Confidence Man
Member
Seems to be just pointing out the obvious, no? Just about everything (violence, relationships, even men) is cheap, shorthand, and caricatured. Expecting e.g. an open-world action game to deliver anything more is a little silly.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
New Tropes vs Women video is out (Women as Background Decoration pt. 2)
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
Imru al-Qays
Banned
I mean, you're not even using her own definition of her own term.
Who cares? Her definition doesn't apply here either.
Vaughan's moustache-twirling five-seconds isn't just not representative of the entire game, it's not representative of the scene it's in. The city elf origin is as nuanced a portrayal of sexual violence against women as you're likely to find in gaming today, and the specific reason why moustache-twirling is problematic (because it implies that only the most depraved of the depraved would ever rape a woman) arguably doesn't apply here, since the game makes it clear that this isn't an isolated incident but a social reality that elves face.
What is this place ... now Tumbler...... Wow. IF anything gaming has a HUGE amount of variety and you can find YOUR game if you look in the right place. .
Imru al-Qays
Banned
How her definition applies to the city elf origin (spoiler: it doesn't apply at all):
largely insignificant non-playable character: doesn't apply since you can play as the character in question
sexuality/victimhood exploited to infuse edgy, gritty, or racy flavoring into game worlds: arguably doesn't apply, Bioware is making a very specific point about the nature of racial inequality in their setting
sexually-objectified female bodies: none of the characters are shown in any state of undress etc
titillating: nope
presumed straight male players: there is no presumption in Dragon Age that the player is straight or male
largely insignificant non-playable character: doesn't apply since you can play as the character in question
sexuality/victimhood exploited to infuse edgy, gritty, or racy flavoring into game worlds: arguably doesn't apply, Bioware is making a very specific point about the nature of racial inequality in their setting
sexually-objectified female bodies: none of the characters are shown in any state of undress etc
titillating: nope
presumed straight male players: there is no presumption in Dragon Age that the player is straight or male
Well with these standards you can't include any character in a game.
Well adding that excludes a lot of her examples.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
...Eh?
"Because duh". What a compelling and useful way to begin an argument.
I made the "inner rapist" comment and you said "big bad hero". You did the exact same thing. It's interpretation, not a straw man. I just pointed out that she continues to use footage of players purposefully shirking their agency and responsibility as players and characters in tiny video bites, and that it's aggravating because it portrays players as people who enjoy watching violence on women, or rape, or whatever.
Never mind, it's off topic.
lemon_fresh
Banned
Thanks for proving my point. There will never be satisfaction. And of course, anyone who disagrees or criticizes doesn't understand and/or is a mysoginist.
I find it a bit funny that she did the "kick the dog" thing, falling into the same trap that she accuses the devs of making.
And of course, we shall ignore all the violence against males . . .
Really? Are there a lot of games that feature bisexual main characters?
Edit: or even queer characters. I'll settle for that.
edit 2: spoilers: the dude i quoted never responded again. thanks for playing though.
Disaster Nebraska
Banned
IMO, I think that most videogame stories are poorly written and we'd cut out a lot of problems (including the female tropes she's pointing out) if we emphasized story less.
Consider Dishonored. The beautiful Queen dies and her beloved daughter is kidnapped. A trope? Or just something to get the player involved? Would a king/son be a more effective story element? Maybe, but I don't believe that "woman portrayed in weak role = sexist" is even a little bit true on a fundamental level.
Personally, I am leery of cries for "representation" in the fictional cast of a piece of entertaiment (note: I am NOT talking about representation within the real-world companies that makes these games; that's a different topic). "Representation" is rooted in ethics and politics. And it's a very great thing, for sure. However, I'm not always keen on ethics and politics sneaking into my games. I play to escape from the world, not to experience issues or confront moral dilemmas. Fantasy? You bet! That's the point. I do not deny that there is a niche for ethical/political-based videogames in the market. But I am wholly against the idea that each and every game has to adhere to some strict standard of "representation".
Consider Dishonored. The beautiful Queen dies and her beloved daughter is kidnapped. A trope? Or just something to get the player involved? Would a king/son be a more effective story element? Maybe, but I don't believe that "woman portrayed in weak role = sexist" is even a little bit true on a fundamental level.
Personally, I am leery of cries for "representation" in the fictional cast of a piece of entertaiment (note: I am NOT talking about representation within the real-world companies that makes these games; that's a different topic). "Representation" is rooted in ethics and politics. And it's a very great thing, for sure. However, I'm not always keen on ethics and politics sneaking into my games. I play to escape from the world, not to experience issues or confront moral dilemmas. Fantasy? You bet! That's the point. I do not deny that there is a niche for ethical/political-based videogames in the market. But I am wholly against the idea that each and every game has to adhere to some strict standard of "representation".
I'm betting there will be one video discussing all the bad mouthing about her and others like her on NeoGAF, Twitter, Facebook, etc. Not trying to defend her or attack her, but its real easy to hand pick some of the more nastier posts/tweets and create a thesis saying something like "Women Trope in Gaming Number XXX: Attack of the Critical Feminist Perspective in the Gaming Community"
The women she is talking about are not enemies, they are actual characters that have no characterisation and are displayed as little more than objects. Sarkessian has said several times that she has no problem with females as generic enemies.
Coffee Dog
Banned
Imru al-Qays;127032860 said:
These videos need to be watched with the knowledge that her opinions are uninformed to the point of taking things completely out of context in some cases or being flat out wrong. The overall point is solid, however, and that's what should be focused on.
I will preface by stating that I have not watched the full video, even part 1. Have just seen snippets. Please ignore my comment of enlighten me if this has been brought up. Will be definitely watching both parts later tonight.
Anyway;
Just clicking part 2, it opens up with some bad guys(s) saying "grab a whore and have a good time!"
Now, how is it using women as background decoration?
I mean, this is like her watching the show Deadwood, and complaining that it mistreats women and uses them as background decoration, because most of the women are prostitutes and the other ones keep getting walked over. When that show is actually the story of what was happening back then in Deadwood in the 1800's.
I will say this, that I completely agree that a lot of games do represent women in a terribly way. Just look at the countless fighting games and whatnot that have women wear ridiculous clothing. It's really embarrassing.
But, I just find it weird that she would use a point like this.
In this part II video, she uses Red Dead Redemption as an example, with a woman being abused and the guy offering her to you for $200. I don't see why she thinks the gaming company is creating that to sexualize women or use her as a decoration. That event probably happened hundreds of times back in 1911, and still happens to this day. If you portray that in a story, why is this bad?
Not sure if my point is clear, as English isn't my language.
Anyway;
Just clicking part 2, it opens up with some bad guys(s) saying "grab a whore and have a good time!"
Now, how is it using women as background decoration?
I mean, this is like her watching the show Deadwood, and complaining that it mistreats women and uses them as background decoration, because most of the women are prostitutes and the other ones keep getting walked over. When that show is actually the story of what was happening back then in Deadwood in the 1800's.
I will say this, that I completely agree that a lot of games do represent women in a terribly way. Just look at the countless fighting games and whatnot that have women wear ridiculous clothing. It's really embarrassing.
But, I just find it weird that she would use a point like this.
In this part II video, she uses Red Dead Redemption as an example, with a woman being abused and the guy offering her to you for $200. I don't see why she thinks the gaming company is creating that to sexualize women or use her as a decoration. That event probably happened hundreds of times back in 1911, and still happens to this day. If you portray that in a story, why is this bad?
Not sure if my point is clear, as English isn't my language.
Yep, looks like art to me.
Phrozenflame500
Member
Well, this video isn't nearly as bad as the previous one. Part 1 had a ton of blatant lying over the reprucussions of killing random female npcs, with many of them (contrary to what she said) having permanent negative effects on the game world.
This one I actually mostly agree with, wih the only two complaints I have being her showing some decidedly non-sexualized bodies and claiming they're sexualized (unless the very act of having a woman in a very modest dress is now sexual) and the last one where she uses the old "we can accept magic but not no sexism" argument that ignores that most of the fantastical elements are introduced early, are well defined and are often critical to the plot.
I'm actually glad she's showing some positive examples and clarifying that the issue is not depiction itself but poor tactless depiction. It shows that she's, shockingly, listening to criticism.
This one I actually mostly agree with, wih the only two complaints I have being her showing some decidedly non-sexualized bodies and claiming they're sexualized (unless the very act of having a woman in a very modest dress is now sexual) and the last one where she uses the old "we can accept magic but not no sexism" argument that ignores that most of the fantastical elements are introduced early, are well defined and are often critical to the plot.
I'm actually glad she's showing some positive examples and clarifying that the issue is not depiction itself but poor tactless depiction. It shows that she's, shockingly, listening to criticism.
"Titillation" isn't necessarily "sexual arousal". Can be arousal more generally. Appealing to a person to bristle with righteous indignation against moustache-twirlers is an attempt to titillate. Giving a player an emotional rush, in this case for unquestionably righteous justice instead of for boning.
Interesting choice of word on her part. The connotation of that word is definitely sexual.
I think that Red Dead Redemption is the worst game to use for her thesis as it features some strong women characters and males as "background decoration" in a sexist and borderline setting.
The only game where she seemed to be completely right was no more heroes 2, but I haven't played it so I can't judge from few seconds of cutscene.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Instead of whining about my choice of word, how about you actually address what I said?
No, because once again, they refer to two different scenarios. One scenario is sexist because it displays the desecrated bodies of women as supposedly sexy, and the other scenario is also sexist but for a different reason. Which she explains quite clearly in the video. For some reason you insist on conflating the two just to declare that she's somehow contradicting herself. It's really quite baffling.
Not all males you kill in a game are enemies.
Skimming through the vid there's is the metro: last light example where you can't see shit. Or the Watch dogs/Kane & Lynch example where's it's fully clothed average looking women.
I believe you're simplifying the issue if you think having a prostitutes be a main charecters would give in depth commentary on how prostitutes have it. But if you think it'll make a difference good for you. But for as long as I've been gaming, I've yet to see that industry accurately portray sex, race, violence etc, so if it's suddenly able to correctly portray even one of those things I'll be surprised.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
What about all the hundreds of male NPCs that are not enemies?
She is bringing up generic NPCs, of which there huge swaths of different varities, but is singling out female ones for not having enough characterization. It just doesn't make sense.
Which is why she is supposed to research and use the kickstarter, not just be uninformed.
True but really complaining about what humans do or will ALWAYS do is kind of pointless.
IMO on the bigger point of thread. When I have games like Firefall, Blade Sympony and most FPS shooters now with male and female options and my personal favorite games have characters like Samus Aran, Lara Croft, so many fighting game chicks(there is a lot) I just ... well don't get the point of her work. Maybe I live in a different world but I will go stab people now with my Scissor sword from Kill La Kill now while looking like The major from GITS in Blade Symphony.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
...I don't understand what you're saying. At all. I suggested that the pic above should probably be amended to say "often", just to add a bit of nuance, because the way it's worded suggested an "always".
You then quoted me, and responded by saying that this amendment would somehow exclude games from the trope. Which makes no sense. On the contrary. The example in Metro, for instance, definitely fits the trope, even if it's dark and you can't see.
Often means a lot of the time.
Corronchilejano
Member
... did... did you even read what I wrote? What point were you even trying to make? For every example you made, I explained why exactly there's a problem with female representation in every case.
Long story short: Women are way too stuck with a sexual, helpless or gender bender design and in the worst case scenario they're not even treated as human beings. Sometimes more than one of these cases at the same time. Like prostitutes who can't fend for themselves getting killed in the middle of the game as a random event.
Hell, even men get multiple types of hopelessness when they're being rescued. They're not necesarily someones significant other, a prostitute, a young boy, etc.
You are doing your best to not understand the point she's making when she paralleled the previous scenarios to how they compared exactly to the dog kicking.
You are just going to swing on those branches forever aren't you?
EDIT:
Please watch the whole video, as this is addressed in the part of games as fantasy.
More to the point, the character's attractiveness and gender doesn't even register.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yes? It also means "not necessarily always every single instance"...
Do we have any evidence of her actually "doing the research"? A not insignificant portion of her examples over all her videos come off as very clinically observed or taken out of context. It would be really interesting to see a "making of" video where we see her thought process and research methodology for coming up with her examples.
Hm Im watching the Watch Dogs part right know and it is little bit confusing, because the random events are not exclusive women vs. male attacker. Well I believe there arent female attackers, thats not really reallistic. She is right thats interventing before something bad happens is useless and should also give you XP, but thats a bad thing about the game and dont prove her point.
And you dont really have to kill those guys Anita, but maybe you like to play as the criminal, thats ok.
Edit: okey, she adresses that.
And you dont really have to kill those guys Anita, but maybe you like to play as the criminal, thats ok.
Edit: okey, she adresses that.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Yeah, I admit I kinda went of to the deep end there. >_>
Because we're adults and when someone takes the time of day to write out their thoughts on a matter, it's considered rude and/or immature to open your reply with a dismissive rhetorical question in every instance.
The overall point is the same: that women's bodies are being used as background decoration to provide arousal to straight men and to portray villains or worlds as awful people or harsh environments. I don't think you even know what you're arguing about anymore, and I'm not interested in discussing with someone who bookends every post with sarcastic swipes.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
I think a making of video would be very cool.
Christ, even I'm not that cynical! But games have shown that they are able to portray racial issues before, albeit not the contemporary kind; they are frequently present in fantasy settings, though I think this is more down to fear of the controversy that may erupt from such situations. But nevertheless, games are absolutely capable of commentating on these sorts of issues and in an age of realistic graphics and 'living, breathing' worlds, I'd say such commentaries are long overdue.
poorlonelycomputer
Member
Lol either this is satire or your examples of a "realistic man" say a lot more about you than you intended
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_prostitutes
If reality is violent and sexist it doesn't mean you should avoid to represent it.
These games are condemning that reality or giving the choice to do it.
Imru al-Qays
Banned
I doubt we'll get one. She's clearly more interested in being a polemicist than a researcher.
Corronchilejano
Member
This is directly referenced in the part about fantasy.
- We can have huge inventories in minute backpacks.
- We can have an incredible resilience and healing abilities.
- Sometimes we can bend time, and space.
- We can make societies in the clouds, under water, in space.
- But we will always have violence against women because realism.
She argues it's a cheap shot basically. I'd say its the same reason women don't get a more varied representation: Lazy design, which in the end goes up as being sexist.
Before you say "but there's also a lot of violence in games" lemme say: There's also quite a bit of excess of violence in mainstream gaming, don't deny it. Think about the last game where you didn't have to kill something. Sure, there's a reason for it, but its still undeniable.
However, only one of those two targets a specific gender. What were the last three games were you saw sexual violence against a guy?
EDIT: Hell, think of SLAVERY in videogames. Most of the times slavery makes an appearence it is denounced as a horrible event and most of the times there's a quest to abolish it or you can see people fighting against that. On the other hand, violence against women is "shit that happens that'll always happen."
poorlonelycomputer
Member
I don't even know why I open these threads. Always the same arguments even though they've been refuted like a million times...you guys would rather argue ad nauseum than stfu and maybe learn something.
Here are two egregious ones:
1. "Historical accuracy" - this is partly the fault of the bs history we learn where women don't ever emerge out of the home until they get the vote. But there have always been some women who have agency. Yes, even during westward expansion and the renaissance (see Calamity Jane, Lucretia Borgia, etc). Ultimately it's still the dev's/storyteller's choice to portray women as passive victims, and it usually says more about their perspective than "the times."
2. "Keep politics out of my games" - politics are already in your games, ya dingus. You just don't notice them because they're a status quo that you're comfortable with. That doesn't mean all of us are.
That's all I have the energy for right now since I know I'm just howling into the abyss. Seriously though.
Here are two egregious ones:
1. "Historical accuracy" - this is partly the fault of the bs history we learn where women don't ever emerge out of the home until they get the vote. But there have always been some women who have agency. Yes, even during westward expansion and the renaissance (see Calamity Jane, Lucretia Borgia, etc). Ultimately it's still the dev's/storyteller's choice to portray women as passive victims, and it usually says more about their perspective than "the times."
2. "Keep politics out of my games" - politics are already in your games, ya dingus. You just don't notice them because they're a status quo that you're comfortable with. That doesn't mean all of us are.
That's all I have the energy for right now since I know I'm just howling into the abyss. Seriously though.
NoirVisage
Banned
There isn't. women are equal. Hip hop as a culture and pop rap music are not one and the same.
lemon_fresh
Banned
Yep.
X happening proves my point, even though Y can happen and Z can also happen, both of which disprove my point, but still, games perpetuate the patriarchy and mysoginy!
It is all a no-win. Damned no matter what.
poorlonelycomputer
Member
Imru al-Qays;127036397 said:
Ok I lied, here's one more argument that chaps my ass as someone in academia: "research" does not mean objective, dispassionate, both sides of the story. It just means citing your sources and making an informed argument. Research and polemics are not mutually exclusive, and besides, Anita ain't even that polemical.
SliceSabre
Banned
This one I'm not so sure about.
She's complaining about how in Watch Dogs you don't check up on the victim afterwards in regards to the random domestic violence events yet in no game with quests or anything do you check up on the victim. A lot of game you're told or go off and do something and never find out the end result. You just do what is told and bam reward not to mention I can't imagine players actually caring all that much either. If some chems addicts begs me for some chems in Fallout: NV and I give them to them the game I don't expect to find out what happened to that person afterwards.
And still I find it interesting how she again handwaves violence against men tropes which happens more often in games. We see gangsters beat up some poor dude then we run off and kill those gangsters, we don't then find out what happened to the guy who got beat up later.
In a lot of these I noticed the games are actually trying to make on statement about the violence against women, certain races or society in general and I think too often we ignore it and accuse the devs/writers of trying to be edgy. Well guess what? Real life is pretty fucking edgy and grimdark.
She's complaining about how in Watch Dogs you don't check up on the victim afterwards in regards to the random domestic violence events yet in no game with quests or anything do you check up on the victim. A lot of game you're told or go off and do something and never find out the end result. You just do what is told and bam reward not to mention I can't imagine players actually caring all that much either. If some chems addicts begs me for some chems in Fallout: NV and I give them to them the game I don't expect to find out what happened to that person afterwards.
And still I find it interesting how she again handwaves violence against men tropes which happens more often in games. We see gangsters beat up some poor dude then we run off and kill those gangsters, we don't then find out what happened to the guy who got beat up later.
In a lot of these I noticed the games are actually trying to make on statement about the violence against women, certain races or society in general and I think too often we ignore it and accuse the devs/writers of trying to be edgy. Well guess what? Real life is pretty fucking edgy and grimdark.
ab.aeterno
Member
There's a few things I want to point out here.
1. It's great that you play games to escape from all reality, but what about me, and what I or other people sometimes play games for? Sometimes I want a game with something to say or that's more than just a fun distraction. It seems really shortsighted to argue against inclusion because your view of what games should be may not be "compatible."
2. Why does being inclusive become political? Why is it political to make a character gay, or a woman, or black? Why can't they just be made that way?
3. Who is asking for a strict standard of representation? Honestly, I see this come up all the time, as though people are arguing for a checklist of all possible permutations of humanity that must be included. That's not the case. I would just love to play characters that reflect me better more often than "almost never." Straight prior get that luxury all the time, so why can't I get to experience that too?
Similar threads
- Featured