' - Not the general "Tropes vs Women". It's the entire raison detre of this thread. That shows you don't even bother reading what people are writing or talking about let alone carefully considering their arguments. I specifically quoted from Tropes Vs. Women in Video games, video #2. It's nothing to do with the comics video. That's something unrelated. Did you even read the things i quoted? It appears not.

Other than that, nothing you wrote substantially addressed any of the points i raised in the slightest - not even obliquely. You made a comment about the 669 games study, but it really had nothing to do with the point I raised about that study, which was to illustrate just what a large number of games are released in any one year (300 in around 2012 that featured the choice of a female protagonist, something you wouldn't believe existed if you'd only watch Anita's videos) - Anita's few examples need to be judged against the total sample size - something she never make clear.

It baffles me how what you wrote even qualifies as a reply, to the point i really have nothing to add.

[Neonivek]

Other M is a videogame Reelya.

As well no one complains about the Samus comic books because it was a prequel and Samus gets over it and becomes the hero she was in Metroid, Metroid Fusion, Super Metroid, and all the games she shown up in.

Other M is just an example of exactly that aspect of "Women break down, Men empower themselves" aspect except in a more literal form. Where the Trauma destroys an otherwise competent character because she is a woman.

Sheesh Reelya.

[Reelya]

Neonivek, i was replying to Rolan7, not you. I do, in fact, know what Other M is.

I quoted (at length) Anita's new video TvM: Video Games #2, and Rolan assumed i was talking about the old Tropes vs Women #2 video about the comic-books. Which shows he didn't even make a half-assed attempt to read what i wrote before spitting out a rebuttal. My quotes mention the word "video games" and "games" dozens of times, and Rolan7 has the nerve to claim that she hardly mentioned games :/ Which makes it painfully clear that he made no effort to read what i wrote.

[Neonivek]

Neonevik, i was replying to Rolan7, not you.

Ohh sorry, I just really wouldn't be surprised if I got that sort of response for bringing up Other M.

I think my favorite Female of Videogames is Amy from Okami.

[Max White]

I'd say that Braid is the most obvious example of a subversion of the damsel in distress trope there is in gaming today - playing directly on the most recognisable and traditional game story and then completely twisting away from expectations - although obviously there is a lot more going on there as well. There is a problem where that is only apparent if you finish the game, which is actually a serious issue for a fair amount of media that subvert tropes as a plot twist (many rely on claiming to be subversions to get away with blatant exploitative pandering or fall into the parody cake problem).

Nope, played totally straight! There is a damsel that is rescued by a hero guy. Just because it is interesting doesn't make it subverted. When you actually do finish the game, you must understand that there is a damsel, and she is rescued by a guy from a creep, the trope is a nutshell.

Here is my problem; how often is a Damsel used because it is central to the artistic vision of the creator? How often is that story the motivating factor of creating the game? How often is it a required central aspect of a game? How often is it just a lazy excuse for motivation of generic male character at the expense of a generic female character?

Here is my problem; It happens a lot.
No honest criticism of the trope itself in the context of sexism at all. Fun fact: Just because a story isn't great or suffers from lazy story telling DOESN'T MAKE IT SEXIST! And yet I hear this from Anita and yourself because you can't produce a rational argument, just this appeal to emotion.

Here is the thing, if you have to say "X doesn't exist in a vacuum" you are pretty much admitting the problem isn't with X, it is with the stuff surrounding X. In this case, it isn't with the tropes, but instead the requirement of their use. As such, don't attack X, you won't solve anything, instead focus on the stuff surrounding X, in this case publishers, developers and consumers.

Let's use another example. Someone on another site who is working on a novel was recently made aware of the Bury Your Gays trope which they previously weren't aware of at all. They had just killed off the one gay character in their novel. They went back and looked at the story and character to see if they justified the inadvertently problematic killing. They decided it was required for the novel to work. They didn't deny that it was problematic or that people might have issues with it. They just decided the story needed it to hold together and that they would work to craft the book to minimise the impact of the trope.

Would such awareness and consideration of the social context of such tropes not be a good thing in games? And so isn't a series examining and explaining such tropes a good idea?

I would say anybody having problems or issues with a book just because a gay guy is killed off is a moron.
What, suddenly homosexuals are except from the same plot as any other character? Suddenly they are too special to die in a work of fiction? There are gays on this forum, ask them if they want some sort of mythical special treatment where as gay characters must always be unkillable, I would be surprised if they didn't find it a little patronizing.

See Max, I think we basically agree.  No one is saying all video games are sexist, or that every sexist game is even bad!  Anita's point is that harmful gender tropes are too pervasive in popular games.

And that is where we disagree, because these tropes themselves are not harmful.

[Neonivek]

Anita's point is that harmful gender tropes are too pervasive in popular games

She REALLY had yet to express that point yet when I think about it.

Anyhow I am going to see if I understand Max White.

Max White's position is that tropes are neutral, they cannot carry anything because they are simply tools. They are no more sexist then a socket wrench or the word "sandwich".

Max is saying the problem isn't with the trope or it existing but rather with how it is used. One area he really disagrees with Anita is she has an idea that any use of said trope is a problem.

Anita many times argues against the existence of said trope being used at all and is thus saying that the trope itself is wrong or sexist.

That is where I think Max might be saying.

yet I hear this from Anita and yourself because you can't produce a rational argument, just this appeal to emotion

Honestly, I think she has an argument but it seems like she half-expects you to agree with her and that words like "objectified" and "Trophy" are meant to win you over regardless of any intervening context. (For example a woman was being objectified because she was kidnapped against her will and thus her boyfriend is trying to save her furthering her objectification because she is now something to win)

Which is where she loses me a lot of the time because it requires me to think of everything in such oversimplified terms I feel like a lot of information is lost.

As well the fact that she often refers to characters use in the metaplot but not the plot, makes it rather... confusing to say the least.

Often all I can say is that: Never in the context of the plot is this ever relevant. Her autonomy was taken away and the goal of the game is to return it to her. A trophy however has no autonomy and it is never returned. Thus you are creating a rift between the metaplot and the plot. Where the plot can only see characters in terms of actors and agents and doesn't recognize autonomy anyhow.

[Max White]

Max White's position is that tropes are neutral, they cannot carry anything because they are simply tools. They are no more sexist then a socket wrench or the word "sandwich"

Not exactly.
I am saying all tropes currently presented are not sexist.

If, for example, you had a trope of black people asking and enjoying being enslaved. If it only happened once, there is no problem with prevalence, but there is still something seriously wrong. It is both historically and more importantly morally an abomination.

A good test is to see if it is still offensive when reversed. Is it offensive for a book/movie/game where white people volunteer for and enjoy enslavement? Yes it very well it! Is it offensive when a guy is kidnapped and rescued by a woman? Not at all.

[Neonivek]

If, for example, you had a trope of black people asking and enjoying being enslaved. If it only happened once, there is no problem with prevalence, but there is still something seriously wrong. It is both historically and more importantly morally an abomination.

That... isn't wrong or racist when you think about it objectively. Quite a few "black people" did in fact enjoy their enslavement and thought of their times with their masters as far easier and worthwhile then their time free.

Is it offensive for a book/movie/game where white people volunteer for and enjoy enslavement?

No, it is understanding what a slave is. A slave is someone who lacks a certain aspect of their autonomy. Someone who is treated well or who suffers from Stockholm syndrome could easily enjoy their enslavement. As well there is lots of fiction with volunteer enslavement and it even occurred in real life.

The offensiveness of black slaves liking their slavery is because of the knee jerk reaction of the implications and what it tends to be associated with.

[Max White]

Ok that is a huuuge can of worms I didn't even realize I opened. Like a fucking dam full of worms just burst and is washing over this thread. I regret everything!