Print

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

[alexandertnt]

This is the thing that doesn't make sense to me. If you'd rather a company doesn't do something to the point of arguing about it to people, why don't you go the full mile and want it to be put into law? If you don't feel strongly enough to do that, why are you wasting your time on it?

Because you don't like the way something is done and you wish it were done differently, but you don't want to censor anything? Is that somehow contradictory?

That is nothing more than a false dilemma. It's absurd to think that someone who is complaining or arguing about something some company did would implicitly want to put some restriction into law. That does not make sense to me. A quick google of various arguments online makes the implication of that sort of thinking absurd.

Seriously, the number of online conversations I have had about issues like this where people have strawmanned me as someone who wants to take away their precious freedoms, or something else stupid like that, is mind boggling. That is also why I am so peeved off by it.

I have argued generally in favour of the idea that women are poorly portrayed in video games in this thread before, and I have never once wanted to put any restrictions on anything because of that. Infact, I fully acknowledge that I may be wrong (which would be one of the reasons I don't want to censor anything), and am willing to listen to any counterpoint. "stop trying to censor", however, is not a counterpoint.

I have heard it repeated several times on the board now, "Nobody wants to take away your booby games" (or something like that, can't remember who stated it).

[/rant]

Well, that already exists here. Hate speech is a thing, and you go to jail over it.

Only if you use it as hate speech, and even then the problem is with the potential for violence, not actually the word itself.

[wobbly]

I only skimmed the last few posts, but did anyone actually advocate censorship? It seems that discussions on females in games (or any social analysis of games) seems to bring with it a discussion of censorship.

The one thing you will find on here

Is that someone will advocate that a company shouldn't do something... and that it is wrong for them to do so... and that we should make them stop

But will not go as far as censorship or direct government intervention.

Which makes this whole thing WEIRD given that frankly games are rarely flawed on an individual level.

This is the thing that doesn't make sense to me. If you'd rather a company doesn't do something to the point of arguing about it to people, why don't you go the full mile and want it to be put into law? If you don't feel strongly enough to do that, why are you wasting your time on it?

Except there's plenty of things that you want to discourage because they cause problems, where making them illegal can cause just as many problems. It's a big tangent but drugs is a prime example of this sort of thing. Bigotry is also problematic, you want to discourage it without stepping down too heavily on free speech. In my opinion laws are the worst way to handle things unless it's absolutely necessary. They come with a heap of problems: policing, lawyers, courts, drawn out legal proceedings, jails etc. If the issue can be handled without a law I'd consider that preferable.

Edit: If you start passing too many laws about what's allowed in games then game developers need to employ a lawyer. Fine for the bigger business's which will already have 1. Crap for indie developers.

[AlleeCat]

I only skimmed the last few posts, but did anyone actually advocate censorship? It seems that discussions on females in games (or any social analysis of games) seems to bring with it a discussion of censorship.

The one thing you will find on here

Is that someone will advocate that a company shouldn't do something... and that it is wrong for them to do so... and that we should make them stop

But will not go as far as censorship or direct government intervention.

Which makes this whole thing WEIRD given that frankly games are rarely flawed on an individual level.

This is the thing that doesn't make sense to me. If you'd rather a company doesn't do something to the point of arguing about it to people, why don't you go the full mile and want it to be put into law? If you don't feel strongly enough to do that, why are you wasting your time on it?

Is this sarcasm? I seriously cannot tell if you're serious.

[Neonivek]

Well sometimes the best thing to do about a problem...

Is to do nothing. So to speak.

Just talking about it, talking about our wishes and preferences... does change the industry.

It isn't like any of the protests against Killer Santa movies has stopped ANY of them.

[alexandertnt]

In my opinion laws are the worst way to handle things unless it's absolutely necessary.

+1 from me.

I hope that some people will read some of these arguments, and perhaps realise something they have not really thought about something before, or consider the issue more significant before. Maybe they come to some change of heart or something. Hell, maybe I will too.

If more people think about this issue, then the tasts of people can change and the games that companies change to reflect this.

The resut? The arguing over the companies actually has an effect, and without censorship too, and my time hasn't been wasted either!

Banning speech related to these issues, IMO, is not the right way to go about handling it.

[Graknorke]

Well, but surely there are some behaviors that you frown upon but don't want a law against? Cheating on your significant other? Being an ass to serving staff at the restaurant? Wrongly using the word "selfie" to refer to any photograph? Calling for censorship of violence against women in video games?

Well when you're saying the thing is invariably bad for society then it's make sense to have that same society prohibit it. Like people in this thread saying that representations of women in games leads to depression and rapists and stuff.

[alexandertnt]

No, it does not.

The issue is with the association of women with these negative traits (women are weak, women are easily dominated, women are just there to be sexy etc etc).

The issue isn't that some game somewhere had some women being helpless, the issue is that it is percieved as a common trend, that being helpless and being a women seem to go together like bread and butter.

outright prohibiting something in this situation does not make sense, no.

Regardless, it is entirely possible (and preferential, IMO) to prevent something negative through other means other than outright criminalization.

Spoiler: A little off topic, but since I brought up Buffy... (click to show/hide)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs#t=163
"So, why do you write these strong female characters?"
"Because you're still asking me that question."

[Virtz]

I only skimmed the last few posts, but did anyone actually advocate censorship? It seems that discussions on females in games (or any social analysis of games) seems to bring with it a discussion of censorship.

Smeep was advocating stopping the depiction of violence against females in games iirc.

I would honestly say that this is the wrong attitude to take, and probably taking her words a bit out of context. I would say that the current type of violence against women usually shown in video games is bad, usually making them a victim, rather than a combatant. Now, that's still fine, as long as it carries the weight and gravity that it would in real life. This is the same reason why I would be OK with rape scenes in games under very specific circumstances. (Dealt with maturely, important to the plot, not too gratuitous, warning somewhere on the box or in the game, etc.)

I'd like to give the new Tomb Raider as an example of how not to depict violence against women. Let's compare this game to, say, Uncharted. How come when Nathan Drake gets beaten up, shot, and otherwise pummeled, we can brush it off, but when Lara Croft goes through the same stuff, it seems horrible and wrong? It's not just because Nate is a man and Lara is a woman. It's because Nate goes through it all with a wry sense of humor and witty one-liners. Lara, on the other hand, stays deathly serious through it all. Her attitude makes her a victim, and we empathize with her.
Now, that's not to say that it's the only problem with how that stuff is portrayed, but it's a big issue. I guarantee you that if Lara went through that entire game cracking jokes, there would have been a lot less outcry. That, and making the death scenes a bit less gratuitous. (I mean, seriously, it's pretty gorram brutal when you fail a QTE in that game.)

Ok, what if you compare Lara Croft to Isaac from Dead Space? The guy never jokes around, and gets brutally murdered in the QTEs. I can see some differences (like how ridiculously often it happens to Lara seemingly for no reason other than that the game world hates her), but not really in the way the brutality is portrayed. Like in Dead Space 2 you get to see a needle gratuitously go through Isaac's eyeball if you fail a weird mini-game.

[Neonivek]

I just want to get out of the part where we feel this need to PROVE that a woman is awesome.

Which seems to be the trend now... that no female videogame protagonist can just be strong and we know it... With Bayonetta being the exception.

Ok, what if you compare Lara Croft to Isaac from Dead Space? The guy never jokes around, and gets brutally murdered in the QTEs. I can see some differences (like how ridiculously often it happens to Lara seemingly for no reason other than that the game world hates her), but not really in the way the brutality is portrayed. Like in Dead Space 2 you get to see a needle gratuitously go through Isaac's eyeball if you fail a weird mini-game.

Does the game EVER make you question whether or not Isaac is awesome? Does the game ever make you feel like Isaac is just going to break down and cry? Does the game ever make you feel like he is being violated on an emotional level and not just going through hell?

The character who I feel went on a similar Journey as Lara Croft was Ethan from Heavy Rain. He went through hell and his response to situations was emotional to the point where he often desperately debates with himself whether he wants to do it, he feels like he is going to cry constantly, and often has to reassure himself that he can or must do it.

[Virtz]

Ok, what if you compare Lara Croft to Isaac from Dead Space? The guy never jokes around, and gets brutally murdered in the QTEs. I can see some differences (like how ridiculously often it happens to Lara seemingly for no reason other than that the game world hates her), but not really in the way the brutality is portrayed. Like in Dead Space 2 you get to see a needle gratuitously go through Isaac's eyeball if you fail a weird mini-game.

Does the game EVER make you question whether or not Isaac is awesome? Does the game ever make you feel like Isaac is just going to break down and cry? Does the game ever make you feel like he is being violated on an emotional level and not just going through hell?

Well, on numerous occassions I got the impression that he was about to blow his brains out. And he starts out a resigned wreck in Dead Space 3. Though I think I see what you mean.

[Neonivek]

Isaac is kind of tormented... His story is really weird and honestly I cannot imagine what Dead Space 3 could have given how final his story should have been after 2.

The last time I saw a female character put through this was probably either Fatal Frame 3 or Silent Hill 3.

It is interesting to hear why they went with a female protagonist in Fatal Frame and pretty much every one afterwards (except 3). It has to do with the audience expectation of what they would do.

Basically if there was a locked door. There would be more of an expectation for a man to break it down, but a woman immediately going hunting for the key is more in line.

I can't blame Fatal Frame even if that was sexist thinking (She is a small woman she isn't busting any doors down without an axe), given that it is horror and needs to channel the way the player thinks.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Does the game EVER make you question whether or not Isaac is awesome? Does the game ever make you feel like Isaac is just going to break down and cry? Does the game ever make you feel like he is being violated on an emotional level and not just going through hell?

Er, yes to all? Issac Clarke is a wreck of a human being who becomes centered around an insane, obsessive purpose, the remainder of his personality torn to shreds by the traumatic experiences he has. Dude is literally mentally insolvent between Dead Space 1 and 2, and even once that ends he spends a good portion of Dead Space 2 oscillating between not defending his own life and actively trying to commit suicide. And alien gods taking the form of his dead girlfriend taunt and manipulate him all the way through it.

Issac accomplishes some amazing feats, but it is very clear that he only can because everything else has been lost to him. He literally tries to sit down and die once the Marker is destroyed in Dead Space 2.

[Neonivek]

He is tormented but I never got the impression that he was going to cry.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Maybe not in so many words, but it wouldn't be out of character at all. He's really so tormented that crying in response to things has been left behind by several miles. Hence the unyielding thousand-yard stare.

[Urist Tilaturist]

Well.

0_0

Did not know that. Bay12 is always educational.

Not only were the King of Dahomey's wives his bodyguards, they also hunted elephants, were a large section of his army and fought off the first French invasion of the country, giving them the nickname of "The Dahomey Amazons". The second French invasion was somewhat stronger and overwhelmed them.