Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 168 169 [170] 171 172 ... 277

Author Topic: Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'  (Read 309209 times)

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2535 on: June 16, 2014, 03:11:02 pm »

There are often issues in games (like Diablo 2) where women will have sexualized death animations, which makes it a problem because there are often implications that some sort of sexual violence is being done. You don't just kill women, you kill-and-rape them, which is why they keep on moaning lustily when you're stabbing them to death.
I played Diablo 2 a lot some years ago and I don't remember that at all. Stripperiffic costumes, sure, but sexualized death animations?
I think it's those undead spear women in the I act. Their death animation is... pretty interesting.
Logged
._.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2536 on: June 16, 2014, 03:11:53 pm »

That doesn't work either because that is rarely what is being done when the term "objectify" pops up.

That is literally what I mean, though.

Then you need to expand and tell us WHY what we are seeing is them being treated as an object as opposed to a NPC.

The reason why I am being so anal about it, is because it is used as a "if something happens to a woman you dislike, it is objectification because you can do any of those things to an object and you can project feelings towards an object". Essentially making the word meaningless. The worst is when it is used for "This woman is sexy, objectification because you are treating her as a sex object" or something along those lines without justification.

Mind you for the most part I believe you Vector, so this is just putting more work on you... but it is something that needs to be done.

One objectification I've seen done is it compared a woman in a movie to a "sexy lamp" and didn't leave it there but showed all her contributions to the story and plot. Actually showing that she basically did nothing except illuminate and provide warmth. The movie actually went out of its way to lock out her contributions to the plot (My guess? She was originally not in the movie)

I should go back to my oath to never talk about women, but I put it on break.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 03:15:26 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2537 on: June 16, 2014, 03:12:23 pm »

My thought when watching the episode was pretty much Laura Mulvey for videogames and with less castration psychoanalysis.

Can we REALLY just ban the word objectify? I mean seriously.

No.

Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Sergarr

  • Bay Watcher
  • (9) airheaded baka (9)
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2538 on: June 16, 2014, 03:13:59 pm »

That doesn't work either because that is rarely what is being done when the term "objectify" pops up.

That is literally what I mean, though.

Then you need to expand and tell us WHY what we are seeing is them being treated as an object as opposed to a NPC.

The reason why I am being so anal about it, is because it is used as a "if something happens to a woman you dislike, it is objectification because you can do any of those things to an object and you can project feelings towards an object". Essentially making the word meaningless.

Mind you for the most part I believe you Vector, so this is just putting more work on you... but it is something that needs to be done.

I should go back to my oath to never talk about women, but I put it on break.
Fun fact: Most of interactions between people can be interpreted in the terms of subject-object pairs.
Logged
._.

XXSockXX

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2539 on: June 16, 2014, 03:15:39 pm »

There are often issues in games (like Diablo 2) where women will have sexualized death animations, which makes it a problem because there are often implications that some sort of sexual violence is being done. You don't just kill women, you kill-and-rape them, which is why they keep on moaning lustily when you're stabbing them to death.
I played Diablo 2 a lot some years ago and I don't remember that at all. Stripperiffic costumes, sure, but sexualized death animations?
I think it's those undead spear women in the I act. Their death animation is... pretty interesting.
Huh, I don't remember ever noticing that.
Logged

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2540 on: June 16, 2014, 03:17:26 pm »

Can we REALLY just ban the word objectify? I mean seriously.

No.

Then at least ban the use of it without explanation.
Logged

Sheb

  • Bay Watcher
  • You Are An Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2541 on: June 16, 2014, 03:17:46 pm »

PTW
Logged

Quote from: Paul-Henry Spaak
Europe consists only of small countries, some of which know it and some of which don’t yet.

Rolan7

  • Bay Watcher
  • [GUE'VESA][BONECARN]
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2542 on: June 16, 2014, 03:22:34 pm »

Okay, I should have finished watching.   She does go into how sexualization invites violence, though I still think all that time spent on "Look, you can kill WOMEN in these games, and you're encouraged to kill WOMEN" was dishonest.

Her first example is also just awful.  As she explains how violence against males is generally portrayed less sexually, which is TRUE, she shows Jensen walk up to a guy and perform the *exact same kill* he performed on a woman earlier in the video.  Good point, terrible example.

But she does get back to the point that sexualization is objectifying, and reminds how that leads to various forms of exploitation in real life.

As an aside, I was watching a LP of Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines last week, and the character was female.  The player found an upgrade to "heavy clothes" or something.  The description talked about padding and layers, enough to provide protection.

Apparently for a Malkavian that means assless chaps :P  The schoolgirl dress should have provided more protection.
Malkavians are insane though, the other female models probably don't look like strippers... right?

Can we REALLY just ban the word objectify? I mean seriously.

No.

Then at least ban the use of it without explanation.

But we all know what it means, don't we?
I generally read it as "removing agency and obscuring human value".
Logged
She/they
No justice: no peace.
Quote from: Fallen London, one Unthinkable Hope
This one didn't want to be who they was. On the Surface – it was a dull, unconsidered sadness. But everything changed. Which implied everything could change.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2543 on: June 16, 2014, 03:26:10 pm »

Also interesting fact Vector

In Duke Nukem 3d there are a lot of women in that game, and if you kill them monsters spawn. (vast majority of them strippers or loose women, with a few atypical)

One of the bosses is in a stadium surrounded by women so if the boss kills them trying to shoot you, it will spawn extra monsters.

It is an example of women getting extra protection in a game (but there are no killable males outside monsters in the game. Who are all monsters).

Then there is Bully where you can beat up any girl you want, but doing so instantly gets you in maximum punishment. Which from the standpoint of the game makes total sense given this is a school.
-Oddly enough there are many villains in the game and only the female villain doesn't get any comeuppance or get called out, at no point do female characters seriously join any of the fights (they will groin shot you if they dislike you).

THEN there is another school game that is possibly a parody of this... because you can beat up the male characters almost with impunity, but if you as much as graze a female student you instantly lose the game. Meaning they are an obstacle... and they have no issue walking right into a fight.

Quote
But we all know what it means, don't we?
I generally read it as "removing agency and obscuring human value".

Which works until you think about it. Since it adds the "Without saying" to the definition.

The reason why I want people to stop using it has nothing to do with how true or untrue it is, so much that it sort of has become the noose around which a fruitful argument could be had.
Logged

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Neonivek

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2545 on: June 16, 2014, 03:28:48 pm »

It doesn't matter how many definitions you put Glowcat because I am not attacking the word for not existing.

I am saying that it has long since stopped being a helpful word... and that simply not using it would improve statements and arguments 110% because instead of just saying "This woman is being treated like an object" you would get into how it is wrong, how it is being done, and what could have been done instead.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 03:30:38 pm by Neonivek »
Logged

Glowcat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2546 on: June 16, 2014, 03:39:53 pm »

It doesn't matter how many definitions you put Glowcat because I am not attacking the word for not existing.

I am saying that it has long since stopped being a helpful word.

No, you wanted an explanation, and obviously people strongly disagree with your belief that it's no longer useful.
Logged
Totally a weretrain. Very much trains!
I'm going to steamroll this house.

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2547 on: June 16, 2014, 03:56:10 pm »

So, I have never played Diablo 2, for reference. But my understanding is that female corpse poses are posed on their backs with their legs spread, as opposed to male corpses being posed on their side or whatever. (This made it so that one of my friends was banned from playing for a while; I trust her mother's judgment, since god knows she played plenty of violent games. Her mom was just trying to keep her away from stuff that involved rape scenes as part of the "fun," because she was like 12 at the time).

If it's not a good example and I remembered incorrectly, then I apologize--it was an event that kind of stuck out in my memory. I'm sure that you can think of lots of examples of games that have similar effects in them, though.

I think it's those undead spear women in the I act. Their death animation is... pretty interesting.

I'd believe this one, too.


How is there a difference between those things? If you fantasize about killing people who piss you off and these people happen to be women (or minorites or whatever), it's the same thing. In that case the problem is more an unresolved issue a player who does these things has with women, and that results in the impulse for backlash you describe.

The difference, usually, is that the game explicitly treats these groups as different. Thank you for raising this point, it's clear that I didn't specify.

It's one thing to go around killing women when women are treated equally in a game--no sexualization, no object treatment, etc. That's on the player. But when the designer treats one of these solely as a sexual class, that is different. That's on the designer and the player--especially the designer, because while the player is just playing, the designer is disseminating a message.


Apparently for a Malkavian that means assless chaps :P  The schoolgirl dress should have provided more protection.
Malkavians are insane though, the other female models probably don't look like strippers... right?

Take a look!


The reason why I am being so anal about it, is because it is used as a "if something happens to a woman you dislike, it is objectification because you can do any of those things to an object and you can project feelings towards an object". Essentially making the word meaningless. The worst is when it is used for "This woman is sexy, objectification because you are treating her as a sex object" or something along those lines without justification.

Sure, I'll explain. People aren't explaining because they assume it's obvious, but I'm willing to write it out.

I am saying that it has long since stopped being a helpful word... and that simply not using it would improve statements and arguments 110% because instead of just saying "This woman is being treated like an object" you would get into how it is wrong, how it is being done, and what could have been done instead.

The reason why it's seen as a helpful word is that it represents the ideas in the following essay. People generally assume that you understand already why it is wrong, how it is done, and what should be done instead, because this is not exactly an uncommon idea that is being discussed, here.


I am not saying "cruel treatment is tantamount to treating a person as an object, so my problem is that bad things are happening to women." Not in the least. I am also not meaning "object" as in "grammatical object."

What I mean is that there are certain distinctions we use to distinguish humans and objects like potatoes (which are becoming blurred slowly--see the Turing test, Siri, etc.). Humans talk. Humans want things. Humans have dreams, and desires, and their own little worlds that they live in--their own perspectives. They do stuff and change the world around them. They are intelligent. Because of these qualities, we put restrictions on what behavior is acceptable to treat them with. For example, it's acceptable to grow, farm, cull, and eat wheat with impunity, but we don't yet have baby farms to do that to human children. We see this as immoral, because even though babies are about as intelligent as your average dog, it is taboo to treat a human child in that manner. People have eaten babies, but it is seen as a strongly deviant, universally condemned behavior. This is, again, not just because they are helpless. Wheat is also helpless. This is because we recognize that babies are not objects. There's a similar taboo against treating objects as human--talking to the teakettle, for example, or marrying the Eiffel Tower.

In most games, you could replace the female love interest with an animal companion and the experience wouldn't be very different, because the female character has about as much leverage on the story line as a dog. Her desire is like a dog's, her sole motivation being to provide loyal friendship to you. Nothing she says matters, and nothing she does influences the proceedings. In many games, you could replace the female love interest with a fleshlight, blowup doll, or a paperweight (see: examples where her job is to look sexy and then die). She certainly isn't a player character, influencing the story line and imbued with humanity by reflecting your own wants and needs.

It is true that men are also represented as objects in games--faceless mooks and the like. However, the player character is also usually male, with something like 90%+ certainty. A player character is patently not most readily seen as an object, because it is a representation of the self. However, even the rare female player characters are typically represented not as a reflection of the player, but as a service object to the player (unless the player prefers to identify as a stripper with a chainsaw, which is certainly a valid choice--but it should not be the only one.). She is not "you," but a doll you are controlling with some nice clothes strung across her lovingly modeled backside (sole male example I know of: Solid Snake).

Since women receive this kind of treatment almost unilaterally, this makes the problem gendered. Women are overwhelmingly given characteristics more common to what we would interpret as an "object" than we would interpret as a "person." This is an issue throughout all of media. It is a cultural perspective seen reflected in the way that women are treated day-to-day, by their cultures and by their governments. It does not just teach people to treat women badly, it treats women to subsume their own natural desires. Stories teach.

And the story we're telling is that Women Are Objects. Women are not heroes, in our mythology--but constitute a piece of the "fully destructible environment." The problem is, again, not just that it's happening--but the extent to which its happening, and the fact that it is so commonplace that most people absorb and perpetuate these messages without even noticing.

And unsurprisingly, people respond to what they're taught by treating women as objects, because you can't expect people to break off the full force of their social conditioning and go against the immense power of that stream as though it were nothing.

Therefore, the solution is to take steps in the other direction. Push it out of the mainstream. I've got no issues with it appearing in games where that's part of the theme. As I've said before, no one wants to take away anyone's titty games. I enjoyed the sexualization of Bloodlines; played a female Malkavian with a garden clipper and both buttcheeks fully exposed, for goodness' sakes. But Masquerade is about being sexy and socially deviant. It goes a few steps farther than the mainstream in that direction, so that you get the point.

The presiding opinion should not be "A female's correct role in society is about the same as a dog or a rock."
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

UltraValican

  • Bay Watcher
  • The Man aiming to be a Man!
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2548 on: June 16, 2014, 03:57:45 pm »

I think complaining about objectification in videogames is fucking stupid. People in videogames are treated as objects, because they are objects.
That shopkeeper exists to sell me shit
That wizard exists for me to beat the shit out of him and take his stuff.
Those cops exist to drop bullets
Those NPCS exist to stand around and make the world look less empty.
etc

Every thing you encounter in a game that isn't a texture exists to be acted upon. They're not real people.

Why is she complaining that prostitutes act like prostitutes and strippers act like strippers in games that contain prostitutes and strippers? Of course a stripper's sexuality is attached to a price. That's kinda in the job description of a stripper. A prostitute's sexuality is treated as a commodity because that's how prostitution works.

So why is she complaining that NPCs are being NPCs?
Logged
Would you rather be an Ant in Heaven or a Man in Hell?

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Only two posts on 'Tropes vs Women in Video Games'
« Reply #2549 on: June 16, 2014, 04:00:51 pm »

Why is she complaining that prostitutes act like prostitutes and strippers act like strippers in games that contain prostitutes and strippers? Of course a stripper's sexuality is attached to a price. That's kinda in the job description of a stripper. A prostitute's sexuality is treated as a commodity because that's how prostitution works.

So why is she complaining that NPCs are being NPCs?

She's complaining that women are being overwhelmingly represented as certain types of NPCs. I.e. that women are being represented solely as a sex class.

In your average game, you have male shopkeepers, male wizards, male cops, male background cardboard, and female prostitutes. That's not acceptable.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".
Pages: 1 ... 168 169 [170] 171 172 ... 277