Print

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

[Leafsnail]

Yes, non-Other M Samus.

[Putnam]

Also, Chell.

[penguinofhonor]

It might just be Chell and Samus. I'm searching for more.

[Putnam]

Yes, non-Other M Samus.

Actually, thinking about it, this is wrong. All of the exposition text in Super Metroid is Samus's monologue, and there's a lot of dialogue involving Samus in Fusion.

[Max White]

So I've only played Metroid and Super Metroid.
Samus was silent in Metroid because there was nobody to talk to the entire game. In a NES game, having a character talking to them self is a bit of a waste. In and in Super Metroid she spoke... When has Samus ever been a silent protagonist in the same way Link is, with others talking but not himself?

As for Portal, once again, when do you ever see a human speaking? What, you expect Chell to be talking to the robots like a crazy woman?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There is some evidence to suggest that Chell (and Gordon as well, since we're on Valve games) is literally mute. Aperture Science's test subject storage is not good for your health (Gordon, on the other hand, can be heard breathing really, really hard at one point during the Resonance Cascade. This is the loudest sound he makes in any of the Half-Life games, leading some to conclude his larynx was smashed at this point).

[penguinofhonor]

Well, my searches of lists of silent protagonists have mentioned tons that don't speak just because they aren't around other people. Being silent while other people talk to you seems pretty much limited to RPGs and Gordon Freeman.

[Descan]

You didn't say "Silent when normal people speak", just "silent".

[Max White]

Anyway, I think the point was missed.
These sort of extrinsic art major deconstructions are useless and subject to what ever the author wants to convey. You can't use this style to deconstruct a game and say it is against, because it is just as easy to analyse the same game in a way that says something different.

That review on Other M posted not long ago was actually a pretty good example of an intrinsic deconstruction, and it works. Everything in 'Tropes Vs Woman' is an extrinsic deconstructions and it turns to shit.

You didn't say "Silent when normal people speak", just "silent".

There is more to being a silent protagonist than just not speaking. It is essentially about keeping the character a blank slate in a world of characterization.

[Descan]

So... Basically any game that let's you choose your gender? :I

[Max White]

Well yea, they often feature silent protagonists.
Although with dialog options that is kind of less common these days, but there used to be tonnes of them. Rarely male or female exclusive though...

[GlyphGryph]

Except no one, not even Anita, has said that Zelda playing the role she plays is sexist.

It is part of and a contributor to a sexist cultural narrative. It is an example of a sexist trope. But the only thing that is actually wrong with the game is the context within which it falls. When people complain about negative tropes, they are complaining about the trend, the context, the greater cultural forces at play that make this particularly representation, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, into something negative on a larger scale.

A discussion about negative tropes is a critique of the industry, specifically it's standards, conventions, stereotypes and fallbacks. A discussion about sexist games is a critique of specific, sexist games (and by extension, perhaps, the companies that made them). An intrinsic deconstruction is fundamentally opposed to any discussion of tropes, yes, inherently. I disagree that it automatically turns to shit because you're deconstructing industrial trends and conventions rather than specific games.

[Putnam]

I find this chart from the Other M thing posted up there fascinating:

[Hiiri]

It is part of and a contributor to a sexist cultural narrative. It is an example of a sexist trope. But the only thing that is actually wrong with the game is the context within which it falls. When people complain about negative tropes, they are complaining about the trend, the context, the greater cultural forces at play that make this particularly representation, which wouldn't be bad in and of itself, into something negative on a larger scale.

What larger scale? Are you saying video games are contributing to rape statistics? What?

Some people have been trying to find connection between violence in media and school shootings for a long time. No success. Why would this be any different?

[penguinofhonor]

Relevant well-sourced Palsch post:

Lets start with some empirical data;

Sexualised female characters have measurable and negative effects on immediate attitudes towards women, and negative effects on female player's self image. While it's not extreme, there were measured reductions in women's self-efficacy after playing as a sexualised character. They also measured significant changes in attitudes among both men and women, with them having lower opinions of women's physical and mental capacities. The study was limited in scope and size, but it's worth noting that prior studies had found stronger effects (notably hits to self-esteem that weren't measured here) so I'm fairly confident saying this is reasonable low-end measure of the negative immediate effects of sexualised female video game characters.

Which is to say, playing games with sexualised characters can change how people think about women in a negative manner and to a real, measurable degree.