363 réponses à ce sujet

[EarthboundNess]

I try not to. Aside from the occasional laugh at their expense.

 

Often their hearts are in the right place, but their ways of going about it couldn't be more ridiculous.

[Heimdall]

I'm all for inclusivity.

 

Though I don't think that means all games need to include all (Or even necessarily more than one) races/genders/orientations.

[In Exile]

I think that is less a problem with video games and more of an instance of the fact that there a psychotic people in the world, many of which have access to the Internet and believe it gives them the total anonymity to say the most insane batshirt crazy things that pop in their head.

You can't stop psychos from playing video games, anymore than you can stop hem from reading books, listening to music or watching movies. Yet far too often when said psychos wind up doing something truly mentally unhinged, it is the content the psycho consumes is vilified, rather than the fact that the person is clearly mentally disturbed.

Putting more inclusive demographics in video games won't stop psychos from doing psycho things. Just like sanitizing all violence from video games won't stop psychos from doing psycho things either.

I don't think inclusion is a terrible idea, but if a stated goal of it is supposed to be to get the crazies to stop being crazy, then I'm afraid that's just not going to happen. There are crazy people who think TVs are the governments way of secretly reading their brains, or who are convinced that there is one shadow government of people pulling the switches of the world and organizing every even that plays out, from the largest macroscale to the tiniest microscale.

Crazy is just crazy.

 

It's not just about crazy people. If a woman, under her real name, writes an editorial about, say, gender politics in the Republican party, or pay gaps in the West, that person won't get rape and death threats. But if the same woman writes an editorial in a nerd-ish publication about, say, the problems with a teen titans cover, she will start getting death threats. If that same woman writes about sexual harassment in the video game industry, she'll get rape threats. Using a label like "crazy" obsfuscates the whole situation, because this isn't someone getting naked and defacating in the street or yelling that aliens are controlling our minds through floride. It's about targeted violence and harassment, using the internet. It's such a well-defined behaviour that it can be easily separated out, and targeted. 

 

That's a real problem, and it's a problem that (while not isolated) seems to really center around video-games and other 'nerd'-ish pursuits. There is a clear pattern of targeted threats against women in the fandom, and particularly women who speak out about the treatment of women. That's a very specific problem. And because the problem is well-defined, we can address it. 

To refuse to address it, and to basically say crazies-will-be-crazies, is just abrogating responsibility. In this case, they're hiding behind anonymity to perpetrate what are IRL crimes, like assault (because assault is not limited to physical violence) and harassment. 

 

Issues like representation in video-games are wholly separate from issues of personal safety of the people complaining about representation and the actual perpetration of crimes online. This goes double with countries passing new laws to prevent cyberbullying and online harassment. 

[Jorji Costava]

It's not just about crazy people. If a woman, under her real name, writes an editorial about, say, gender politics in the Republican party, or pay gaps in the West, that person won't get rape and death threats. But if the same woman writes an editorial in a nerd-ish publication about, say, the problems with a teen titans cover, she will start getting death threats. If that same woman writes about sexual harassment in the video game industry, she'll get rape threats. Using a label like "crazy" obsfuscates the whole situation, because this isn't someone getting naked and defacating in the street or yelling that aliens are controlling our minds through floride. It's about targeted violence and harassment, using the internet. It's such a well-defined behaviour that it can be easily separated out, and targeted. 

 

That's a real problem, and it's a problem that (while not isolated) seems to really center around video-games and other 'nerd'-ish pursuits. There is a clear pattern of targeted threats against women in the fandom, and particularly women who speak out about the treatment of women. That's a very specific problem. And because the problem is well-defined, we can address it.

 

I wouldn't say this problem is entirely unique to games (for one example, see the follow-up to Lindy West and Jim Norton's debate about rape jokes in comedy, although be warned that some of the tweets West reposted are pretty revolting stuff). Still, my unscientific impression is that gaming culture tends to be especially defensive about this sort of thing, and that part of this is due to the defensiveness of gaming culture in general. When you've been told that your preferred medium is everything from a cause of violence in society to something that's just for kids or not "real art," you have a tendency to get defensive. Consequently, it becomes easy to label people who complain about racism or sexism in games as just being another in the long list of yahoos who are out to take away our games.

 

Sure Bioware, Ubisoft, Bethseda can propagate any sort of agenda that they want - doesn't mean that I have to support or blindly follow it like a sheep. I play videogames for the entertainment value not because of what a particular group of people think.

 

Two things: First, there's the obvious fact that the implied politics of a given game does affect its entertainment value for a substantial number of gamers. Second, I'm not convinced that talking about games in terms of their entertainment value is the most interesting or useful way to talk about games or any other creative work.

[Fast Jimmy]

It's not just about crazy people. If a woman, under her real name, writes an editorial about, say, gender politics in the Republican party, or pay gaps in the West, that person won't get rape and death threats. But if the same woman writes an editorial in a nerd-ish publication about, say, the problems with a teen titans cover, she will start getting death threats. If that same woman writes about sexual harassment in the video game industry, she'll get rape threats. Using a label like "crazy" obsfuscates the whole situation, because this isn't someone getting naked and defacating in the street or yelling that aliens are controlling our minds through floride. It's about targeted violence and harassment, using the internet. It's such a well-defined behaviour that it can be easily separated out, and targeted. 

 

That's a real problem, and it's a problem that (while not isolated) seems to really center around video-games and other 'nerd'-ish pursuits. There is a clear pattern of targeted threats against women in the fandom, and particularly women who speak out about the treatment of women. That's a very specific problem. And because the problem is well-defined, we can address it. 

To refuse to address it, and to basically say crazies-will-be-crazies, is just abrogating responsibility. In this case, they're hiding behind anonymity to perpetrate what are IRL crimes, like assault (because assault is not limited to physical violence) and harassment. 

 

Issues like representation in video-games are wholly separate from issues of personal safety of the people complaining about representation and the actual perpetration of crimes online. This goes double with countries passing new laws to prevent cyberbullying and online harassment. 

 

But do you think representation in games will decrease such hostility against women, if it truly is a phenomenon strongly common in the video game industry? The new reboot of Tomb Raider came out a round a year ago, with a realistic looking, well-portrayed female. We still have Japanese games perfecting the art of boob jiggle technology. What's the timeframe to effect this ephermeal change? What are the milestone points? What is the roadmap Anita is proposing outside of just saying "here's things every other media industry does, but which video games are worse about for reasons" and being negative in her focus?

 

I know you don't hold Anita up as an example to be followed, and I certainly don't approve of anyone giving rape or death threats, even as the most sick of jokes. But I'm just not convinced that being more inclusive would stop such behavior, regardless of if the people are crazy or the industry is sexist. 

[MissOuJ]

But do you think representation in games will decrease such hostility against women, if it truly is a phenomenon strongly common in the video game industry? The new reboot of Tomb Raider came out a round a year ago, with a realistic looking, well-portrayed female. We still have Japanese games perfecting the art of boob jiggle technology. What's the timeframe to effect this ephermeal change? What are the milestone points? What is the roadmap Anita is proposing outside of just saying "here's things every other media industry does, but which video games are worse about for reasons" and being negative in her focus?

 

I know you don't hold Anita up as an example to be followed, and I certainly don't approve of anyone giving rape or death threats, even as the most sick of jokes. But I'm just not convinced that being more inclusive would stop such behavior, regardless of if the people are crazy or the industry is sexist. 

 

The new reboot of Tomb Raider had a singular female character (since all the other women were apperently used up in a ritual), who, again, had to be made strong by hurting her first and foremost. Like Leigh Alexander put it:

 

It seems that when you want to make a woman into a hero, you hurt her first. When you want to make a man into a hero, you hurt... also a woman first.

 

Not exactly ground-breaking. Gone Home on the other hand... made by a team full of women, whose playable character is a woman and whose story is about an LGBT woman.

 

Also, Anita is a media critic, who started out criticizing TV and movies, first and foremost. The only way she has in any way implied that video games are worse than any other media is by mentioning the fact that video games are an interactive medium, which forces the player to engage with the problematic mechanics in a way that the consumers who consume other sort of media (books, TV, media, etc...) can't. And it's kind of hard to argue with that. A person watching TV can't accidentally kill a character in the TV series by accidentally pushing the wrong button - and this is something I've accidentally done in almost every sandbox game I have ever played.

 

And yes, I actually do believe that discussing the issue and having more women playing games is going to make a difference. I have been gaming since we first got a computer - so... since I was 7, if I remember correctly. My cousins and my older brother also gamed, and we'd often swap titles we enjoyed and fight over who's turn was it to try Crash Bandicoot next. And you know what? Back then, it didn't matter that I lacked the crucial Y chromosome. That started a bit later, since I didn't play Resident Evil, or later, CoD, I wasn't welcome anymore. And if I wanted to game, and if I wanted to play the sort of games that gave me access to the inner circle where I was allowed to talk about games and how much I enjoyed them, I was expected to play through games I didn't enjoy or in which people like me (ie women) were portrayed in a way that made me really uncomfortable.

 

So I quit gaming. Not because I didn't enjoy it anymore, but because I didn't feel welcome in the community anymore and because the games didn't seem to want me to play them anymore - they weren't for me. I never really stopped gaming, but I kept to the "casual" games - mobile games and the like. I got back into gaming much later, for several reasons, but one of the reasons BioWare has become my go-to publisher is that despite their problems and the problems regarding representation, there's no huge "no girls allowed" -sign hanging over their titles whenever I play their games. Sure there still are brothels and strip-clubs and really annoying boob-windows and camera angles, but there are also awesome women and the possibility to play as a woman. And thinking back to the games I played when I was a kid, that's a huge improvement.

 

And the more women game, and the more women work in the gaming industry, and the more women and men who game become aware of the harmful stereotypes and speak up against them, the more inclusive the community becomes. Which is a win-win: more women gaming means a larger audience, which means more money, which means more games and a larger variety of games.

[mybudgee]

How is this thread still alive??

[General TSAR]

Also, Anita is a media critic, who started out criticizing TV and movies, first and foremost.

Well she should have remained just a critic of TV shows and movies and stop trying to shove her hypocritical nonsense down the throat of gamers and developers.

[SlottsMachine]

The problem with Gone Home is that there is no gameplay to speak of. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

So I quit gaming.

 

 

Go play wii Sports.

[Il Divo]

The new reboot of Tomb Raider had a singular female character (since all the other women were apperently used up in a ritual), who, again, had to be made strong by hurting her first and foremost. Like Leigh Alexander put it:

 

It seems that when you want to make a woman into a hero, you hurt her first. When you want to make a man into a hero, you hurt... also a woman first.

 

Not exactly ground-breaking. Gone Home on the other hand... made by a team full of women, whose playable character is a woman and whose story is about an LGBT woman.

 

Seems a bit of an odd point. In general, isn't that how most protagonists in a story are treated? You hurt them. I can't comment on Tomb Raider as I haven't played it, but it doesn't seem out of bounds to have a plot point motivate a character's subsequent development. Batman's parents are brutally murdered before his eyes. Spider Man had a similar problem with Uncle Ben. Hell, you want to look on the female spectrum, characters like Sansa and Arya from Game of Thrones go through similar ordeals. 

 

Hurting your protagonist at the start of your journey seems to be a fairly common practice. 

[General TSAR]

This is what really grinds my gears about the viewpoint of Sarkeesian complaining about violence toward women in Video Games (borrowing quotes):

 

She harps on about violence against women in video games while ignoring the legions of men that are routinely killed in these games. Running though your average mission in FEAR, Far Cry, (insert FPS here), you kill enough male henchmen, security guards, soldiers, etc, that you'd being causing an extinction level event in an average sized European country. Yet when the occasional female is roughed up, much less killed, the she gos bat **** crazy screaming about misogyny and sexism. A thousand male characters can be butchered in a variety of gruesome ways in these games and you hear nothing from them, yet if you dare to show a woman being slapped or punched or killed all you hear is 'omg you evil man man-y man-y ma-ow-on! You hate women don't you."

 

 

 

It's clear that she is against video games and doesn't play them. She goes into saying that in Fallout you can manipulate with corpses of dead prostitutes and she doesn't say that you can do it to other corpses. She also says that being exposed to women being "objectified" in games makes you dislike women or think men are more superior to women. This is basically the same thing as saying violent video games cause violence and make you more angry. Also I think that seeing prostitutes in games show us that prostitution and objectifying women are a big problem in the real world. Every corner you turn especially on the internet women are objectified (some girls do it on purpose and ask why they are being treated like sex objects without looking at pictures they post). I hate the irony how she calls the "sex workers" "sex objects". One thing that I thought was funny in the video was that in the Red Dead Redemption part she says that the main protagonist (John Marston) hates prostitutes or something like that. And what I mean by funny is that there is a dialogue bug when you lasso the prostitute and put them on the back of a horse the prostitute continues to flirt with you. I'm saying it was a bug because there was a looped piece of dialogue in there. Next, there is an Xbox 360 achievement for when you lasso a PERSON (NOT JUST A PROSTITUTE) and put them on train tracks they will get killed by a train, rewarding you with the achievement. She says that this only happens when you do it to a prostitute. She is clearly against video games, hasn't played them and yada yada yada.

 

 

And if there is a killable female character according to Sarkeesian logic:

They just have to be the protagonist, not be sexual, not be identifiable as a woman from clothing, makeup, ear rings ect, have a complete character backstory, have no relation to the person who killed them (this may only apply if the person who killed them is male), not be shown dieing in a violent way, and not be portrayed as a victim, and can not be portrayed as wishing to die.

Also, the person who kills them, at least if male, must not react to killing this woman with any form of joy or satisfaction, must not be indifferent to the death of the woman. 

[In Exile]

Seems a bit of an odd point. In general, isn't that how most protagonists in a story are treated? You hurt them. I can't comment on Tomb Raider as I haven't played it, but it doesn't seem out of bounds to have a plot point motivate a character's subsequent development. Batman's parents are brutally murdered before his eyes. Spider Man had a similar problem with Uncle Ben. Hell, you want to look on the female spectrum, characters like Sansa and Arya from Game of Thrones go through similar ordeals. 

 

Hurting your protagonist at the start of your journey seems to be a fairly common practice. 

 

I think the point that particular quote is trying to make - generalizing that point more - is that male characters have other people in their lives hurt (so the Spiderman and Batman example that you give) whereas (the quote claims) women are themselves physically hurt. So in this case, if it was Lars Croft instead of Lara Croft, his best friend would die or something. But it's Lara, so she is hurt directly. 

 

Putting aside the gender aspect of the quote, I do think it is rare to have a protagonist start by putting them in a position of physical vulnerability. 

[ruggly]

I feel like I'm one of the few women out there who isn't offended by every single trope for female characters. 

 

To be clear, I am all for more female protagonists that are less cliche or whatever, but doesn't it seem silly to waste energy complaining about everything that you don't like? It's going to be a learning experience, and they are going to do things that everyone won't like.  But when everyone starts screaming at them for it, chances are that writers are going to take less chances.

[Neoleviathan]

I think the point that particular quote is trying to make - generalizing that point more - is that male characters have other people in their lives hurt (so the Spiderman and Batman example that you give) whereas (the quote claims) women are themselves physically hurt. So in this case, if it was Lars Croft instead of Lara Croft, his best friend would die or something. But it's Lara, so she is hurt directly. 
 
Putting aside the gender aspect of the quote, I do think it is rare to have a protagonist start by putting them in a position of physical vulnerability.

That's true. Although other protagonist do receive their share of physical injuries, those usually come at the mid part or climax of the story. Like with Luke Skywalker losing an arm. Or part of some arc like with Bane breaking Batman's back. For Lara it came really soon, maybe they wanted to get it out of the way as quick as they could? She does have two important men in her life who are injured and die, they were kind of like Uncle Ben/Ben Kenobi roles. She also lost her parents, or atleast her father... I don't remember her mother actually being spoken of at all.

[In Exile]

That's true. Although other protagonist do receive their share of physical injuries, those usually come at the mid part or climax of the story. Like with Luke Skywalker losing an arm. Or part of some arc like with Bane breaking Batman's back. For Lara it came really soon, maybe they wanted to get it out of the way as quick as they could? She does have two important men in her life who are injured and die, they were kind of like Uncle Ben/Ben Kenobi roles. She also lost her parents, or atleast her father... I don't remember her mother actually being spoken of at all.

 

Those examples are interesting, because the protagonist isn't really hurt by it - Luke gets his arm back, basically, and Batman magically heals himself in a cave. Although it was basically a prequel, and so had no choice, MSG:Snake Eater is the only game I can really think of where the protagonist suffers a disability that actually stays with them for the duration of the game. 

[SwobyJ]

Yeah... That's not really social justice as much as it is the looney bin. My issue with the label is that social justice is a real and important concept, and using the word as a pejorative against the loons is just a loss for all of us.

 

This is why people say 'SJW' instead of Social Justice activists. At least in the majority of cases of complaints about them.

 

It's why people have to go ____ fundamentalists, instead of just ____ for things (religions, politics, etc).

 

Might as well go SJF, but that doesn't sound as fun.

[In Exile]

This is why people say 'SJW' instead of Social Justice activists. At least in the majority of cases of complaints about them.

 

It's why people have to go ____ fundamentalists, instead of just ____ for things (religions, politics, etc).

 

Might as well go SJF, but that doesn't sound as fun.

 

Sure, but in your example of fundamentalist, the "bad" label there is "fundamentalist", not whatever group's name we're talking about. In the parallel, it's not "warrior" that's the bad thing, but "social justice". That's my problem with the moniker. 

[MissOuJ]

Seems a bit of an odd point. In general, isn't that how most protagonists in a story are treated? You hurt them. I can't comment on Tomb Raider as I haven't played it, but it doesn't seem out of bounds to have a plot point motivate a character's subsequent development. Batman's parents are brutally murdered before his eyes. Spider Man had a similar problem with Uncle Ben. Hell, you want to look on the female spectrum, characters like Sansa and Arya from Game of Thrones go through similar ordeals. 

 

Hurting your protagonist at the start of your journey seems to be a fairly common practice. 

 

The point she makes is that female characters usually cannot be strong on their own right, whereas a male character can and usually is strong (or has superpowers) before he gets "something to fight for" - who is usually a woman, stuck in a fridge, just to give him manpain and a justified cause to go on a rampage of revenge. Whereas female protagonists are usually "made strong" by an assault (usually of sexual nature) - see the Rape as Backstory -trope. Also see: Jack from Mass Effect, Lara, as mentioned already, Ves (at least heavily implied) from the Witcher 2, and Madison from Heavy Rain (unless you don't make her fight, in which case she's just Fridged outright). And in other forms of media: Lisbeth from the Millenium series, Kill Bill in its entirety, Veronica Mars... When it comes to leading ladies, this is a pretty prevalent trope. Guys on the other hand usually get to be strong and successful before they get hurt - that is, their (usually female) significant other gets kidnapped or killed (just from the top of my head: WatchDogs, InFamous, Max Payne, Dante's Inferno; from TV and movies: Rambo, 24, Prison Break, Supernatural [which actually manages to fridge two women during the damn pilot alone to give the main male cast twice the angst], most James Bond -movies...)

 

Not to say that female characters are not given angst / reason to fight by killing their significant male others (ie like Heather's father is killed in SH3), or that male characters deaths can't provide other male characters with angst (the old "you killed my brother / buddy, prepare to die") - but the point is that a male character with a background of "was happy nobody goody-two-shoe, was then assaulted / raped and is now super tough bada**" is hard, if not impossible, to find - and a female characters with a backstory of "she was a bada** mercenary / soldier / spy / etc., and then her husband / son / father was kidnapped / murdered, after which she dropped off the grid, swore to advenge for him / them, and became even more of a bada**" as rare, as well (but, it must be mentioned, not completely nonexistent: you mentioned Arya from GoT, and I just have to mention Aveline from DA2 here because she's one of my absolute favourite video game characters of all time).

 

Leigh's and my point being: men are often allowed to be strong before they are hurt; whereas women are way to often allowed to be strong only after they've been hurt. Men don't need an excuse to be strong or successful, it can just as easily be their default setting, whereas women way, way too often need a "reason" why they are strong / in the military / in a "dangerous" business / something other than a wife / a love-interest / a civilian - which implies that the default setting for women is something other than strong or successful.

 

Not saying this is the biggest and/or most glaring problem video games have when it comes to portraying female characters - just pointing out that it is not without its problems, and that it has some really unfortunate implications. It's not likely something writers (of all media - again, this is prevalent in movies and tv as well) do conciously out of their twisted and misogynistic hearts, but because strength is often characterized as masculine and as violence, which clash with our cultural view of femininity and womanhood, and when these writers write female characters, these attitudes usually shine through, sometimes in the form of this trope.

 

/TL;DR: it's complicated, and I have a lot of feelings about this issue.

[TheChris92]

In all fairness, inFamous Second Son actually dished out a quite likeable female co-protagonist, whose sole motivation is not to be a love interest, for the protagonist, with her own agenda. I never really doubted Sucker Punch's abilities to pull it off. She's getting her own seperate DLC too (is excited).

 

But I do generally agree with you though.

[Milan92]

In all fairness, inFamous Second Son actually dished out a quite likeable female co-protagonist, whose sole motivation is not just to be a love interest, for the protagonist, with her own agenda. I never really doubted Sucker Punch's abilities to pull it off. She's getting her own seperate DLC too (is excited).

 

But I do generally agree with you though.

 

Troy Baker romances Laura Bailey?