Print

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

[smeeprocket]

Yeah, the discussion kinda derailed to just generally speaking about "realism" is. You do need to chill a bit smeeprocket, you can be a tad to quick to judge and react, it's not the first time you do it.

It's actually an argument that occurred earlier in the thread, so it's not an overreach to assume an argument on realism has to do with not having women.

Like that particular argument lasted a few pages. It was a frustrating one.

I blame Urist Uristurister for that one, but in his defense, I don't think he's the worst guy to ever exist.

[Glowcat]

Honestly, after reading through the argument over the past 2 pages which seems to be what you are remarking to... I have no idea what they were arguing. I doubt it was over "the only real portrayal of females in games is an unrealistic one" sort of crap that deserves to have a shoe thrown at them over. It was more-so towards... actually, I still have no idea.

There was definitely one poster that kept bringing up "but it isn't realistic!" as a counterpoint to inclusion of women and LGBT people. I mean, most people were talking over that argument at least, but it was there.

[Neonivek]

Ok, I think I have to describe this.

A Token character is often disliked because they are shoehorned in with either a very weak link to the series, ill fitting, or with characteristics that point attention to their tokenism.

Tokenism IS NOT created by social norms because you can see token men, token children, token adults, what have you in everything.

Remember those annoying children who would be in episodes of your favorite shows growing up? Yeah no one liked them.

The reason why no one wants a token character is because they are such a token effort and are usually disruptive to the story and annoying. They are worse then having no character.

If a character is well written, well characterized, blends perfectly in with the plot and story... they aren't a token character. At least that is just how I define it.

Being homosexual in a plot isn't tokenism. Having a character's role be summed up as "The homosexual one" is a token. Having a character have no sexual characteristics at all only to jump in last second and go "Ohh by the way I am gay" is tokenism because it is just throwing it, to draw attention to it.

April O'Neal isn't the token woman in Ninja Turtles... The Token Female Ninja Turtle who disrupts the character dynamics, has no real place on the team, and can't seem to really socialize or interact with them? She is precisely what people do not want.

I doubt women breathed a sigh of relief that Ninja Turtles had a character no one liked because she happened to be a woman.

People... ok... fine I'll be fair...

"I" don't want token effort. It is insulting to me, It is insulting to my intelligence, my morals, and is just plain bad story telling. I want characters to fit.

this ESPECIALLY goes for LBGT characters because HOLY GOODNESS am I tired of "Get it? HES GAY!!! ha ha ha ha", it is almost a pay off never to see another homosexual character in a videogame again if those characters could disappear off the face of the earth.

"I" think tokenism is far worse then exclusion.

[smeeprocket]

well there are already a plethora of token women in video games, and I don't think anyone is arguing for more of those.

Obviously we want flesh out characters with deep plots, that's been made clear since the beginning.

The problem I sometimes see, however, is people thinking something is token because it doesn't fit into their perception of reality. You feel as if it is being shoved in your face and because that makes you uncomfortable, it is being shoehorned in.

But that is not always the case.

[Glowcat]

"I" think tokenism is far worse then exclusion.

I think that's debateable and I find your definition of tokenism inadequately concrete, though possibly that's coming from my own understanding that while people might attempt to include a character type it doesn't necessarily mean it'll be offensively limited. Both are issues of representation and do tend to get brought up when people discuss "inclusiveness".

And it's debateable because until people begin trying to include these characters they might not have a decent foundation to begin tackling those issues. They can be criticized for how the character was portrayed and then either them or other creators may learn from it. Once there are enough good representations out there they'll have enough resources, or subconscious influence based on seeing good representations, that it should theoretically improve the overall situation.

[Neonivek]

What I mean Glowcat.

Include a character because you believe they will contribute to the story, plot, elements, or just be a interesting character on their own.

Not because you have a quota.

Terrible, ill fitting characters that drag things down... does not make me cheer the medium for being "inclusive" it actually makes me think they are patronizing.

[smeeprocket]

you can fulfill a quota and make good characters. They are not mutually exclusive.

If you say "okay let's make the main character a transmale." you can still make that character deep and meaningful.

[Neonivek]

If you say "okay let's make the main character a transmale." you can still make that character deep and meaningful.

Yes, but lets keep the dialog focusing on us wanting worthwhile "transmale" characters.

Not just wanting transmale characters... and we REALLY shouldn't give credit for anything for including terrible transmale characters.

There is a reason why I give Phantasmagoria 2 EVERY credit I can for including a bisexual character... and give absolutely no credit to Bioware for its entire gaming catalog... in spite there being way more homosexuals and bisexuals in those games.

Because Phantasmagoria 2 handled it better and made it part of the plot without it being a gimmick.

[smeeprocket]

If you say "okay let's make the main character a transmale." you can still make that character deep and meaningful.

Yes, but lets keep the dialog focusing on us wanting worthwhile "transmale" characters.

Not just wanting transmale characters... and we REALLY shouldn't give credit for anything for including terrible transmale characters.

There is a reason why I give Phantasmagoria 2 EVERY credit I can for including a bisexual character... and give absolutely no credit to Bioware for its entire gaming catalog.

didn't phantasmagoria have rape in it? Ugh.

Anyway, we can agree on that. None of us fighting for equal representation want it to be shallow and one dimensional, and there would probably be a backlash if it was.

[Neonivek]

That rape scene, in the first game, to me falls more under tasteless then offensive. As well it wasn't a pointless scene, it was just... Not good... and she doesn't just "accept it" and the game does follow her dealing with it.

But that is just my opinion.

It is used for shock value, but it seems to fit the story. It is about Dawn dealing with her Husband slowly turning into a horrible person.

[smeeprocket]

That rape scene, in the first game, to me falls more under tasteless then offensive. As well it wasn't a pointless scene, it was just... Not good... and she doesn't just "accept it".

But that is just my opinion.

well, whether she "accepts it" or not is irrelevant. You aren't less or more raped for fighting back. Different people handle it different ways, none of which make it less awful or realistic.

Personally, I didn't see it (and I won't) but it seems like it was being used as a tool to advance details of the story, and was altogether unnecessary.

I find that rape is rarely necessary in movies, comics, and games. It is often used as a device to get a certain reaction. I find it stomach churning.

I mean I guess in a movie like Precious, you need the rape scene, but it made me ill and ruined the movie for me.

[Neonivek]

well, whether she "accepts it" or not is irrelevant

It is quite important.

The reason why rape scenes are so reviled isn't that... "Rape scenes are wrong" but rather how they are handled. Often just flowing off a woman's back, being used for shock value and nothing more, or being used to motivate a male character.

In this case it hurts Dawn and she has to deal with it... within her own plotline. It isn't just done and forgotten about, it is actually part of the rising action.

Being "necessary" is irrelevant. Nothing is "necessary"

[smeeprocket]

well, whether she "accepts it" or not is irrelevant

It is quite important.

The reason why rape scenes are so reviled isn't that... "Rape scenes are wrong" but rather how they are handled. Often just flowing off a woman's back, being used for shock value and nothing more, or being used to motivate a male character.

In this case it hurts Dawn and she has to deal with it... within her own plotline. It isn't just done and forgotten about, it is actually part of the rising action.

Being "necessary" is irrelevant. Nothing is "necessary"

oh I thought you meant the physical act itself when you said accept.

There's a lot of people out there that have been raped that will be triggered by rape scenes and the like, they should be used excessively sparingly.

[Arcvasti]

well, whether she "accepts it" or not is irrelevant

It is quite important.

The reason why rape scenes are so reviled isn't that... "Rape scenes are wrong" but rather how they are handled. Often just flowing off a woman's back, being used for shock value and nothing more, or being used to motivate a male character.

In this case it hurts Dawn and she has to deal with it... within her own plotline. It isn't just done and forgotten about, it is actually part of the rising action.

Being "necessary" is irrelevant. Nothing is "necessary"

oh I thought you meant the physical act itself when you said accept.

There's a lot of people out there that have been raped that will be triggered by rape scenes and the like, they should be used excessively sparingly.

Yeah, I think depicting rape on screen is not good. Or at least make it skippable or something, as a sort of compromise.

[smeeprocket]

well, whether she "accepts it" or not is irrelevant

It is quite important.

The reason why rape scenes are so reviled isn't that... "Rape scenes are wrong" but rather how they are handled. Often just flowing off a woman's back, being used for shock value and nothing more, or being used to motivate a male character.

In this case it hurts Dawn and she has to deal with it... within her own plotline. It isn't just done and forgotten about, it is actually part of the rising action.

Being "necessary" is irrelevant. Nothing is "necessary"

oh I thought you meant the physical act itself when you said accept.

There's a lot of people out there that have been raped that will be triggered by rape scenes and the like, they should be used excessively sparingly.

Yeah, I think depicting rape on screen is not good. Or at least make it skippable or something, as a sort of compromise.

I don't even like implied rape, but movies need to have a warning when they put that shit in there. I fixate on that kind of thing for months and sometimes years so I will have this ongoing nausea and not-well feeling for a long time afterwards