Print

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

[Neonivek]

If you are going for it diplomatically Reelya it is that Casual and Hardcore games (Honestly I don't like either term but I'll play by the rules) you can easily say that Hardcore and Casual games do not intersect.

"To the Moon" doesn't scratch the same itch as "Call of Duty" for example.

In the same way that a national dietary board doesn't scratch the same itch as comprehensive medical coverage. EVEN if they are both related to health.

Anita's solutions are not direct parallels and often what allows them to be "Better" in her eyes is that they don't have to have fun "gameplay" or gameplay at all.

Or with her example of the Damsel in Distress concept where it just doesn't touch the Damsel In Distress trope at all, it might as well take place in another dimension. Game where in the backstory a Damsel becomes a fighter and ceases to be a fighter does not equal a game that uses the damsel in distress trope.

Someone made a hypothetical "If Zelda was the Hero of Zelda instead of Link" game, which you know what? I love that concept, heck I LOVE how they conceptualize Link in that situation (He is still the "Hero of Courage" so he is made fool hearty). The issue was that they couldn't think of a way to make Zelda unique except to make her a more magic based Link with elemental sword slashes. It was kind of a wasted concept.

[Reelya]

Or with her example of the Damsel in Distress concept where it just doesn't touch the Damsel In Distress trope at all, it might as well take place in another dimension. Game where in the backstory a Damsel becomes a fighter and ceases to be a fighter does not equal a game that uses the damsel in distress trope.

Well in her princess game its arguable the princess never plays the role of the damsel. But someone else does. she's saving the kingdom. Effectively the people of the kingdom are the collective damsels to be saved by the princess. They are helpless to help themselves and need a hero to free them after all. Presumably she will come across female NPCs who are helpless against the patriarchal monarchy and need her to save them.

http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero%27s_journey.htm
From Campbell's Hero's Journey theory, her being a princess is the "Ordinary World", her being locked up is the "Call to Adventure", her waiting to be rescued is the "Refusal of the Call" and breaking out is "Crossing The Threshold". it's even more clearly the Crossing The Threshold as she dons a disguise on leaving the Ordinary World.

 After that, yeah, it's nothing but your basic hero plot complete with overthrowing the evil overlords and freeing the damsels i mean populace. So by her own logic (from her thesis) this is just the same male damsel-saving story told another way.

[Neonivek]

It wouldn't have been AS bad if she remained a damsel AND a hero (as in remained a Princess) because that is also a great counterpoint to the Damsel in Distress trope.

That being a frilly princess doesn't mean you are weak, it doesn't mean you are helpless, and that it is ok... That her fault was in being complacent in her capture and doing nothing to aid herself. That she can be a Damsel, but she doesn't have to be in distress.

But the way it played out, in order to be a hero in her own right she had to BECOME the typical action male hero. In order to not be a Damsel In Distress, she had to not be a Damsel.

It isn't even something she has to struggle with and develop the game just hands it to her before it even starts. It is all backstory.

Not that "Demure Frilly Princess learns to kick butt and take names when no one saves her" isn't a worthy story or game concept in it of itself (heck we have that)... but as the prime example of everything that was spoken about in 3 videos put together into one hypothetical game it just misses the point or is at least pointless.

[MrWiggles]

I dont like Anita, because she doesn't have intellectual honesty or academic rigor. Nor does she want it.

[Neonivek]

I dont like Anita, because she doesn't have intellectual honesty or academic rigor. Nor does she want it.

Well that is because her show is "Pop" not intellectual.

[MrWiggles]

 Then she should stop parading around as if she is intellectual.

[Cheeetar]

She is?

[Neonivek]

She is?

It depends whether or not you watched her other stuff or not.

You pretty much have to watch her other show to kind of realize that she is kind of a pop critic.

[Reelya]

Arguing whether someone is or is not an "intellectual" is not the way to go about things though.

Argue her work is sloppy or something. But the term "intellectual" itself isn't a good way to phrase it because the term is really empty, meaningless and has no real objective truth behind it. Someone either knows what they're talking about, or they don't. There is no such class of people called "intellectuals" who know all about all topics, all the time. Noam Chomsky would be no match for your local auto mechanic in a debate on how and when to replace carburetors for example.

Complaining that only "intellectuals" are qualified to comment is an Appeal to Authority fallacy, but even more fallacious since you just made up that authority on the spot so you can set the bar however high you like. By that logic there must be a class of people who are qualified game-critic intellectuals?

[Neonivek]

I don't mean "Intellectual" as in "Intellectuals" I mean as in "intelligent" a certain degree of expected depth or information.

The difference between pop psychology and psychology.

[Antsan]

PTW.

Also using this as a opportunity to say (although it has been quite some time, this just stood out to me, especially coming from Neonivek):

plus the rape threats

That is because you can't rape a man unless it is man on man.

Yeah, of course.
Only that men have been raped by women. Without any sex toys, I might add. Forced erections are a thing and as far as I heard they're quite painful - and that's just one way to rape a man without needing to be one yourself. Rape doesn't need the victim to be penetrated.

In light of the discussion surrounding it the reason for males not receiving rape threats is the common perception that rape requires penetration of the victim. I guess.

@topic:
I only saw her videos about Lego and thought those where pretty good and spot on. Judging by what I read about her videos about games those I wouldn't like. I don't know. I agree with her though - the depiction of women in games and almost anywhere else in media is awful. If I should point to an example of how one can do it right (at least partially) I'd point to Terry Pratchett (although his stuff has its own problems in this regard, but I'd count that largely under artistic license/imperfect insight/the boundaries of what is humanly possible and not under a lack of trying, laziness, bad writing or sexism).

[Rolan7]

Neonivek was mocking the typical misconception there, not being serious.  He followed with "On a more serious note..."

[Neonivek]

@topic:
I only saw her videos about Lego and thought those where pretty good and spot on. Judging by what I read about her videos about games those I wouldn't like. I don't know. I agree with her though - the depiction of women in games and almost anywhere else in media is awful. If I should point to an example of how one can do it right (at least partially) I'd point to Terry Pratchett (although his stuff has its own problems in this regard, but I'd count that largely under artistic license/imperfect insight/the boundaries of what is humanly possible and not under a lack of trying, laziness, bad writing or sexism).

We had a discussion on that interestingly enough. While I cannot remember all the objections brought against her, such as I think people saying that she exaggerates the male centricity of Legos as well as the causes for the gender balance... (It was so long ago in this topic, so don't take my word for it)

The major issue I have with "Legos for Girls" at this point is... It worked.  I can't argue that they shouldn't do it because for all intents and purposes it was a successful marketing campaign.

Child toymaking is interesting because there are two demographics you go for in general: Children and their Parents.

Neonivek was mocking the typical misconception there, not being serious.  He followed with "On a more serious note..."

Yeah you got it Spot on Rolan7

[Antsan]

Ah, good, I was hoping that was the case but failed to find any clue that it actually was.

The major issue I have with "Legos for Girls" at this point is... It worked.  I can't argue that they shouldn't do it because for all intents and purposes it was a successful marketing campaign.

I see a difference between being commercially successful and doing the right thing. I do not expect many people to do the latter rather than trying to achieve the former - the society we live in is just not one where I'd be able to expect that.

[Neonivek]

Was it wrong for them to try to market towards a demographic that largely ignored them even when being gender neutral and being successful for it?

As well if their product clearly spoke to girls and women if it sold so well. So it isn't like they made a product no one wanted.

Morality completely divorced from practicality has no leg to stand on. This holds true in all societies no matter how saintly.

Legos For Girls is more an exercise in how we wish the world was better, but it isn't.

Especially since, as people have demonstrated earlier in the thread... Legos were advertised and printed with male and female children playing it for decades. They also never stopped making gender neutral lego sets.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy about it at all... but in order to have a full argument for Lego NOT to do it, I need something more then simple moral outrage. Since telling them NOT to do it, is pretty much telling them not to make money because of some intangible harm it MIGHT be doing to gender roles.

For movies and videogames for example, I usually try to include arguments about story variety and quality. As well that statements on "how unpopular female lead videogames are" are based off of those CRUDDY female exploitation games that were NEVER going to do well. Though they could bring up Beyond Good and Evil >_>... But given Psychonauts was in the same situation...

Honestly part of me wishes Beyond Good and Evil wasn't a thing, even though it is a totally awesome game... because if there was ONE game, game executives could hold over our heads and go "Ha See! Women make everything worse!" it would be that. >_<