Print

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

[alexandertnt]

Criticising video games =/= being "against" video games. This borders on the "if your not with us your agasint us" train(wreck) of thought.

I think you're projecting an all-or-nothing deal there. So we're not allowed to discuss or analyze or disagree with even a single point Anita raises? That's far more projecting a "with us or against us" line of thought, and also absolves you of actually discussing any points on their merits.

Wait what?

My response was to:

She make documentaries against videogames and developpers

[Reelya]

I edited and explained it in context. I do hold that Phmcw is correct if you read that in context as: against the games and developers she mentions. And not a specific claim by Phmcw that she's against "all games in general". She makes negative comments about many games, and zero positive comments on those games. That's clearly "against" the games she's naming in the videos.

And she does in fact slander developers in general.

[alexandertnt]

Right, I may have misinterpreted "videogames" to mean "videogames in general" as opposed to "these specific video games".

I may have kneejerked a bit (some people on the general internet have acted like these video's and even feminism in general has been maliciously assaulting videogames, or something like that).

I apologize if that was the case.

[Reelya]

I do hold, having read her thesis and watched or at least read the transcripts for all her videos that she's made that it's not correct when some people say that she "doesn't want to take any of your games away" she just wants more female protagonist games. Personally, I think that's also a projection and not entirely true.

Firstly, she does not in fact say anything at all which promotes more female protagonists, other than saying it's bad that more have male protagonists.

She only mentions things that happen in games with male protagonists that she doesn't like, and says they're bad. Pretty much every possible aspect of them. It's bad because they're built around violent game mechanics, it's bad because they're male power fantasies, it's bad because they have heterosexual relationship dynamics in the plot. Plus in her thesis she says the action genre is inherently patriarchal, regardless of hero gender. So her solution is to do away with action heroes altogether and replace it with shows where the hero is someone who sits down and facilitates collective decision making. She really said this, and said that would have been the ideal ending for Buffy: replace the ass-kicking with a nice discussion and a vote.

Yeah, she might not be against all games in general. She's quite fond of artsy indie games that don't have any game-play elements for example. But she is in fact fundamentally opposed to entire genres she doesn't approve of existing in the first place. Straight-up shooters wouldn't exist in her ideal world. Look at her thesis, which attacks the action genre in TV shows regardless of gender of the protagonist.

[Fniff]

I just don't get the idea that certain personality traits are masculine and others are feminine. I mean, there has to be guys who like playing games where you don't really fight anyone and girls who like playing shooters. Saying that something is inherently gendered is not the path to equality. There are certain things we can't change about the differences between genders (Hey, that's just testosterone and estrogen for you) but we don't need to reflect that in our culture if we don't want to.

[DJ]

That's just because they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy

[Neonivek]

Right, I may have misinterpreted "videogames" to mean "videogames in general" as opposed to "these specific video games".

Or, here is an alternative "Against" videogames. As in raised criticisms against videogames. It doesn't mean she is "Against" videogames. In the same way I can lean AGAINST a wall.

There is a genuine argument you could make, however, that Anita is anti-majority of videogames by actually listening to her video (I think it is more bad dialog)... yet that isn't what the person was referring to.

I do hold, having read her thesis and watched or at least read the transcripts for all her videos that she's made that it's not correct when some people say that she "doesn't want to take any of your games away" she just wants more female protagonist games. Personally, I think that's also a projection and not entirely true.

I won't lie after watching enough her disclaimer that she is just criticizing games and is not detracting from their worth and that they are still good games when all is said and done, starts to feel rather two faced. Though as I said it is likely just bad dialog.

Mostly because it is pretty much impossible to say "But it is still good" if you listen to everything she says and agree with it.

Since just take Super Mario for example... Taking what is said about it: It is a game where Princess Peach is reduced to a simple object making the game constructed on the broken beaten body of women everywhere. You should be ASHAMED to play It! Ohh... uhhh... but it is still totally a good game.

 

I have disregarded this drunken-college-sex-party thing as a silly stereotype you see in some movies

It is a silly stereotype but at the same time it isn't. It isn't done by a "typical" group of people at college.

she just wants more female protagonist games

I don't remember her ever really saying that. Even then she does have a good idea of how a female protagonist should act. (I should state her damsel example wasn't made by her)

I just don't get the idea that certain personality traits are masculine and others are feminine. I mean, there has to be guys who like playing games where you don't really fight anyone and girls who like playing shooters. Saying that something is inherently gendered is not the path to equality. There are certain things we can't change about the differences between genders (Hey, that's just testosterone and estrogen for you) but we don't need to reflect that in our culture if we don't want to.

I agree, as time goes on these traits are less and less important. The term "Tomboy" is something I think is flat out, outdated.

Also the point is that the genders do not act the same but we cannot hold either gender to that and we do not know what differences are real and what is created.

[scrdest]

I agree with the point about gendered traits. This seems to be the point where the entirety of the argument is bursting at seams, because either you have a 'regular' female character, which rings the sexism bell, or you have a 'strong' female character, so she is only good because she displays a 'masculine' trait, cue sexism.

In other way, you can only have a proper female character if you present her and her actions in a very specific way... which sounds, ironically enough, sexist against women in the 'stay in the kitchen' kinda way, just with the 'proper' behavior being different.

[Morrigi]

I agree with the point about gendered traits. This seems to be the point where the entirety of the argument is bursting at seams, because either you have a 'regular' female character, which rings the sexism bell, or you have a 'strong' female character, so she is only good because she displays a 'masculine' trait, cue sexism.

In other way, you can only have a proper female character if you present her and her actions in a very specific way... which sounds, ironically enough, sexist against women in the 'stay in the kitchen' kinda way, just with the 'proper' behavior being different.

Anita Sarkeesian? SEXIST? Shocking! [/sarcasm]

[Defacto]

Everyone is sexist these days. Just like everyone is feminist 

[Neonivek]

Everyone is sexist these days. Just like everyone is feminist 

But the second part isn't true.

[Staklininkas]

I don't like Anita because what is she honestly doing? Whining about video game, complaining that woman aren't making games, That sexism is rampant in the industry. But that's it, she just complains for about 20 minutes and then rattles her tin can asking for more donations. She doesn't offer any constructive criticism.

There are no longer any barriers to woman making games. Instead of taking the effort to produce a non-misogynistic game, which according to her high standards would probably be about a black transexual weredragon otherkin reading a gender neutral book on basket weaving.

With her 150k she could have bought UnityPRO and made the ultimate game for women.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It's also funny how she constantly cries out to her legion of white knights to save her from the horrible trolls.

[Gatleos]

I came across a new (to me) narrative that seems to be getting more common - to claim that judging some games to be "shit" is sexist. Basically you now can't say that e.g. Candy Crush is a shit game because that's sexist because women like it, and you clearly feel "threatened" by the success of casual games that women like, like Candy Crush or Farmville. The argument then goes that Candy Crush players are 100% as much real gamers as people who play anything else.

Which reminds me.

I'm getting tired of this insistence that women make up [45% or 50% or whatever the unsourced percentage is now] of "gamers". You guys, I know. Women play video games. The vast majority of us couldn't care less and certainly won't try to prevent them from doing so. I watched my girlfriend playing SotN last night and my thoughts weren't "wow good for you breaking down the patriarchy and gender roles yeah!" So when I deny that statistic I'm not saying that it's not something I want to be true, just that it isn't true.

The mobile video game market exploded in the last 5 years or so, and now makes up a healthy percentage of all revenue in the industry. And guess what? A majority of the female gaming demographic is into mobile gaming. Why is that important? Because there's a big difference in interest there. Mobile games are almost exclusively what you would call "casual games". People seem to be under the impression that calling them this means I don't think they're "real games", whatever metric you would even measure that by. I don't think any type of game objectively has less value than another, regardless of my personal opinion on it.

Casual games don't require much of a commitment, they're something you play for 10 minutes on the bus on the way to work. They are simple and easy to pick up, and usually not very difficult. A hardcore game, on the other hand, is one that is more complex and may require a significant time (or even monetary!) investment to get into. I'm sure Bay12 could think of a pretty good example of this one. This isn't to say people who only play iPhone games aren't "real gamers" or that they should be ignored. But the truth of the matter is that they are only passively interested in the hobby. When you put someone who plays Candy Crush on their lunch break into the same category as someone who spends hundreds of dollars and countless hours per year on games, it skews statistics.

The good news is that we will see women moving more into the hardcore market in the coming years. Games like Candy Crush are gateway games. They are the Sailor Moon of video games. Change is happening, but when you misrepresent statistics to make your argument you slow the discussion down and muddy the point. Stop that.

[Neonivek]

There are only two women in my house who play videogames and they are my mother and my younger sister.

My Mother plays those games like Candy Crush (and I constantly tell her not to spend money on them >_< because those games will get you! That and she has before.)

My Younger Sister tends to play games like Point and Clicks as she isn't "good enough" to play much else.

It actually is pretty hard for someone who doesn't play games to learn. But there are games that female gamers typically like.

Back when they were new, the Sim series of games (The Sims, SimCity, Simearth, Simlife) actually had a very even balance. In fact The Sims biggest demographic were teenaged girls.

Anita's issue isn't JUST that she doesn't offer constructive criticism, which honestly I don't think all criticism needs to be constructive, but that her videos lack depth. Sometimes a solution shows itself when you just know enough.

As well Anita never shows any real damage of these tropes either except that they sometimes eliminate an otherwise good character (And UNFORTUNATELY for Anita she did the mistake of using Dinosaur Planet as an example... Or she did it on purpose and misrepresented the HECK out of it).

Honestly Anita, while I knew about Dinosaur Planet before hand, it took me less than 5 minutes to recheck my facts after watching your video. Would it have been too much of an imposition to think of ANOTHER game?

I mean Alone in the Dark INTRODUCED a female character to their game who was made to appeal to women. Dinosaur Planet sacked its male protagonist and kept its female one in order to make it a Starfox game for marketing, not because "Krystal" was a girl and girls are icky.

[Reelya]

I think this might be the big difference between Michael Moore and Anita:

On guns - Michael Moore doesn't only point out that guns are bad - he points out that most other advanced countries don't have the gun problem that America has. And on medicine he contrasts other countries with better health outcomes with the USA. He's not just railing "grrr things I don't like are bad" he's showing through contrast that it doesn't have to be that way because there are "viable alternate models" of doing things that objectively don't have the same problems of the thing he doesn't like.

Anita has contrasted games she doesn't like with other games. But those other games are either a one-off concepts (A princess kicking butt) or so indie and obscure and uappealing to the vast bulk of people that actually consume game media, that they do not constitute a viable alternate model. The existing games she's mentioned are basically niche hipster shit that won't ever be popular with ANYONE regardless of gender.

The "viable alternate model" for games would be something in another industry that's also popular. And movies are the best candidate. Women already watch tons of movies, and there's little
"barrier", there's no wideapread belief that movies are just "guy stuff" and there isn't any real "hardcore movie viewer" and "casual viewer" stigma. But we still see the exact same gender issues in movies as we see in games. Movies for women don't tend to be the huge action blockbusters. But most women are not exactly crying out for more "AAA action blockbusters for girls(tm)". They just don't seem to connect that much with the action genre regardless of protagonist gender. So there's little reason to expect that more women in gaming will lead to a large number of AAA games being targeted at women.

===

As for casual games / hardcore games or whatever we call them. It's a little disturbing to just say that whatever someone thinks is fun is automatically 100% equal and equally artistically valid. We wouldn't say that of movies. I'm sure a lot of people went to see Rob Schneider's Deuce Bigalow: American Gigalo and had a great laugh. So we should consider those people "movie buffs" and the total equals of Peter Sellers fans I guess. Since it's all about fun, right, everyone is right and all comedy movies are equally good if people like them?

Excuse me if I think that Deuce Bigalow fans are retarded and don't deserve a label "movie buff". Similarly people who's only gameplay experience is FarmVille don't really get much credibility for the "gamer" label for the same reason - the core quality of the experience stinks (shitty gameplay vs shitty plot and humor).

Sure, maybe I'm being elitist by ranking games on quality and having a low opinion of people (as discerning game players, not as humans. although I will cede Deuce Bigalow fans as sub-human) who only play games I consider shitty (and I would never do that without actually playing them myself). But, having played games of all genres, this is the same as movie criticism, and not some attempt to "ban" a demographic from playing, any more than Roger Ebert panning a movie "bans" fans of that movie from watching movies. He's saying "watch good movies goddamit and stop pumping money into these stinkers!".

Saying everything is equally good if people are willing to buy it and spend time on it doesn't sound like a mature developed market with discernment to me.