Support NeoGAF

[ChawlieTheFair]

LTTP in giving props to this comment. It really is the thing in a nutshell, and while I was watching the video, I kept hoping Sarkeesian would make this connection. It would have cut down the criticism substantially.

This is nitpicky but that's the whole point of the series so: how does one portray a game setting in a AAA video game where a mississippi lynching makes sense. Could an indie game do it? Probably, but what sort of AAA game could do it, whilst being somewhat historically accurate and quite frankly not silly. Concentration camps have been done before, child abuse certainly has it, but I could see it very possible how they do it.
Edit: in the same way why there hasn't been a WW1 call of duty and probably won't be, it's just they style of how the actual war worked sort of prevents it.

Exactly. There's this idea of a "hiding in the bushes rapist" that's a complete joke because you're much more likely for a victim to personally know the rapist than for it to be a stranger.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur.

The thread is not about violence in-and-of-itself. It's about the propping of one genders' portrayal across a vast layer of this medium.

Violence in games is effectively a 20-year-long discussion ever since Doom came out. It's just become buried because we're so desensitized with...well, it's become a god damn joke at this point ever since Dead Rising 2's weapons and Suda games and Gears and countless other examples.

Quoting again, but if I recall her point on this took place during her WD segment, in which case the perpetrators seemingly DID know who they were assaulting (mind assaulting witha knife with intent to kill, although we don't know the backstories) based on the dialouge.

Edit: Now WD does take place in a modern western world, without really breaking her rules.

 

[dead souls]

Yeah this doesn't sound homophobic or anything

Not to mention I have no idea how "fruity" *shakes head* applies to those 90s Diet Coke commercials at all.

 

[kvothe]

Not to mention I have no idea how "fruity" *shakes head* applies to those 90s Diet Coke commercials at all.

Because the dude isn't holding a bloody sword or a gun, duh.

Spoiler

sarcasm.

 

[Brakke]

This is true today in the developed world, where efficient policing keeps most forms of public violence between strangers to a minimum. It may not have always been true in other times and places.

You mean in those enlightened past times when marriages were arranged all the time, couldn't file for divorce, could legally be beaten by their husbands, fathers? You think domestic violence was someone less? It was institutionalized.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

Not to mention I have no idea how "fruity" *shakes head* applies to those 90s Diet Coke commercials at all.

What if it were Lime Diet Coke?

Because the dude isn't holding a bloody sword or a gun, duh.

Spoiler

sarcasm.

Bloody pepsi can?

You mean in those enlightened past times when marriages were arranged all the time, couldn't file for divorce, could legally be beaten by their husbands, fathers? You think domestic violence was someone less? It was institutionalized.

Why are you going off on him lol?

 

[Andronicus]

Not sure that it's surprising, but I can't say that it's productive or even very healthy. At least with sports you get an off season.



Lots of people in this thread calling other people women haters?

Pretty much

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

You mean in those enlightened past times when marriages were arranged all the time, couldn't file for divorce, could legally be beaten by their husbands, fathers? You think domestic violence was someone less? It was institutionalized.

I never claimed domestic violence was less in other times and places, simply that sexual assault between non-acquaintances was considerably more common than it is in our society due to the absence of efficient policing (and of efficient legal systems). There are certain historical contexts where it's almost certain that domestic violence was relatively rare, though, simply because domestic relationships were themselves relatively rare: take the setting of RDR, for instance, where the populations of a lot of these towns were overwhelmingly male, the female populations were overwhelmingly unmarried, and there was no societal concept of dating. There are also historical contexts where sexual assault between strangers was relatively common even by the standards of poorly-policed premodern societies, such as during wars and especially in societies where there was strong social stratification by caste, race, or religion (with upper-caste men tending to assault lower-caste women with impunity because there were no legal or social constraints on their behavior).

Also, it's important to not exaggerate the backwardness of past centuries. My field of study is the medieval Islamic world, where divorce was legal and being beaten by your husband was grounds for it (how much of this was theory and how much of this practice we're still not sure, but we do have records of women securing divorces from abusive husbands going as far back as the 800s). I can't speak for Christian Europe.

 

[Brakke]

But your whole historicity angle is a total non sequitur. What games ever take historical education up as their project? Red Dead isn't a game about the West, it's a game about romanticized West of film and tv. "But maybe they're just being historically accurate" is such a hypothetical that it's not relevant. Even in a series like Assassin's Creed that has these professed aspirations of historicity, the games are taking events and buildings from the record, not examining social institutions.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

But your whole historicity angle is a total non sequitur. What games ever take historical education up as their project? Red Dead isn't a game about the West, it's a game about romanticized West of film and tv. "But maybe they're just being historically accurate" is such a hypothetical that it's not relevant. Even in a series like Assassin's Creed that has these professed aspirations of historicity, the games are taking events and buildings from the record, not examining social institutions.

Lots of games take historical verisimilitude (as distinct from historical education) to be one of their primary goals. Lots of games set in fantasy settings attempt to use those settings as allegories for actual times and places. They may not always do a great job of it, but there's no denying that the intention is there.

 

[Surface of Me]

But your whole historicity angle is a total non sequitur. What games ever take historical education up as their project? Red Dead isn't a game about the West, it's a game about romanticized West of film and tv. "But maybe they're just being historically accurate" is such a hypothetical that it's not relevant. Even in a series like Assassin's Creed that has these professed aspirations of historicity, the games are taking events and buildings from the record, not examining social institutions.

Eh, I disagree. Rockstar, Ubisoft, and a lot of other AAA games do extensive research on the setting of their games. Just because they are not 100% accurate doesn't mean the accuracy's they get right are irrelevant.

 

[stupei]

Eh, I disagree. Rockstar, Ubisoft, and a lot of other AAA games do extensive research on the setting of their games. Just because they are not 100% accurate doesn't mean the accuracy's they get right are irrelevant.

It feels like this is specifically addressed in the video, though, unless I'm missing something. That we are capable of quite a lot of suspension of disbelief on behalf of game mechanics or cheap thrills, but somehow a lot of people feel authenticity is required when it comes to the violation of female bodies.

Got to keep period accurate when it comes to the sexual assault in your assassin conspiracy thriller with aliens.

Essentially: just because they get some things "right," that doesn't suggest that abuse and degradation has to remain faithful to the source when so many other changes are permitted without a second thought. Authorial intention to present "accuracy" doesn't negate the criticism or make it irrelevant either.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

It feels like this is specifically addressed in the video, though, unless I'm missing something. That we are capable of quite a lot of suspension of disbelief on behalf of game mechanics or cheap thrills, but somehow a lot of people feel authenticity is required when it comes to the violation of female bodies.

Got to keep period accurate when it comes to the sexual assault in your assassin conspiracy thriller with aliens.

Essentially: just because they get some things "right," that doesn't suggest that abuse and degradation has to remain faithful to the source when so many other changes are permitted without a second thought. Authorial intention to present "accuracy" doesn't negate the criticism or make it irrelevant either.

But at the same time, what made the aliens so shocking in AC(or rather silly) was the fact that was so out of place with the rest of the game. By your argument, everygame would pretty much be the same, as you could throw in any element of any world culture, fictional or non-fictional, and have it canon "because it's a game". While some games do take a sort of pride in that (saints row) we identify saints row as being a ridiculous romp that should not at all be taken seriously. However with a gtav, which has it's roots in realism or at least real life, the minute you throw in dragons and super powers or whatever, it then becomes saints row.

 

[Brakke]

The protagonists of GTA V have a bunch of superpowers.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

The protagonists of GTA V have a bunch of superpowers.

Maybe not the best example, but you see my point? What about something like DayZ? A hardcore, all points focused on realism simulator, but then throw in zombies. Rather than throwing a million different spices into the pasta, throw just one in for a distinct and possibly better flavor.

 

[stupei]

But at the same time, what made the aliens so shocking in AC(or rather silly) was the fact that was so out of place with the rest of the game. By your argument, everygame would pretty much be the same, as you could throw in any element of any world culture, fictional or non-fictional, and have it canon "because it's a game". While some games do take a sort of pride in that (saints row) we identify saints row as being a ridiculous romp that should not at all be taken seriously. However with a gtav, which has it's roots in realism or at least real life, the minute you throw in dragons and super powers or whatever, it then becomes saints row.

I'm not sure what argument you're assigning to me, but I never said that or meant to imply it.

I was agreeing with Sarkeesian's video and the assessment that gamers do not bat an eye at the magic backpack filled with guns and bullets. People don't care about dragons, dwarves, elves, aliens, or magic machines that insert a man into the memories of his many famous and accomplished dead relatives, but over and over you see it suggested that there is something truly raw, real, and innately valuable in showing female suffering and to lose it would lessen the "reality" of the game world.

We can accept a world where science essentially equals magic and every famous person throughout history was involved in an epic conspiracy between two waring factions, but the idea that you could have an urban environment where women appear on the streets without ever once being threatened with rape or violence stretches the boundaries of human imagination somehow and really damages the realism of the game world where buildings occasionally glitch as a bit of flavor.

So I wasn't saying "throw in whatever you want" so much as "do not just throw in whatever you want" and then try to justify it after the fact with how realistic your game obviously needs to be when the truth is it's only "real" when convenient, and a game the rest of the time. This isn't a real world beyond the creator's control. They are shaping the tone and the precedents, even if it's sometimes largely through unconscious lazy short-hand.

 

[GorillaJu]

It feels like this is specifically addressed in the video, though, unless I'm missing something. That we are capable of quite a lot of suspension of disbelief on behalf of game mechanics or cheap thrills, but somehow a lot of people feel authenticity is required when it comes to the violation of female bodies.

Got to keep period accurate when it comes to the sexual assault in your assassin conspiracy thriller with aliens.

Essentially: just because they get some things "right," that doesn't suggest that abuse and degradation has to remain faithful to the source when so many other changes are permitted without a second thought. Authorial intention to present "accuracy" doesn't negate the criticism or make it irrelevant either.

Since you can magically carry armor in an invisible backpacks, why can't bagels sprout bat wings and fly into my mouth?

I think the angle that you don't need to show sexually charged violence on women because its not worth the hurt it can potentially do, and that it's a cheap and exploitive way to build a game's setting is a worthwhile point. But the suspension of belief thing doesn't do it for me.

Funny enough that same line of reasoning is used to justify super sexy armor for women in fantasy games. "I mean this world has dragons and shit! Is it that hard to believe that demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie can give magical super armor protection? :3"

 

[Daffy Duck]

I was agreeing with Sarkeesian's video and the assessment that gamers do not bat an eye at the magic backpack filled with guns and bullets. People don't care about dragons, dwarves, elves, aliens, or magic machines that insert a man into the memories of his many famous and accomplished dead relatives, but over and over you see it suggested that there is something truly raw, real, and innately valuable in showing female suffering and to lose it would lessen the "reality" of the game world.

We can accept a world where science essentially equals magic and every famous person throughout history was involved in an epic conspiracy between two waring factions, but the idea that you could have an urban environment where women appear on the streets without ever once being threatened with rape or violence stretches the boundaries of human imagination somehow and really damages the realism of the game world where buildings occasionally glitch as a bit of flavor.

So I wasn't saying "throw in whatever you want" so much as "do not just throw in whatever you want" and then try to justify it after the fact with how realistic your game obviously needs to be when the truth is it's only "real" when convenient, and a game the rest of the time. This isn't a real world beyond the creator's control. They are shaping the tone and the precedents, even if it's sometimes largely through unconscious lazy short-hand.

Can I ask who has actually ever said what you/she claims above? I've never seen it said before.

 

[stupei]

Since you can magically carry armor in an invisible backpacks, why can't bagels sprout bat wings and fly into my mouth?

I think the angle that you don't need to show sexually charged violence on women because its not worth the hurt it can potentially do, and that it's a cheap and exploitive way to build a game's setting is a worthwhile point. But the suspension of belief thing doesn't do it for me.

Funny enough that same line of reasoning is used to justify super sexy armor for women in fantasy games. "I mean this world has dragons and shit! Is it that hard to believe that demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie can give magical super armor protection? :3"

The fact that it's harmful, cheap, and exploitative is the argument.

The reality that gamers regularly suspend their disbelief is just the counter to the people who respond to the original argument with, "But realism!" Games somehow requiring "realism" is seemingly only ever an argument when someone doesn't want their favorite grimdark edgy material removed.

 

[Aaron]

Funny enough that same line of reasoning is used to justify super sexy armor for women in fantasy games. "I mean this world has dragons and shit! Is it that hard to believe that demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie can give magical super armor protection? :3"

One thing I've always appreciated about the Elder Scrolls series is the female version of the armor isn't this sexy stupid nonsense, but actual full armor with a slightly more feminine shape to it. Even in a world of magic, there's something reassuring about solid steel.

 

[GorillaJu]

The fact that it's harmful, cheap, and exploitative is the argument.

The reality that gamers regularly suspend their disbelief is just the counter to the people who respond to the original argument with, "But realism!" Games somehow requiring "realism" is seemingly only ever an argument when someone doesn't want their favorite grimdark edgy material removed.

But look at your avatar. It's the perfect example of a fantasy world that retains elements of real human struggle, including looooots of rape and violence against women in order to build a dark world that people can relate to through accurate parallels with history and society. I think the realism argument is legit.

 

[Riposte]

The fact that it's harmful, cheap, and exploitative is the argument.

The reality that gamers regularly suspend their disbelief is just the counter to the people who respond to the original argument with, "But realism!" Games somehow requiring "realism" is seemingly only ever an argument when someone doesn't want their favorite grimdark edgy material removed.

So, are they at least correct in thinking you want to remove their favorite grimdark edgy material?

Anyway, I made this argument already, but people are not really interested in realism (consider it a misnomer), but instead the fictionalized (or romanticized) ideal partially based on reality and spread between people, which doesn't in any way oppose further abstraction and exaggeration. The realism point is irrelevant for both sides of the argument; it comes down to disagreeing with what other people want to fantasize about or employ in those fantasies.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The fact that it's harmful, cheap, and exploitative is the argument.

The reality that gamers regularly suspend their disbelief is just the counter to the people who respond to the original argument with, "But realism!" Games somehow requiring "realism" is seemingly only ever an argument when someone doesn't want their favorite grimdark edgy material removed.

That gamers regularly suspend their disbelief doesn't mean that verisimilitude doesn't matter.

 

[Brakke]

That gamers regularly suspend their disbelief doesn't mean that verisimilitude doesn't matter.

I'm so curious what games you're thinking of that take historical verisimilitude as central to their project. Or even as relevant to their project.

Like, in the language of this video, when is it ever not background decoration?

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I'm so curious what games you're thinking of that take historical verisimilitude as central to their project. Or even as relevant to their project.

Like, in the language of this video, when is it ever not background decoration?

Red Dead Redemption and Assassin's Creed both take historical verisimilitude as central to their project. This doesn't mean that they view it as being absolutely non-negotiable, but there's a reason John Marston doesn't have a cellphone and Ezio isn't wearing sneakers.

 

[Brakke]

I dunno man. Assassin's Creed isn't about "what was life like in Italy under the Borgias", it's about "let's murder the ahistoric secret powers that be which control the world by literally brainwashing people".

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I dunno man. Assassin's Creed isn't about "what was life like in Italy under the Borgias", it's about "let's murder the ahistoric secret powers that be which control the world by literally brainwashing people".

So what?

 

[The Storyteller]

That gamers regularly suspend their disbelief doesn't mean that verisimilitude doesn't matter.

But employing a sense of critique of the world beyond "hey this place treats women like garbage," is what Anita is arguing. She's not arguing against the depiction of abuse altogether; you are free to depict that, but you could also SAY something meaningful about it too. The abuse of women is often not about them - as thinking, feeling characters, it's about the abuser as an enemy and you, the player, as a "valiant hero". If you're gonna depict sexual violence in your video game at least have an articulate, well thought out reason for it to be there.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

But employing a sense of critique of the world beyond "hey this place treats women like garbage," is what Anita is arguing. She's not arguing against the depiction of abuse altogether; you are free to depict that, but you could also SAY something meaningful about it too, the abuse of women is often not about them - as thinking, feeling characters, it's about the abuser as an enemy and you, the player, as a "valiant hero". If you're gonna depict sexual violence in your video game at least have an articulate, well thought out reason for it to be there.

Absolutely. My primary concern with this video has always been that she elides distinctions between games that have a well thought out reason for it to be there and games that don't.

 

[Brakke]

So what?

So Assassin's "verisimilitude" such that it is only ever extends skin deep. It's obviously concerned with representing buildings and garb and names accurately, but it just as obviously isn't concerned with representing the actual power structures of the time accurately.

So there's no reason to expect anybody is going to see the sexual violence in those games and think "oh wow this is some interesting historical phenomenon these street assaults must be so common because the police are incompetent/rarified". In fact the authorities are neither of those things because they always alert on your crimes, they're pretty pervasive, and they communicate and pursue with uncanny ability.

So in the logic of the open world maybe patrols don't break up the assaults because they don't care / don't see that as a crime? I'm saying, I'd like to be able to ask that question. I'd love if the text answered that in some historical way. But the truth of it is, patrols don't break up those assaults because those assaults exist as playgrounds for the player and not as commentaries or even examinations of the historical realities.

In order for those vignettes to stand as anything other than toys for me to twiddle my thumbs on, they need to indicate in some way that they're intentionally historical. But they don't. They're background decoration. For the modern player and his modern sensibilities. So of course he doesn't read it as "historical verisimilitude".

 

[Frodo]

So, Sarkeesian is still receiving threats, huh?


Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats - Polygon

 

[Coreda]

Ugh, hard to sit through so many scenes of violence against powerless women back-to-back. Regardless of the varying views around at least there is a discussion coming from these videos.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Since you can magically carry armor in an invisible backpacks, why can't bagels sprout bat wings and fly into my mouth?

I think the angle that you don't need to show sexually charged violence on women because its not worth the hurt it can potentially do, and that it's a cheap and exploitive way to build a game's setting is a worthwhile point. But the suspension of belief thing doesn't do it for me.

Funny enough that same line of reasoning is used to justify super sexy armor for women in fantasy games. "I mean this world has dragons and shit! Is it that hard to believe that demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie can give magical super armor protection? :3"

The point of the "suspension of disbelief bit" is that it starts on the "it's gotta be real!" side. They are saying the sexually charged violence has to be in because of realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff.

It's not saying that because you have one unrealistic thing, all things are a possibility, it's a recognition that what is and isn't in the game is a choice by the creators. They are not slaves to realism. They have control of how they present their story. And they can be judged for it, rather than just waving their arms dismissively and crying "realism." Just like they can't wave their arms and say "it's just fantasy" with the "demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie" you mentioned. They still chose to put those in the game, so it's on them to own it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The point of the "suspension of disbelief bit" is that it starts on the "it's gotta be real!" side. They are saying the sexually charge violence has to be in because of realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff.

It's not saying that because you have one unrealistic thing, all things are a possibility, it's a recognition that what is and isn't in the game is a choice by the creators. They are not slaves to realism. They have control of how they present their story. And they can be judged for it, rather than just waving their arms dismissively and cry "realism." Just like they can't wave their arms and say "it's just fantasy" with the "demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie" you mentioned. They still chose to put those in the game, so it's on them to own it.

Exactly. Realism, and lack of realism ("because it's just a game", "it's fantasy", etc.) have been used to justify sexist tropes. How about, you* just stop alienating female players by having these tropes over and over again? It's not hard to do, it'd improve the quality of the storytelling, and it'd be more inclusive towards female players. Win-win!

* impersonal you of course

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

So Assassin's "verisimilitude" such that it is only ever extends skin deep.

That is the definition of verisimilitude.

It's obviously concerned with representing buildings and garb and names accurately, but it just as obviously isn't concerned with representing the actual power structures of the time accurately.

Not succeeding at doing this doesn't mean that it's not concerned with doing this, to a greater or lesser extent.

So there's no reason to expect anybody is going to see the sexual violence in those games and think "oh wow this is some interesting historical phenomenon these street assaults must be so common because the police are incompetent/rarified". In fact the authorities are neither of those things because they always alert on your crimes, they're pretty pervasive, and they communicate and pursue with uncanny ability.

So in the logic of the open world maybe patrols don't break up the assaults because they don't care / don't see that as a crime? I'm saying, I'd like to be able to ask that question. I'd love if the text answered that in some historical way. But the truth of it is, patrols don't break up those assaults because those assaults exist as playgrounds for the player and not as commentaries or even examinations of the historical realities.

Why do you set up this dichotomy? Everything in the game exists as a playground for the player. Some of those things can also exist as commentaries or examinations of (perceived) historical realities (which is no different from "background decoration"), or as commentaries or examinations of present realities. Sometimes the limitations of the mechanics will interfere with the verisimilitude of the world, yes, but this is the nature of the medium in every respect.

In order for those vignettes to stand as anything other than toys for me to twiddle my thumbs on, they need to indicate in some way that they're intentionally historical. But they don't. They're background decoration.

What does it mean to be "intentionally historical?" Why can't background decoration be "intentionally historical?"

For the modern player and his modern sensibilities. So of course he doesn't read it as "historical verisimilitude".

It is precisely the modern player who will read it as historical verisimilitude.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The point of the "suspension of disbelief bit" is that it starts on the "it's gotta be real!" side. They are saying the sexually charged violence has to be in because of realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the sexually-charged violence has to be in the game. Or if they are I'm certainly not seeing any of that here in this thread. What people are arguing is that sexually-charged violence can be in games, just as it can be in any other medium, and the simple fact that a lot of games implement it poorly doesn't mean that the fact of its inclusion is inherently problematic.

 

[Daffy Duck]

The point of the "suspension of disbelief bit" is that it starts on the "it's gotta be real!" side. They are saying the sexually charged violence has to be in because of realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff.

It's not saying that because you have one unrealistic thing, all things are a possibility, it's a recognition that what is and isn't in the game is a choice by the creators. They are not slaves to realism. They have control of how they present their story. And they can be judged for it, rather than just waving their arms dismissively and crying "realism." Just like they can't wave their arms and say "it's just fantasy" with the "demon-leather stilettos and wizard-cotton lingerie" you mentioned. They still chose to put those in the game, so it's on them to own it.

I will ask for the third time in this thread, who/which devs/players have claimed this realism requires sexually charged violence?

 

[Galactic Fork]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the sexually-charged violence has to be in the game. Or if they are I'm certainly not seeing any of that here in this thread.

They use "realism" to justify it, as if it wasn't included, would make it unreal, I wasn't suggesting it was manditory. But people do pull the realism card if people comment on the sexual violence.

What people are arguing is that sexually-charged can be in games, and the simple fact that a lot of games implement it poorly doesn't mean that the fact of its inclusion is inherently problematic.

And I wasn't suggesting that... Read this part again.

... it's a recognition that what is and isn't in the game is a choice by the creators. They are not slaves to realism. They have control of how they present their story. And they can be judged for it...

How they present their story is important and can be judged... See? It's not saying sexually-charged violence "can't" be in games, just that when it is, the creators should be judged for the presentation. They can't just cry realism and walk away whistling. (That isn't literal, I don't suggest they actually "cry" or that there is actual whistling involved.)

 

[Messofanego]

This is nitpicky but that's the whole point of the series so: how does one portray a game setting in a AAA video game where a mississippi lynching makes sense. Could an indie game do it? Probably, but what sort of AAA game could do it, whilst being somewhat historically accurate and quite frankly not silly. Concentration camps have been done before, child abuse certainly has it, but I could see it very possible how they do it.

Wolfenstein The New Order (2014)

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

How they present their story is important and can be judged... See? It's not saying sexually-charged violence "can't" be in games, just that when it is, the creators should be judged for the presentation. They can't just cry realism and walk away whistling. (That is literal, I don't suggest they actually "cry" or that there is actual whistling involved.)

Realism can be a valid reason for including depictions of sexual violence in games.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Realism can be a valid reason for including depictions of sexual violence in games.

Yes, but when you say "realism" you will be judged for what real things you keep in and what real things you keep out. You chose which aspect of realism is important to you for a reason and you must own it.

(the you was a general you and not you personally)

Also from earlier on this page:

Another thought-provoking video, but could someone help explain a part for me?

There's a point in Sarkeesian's video where she talks about the fact that sexual violence is not reserved for the most dastardly of villains, but is more often carried out by regular, every-day people. But wouldn't it be better to associate sexual violence with "evil"? I understand that it's unrealistic and an oversimplification, but isn't it a good idea for the social consciousness to associate sexual violence with the vilest evil?

Honestly I think this is one of those areas where she'd be denouncing those portrayals just as hard, if they were common. I agree with a lot of what she says, but this just seems like arguing in bad faith.

The problem with raising sexual violence to the level of pure evil villainy becomes a matter of belief. If you believe only evil villains can do something, you have to accept that a person who does it is an evil villain. If a person you know did something, rather than doing a criminal act, you'd have to elevate that person the level of most vile evil. It makes believing that a normal guy could possibly do something so horrible harder. "Steve would never do something so evil and vile."


EDIT (wanted to respond to this too):

I will ask for the third time in this thread, who/which devs/players have claimed this realism requires sexually charged violence?

Sorry I worded it in that way. I didn't mean they are saying it is required or manditory, but using realism as justification by itself. I guess I can reword: "They are saying the sexually charged violence has to be in because of realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff."
To:
"They are justifying sexually charged violence in the games by siting realism, but ignore the unrealistic stuff"

 

[The Storyteller]

Exactly. Realism, and lack of realism ("because it's just a game", "it's fantasy", etc.) have been used to justify sexist tropes. How about, you* just stop alienating female players by having these tropes over and over again? It's not hard to do, it'd improve the quality of the storytelling, and it'd be more inclusive towards female players. Win-win!

* impersonal you of course

Yep. So many gamers are sick of video games being derided as immature. Hey, well, one way out of that rut is to present difficult subject matter with depth and sincerity. Many games have the potential to be so much more rewarding than the other arts because they literally place you in the shoes and control of someone - nurturing empathy is key to helping fight prejudice. Games could be a more well regarded medium if they can more often tap into that. And it'll provide the opportunity for new and interesting stories to be told and out of that new gameplay experiences.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

The problem with raising sexual violence to the level of pure evil villainy becomes a matter of belief. If you believe only evil villains can do something, you have to accept that a person who does it is an evil villain. If a person you know did something, rather than doing a criminal act, you'd have to elevate that person the level of most vile evil. It makes believing that a normal guy could possibly do something so horrible harder. "Steve would never do something so evil and vile."

Yes. But acknowledge that if the prevailing interpretation were the opposite, and rapists in games were largely depicted as sympathetic characters, that too would be considered an objectionable trope and it would find its way into videos like this one.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Yes. But acknowledge that if the prevailing interpretation were the opposite, and rapists in games were largely depicted as sympathetic characters, that too would be considered an objectionable trope and it would find its way into videos like this one.

False dichotomy.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

False dichotomy.

Very enlightening post, thank you.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Yes. But acknowledge that if the prevailing interpretation were the opposite, and rapists in games were largely depicted as sympathetic characters, that too would be considered an objectionable trope and it would find its way into videos like this one.

So you go from vilest evil to sympathetic character? As if it's either\or. Or even if they are actually "opposites." But really... it's not about how you depict rapists... It's about using rape to display vile evilness. Using it to show the hero how evil the badguy is.

So if your example above was the prevailing interpretation, why would they be doing that? What would they be using rape to depict? What about the sympathetic character would they be trying to get across? That's what would be judged.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

So you go from vilest evil to sympathetic character? As if it's either\or. Or even if they are actually "opposites." But really... it's not about how you depict rapists... It's about using rape to display vile evilness. Using it to show the hero how evil the badguy is.

So if your example above was the prevailing interpretation, why would they be doing that? What would they be using rape to depict? What about the sympathetic character would they be trying to get across? That's what would be judged.

Let's use the case of the Dragon Age city elf origin: the bad guy isn't the point. He's a minor character with no personality who dies within a half hour of starting the game. The point is to show the player what the social position of elves is in this world: as an oppressed lower caste vulnerable to abuse by humans.

Anita Sarkeesian seems to think this is just as objectionable as Kratos stuffing a naked woman into a gear to hold a door open. Do you?

 

[Harlock]

Every time, always the same drama. This approach, talking down existing games, exaggerating examples, is going to get negative reactions rather than helping the cause.

 

[SliceSabre]

Yep. So many gamers are sick of video games being derided as immature. Hey, well, one way out of that rut is to present difficult subject matter with depth and sincerity. Many games have the potential to be so much more rewarding than the other arts because they literally place you in the shoes and control of someone - nurturing empathy is key to helping fight prejudice. Games could be a more well regarded medium if they can more often tap into that. And it'll provide the opportunity for new and interesting stories to be told and out of that new gameplay experiences.

I think the end all be all of everything is resources. Devs don't have infinite resources and not all devs and writers are created equally.

Some will have the time, money and dedication to put towards looking more deeply at a situation. Some may have the dedication but not the time and money to put towards it. So when something is on the cutting room floor which will go first: A gameplay element or a storytelling element.

Seems to me the story telling element is usually the thing to go first.

And to a certain point there technically is a place for those trope as terrible as that sounds. I mean there is a reason popcorn hyper masculine, trope filled, shoot shoot bang movies rack in billions of dollars and intelligent, well thought out movies about people and places are happy just to make back their budgets and then some.

 

[Lime]

Every time, always the same drama. This approach, talking down existing games, exaggerating examples, is going to get negative reactions rather than helping the cause.

oh no, she's "talking down" existing games by criticizing their lazy and violent representation of women. Those poor AAA games and their hurt feelings

I have no idea why you are attributing to her that she's responsible for the negative reactions. It's the insecure gamers who can't take a modicum of the criticism that there might be something lazy or bad or deplorable in their video games that are at fault for the "negative reaction".

Saying she is at fault for spawning the negative reactions is just another way of implicitly say "go away Sarkeesian".

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

And to a certain point there technically is a place for those trope as terrible as that sounds. I mean there is a reason popcorn hyper masculine, trope filled, shoot shoot bang movies rack in billions of dollars and intelligent, well thought out movies about people and places are happy just to make back their budgets and then some.

This too. The implication seems to be that games are particularly bad about this sort of thing, but a lot of the examples given are actually no worse than stuff that happens in other media that no one seems to care about. And so we have the sort of bizarre spectacle of someone with a Game of Thrones avatar denouncing video games' supposed overuse of sexual assault.