Fair enough. And yeah, things just get really fucking creepy whenever sex and violence get mixed. It's one of the few things that can consistently make me feel like I'm going to be sick.LostGryphon said:
Anita Sarkeesian + Hitman Absolution = Epic Fail
- Thread starter IceForce
- Start date
So...is it also your view that Bioshock advocates child killing because there are more immediate rewards for harvesting the Little Sisters than saving them, Dishonored is anarchistic because it's easier (and honestly more fun, seeing how you get to use your toys to far greater effect) to go around murdering people and getting a high chaos score than it is skulking about and avoiding everyone, and the Knights of the Old Republic franchise is a love letter to the Dark Side because it's usually more lucrative than the Light? Let me be blunt here, when a competent writer wants to portray morality in their work (either implicitly or explicitly), more often than not the good choice will seem less immediately desirable. That's what makes evil so seductive in the first place. It's easy.Knight Templar said:
Agreed, actually. Though I can pretty easily separate the two concepts once they're introduced (the violence overwhelms any sexual implications completely for me) I can certainly understand what ya mean. Just kind of how we all respond to and internalize media, I suppose...or any experience for that matter.erttheking said:
It sounds like there's only the one instance where it could, I'll admit, reasonably (should you be viewing it from that perspective) be construed that you're being incentivized. And I don't personally view that act as sexualized within the context of the game/narrative. I don't really mind what a person is or isn't wearing, even in this instance, when they're simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is what that situation screams at me.MarsAtlas said:
I don't really agree with you on this point. I don't view the risk, in and of itself, to be an incentivization to kill the girl. My response is the polar opposite, simply due to the context I'm presented with...it's evil murdering guy in room with woman who works for him and, in all likelihood, is only doing her "job" at present in an effort to avoid being harmed by said guy.
It isn't my objective to hurt any of the people there aside from immediate armed threats and the target itself.
That is...quite a lot of baggage to throw onto that simple question. I do get that ya feel quite strongly on the subject, and I do think that media in general is oversexualized, but I appreciate the honest, if brusque, response.
I think this is the big point. A lot of the sexist stuff that happens in games (and in general) is not done because there's mustachio twirling sexists trying to keep women down. A lot of sexism is unconscious and/or unintentional, and happens through not putting enough thought and effort into what your putting out is going to mean (this is precisely Sarkeesians message, though a lot of people like to overlook that when they just want to bash her). It doesn't really make it any less problematic, unpleasant, damaging or excusable, but shows the way forward the companies need to take.Batou667 said:
People kill characters all the time in games (especially in games with names like Hitman). Hell, the trailer is of him shooting an unarmed woman in a shower. Not sure why it becomes a feminist issue when it can happen to women. There are also far more male civilians in the game and you get penalized just as much for killing them too. There's also non-civilian females who are every bit as capable of killing you as their male counterparts if not even better armed.
Is the goal to have equality or is it to have things both ways?
Have we considered that these games were not made for feminists? That the studios are not morally obligated to cater to feminists? If the issue is due to there being a strip club in the game then sure, feminists aren't generally going to like strip clubs. Doesn't mean they get to have a say in whether or not they exist physically or digitally in our world. If the issue is just the ability for the player to penalize their score by causing violence to female civilians then they're going to have to explain why this is any different than the violence incurred on male civilians in the game. Seems to me like we've got clearly sexist reasons for arguments against sexism. Isn't doing the opposite of what you set out to do a form of irony? Being sexist in the name of gender equality is hilarious droll.
Is the goal to have equality or is it to have things both ways?
Have we considered that these games were not made for feminists? That the studios are not morally obligated to cater to feminists? If the issue is due to there being a strip club in the game then sure, feminists aren't generally going to like strip clubs. Doesn't mean they get to have a say in whether or not they exist physically or digitally in our world. If the issue is just the ability for the player to penalize their score by causing violence to female civilians then they're going to have to explain why this is any different than the violence incurred on male civilians in the game. Seems to me like we've got clearly sexist reasons for arguments against sexism. Isn't doing the opposite of what you set out to do a form of irony? Being sexist in the name of gender equality is hilarious droll.
Strip clubs exist in real life, they are in every city. Feck, movies doesnt have to have strip clubs either. I hope one day there are NO strip clubs in movies or games, nor prostitutes for that matter. In fact, all women in movies/games should be highly educated women.Matthew Jabour said:
I'm not going to even mention Anita's videos and reasoning since I talked on that topic far an wide quite a few times on this board alone. But now, what there is a strip club in Hitman and other games, not n any semblance of order of significance.
1) It's atmospheric. Strip club and crime/underworld go together like coffee and cream. It gives the game more of that specific tone games like that need.
2) It gives developers excuse to put skimpy dressed female models in game. Games are visual medium most often second only to interactivity (sometimes even more important than interactivity). Also, men and women like looking at super-imposed, realistically unobtainable beautiful bodies. Those Greek statues that are considered pinnacle of realistic sculpting are not realistic, no human can look that perfect or they would look monstrous. Just like in game models.
3) I bring's allure of "forbidden fruit" to the game. In reality in most strip clubs if you touch dancers or even if you are particularly rude, you are removed. Sometimes with additional consequences. In games you are free to roam, do as you please or even own such establishment. Not to mention that quite a few gamers are to shy or socially awkward to even visit such establishment in real life.
4) It can be, and is, used to portray someone, usually owner, thought state of club, staff and dialogue between NPCs.
Now, that we covered almost every possible reason, would someone tell me what is bad there?
Female gamers I know are more self aware and more conservative dressers with less wild behavior in public than female non gamers I know. Only person I know personally that was violent towards women never played any game outside FIFA/Winning Eleven.
Is it because they are skimpily dressed and you can be violent to them? Would that be OK it here were make dancers and you could use power drill on their genitals (so specific just for them)? I wouldn't have problem with either as heterosexual white male that works two jobs to support him and his fiancee that is more far educated than him but still stuck in university which has low pay and mother that is sick with multiple chronic diseases and barely able to take care of her basic needs.
1) It's atmospheric. Strip club and crime/underworld go together like coffee and cream. It gives the game more of that specific tone games like that need.
2) It gives developers excuse to put skimpy dressed female models in game. Games are visual medium most often second only to interactivity (sometimes even more important than interactivity). Also, men and women like looking at super-imposed, realistically unobtainable beautiful bodies. Those Greek statues that are considered pinnacle of realistic sculpting are not realistic, no human can look that perfect or they would look monstrous. Just like in game models.
3) I bring's allure of "forbidden fruit" to the game. In reality in most strip clubs if you touch dancers or even if you are particularly rude, you are removed. Sometimes with additional consequences. In games you are free to roam, do as you please or even own such establishment. Not to mention that quite a few gamers are to shy or socially awkward to even visit such establishment in real life.
4) It can be, and is, used to portray someone, usually owner, thought state of club, staff and dialogue between NPCs.
Now, that we covered almost every possible reason, would someone tell me what is bad there?
Female gamers I know are more self aware and more conservative dressers with less wild behavior in public than female non gamers I know. Only person I know personally that was violent towards women never played any game outside FIFA/Winning Eleven.
Is it because they are skimpily dressed and you can be violent to them? Would that be OK it here were make dancers and you could use power drill on their genitals (so specific just for them)? I wouldn't have problem with either as heterosexual white male that works two jobs to support him and his fiancee that is more far educated than him but still stuck in university which has low pay and mother that is sick with multiple chronic diseases and barely able to take care of her basic needs.
The Hitman series in general has some sexist, creepy stuff in it involving sexual violence against women. But the player is never told to do that unless the actual target is a woman (Pretty darn rare in the series). Even then, they're not told to pose them (I don't think? I know some posing was involved in some missions, right?) or do anything remotely sexual. But that's always been part of the tone. Absolution took it to the extreme, thanks to writers who decided the previous games were too subtle.
The series has always had the creepy, grimy atmosphere to it in an effort to either look "real" or exaggerated and pulpy (Could never decide which one it was...). So, saying Hitman features violence against women is kind of a "no shit" moment. It's like saying porn has naked people or horror films have violence.
Thinking about it, the player is never told to do anything remotely sexual towards any character. People are sexual towards him at times (who wouldn't, am I right?) but he never really reacts. You're offered some freedom, to do some nasty things but even then you can do it to anyone. 47 Has no interest in anything sexual, so it says more about the player when it comes to any in game violence against women (or men). You're punished for killing anyone other than the target you're paid to kill. If you're killing anyone else you're not playing the game properly. You are not actively encouraged to perform all that much violence in this series, really.
In fact, bit of a side note, isn't there supposed to be some debate over 47's sexuality? Isn't there a chance he's bi sexual or something? Or am I making things up? It's been a while since I got stuck into the series (heh...) but that sounds like something that people are debating.
POINT IS: I think Sarkeesian kind of just saw something she thought would fit her point and ran with it without doing any real research, e.g. playing the game itself.
The series has always had the creepy, grimy atmosphere to it in an effort to either look "real" or exaggerated and pulpy (Could never decide which one it was...). So, saying Hitman features violence against women is kind of a "no shit" moment. It's like saying porn has naked people or horror films have violence.
Thinking about it, the player is never told to do anything remotely sexual towards any character. People are sexual towards him at times (who wouldn't, am I right?) but he never really reacts. You're offered some freedom, to do some nasty things but even then you can do it to anyone. 47 Has no interest in anything sexual, so it says more about the player when it comes to any in game violence against women (or men). You're punished for killing anyone other than the target you're paid to kill. If you're killing anyone else you're not playing the game properly. You are not actively encouraged to perform all that much violence in this series, really.
In fact, bit of a side note, isn't there supposed to be some debate over 47's sexuality? Isn't there a chance he's bi sexual or something? Or am I making things up? It's been a while since I got stuck into the series (heh...) but that sounds like something that people are debating.
POINT IS: I think Sarkeesian kind of just saw something she thought would fit her point and ran with it without doing any real research, e.g. playing the game itself.
I used to go to the library back in the 80's and 90's. Who goes to the library today?MarsAtlas said:
Please provide me with strip club vs recovering drug addicts statistics.
That isn't how hitman games work, they don't really pose moral questions, you're a clone made to be the perfect assassin. Morality is only there to make you feel less guilty about all the fantastic and creative ways you're about to murder a bunch of people.Asita said:
Not at all, they are in the way, if I go right for my target then the only thing standing in my way is them, ignoring them just leads to the alarm being called.IceForce said:
But I think my point is being missed here, you cannot just look at one part that isn't encouraging the act and say "well that makes it impossible for the game to encourage the player to do these things". Particularly when the ways it discourages you is something so entirely empty, and the reasons to do it are entirely practical.
Not going to discuss what degree of separation between violence and sexualization is or isn?t "disturbing" (to someone), because it has no relevance on the subject and the only proof is simply "I feel so". Well, granted. But that still offers no direct sexual motive behind player-inflicted violence.
If contemporary and "improved" term is to be used, a woman in Hitman would have to be target of violence because of being a woman or because of being "sexualized". Neither is true, the most common reason is "being in the way", which is not the same as "being a sex worker therefore sexualized therefore being in a strip club therefore having a chance of interfering therefore violence is sexualized". With that mindset of going back as many steps as convenient we might as well ask about her education or genes.
If it was that simple, every game where a character kills NPC of a different race would be automatically adding racial undertones to violence. Or where killing a templar as a devoted muslim = there's something "jihadist" about it. As it is now, we only have "violence against sexualized characters" or, in cases where even that is unsubstantiated, "violence against sexually attractive characters". Not even remotely the same.
If PoV of the authors is to be of any help, then finding a proof for "sexualized violence" claim is not going to be that easy as "tittilation". The latter is pretty much a given, considering there's money and specific target demographic involved***. "Strip club was added because tittilation therefore sexualization therefore sexualized violence", though? This convenient number of steps again. About those "it's unconscious" explanations from lalaland - let's see at least a shred of evidence about that specific group of designers - you know, the owners of that unconsciousness we are talking about. Like... can we at least know what is their consciousness doing first? But I guess that would be hard, because actual research would have to be conducted and that's... not what certain "controversy surfers" are known for.
What are we left with? Players can kill women if they decide them being women is enough of a reason? That's... new? We already know it's hardly encouraged by the game. Any claims that sexualization in-game encourages sexualized violence in-game on its own? Good luck with researching that, not even mentioning proving the existence of any phenomenon that has significance worth more than a footnote to a footnote, let alone this whole thread. "Hitman research shows players tend to kill overly attractive prostitutes, prostitutes, random women, nuns in that order" would make a hell of a clickbait though.
We've already seen various claims of "experts" on many related and unrelated subjects. Trying to tell what "players" or "gamers" think or feel often ends up so hilariously bad that even arrogance on claimant's part, ie. insisting they have a clue "because research" and "data"(promptly taken apart by random people without academic background), tends to be overlooked. Then there are cases where the arrogance is, for one reason or another, not overlooked, generates emotions, a lot of vitriol and we end up with? oh, right, Anita Thompson Threads.
As someone else mentioned, there's a niche of games that *are* thriving on "sexualized violence", easily jumping into sexual violence. But they?re too far from mainstream ? which is a bad thing only for one type of a person: the one who wants to stir a controversy but lacks a material that ?mainstream? audience actually recalls from somewhere. So, rather than talk about "sexualized violence" using a game that sells itself on that, she picks one with... optional violence against sexualized characters. As if it was the same. Also, that "mature" word? - there's a world of difference between Hitman being a "mature game" and a "game intended for mature audiences". Not sure how one could have the same expectations from the former and the latter.
*** Not that I consider "sexualized characters" to be significantly different (or more "problematic") than reducing a person to *any* single aspect of their "self". If it?s being done to sell a game to a bunch of 45-y old gay Asians, then so be it. If it?s being done to convey a message, to parody something, for the sake of consistency ? or for whatever similar reason, even if badly, then so be it as well. If it's being done because author doesn't know any better then, ugh, so be it. If I ever grow sick of any particular "reduction", a number of different games (ie. with other issues) is so large I have zero chances of properly playing even significant portion of them during a lifetime. The industry already reached the same point books, movies or music did. I don?t see a need for any kind of "parity" in any case, where such reduction takes place, certainly not if we are talking about an optional product with entertainment as its primary purpose. If a product needs a simple(ton) way to appeal to men, there will be a disparity in sexualization department for as long as people behind market research are convinced men are more attached to "visual side". Which, at least so far, seems to mean: "forever". For the same reason there will be substantial niches for people who feel guilty about it and for those who don?t give a damn.
For the same reason there's more than enough money and attention randomly flowing around to sustain a number of people who will go out of their way to build mountains out of molehills. If, as it's often the case with incompetent people, molehill is quickly shown to be a molehill, then it's not a big deal either - there's always at least a rock or two around it that surely came from a mountain... somewhere. By the time it happens, there's enough followers talking how they tripped on a molehill and how awful and scarring it was to notice.
If contemporary and "improved" term is to be used, a woman in Hitman would have to be target of violence because of being a woman or because of being "sexualized". Neither is true, the most common reason is "being in the way", which is not the same as "being a sex worker therefore sexualized therefore being in a strip club therefore having a chance of interfering therefore violence is sexualized". With that mindset of going back as many steps as convenient we might as well ask about her education or genes.
If it was that simple, every game where a character kills NPC of a different race would be automatically adding racial undertones to violence. Or where killing a templar as a devoted muslim = there's something "jihadist" about it. As it is now, we only have "violence against sexualized characters" or, in cases where even that is unsubstantiated, "violence against sexually attractive characters". Not even remotely the same.
If PoV of the authors is to be of any help, then finding a proof for "sexualized violence" claim is not going to be that easy as "tittilation". The latter is pretty much a given, considering there's money and specific target demographic involved***. "Strip club was added because tittilation therefore sexualization therefore sexualized violence", though? This convenient number of steps again. About those "it's unconscious" explanations from lalaland - let's see at least a shred of evidence about that specific group of designers - you know, the owners of that unconsciousness we are talking about. Like... can we at least know what is their consciousness doing first? But I guess that would be hard, because actual research would have to be conducted and that's... not what certain "controversy surfers" are known for.
What are we left with? Players can kill women if they decide them being women is enough of a reason? That's... new? We already know it's hardly encouraged by the game. Any claims that sexualization in-game encourages sexualized violence in-game on its own? Good luck with researching that, not even mentioning proving the existence of any phenomenon that has significance worth more than a footnote to a footnote, let alone this whole thread. "Hitman research shows players tend to kill overly attractive prostitutes, prostitutes, random women, nuns in that order" would make a hell of a clickbait though.
We've already seen various claims of "experts" on many related and unrelated subjects. Trying to tell what "players" or "gamers" think or feel often ends up so hilariously bad that even arrogance on claimant's part, ie. insisting they have a clue "because research" and "data"(promptly taken apart by random people without academic background), tends to be overlooked. Then there are cases where the arrogance is, for one reason or another, not overlooked, generates emotions, a lot of vitriol and we end up with? oh, right, Anita Thompson Threads.
As someone else mentioned, there's a niche of games that *are* thriving on "sexualized violence", easily jumping into sexual violence. But they?re too far from mainstream ? which is a bad thing only for one type of a person: the one who wants to stir a controversy but lacks a material that ?mainstream? audience actually recalls from somewhere. So, rather than talk about "sexualized violence" using a game that sells itself on that, she picks one with... optional violence against sexualized characters. As if it was the same. Also, that "mature" word? - there's a world of difference between Hitman being a "mature game" and a "game intended for mature audiences". Not sure how one could have the same expectations from the former and the latter.
*** Not that I consider "sexualized characters" to be significantly different (or more "problematic") than reducing a person to *any* single aspect of their "self". If it?s being done to sell a game to a bunch of 45-y old gay Asians, then so be it. If it?s being done to convey a message, to parody something, for the sake of consistency ? or for whatever similar reason, even if badly, then so be it as well. If it's being done because author doesn't know any better then, ugh, so be it. If I ever grow sick of any particular "reduction", a number of different games (ie. with other issues) is so large I have zero chances of properly playing even significant portion of them during a lifetime. The industry already reached the same point books, movies or music did. I don?t see a need for any kind of "parity" in any case, where such reduction takes place, certainly not if we are talking about an optional product with entertainment as its primary purpose. If a product needs a simple(ton) way to appeal to men, there will be a disparity in sexualization department for as long as people behind market research are convinced men are more attached to "visual side". Which, at least so far, seems to mean: "forever". For the same reason there will be substantial niches for people who feel guilty about it and for those who don?t give a damn.
For the same reason there's more than enough money and attention randomly flowing around to sustain a number of people who will go out of their way to build mountains out of molehills. If, as it's often the case with incompetent people, molehill is quickly shown to be a molehill, then it's not a big deal either - there's always at least a rock or two around it that surely came from a mountain... somewhere. By the time it happens, there's enough followers talking how they tripped on a molehill and how awful and scarring it was to notice.
See again, "implicitly or explicitly". I am not saying that there is a moral choice system in Hitman, I am saying that it presents you with an easy option and then penalizes you for it both for killing a civilian and for killing someone who is not your target, and that this would not be at all out of place in a game with an explicit moral choice system as befitting the common theme that the quick and easy path is rarely the best one. This follows a distinctly similar methodology to the standard 'good choice, bad choice' dynamic, but for some inexplicable reason while we're perfectly ok with players being incentivized to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock, being actively and blatantly penalized by the game for killing strippers (or any other non-target npc) in Hitman crosses the line because - just like in Dishonored - it was often easier and/or more fun to be less discriminate in your killing and thus implicitly incentivizes you to take that route and - unlike when Dishonored did it - that is a very bad thing because reasons.Knight Templar said:
Point being that we are apparently being inconsistent in the standards we are using to criticize Hitman in this case. We don't care that it's practical to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock, we don't care that the Dark Side is more lucrative in KoTOR, we don't care that lethal options are more practical than stealthing through Deus Ex, we don't care that it's practical and fun to make chaos inducing actions in Dishonored, so why do we care that it's practical and/or more fun to be less discriminate in Hitman? Because instead of incentivizing you for the sake of trapping you it directly penalizes you for the act and leaves it at that? What makes that so much more worthy of scorn than getting extra Adam for killing little children in Bioshock at the cost of a more sinister ending cinematic?
Then there's Crusader Kings, where you are quite often penalised for not executing a number of people (your children, grandchildren, infants included) who end up inheriting your kingdom and joyfully tearing it apart due to Gavelkind laws. You sometimes can deal with it in a "civilised" way, but more often than not it requires luck, money and specific circumstances. The best solution (on average) = murder all males (sexism), preferably those with inferior statistics (ableism) and with potentially troublesome skin color (racism). Did I mention surviving one should also be *ehem* willing to provide an heir at some point? Or that game actually provides a conveniently pre-made plot to kill your spouse?Asita said:
How is this possible CK has not caused a huge scandal yet when such small potatoes do?
She said 'it makes them more likely to accept rape myths and victim blame'. Very different thing. Not a causation, but an influence, and a negative one, one that's hard to argue with.The_Kodu said: