I would imagine that a complete guess is less accurate than a statistical study.
New Tropes vs Women video is out (Women as Background Decoration pt. 2)
- Thread starter Fracas
- Start date
I would imagine that a complete guess is less accurate than a statistical study.
Obviously. Do you think that sexual assault is more common than rape? Do you think that rape and sexual assault is under-reported? If you say yes to both, I am not quite sure why you are being condescending towards my guess. A guess that I thought I made obvious and put a pretty significant range on.
ART
also, criticism does not equal censorship.
Lol. Someone had to animate and storyboard all of that.
...wtf.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
What's wrong with it?
My original question, rephrased, was why do you want to inflate the number that statistical studies show? There doesn't' seem to be any benefit to victims or potential victims of rape or sexual assault. It seems to me the only result is to vilify a larger group of people. To create a larger target for laying the blame.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
I'm going to comment as I watch the video. First, what was the point of the Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood clip at the beginning? I'm not seeing what exactly was wrong in that clip.
There is or I dont know the statistics of sexual assault. They do have stats for rape, and that is 10%
Riposte
Member
The argument shouldn't be about "realism", both sides are just rather confused (or purposefully obtuse in attempt to make a point, take your pick). It comes down to using themes to live up to an established fantasy/ideal. Reality does come into play in that all fantasies are based on what humans have experienced in our world and shared with others, although that is also influenced by other fantasies/mythology. When fantasies make a break from reality, the ideal likely remains the same, just exaggerated or maybe occasionally subverted as an attempt to add spice. (We could say the action movie hero (if not the mythological warrior hero) is predominately male because that ideal is based on the male soldier/fighter who has been exaggerated into something unrealistic and when we see the exceptional female action hero, it is a subversion of the male action hero, not a fantasized female soldier, to spice up the original concept).
The imagery associated with the "wild west", based on both the history of the region and centuries of media that has colored it, vividly includes saloons with prostitution, as an example. Now developers could stray from the bits and pieces Person A dislikes, but what would be their motive? I mean besides "because I don't like it." Reality/society has planted this image in their brains and they want to see it come to life as an interactive world, a fantasy in its most immersive form; the "unfortunately realistic" historic elements can be deeply tied to the image and come naturally. Diluting the ideal can be difficult (or at least, not come to mind) for two reasons: first, the ideal is likely powerful and familiar enough to be desirable (hence why people go out of their way to make these things uniquely named "westerns"), and second, their initial motivation/passion to bring that ideal to life is likely opposed to the idea that it needs to be "fixed" - that is changed for reasons that exist outside an attempt to make the fantasy more satisfying and immersive (e.g., more positive representation of women characters in gaming, to offset a theoretical harm being done). Subversion can come naturally though, because some dilution can also be interesting, depending on tastes.
Understanding that, the "inventory mechanics and so aren't realistic!" argument is flawed for at least two reasons.
1. The breaks from reality in the form of game mechanics are not necessarily opposed to the ideal. A cowboy who can slow down time to get in precise shots is unrealistic, it's more like film than real life, but it in every way lives up what the fantasy it is trying to achieve. Things like inventory systems, loading screens, non-first person camera angles, badass kung-fu zaniness, etc., fit in the fantasy (or atmosphere), supporting it, enhancing it, or working as a necessary evil. The same is true for the themes (visuals, sounds, etc.) used to make the ideal, as it was taught, come to life. On the other hand, choosing not to use an established theme so that the material may be more socially acceptable has an entirely different concern.
2. The rules of a videogame not being acknowledged in the fiction of the game's world has a different kind of relationship with realism from depictions of humanity and society in that fiction. This should hardly have to be stated. In this case, one hardly is depended on the other (it would also be rather silly to demand the opposite scenario). A game that is unrealistic (and for that matter all videogames must be at least somewhat unrealistic, as us arbitrarily recognizing it its own little reality with its own rules is what makes it a videogame) reserves the right to be realistic and non-realistic and developers can no way be found hypocritical in only partially demanding "realism", whatever it may mean to them, in completely unrelated elements.
When pressed on this, the argument can be understood along these lines: "If you can bend reality to make this fantasy how you like it, why can't you bend to make it how I like it?" even though they may be directly opposed from the start.
Additionally, themes are not owed "exploration", much like colors, shapes, and spooky noises are not owed "exploration". What is more likely being said is that they are owed "explanation", which is another way of saying "certain themes should be off-limits unless you use them tastefully" and "tastefully" being a deceptive way of saying "how I like it".
This was the only argument I was interested in tackling, mainly how it was stated here, so my apologies if it looks like I'm ignoring the context of the video.
It seems to just exist for shock value, and makes no actual sense outside of looking cool. How would a drive by car know they missed their target and in half a second tell another car to drive through the wall, when an ambush would work just as well elsewhere, and didn't need two 'beautiful'women to die to accent it?
I just watched it.
God damn, another video, another proof video game writers are a bunch of 16 year olds, I refuse to believe actual adults wrote the shit I just I saw.
Even beyond the tropes, that is just awful, juvenile writing, it's embarrassing.
At least I got to see that Papo & Yo game that looks pretty neat.
God damn, another video, another proof video game writers are a bunch of 16 year olds, I refuse to believe actual adults wrote the shit I just I saw.
Even beyond the tropes, that is just awful, juvenile writing, it's embarrassing.
At least I got to see that Papo & Yo game that looks pretty neat.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Also, the crime scenes in the brothel in Bioshock 2 - it makes sense that the women working there are scantily clad but not the male waiters.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Ok, now lets take in the context of what the game is, and that this happens 10 min later. Now which one did she highlight?
Of course it's for shock value, a shooter game that touted quad-wielding has an insane setpiece for it's intro. It's just silly action fun, Jackie and his mobsters are all comically sexist slimeballs, they showcase that within the first 5 minutes of the game.
Cymbal Head
Banned
Jesus christ games have a lot of brothels.
Again, she's arguing that we need better than what we're getting. This is like when people argue over expecting substance out of a popcorn flick. Just because the status quo is shit doesn't mean it's right. The whole point of a new ip is to do things not done in the old one. Why do we allow the same old shit, just because it's a shooter? So what if it's 'silly' fun, it can still be thoughtful, but these game devs are stuck using the same old tropes.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
In Far Cry 3, those people are drug traffickers and slave traders. So, why would you think them beating a woman (you also see them beating men) is out of place in that game?
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
First isn't, 2 certainly is.
It's not a new IP, and it very much is a popcorn flick. It's very sort of pulpy, relies a lot on Mob cliches, a bit like the Sopranos (though it doesn't match the writing). There are still excellent, serious games out there, Darkness 2 is about slicing dudes from the nuts up in half whilst shooting them with dual pistols.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
It does seem overdone because we're seeing 8 years of video games in less than half an hour.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
There are *millions* of scenes in video games made not following the soundness of logic but simply because they *look* cool.
There's a huge line between art and commercial/industry work. When Winsor McCay was turning the young potential of animation into an art form he completely threw his hands up in the air and left when a group of rich people decided animation should be used for profit.
“Animation should be art. That is how I conceived it. But as I see what you fellows have done with it, is making it into a trade. Not an art, but a trade. Bad Luck!”
Turning something into a for profit trade, means dropping "artistic expression" for "what sells most and for the least amount of work?"
Riposte
Member
No one can agree what "art" even means, if it is even suppose to mean anything, let alone where some silly line is drawn.
You didn't need to watch the video to notice it, unless you're completely oblivious.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
But if somebody finds that commerical work more appealing than the work that was created with "artistic integrity" isn't then that point null and void? Art can be anything, the reasoning behind it doesn't matter. For instance, you seemingly like Zelda, which in the end was created for profit.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
And no, violence against women isn't used as a way of showing how vile Kratos is - we see that from the very first game where he drops the merchant after getting his key.
Commercial art is still art. But it's what we call...Kitsch Art. Doing what sells, as oppose to doing, well...anything else.
I like Zelda and most other mainline forms of "art" because it's quick and easy to comprehend and was built for mass appeal.
I worship the Zelda series, but games are still made with profit and marketing at the forefront. The arty art...doesn't do that.
Which is then punctuated by a trophy that implies you AS THE PLAYER fully condone her death by suggesting you would have wanted to do it anyways even if you weren't forced to.
It's pretty revolting.
Riposte
Member
Not "we" lol.
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
Actually I think that trophy only pops if you go back to look at her body.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
You're obviously going to see it from time to time in games because it happens in real life, and even more so in some of the context in which those games take place like Far Cry 3, God of War, Assassin's Creed 2 or RDR.
I'm saying if you brought a game to an art museum and told them to critique it as "art." They'd tell you what kind of "art" it is. It's the commercial/kitsch kind.
Learn Art History...It's very messy how they view and analyze work. They'd probably only see it as "art" if it actually came from someone's heart.
Doesn't make it any less gross of a statement.
That doesn't justify it or stop it from feeling like a cheap attempt at creating something shocking or dark.
Riposte
Member
Would this be before or after I spent 50 bucks to get inside to look at the "real art"?
ChawlieTheFair
pip pip cheerio you slags!
No and I totally agree as i've stated previously in the thread, but it's a sort of morbid curiosity trophy for people to go and look at what they did.
I don't know.
"real art" is all elitist and high brow stuff that isn't suppose to make sense. Commercial/kitsch art is made for mass appeal. Pretentiously meaning: high art is for smart classy people and commercial art is for the lowest common denominator.
This is just me saying the sexism in games is just there to grab in mass appeal and not to show genuine interest in female abuse and awareness. You can't use "it's art!" to justify the sexism shown in games, because the sexism is only there to fish in more people for market appeal.
That's like comparing Call of Duty to Pablo Picasso’s Guernica. Which one actually sparks discussion on civilian deaths?
It's like context just doesn't matter. Yeah, often the serial murders of women are sexualized. That was certainly the case in 1947.
It's the omission of anything that's potentially counter to the stated observation, and a weird sense of revisionist history where the type of sexist events that occur in real life can't be portrayed in games without that game becoming a symbol of sexism. It's tiring.
I don't think there's anything wrong with using trauma/death on a female npc, to show how dark and seedy a game world is. I think its used to much in games though, and often lacks any subtlety. That coupled with the fact that males are rarely depicted in such a manner, even in games that don't follow our own history is problematic.
I disagree with her notion that even games that take place in a real world setting and time like the wild west of RDR, should not contain violence against women as set pieces. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that was reality of the time and to ignore it seems rather silly.
I disagree with her notion that even games that take place in a real world setting and time like the wild west of RDR, should not contain violence against women as set pieces. Maybe I'm wrong about this, but that was reality of the time and to ignore it seems rather silly.
It's like context just doesn't matter. Yeah, often the serial murders of women are sexualized. That was certainly the case in 1947.
It's the omission of anything that's potentially counter to the stated observation, and a weird sense of revisionist history where the type of sexist events that occur in real life can't be portrayed in games without that game becoming a symbol of sexism. It's tiring.
L.A Noire is real problematic because most of the men at that time were off to war. The cities and towns were ghost like. Women were in charge of the farms, fields and factories as well as the home. So why do the men significantly outnumber the women for no reason? And also...why are all the women doing nothing?
<___> Historical inaccuracy!
No, LA Noire takes place in 1947. WW2 ended in 1945.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
God of War is very much about shocking moments and that's been like that from Day 1 and it's something that the devs embrace. In other games like AC:Brotherhood, the courtesans being killed are just another minor plot for a mission. There are multiple crimes and killings that drive missions in that game so there's nothing shocking really there.
It's like context just doesn't matter. Yeah, often the serial murders of women are sexualized. That was certainly the case in 1947.
It's the omission of anything that's potentially counter to the stated observation, and a weird sense of revisionist history where the type of sexist events that occur in real life can't be portrayed in games without that game becoming a symbol of sexism. It's tiring.
Did you not watch the whole thing? Because she talked about that near the end.
The others aren't framed as shocking though. They aren't framed as you failing to protect the victim.
What? According to some quick research, the population of America was 144.13 million in 1947. And by June 30, 1947, the number of active duty soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in the armed forces had been reduced to 1.56 million.
Hmmm...Welp. :3
Even so, that was the time period where women were allowed to do things, and they liked it. Then the 50's came around and they all started buying vacuums...
They derail. We need to talk less about Anita's character and just judge the content of her work.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Would it be better if they were regular women? Or just men? That mission started from a brothel which is very much part of the plot and story.
Many of them fall under the various forms of argumentum ad hominem. They're distracting, irrelevant, and often involve people being really nasty and mean-spirited.
Morbid curiosity doesn't mean the player wanted that character to die as the trophy implies.
There's not even a remote justification for it.