222 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Mario is awesome.

I meant that the fat plumber is clearly the most recognised figure in the industry and is the mascot of gaming. Seeing as the Mario games for the longest time were (and still are) geared towards children, it's hard to shake the mentality. When combined with what I said earlier, it's easy to reduce gaming as the hobby of children, or (wo)man-children.

[Merilsell]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EDIT:

Anyways....

In large part because it's "tradition."  Higher profile gaming in the 80s and 90s belonged to minors IMO.  But yeah, when things become caricatures and whatnot, it can be tricky to take things seriously.

I mean, look at the way women are often portrayed in games.  It's hard to really take stuff like that seriously.

Yep.

I'm a woman playing video games for nearly 20 years now and I never fail to face palm at the video game industry for their sexist portrayal of women. Sadly, with exception of Bioware, there hasn't changed much within those two decades. A well-written, developed and believable female protagonist, whose whole sense of existence it NOT is to be sexy is still the exeption than the rule.

Barf.   

[GodWood]

M25105 wrote...
"Games are art and should be taken serious!"

People complaining about half naked women.

"Oh my God, relax it's only a game"

Typical gamer logic I'm afraid.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

[vometia]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

Its like the countless times someones defended gaming or went "Oh actully most people who game are in there 20's and 30's." the news crews always act so shocked.

Yeah, that one really gets to me.  Games were completely ubiquitous when I was a kid growing up in the early 1980s: everyone played them, and my then pre-teen age group were hardly the oldest to be playing the arcade games and burgeoning home computer and console market of the day.  I facepalm whenever I hear someone describing it as some sort of new phenomenon only today's kids have experienced.  A lot of my peers don't bother with forums for whatever reasons, but many are still into video games now.

RedArmyShogun wrote...

Then again considering all the drugs and drinking parties I suspect they go to this forgetfulness can be looked aside.

I suppose that would explain it...

[grregg]

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

[nhcre8tv1]

grregg wrote...

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

This is a very good point on top of the one I made. Take Bioshock, a frontline example of Games as art, is mainly about electricuting monsters and then shooting them with a Revolver. We need mature premises, that also have the writing quality of Bioshock or Dragon Age (I'm looking at you, Heavy Rain).

[termokanden]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I mean, look at the way women are often portrayed in games.  It's hard to really take stuff like that seriously.

First of all, it's not just women who are portrayed in a ridiculous way in games.

But take a look at most movies and TV shows. It's often much worse than in videogames there, and these are things that people of all ages watch. The very same people will sometimes argue that videogames are childish.

At least videogames involve some activity on the player's behalf. Because of videogames, I learned English at a very young age (I played text-based adventure games). I also learned programming because I was interested in modding at the time, and that certainly paid off later.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I think, and this nothing more than a hunch, that those who create games put their stamp on it, depending on their involvement. A young company, with devs who are gamers themselves, wanting to create great games for adults is likely to succeed and when that company and their employees get older they seem to get back to more childish games. It is as if these involved and motivated devs now have become parents and want to make games for their children. Creating great games for adults is making room for more secure types which are driven by marketing research and telemetry data and make sure their mortgage get paid. And thus innovation staggers. One then arrives at strange crossbreeds like DA2's Disney style "capitation for the whole family", where violence is accepted, a nipple is over the edge, with a simplified story and game mechanics. Suddenly stereotypes are driving development.

[MichaelStuart]

I find the only people who call games childish, are the people who don't play games.

[Volus Warlord]

Video games are in no small part childish. Lol.

[Addai]

You might point them to studies that show games can increase brain elasticity which fends off the aging process (for example here), and also studies that show games work better than therapy at easing stress and depression (link). It's a form of entertainment, but less passive than TV.

Modifié par Addai67, 15 septembre 2012 - 07:59 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Because the current politicians and media leaders who set the world view that you must follow are all too old to have been gamers growing up.

To them its something that kids play so its how they treat it.
Case in point in Canadian Media they treat games like something only pre-teens play.

[slimgrin]

grregg wrote...

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

I would just call it fun gameplay. 

[PaulSX]

grregg wrote...

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

but one should understand that in video games you are just killing pixels. Those are not the "slaughter" or equivalent to Violence, just some mechanics to define them as games. the warden doing 900 kills is not different from Pacman eating 900 pellets.

[Il Divo]

suntzuxi wrote...

grregg wrote...

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

but one should understand that in video games you are just killing pixels. Those are not the "slaughter" or equivalent to Violence, just some mechanics to define them as games. the warden doing 900 kills is not different from Pacman eating 900 pellets.

Yeah, but the characters don't know that they're only pixels. I think his point is that games tend to trivialize slaughter. That might not be the case with something like DA:O where you're mostly killing darkspawn, but alot of games really bypass this point. It's not all that different from the typical action film.

[Rockworm503]

Il Divo wrote...

suntzuxi wrote...

grregg wrote...

Well, because games ARE childish. Or perhaps it would be better to say 'immature'. As DominusVita mentioned, a lot of them are all about gratuitous violence.

Just take a look at DA:O which is generally considered one of the more mature games. My Warden clocked around 900 kills. And neither she nor her companions were in any way affected by the slaughter. It is hard not to call it an adolescent power fantasy.

but one should understand that in video games you are just killing pixels. Those are not the "slaughter" or equivalent to Violence, just some mechanics to define them as games. the warden doing 900 kills is not different from Pacman eating 900 pellets.

Yeah, but the characters don't know that they're only pixels. I think his point is that games tend to trivialize slaughter. That might not be the case with something like DA:O where you're mostly killing darkspawn, but alot of games really bypass this point. It's not all that different from the typical action film.

Their not real people 

[grregg]

slimgrin wrote...

(...)

I would just call it fun gameplay. 

Sure, it was fun. Or I should say that it was fun for the first 200 or so and it was a bit of a chore later on, but that's beside the point. The point was that it's hard to pass "I come and kill 1000 of mooks" as mature content.

I think we gamers are somewhat desensitized to how silly most games are. In pretty much any game you'll spend the majority of time "killing" mooks that are neither particularly relevant to the story, not particularly challenging to kill and exist there for the sole purpose of allowing you to kill them. And you're rewarded with various exclamations like "head shot!" or some such.

I was playing Spec Ops The Line which was praised for it's more thoughtful treatment of war, PTSD, etc, and still you get stuff like "ding! achievement! 350 kills with a rifle!" You do realize how silly and immature this looks to anyone how's not a gamer, right?

suntzuxi wrote...

(...)

but one should understand that in video games you are just killing pixels. Those are not the "slaughter" or equivalent to Violence, just some mechanics to define them as games. the warden doing 900 kills is not different from Pacman eating 900 pellets.

Not sure how that matters. As far as I know no one dies in the movies either. Actor get up, wash the paint off and they're as good as new. Same goes for books, the most horrific violence describe in a book at most can hurt couple of paragraphs of text. So?

[slimgrin]

grregg wrote...

Sure, it was fun. Or I should say that it was fun for the first 200 or so and it was a bit of a chore later on, but that's beside the point. The point was that it's hard to pass "I come and kill 1000 of mooks" as mature content.

I think we gamers are somewhat desensitized to how silly most games are. In pretty much any game you'll spend the majority of time "killing" mooks that are neither particularly relevant to the story, not particularly challenging to kill and exist there for the sole purpose of allowing you to kill them. And you're rewarded with various exclamations like "head shot!" or some such.

I was playing Spec Ops The Line which was praised for it's more thoughtful treatment of war, PTSD, etc, and still you get stuff like "ding! achievement! 350 kills with a rifle!" You do realize how silly and immature this looks to anyone how's not a gamer, right?

These are gameplay mechanics though. It's hard to fault games for violence when killing stuff has been the point from the very beginning. That achievment in Spec Ops is about your skill in aiming, not blowing brains out. Now of course games have some growing up to do, I'm not denying that. Depictions of cliched characters and women need to improve. And when games choose to deal with violence seriously there needs to be context and thought behind it. But in general I think gamers are becoming more discerning and game makers are responding.

Modifié par slimgrin, 16 septembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[nhcre8tv1]

grregg wrote...

I was playing Spec Ops The Line which was praised for it's more thoughtful treatment of war, PTSD, etc, and still you get stuff like "ding! achievement! 350 kills with a rifle!" You do realize how silly and immature this looks to anyone how's not a gamer, right?

Those achivements were implimented to poke fun at that very fact you and to make you feel like even more of a jerk.

Modifié par nhcre8tv1, 16 septembre 2012 - 02:17 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Obeded the 2nd wrote...

I gotta disagree with you saying how women are portrayed poorly.
They are portrayed as sexy but think about action movies there's no ugly girl who the main character bangs.
Games are the same since there all action movies, well sorta.
And if I was into action movies as much as I am games ( I would be if they wern't so bad) This wouldn't be happening.
And as for thier personality, well maybe but not all games do that , just like the movies!

Women are often done "sexy" purely for male fantasy fulfillment though (and I'd argue against what makes a woman sexy too).

It might not be easy to see, but you also have to look at this from the perspective of how women have historically been treated as well.  When you objectify women as being physical entities who's physical traits should be on display

I like to see attractive women as much as the next person, but some of the caricatures are just pure male fantasy fulfillment.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

To be fair, the industry is beginning to do the same thing to male characters. How many perfectly athletic, muscular, angular-faced males are now adorning games? They picked Mark Vanderloo to be the model for Shepherd, after all, not Seth Rogen.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

To be fair, the industry is beginning to do the same thing to male characters. How many perfectly athletic, muscular, angular-faced males are now adorning games? They picked Mark Vanderloo to be the model for Shepherd, after all, not Seth Rogen.

We'll bang, okay?

[Fisto The Sexbot]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...

So... how are they portrayed? Usually games with superficial female characters tend to have shallow male characters too. It's not necessarily any less stereotypcal if the game is aimed at a male demographic or has a male lead.

The caricatures of females and the caricatures of males in video games are typically designed for a male audience, however.

Unrealistic proportions in women aren't really something women fantasize about being.  Being a cut, hyper reactive super soldier type is much more in line with how more males would like to be though.

That's what I've been saying. It doesn't really make the stereotype any better though.

It's not any more accurate to say that most men identify with Duke Nukem like women would like to be Lara. I identify better with characters, like most people, that have some semblance of realism to them, which those types of games tend to lack.

If say, somebody would make a female version of Duke Nukem or X game with stereotypical characters aimed at a female audience, which includes both stereotypical men and women as characters, the sexim or stereotype aimed at females would definitely not go unnoticed, even if the game was designed with a female audience in mind. Even mentioning the idea -- what would be the 'ideal' player character women would like to play as-- would raise questions regarding the sexism.

But there is no ideal character everyone would like, not for women OR for men. It's a double standard, because Duke Nukem is not thought of as sexist toward men.

[Ghost Lightning]

The same reason people thought cameras would steal your soul when they were first conceived.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

... that's actually true, y'know.