363 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

Yep. I didn't originally, I thought she was just another SJW under the banner of Feminism, but when game journalists started white knighting to her rescue and the rumors of her meddling in Mirrors Edge 2 started reaching my ears, I began to take her seriously.

 

In light of being told that I'm not willing to debate honestly, I'm going to take a more hardline stance towards the use of pejoratives in this term.

 

 

Please do not use the term white knight since, by virtue of being a part of the group that you dislike so much, you're basically telling me that I'm rushing to Anita's defenses because I think she is helpless or because I'm hoping that behaving in this way will grant me sex.

 

 

It's a disrespectful term.  Continuing to use it will be seen as an insistence on continuing to be disrespectful and undermining honest debate by being insulting.  If you can't help but use the term, then I leave the choice and consequences up to you.

[Allan Schumacher]

Not to cherry pick quotes, but if the general consensus is that playing video games from a (semi) sexist video game industry won't trigger mysoginistic behavior, what evidence do we have that designing games to be less sexist/racist/what -have-you would reduce these tendencies amongst gamers? And what evidence do we have that being inclusive will result in those currently marginalized by the system to both feel more comfortable in the industry and/or to buy/play more games?
 

 

Maybe we should investigate and find out?  Because what I consider Anita to be doing is raising awareness.  By raising awareness, experiments will get done and further assessments made.  From there, the need for decisions to be made is becoming apparent.

 

 

That said, there is the idea that being exposed to imagery and ideas can have a desensitizing effect on the topic.  I was able to find some research support for this, but the top hits I found were from the 1980s, so if someone can find something that is more recent (to support or refute/debate) then please do so.

Here's one that I found (just an abstract unfortunately).

 

 

However, if we examine other forms of stereotyped impression, there is a study that showed that video game play was able to make a measureable effect on breaking down the stereotypes associated between Palestinans and Israelis when the game put them in control of the leader of the opposite faction.

Link (Abstract)

 

 

(Aside: No need to say "not to cherry pick quotes" only to do so.  If you only want to address part of my post, feel free to only address part of my post as you did)

[Allan Schumacher]

She said it in her damsel in distress video. Here's the quote:

 

"The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false."

 

Here's a link to the video: https://www.youtube....eX6F-Q63I#t=952

 

She says it at 15:52-16:03.

 

All that Anita's proving is that conservatives aren't the only ones who ignore science if it conflicts with their political agenda.

 

Watching the link (and echoing Cyonan below), I think you're misrepresenting what Anita is saying.  It's the idea that women are not as capable and need to be saved by men.

 

Men are physically stronger than women.  But does this mean that women are incapable of protecting themselves from men (especially in a video game world) at the prevalence that video games depict them as?  Further, does it mean that women are also as incapable of enacting their own escape from similar situations that men are often able to escape from themselves.

 

 

Further, frail, fragile, and vulnerable are applied in more than just physical traits.

 

(aside: deja vu... I remember discussing those words with a chap named Chaz on a different forum)

 

 

Also, holy mother of dry content. If I had to criticize Anita's videos I would say that it's incredibly boring to watch her drone on in a largely monotone voice for half an hour(that, and reminding you every 30 seconds about how sexist everything is).

 

I think this is a symptom of the videos being very much at a "101 level."  I was hoping for more from the video series when it first came out, but instead realized that it wasn't so much intended for me.

[Khayness]

Who is Anita? 

 

Someone who can talk your ears off about Nintendo being sexist because of a handheld console they named Gameboy.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well... it kinda worked before, they had to try again.

 

*photo snipped*

 

Never forget.

 

The idea that Peter Moore's comments meant that we were immune from criticism because some portion of the Worst Company in America vote was motivated by EA's policies towards LGBT content is a misunderstanding of what was actually said.

 

 

Moore's comments stated that there was legitimate criticism that people levied.  But there were groups that had organized to vote as a protest against LGBT content.  Moore was stating that he did not feel that that was a valid criticism.

[ObserverStatus]

Who is Anita? 

a youtube personality. Tay Zonday is more fun tbh

[Allan Schumacher]

I find it odd that she (as far as I know) never seems to pose any possible solutions to the problem. 

 

Neither do most people that say they dislike things about our games.*  Saying that you have an issue with something is a valid perspective.  Mandating that you have a solution for the problem ostensibly silences feedback.

 

Her video series is meant to bring attention to the issues.  There's likely an implicit solution inferred as well, given that the belief that an act is harmful supposes that the solution is to stop doing the act.  It's probably as simple as "don't rely on the tropes as much."  But admittedly I'm speculating.

 

 

 

*Especially since people are of the realities of how feasible their request may even be, nor should they be.

[Allan Schumacher]

Someone who can talk your ears off about Nintendo being sexist because of a handheld console they named Gameboy.

 

I did a google search.  According to an interview it seems like part of the problem she had was convincing her parents that it was something that was still suitable for a girl.

 

 

People have a fear of the term "sexist" however, and seem to equate "this is a sexist thing" (it's likely symptomatic of the culture, but if there's systemic sexism within a culture, then it's still not inherently bad to raise awareness) with only ostensible harm towards women.

 

 

 

 

 

And that is Anita. Fluff. Give me money. This is bad and this is bad and this is bad. Only solution: Put exactly what I want in games.

 

This doesn't appear to be correct.  I mean, in the one video I critiqued yesterday the guy pointed out that Anita seemed inconsistent because, at the end, she said that the trope in isolation isn't a bad thing.  She isn't saying that games should never use the Damsel in Distress.  She's saying that it's overused and feels that that is a problem.

 

(it could possibly be inferred that she's suggesting a solution here too, which is... use the Damsel in Distress trope less frequently).

[saMoorai]

I think everyone should take a moment to breath, drink some Sunny D, and remember that the Mighty Duck movies were amazing. Then we can continue this.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

I don't know how I feel about the movement in general. While I do think that it raises some good points in regards to how women and minority groups are presented in video games (often poorly or thoughtlessly), there is the impression from certain elements within the "SJW" movement who demonstrate a lack of consideration for the core of games themselves, caring only for the portrayal of minorities themselves. It's taken to the extreme in this community in particular, because of the heavy focus on romance.

 

That in itself is okay, people play games for a plethora of reasons. But it's ultimately a reflection of shallow taste. "I only judge this game on whether I can bang LGBTs". It's no different people who judge games purely on graphics. It leads to cases where developers are lauded for making fun of "bikini armor" or other dumb tropes in video games, but a married gay man like Timothy Cain who co-created one of the most successful/thoughtful VG settings in this generation is thrown to the wayside because his games appeal to a traditionally straight male audience. 

 

If ever there was an argument for increasing the ratio of LGBT, minorities and women in video game development, you could say "well Tim Cain goes on and creates Fallout, spearheaded Arcanum and led programming on Bloodlines, he has passion, talent and his sexual orientation is in no way a hindrance whatsoever. Let's not ignore talented people because they're a minority group".

 

But instead we get "oh you can create a lesbian and **** other lesbians, how progressive!"

[Dominus]

But that does cause a bit of a problem. Bayonetta struck me as a game not worth my time because of the impressions I got from it (well, there's a good chance it may not have hit my radar at all to be honest). In a world with my finite time, it does seem a bit silly to create a character like that... unless the belief was that her looking like that would be good for game sales.

It certainly isn't a great portrayal of women in games, but I wasn't offended with her during my game time. Between giant killer tentacle angels, hair that turns into boots(or giant hands that play volleyball with the enemy), and an endgame that's flatout bizarre, I just took it as one more absurd thing in a long list of weird crap in that game. She did quite a few risque moves, but the character as a whole wasn't portrayed in a way that implied she was either weak/needing rescue or the like. I suppose the same argument could be made for something like Kill La Kill - It's there, they poke fun at it now and then, but the intent of the creators is hard to say.

[Allan Schumacher]

It certainly isn't a great portrayal of women in games, but I wasn't offended with her during my game time. Between giant killer tentacle angels, hair that turns into boots(or giant hands that play volleyball with the enemy), and an endgame that's flatout bizarre, I just took it as one more absurd thing in a long list of weird crap in that game. She did quite a few risque moves, but the character as a whole wasn't portrayed in a way that implied she was either weak/needing rescue or the like. I suppose the same argument could be made for something like Kill La Kill - It's there, they poke fun at it now and then, but the intent of the creators is hard to say.

 

I've actually heard that she's considered quite empowered by many.  I couldn't say for certain, however, because I haven't played the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

lack of consideration for the core of games themselves,

 

What do you mean by the core of games?

[someguy1231]

Have a link handy? I'd like to see it because that seems like a pretty silly claim to make.

 

 

I already linked to it. See post #303 in this thread.

[Khayness]

What do you mean by the core of games?

 

I think what he means that every other aspect of a game gets neglected (be that by marketing, game journalism coverage, criticism) by some desirable or undesirable portrayal of whatever the people are raging about.

 

I'd hate to beat the Mirror's Edge horse a bit more, but the fact that the player character was an athletic, asian female with different womanly proportions usually found in games gave the game initially so much phrase, it overshadowed the fact that it is an FPS platformer with some kinks to be ironed out to be a truly enjoyable experience. And any shortcomings in the sales department were often blamed on the female main character aspect. It wasn't unusual to see people defending the game's sales, saying people hate playing as a female PC and they should be ashamed of themselves, rather than the other things found in the game. Like FPS parkour, pacifist combat, poor optimalization (reason I put the game on a long halt), dodgy platforming mechanics thanks to point of view, etc.

 

And as for harping on the undesirable, I'll just leave the sex cards here. I tried to find it in the game files, just to have a good laugh that how a few people are judging The Witcher 1 because of a few kilobytes (maybe megabytes, dunno), while the game has so frigging much content in 12 gigs and other aspects deserving to be thoroughly criticised as a videogame.

[someguy1231]

This seems like an insulating, bunkering down position. It reads as "Well you've said some stuff, but I disagree with it, so I'm going to require you to do more work before I even consider hearing your point of view." What exactly would constitute proof?


I'm also not sure I agree that nothing can take the place of playing a game. We're talking about a high level analysis and part of that is looking at themes that are common across gaming industry. If the pervasiveness of a trope is harmful (and this is the million dollar question), then I'm not sure why it's completely invalid to point out the existence of a trope in games.  I can understand though, as my understanding is that Anita is actually a surprisingly empowering game.  But I suppose by the same standard, I'm not really permitted to make an assessment since I haven't played the game.

But that does cause a bit of a problem.  Bayonetta struck me as a game not worth my time because of the impressions I got from it (well, there's a good chance it may not have hit my radar at all to be honest).  In a world with my finite time, it does seem a bit silly to create a character like that... unless the belief was that her looking like that would be good for game sales.  But that would lend validation to the idea that the actions of gamers warrants further examination.

 

 

You're right that it's an "insulating, bunkering down position" - and it's one that I think is necessary because I'm so sick and tired of people criticizing media without having actually watched or played it. And I don't only take such a position if they criticize it negatively. I once called out someone for praising for the first Witcher game without having actually played it, to name only one example. As for proof, something like linking to videos of her playing the game (like a Let's Play with commentary), or linking to her gamer profile showing she earned the trophies/achievements for completing the game would be sufficient.

 

As for nothing taking the place of playing a game, well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. First impressions of games can often be wrong, as I already mentioned. Nor do all games make use of certain tropes equally. To continue with Bayonetta as an example (a game I've gotten 1000/1000 points for on Xbox ), she was obviously sexualized, but it made perfect sense for her character and the game as a whole. I'll admit that my first impression of that game was that her sex appeal was just a cheap way to get publicity, but after playing it to completion I realized that impression was completely wrong.

 

By the way, when you said "Anita is actually a surprisingly empowering game", I assume you meant "Bayonetta"?

[ruggly]

I find it odd that she (as far as I know) never seems to pose any possible solutions to the problem. 

 

That would be nice, or make a video that focuses on what developers have done right, if she hasn't already.  I wouldn't expect her to make a list of every possible solution, but just give a general one like: this is an example of blah blah blah, what if the developers did rah rah rah to help that situation.

[someguy1231]

Watching the link (and echoing Cyonan below), I think you're misrepresenting what Anita is saying.  It's the idea that women are not as capable and need to be saved by men.

 

Men are physically stronger than women.  But does this mean that women are incapable of protecting themselves from men (especially in a video game world) at the prevalence that video games depict them as?  Further, does it mean that women are also as incapable of enacting their own escape from similar situations that men are often able to escape from themselves.

 

 

Further, frail, fragile, and vulnerable are applied in more than just physical traits.

 

(aside: deja vu... I remember discussing those words with a chap named Chaz on a different forum)

 

 

Like I said before, if that is what she meant, then she had a very poor way of wording it. And if that is what she meant, can you point me out to her clarifying those remarks? She made them a long time ago, and plenty of people have called her out on it. Yet as far as I know, she's never done that. Thus, I'm only left with her initial impression, and her use of the phrase "naturally weaker gender" is what really makes me think she's denying basic biology. "Naturally", as in, how we're born, the nature of our bodies, etc. She claims that's "completely false", yet it obviously isn't.

 

Besides, if men are physically stronger than women, as you admit, then doesn't that imply that women aren't as capable as men, at least as far as physical strength goes? But maybe I'm just splitting hairs...

[Lotion Soronarr]

I really, really don't care.

 

I want the game that *I* will enjoy playing, don't care about other people.

Everyone should campaign for their own tastes and preferences, it's a simple as that.

 

Naturally, often will preferences clash, but I find it hypocritical when people condemn eachother over campaigning for their own vision of a great game, when they are doing the exact same thing. The justification behind it really doesn't matter. There is no "right" or "wrong" in this context. Only clashing interests.

[Fast Jimmy]

Maybe we should investigate and find out? Because what I consider Anita to be doing is raising awareness. By raising awareness, experiments will get done and further assessments made. From there, the need for decisions to be made is becoming apparent.

See, I disagree. Peer-reviewed, accredited research isn't done by the masses, it is done by highly educated and established scholars. Anita's videos, while offering something unique to YouTube, also contain misinformation and opinion stated as fact. There are numerous studies done on video games and how they can affect behavior (although, admittedly, done mostly in terms of violent or purchasing behaviors) - I seriously doubt Anita's video would be successful in convincing a team to scientists to perform a study on video games ability to re-doctrinaire players' perspectives on acceptable social norms.

That said, there is the idea that being exposed to imagery and ideas can have a desensitizing effect on the topic. I was able to find some research support for this, but the top hits I found were from the 1980s, so if someone can find something that is more recent (to support or refute/debate) then please do so.
Here's one that I found (just an abstract unfortunately).

To go COMPLETELY off topic, there has recently been a surge in the field of Psychology to re-test many studies done in the field to determine if they are reproduceable. This is very common in the physical sciences, where confirming theories off of others work is very common and helps strengthen the exact results and practices performed. But in Psychology, this has met with fierce resistance, as experimenters say that scientists today do not know enough about their exact process to accurately recreate the results. Which, of course, begs the question of why there are secret processes not outlined in the Experimental Procesures section of each study and if they would put the results in question. /end off topic

However, if we examine other forms of stereotyped impression, there is a study that showed that video game play was able to make a measureable effect on breaking down the stereotypes associated between Palestinans and Israelis when the game put them in control of the leader of the opposite faction.
Link (Abstract)

An interesting experiment. But it presupposes some things, I believe, which might make transposition to other situations possibly not as clear.

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinaians is a hotly contested conflict with clear lines drawn. In the case of sexism, racism, etc. who would do the competing sides? I don't think may identify themselves as "sexist" or "racist" as clearly as someone would label themselves pro-Palestinian. Also, the game takes different sides of the conflict. You are not simply playing as an Israeli, but as a leader of Israi forces against Palestianians (or vice versa). Would the equivalent be not just having a player play a female, but an activist feminist?

All of that to say that video games that force the player to play opposite perspectives could be effective in broadening the player's view on others. But I wonder if a Palestinian played this game on their own if they would have chosen to play for the Israeli side? And I wonder if the effect of sympathy for the other side might be diminished if the first playthrough of the game was done from their own sides perspective, with a subsequent playthrough done on the opposing side? These types of questions could be used to evaluate what the chances are of providing gender, race and sexuality options to a game in broadening the player's viewpoint.

[General TSAR]

In light of being told that I'm not willing to debate honestly, I'm going to take a more hardline stance towards the use of pejoratives in this term.

 

 

Please do not use the term white knight since, by virtue of being a part of the group that you dislike so much, you're basically telling me that I'm rushing to Anita's defenses because I think she is helpless or because I'm hoping that behaving in this way will grant me sex.

 

 

It's a disrespectful term.  Continuing to use it will be seen as an insistence on continuing to be disrespectful and undermining honest debate by being insulting.  If you can't help but use the term, then I leave the choice and consequences up to you.

I am not responsible for your assumptions, if you wish to believe that you're part of the same collection of professional or influential video game reviewers that I am mocking for leaping to a toxic hypocrite's defense, that is your preference. 

 

 

That would be nice, or make a video that focuses on what developers have done right, if she hasn't already.  I wouldn't expect her to make a list of every possible solution, but just give a general one like: this is an example of blah blah blah, what if the developers did rah rah rah to help that situation.

I would like to see Sarkeesian address intelligent criticism and offer realistic solutions, but that doesn't appear to be in her agenda. It's classic rabble rousing with a capitalistic objective and we all fell for it.  

[Cyonan]

Like I said before, if that is what she meant, then she had a very poor way of wording it. And if that is what she meant, can you point me out to her clarifying those remarks? She made them a long time ago, and plenty of people have called her out on it. Yet as far as I know, she's never done that. Thus, I'm only left with her initial impression, and her use of the phrase "naturally weaker gender" is what really makes me think she's denying basic biology. "Naturally", as in, how we're born, the nature of our bodies, etc. She claims that's "completely false", yet it obviously isn't.

 

Besides, if men are physically stronger than women, as you admit, then doesn't that imply that women aren't as capable as men, at least as far as physical strength goes? But maybe I'm just splitting hairs...

 

The question was if women being physically weaker on average meant they were somehow incapable of protecting themselves against men, not just incapable in general.

 

As somebody who trained in Kung-Fu for a number of years, sparred against lots of people of both genders, and has a fairly big build for a guy I can tell you that even in the real world being stronger doesn't mean that the other person isn't capable of defending themselves.

 

and it makes even less sense that it would be the case in a video game world where there are likely weapons and even potentially some form of magic. Being physically stronger means next to nothing when they have a gun or can throw lightning bolts at you.

 

Sure we're naturally better at lifting heavy objects, but strength isn't everything when it comes to protecting yourself.

[someguy1231]

The question was if women being physically weaker on average meant they were somehow incapable of protecting themselves against men, not just incapable in general.

 

As somebody who trained in Kung-Fu for a number of years, sparred against lots of people of both genders, and has a fairly big build for a guy I can tell you that even in the real world being stronger doesn't mean that the other person isn't capable of defending themselves.

 

and it makes even less sense that it would be the case in a video game world where there are likely weapons and even potentially some form of magic. Being physically stronger means next to nothing when they have a gun or can throw lightning bolts at you.

 

Sure we're naturally better at lifting heavy objects, but strength isn't everything when it comes to protecting yourself.

 

You're trailing off-topic here. I'm solely talking about Anita's remarks and what they mean. She said "naturally weaker gender" - naturally, as in how we're born and how our bodies are built. Weapons and magic and anything else are irrelevant here. She also claimed that it was "completely false" - completely,  as in, not one bit of it were true. Yet no sensible person would deny the physical strength differences between men and women. You're really grasping at straws here trying to defend her.

 

Of course physical strength isn't everything, but if you've got no weapons or magic, it's definitely very important. This is why the UFC doesn't do man vs. woman fights.

 

Besides, you still haven't addressed my point that she has yet to clarify her remarks if people are misinterpreting them.

[SlottsMachine]

 

 

Neither do most people that say they dislike things about our games.*  Saying that you have an issue with something is a valid perspective.  Mandating that you have a solution for the problem ostensibly silences feedback.

 

That's fine. But if that person is just going to be nothing but negative people like myself are going to tune you out. This isn't a black and white issue in my opinion.

 

 

 

Her video series is meant to bring attention to the issues.  There's likely an implicit solution inferred as well, given that the belief that an act is harmful supposes that the solution is to stop doing the act.  It's probably as simple as "don't rely on the tropes as much."  But admittedly I'm speculating.

 

Fair enough. She has certainly done some good there. Pretty much anything is a trope now, should writers try to be more original with there stories, for sure. And I don't think writers should completely shy away from perceived negative tropes. Writing in games across the board just isn't that good though (there are some exceptions). Why aren't people demanding better writing? Inclusivity is nice but if all you are doing is changing a gender or skin colour it rings somewhat hollow imo. If the character is still of the cardboard variety I mean.   

 

 

 

 

*Especially since people are of the realities of how feasible their request may even be, nor should they be.

 

Toggle, eh? Haha. 

[Cyonan]

You're trailing off-topic here. I'm solely talking about Anita's remarks and what they mean. She said "naturally weaker gender" - naturally, as in how we're born and how our bodies are built. Weapons and magic and anything else are irrelevant here. She also claimed that it was "completely false" - completely,  as in, not one bit of it were true. Yet no sensible person would deny the physical strength differences between men and women. You're really grasping at straws here trying to defend her.

 

Of course physical strength isn't everything, but if you've got no weapons or magic, it's definitely very important. This is why the UFC doesn't do man vs. woman fights.

 

Besides, you still haven't addressed my point that she has yet to clarify her remarks if people are misinterpreting them.

 

First off, I already said that failure to effectively communicate what you were talking about is the fault of the person making the point. This this case it is Anita's fault for not being clear. I have said this multiple times in this thread and even if she did mean it in the way that I am suggesting she might have it would not absolve her of the blame of not having been clear about it in the first place. I am simply suggesting that you be open to the idea that maybe she didn't mean physical strength.

 

I am not attempting to deny the physical strength differences of men and women, nor am I attempting to defend those who think that such differences don't exist. One of my earlier replies to you used the exact words "As far as physical strength goes yes, it's completely absurd to claim that women are naturally just as strong as men." and I have always maintained that it is entirely possible that she actually did mean physical strength, in which case she is being ridiculous.

 

Strength is an asset in a fight yes, but it's hardly the only asset in a fight. If you want to convince me otherwise, you'll have to do more than point at one or two fighting sports which separate men and women.

 

It's also worth noting that my actual opinion about what Anita specifically is doing is that I completely disagree with her method of doing it. I agree with the idea of some changes in the way women have a tendency to be portrayed a lot in games, but I disagree with most of how she's going about doing it(especially the constant claims of things being sexist).

 

It never hurts to look at the other side and try to understand it from their point of view with an open mind, though =P