Anita Sarkeesian + Hitman Absolution = Epic Fail

[MysticSlayer]

It's kind of a weird tangled ball to sift through talking about objectification when in a game every NPC is an object. If they aren't a player, or an enemy, then they really have no agency.

I think when it comes to games there is (or should be) a clear difference between a character and an actual object. Sure, if we boil everything in the game down to its most basic components, everything is just code that we interact with, but when you take story and actions carried out throughout the game together, the NPC is at least able to be given the illusion of having agency and personality regardless that all of it is driven by a writer. Objects, on the other hand, can never reach that level of illusion and are often just things to be used by someone to reach an ultimate goal.

As an example, in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, both Farah and The Dagger of Time are completely inseparable from the plot and are both basically require the player to care about them on some basic level. However, while Farah gives off a sense of independence and personality that makes her seem like an actual person player's can empathize with similarly to how they will with an actual person, The Dagger of Time is essentially just an important item that they need to complete the story but don't care about on any deeper level. Sure, when you boil both of them down to their most basic components, they are just code that the player interacts with to advance the game/story, but the presentation ultimately changes the ways in which players view them.

Now, it simply isn't possible to characterize every NPC in the game. Games that try to do that with the NPCs the player can interact with outside of combat tend to have worlds that feel unpopulated compared to what they should be (e.g. Skyrim) because we simply don't have the technology or resources yet to make every NPC like an actual person. However, there are also ways to avoid turning NPCs into simple objects the player looks at or interacts with in no greater way than they would a trophy, and while many games have tried and succeeded to various degrees at making women in their worlds seem like more than just objects for the predominantly male audience, we've still got a ways to go before female characters receive the same level of representation and characterization as male characters do.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

except anita never addressed this, lets not forged why we are discussing this, why this thread exists, she FABRICATED PROOF, how can you expect to sustain an argument with lies?

she is full of shit, and if hitman is sexist, it is NOT because the game portraits sex workers, plus no game is sexist simply because it portraits sex workers with no more detail than any other job in the game

150 thousand dollars and she cant even bother to do her own homework, what a scam she is

I'd say if it riles up every dickwad closet sexist going around foaming at the mouth, 150K are quite well spent. Even if her work was done deliberately out to troll.


But to reiterate, not because it wasn't clear before, but for the sake of being easier to grasp, the Saints, depicted in the shown video are illustrative of the sexism Anita decries. If anything, and like I said on the previous post,

if anything, she just chose the wrong footage to illustrate her point

typical

"they say im wrong, and have arguments that prove it, therefore they must be sexist!"

i think we are done here

We were done long before that, since I did consubstantiate my point with the game's trailer that fits perfectly into Anita's criticism as depicted by the OP. My reiteration of said point, done in stark to the absense of one in what was tried to pass as an argument was done out of mere courtesy.

of course lets talk about the trailer and only the trailer, lets ignore all the counter arguments on this thread offered by the people who played the game, lets ignore the fact she F-A-B-R-I-C-A-T-E-D PROOF, as in, the proof she used to sustain her argument is not real

but her argument is valid? yeah no

if 150 thousand dollars cant afford some damn basic research boy do the people who paid for that love to burn money

also i again congratulate you for insulting everyone who disagrees with her, specially since, like a said, she provides false proof for her argument, truthly the sign of any good debate is insulting the people that proved you wrong

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

It's kind of a weird tangled ball to sift through talking about objectification when in a game every NPC is an object. If they aren't a player, or an enemy, then they really have no agency.

I think when it comes to games there is (or should be) a clear difference between a character and an actual object. Sure, if we boil everything in the game down to its most basic components, everything is just code that we interact with, but when you take story and actions carried out throughout the game together, the NPC is at least able to be given the illusion of having agency and personality regardless that all of it is driven by a writer. Objects, on the other hand, can never reach that level of illusion and are often just things to be used by someone to reach an ultimate goal.

As an example, in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, both Farah and The Dagger of Time are completely inseparable from the plot and are both basically require the player to care about them on some basic level. However, while Farah gives off a sense of independence and personality that makes her seem like an actual person player's can empathize with similarly to how they will with an actual person, The Dagger of Time is essentially just an important item that they need to complete the story but don't care about on any deeper level. Sure, when you boil both of them down to their most basic components, they are just code that the player interacts with to advance the game/story, but the presentation ultimately changes the ways in which players view them.

Now, it simply isn't possible to characterize every NPC in the game. Games that try to do that with the NPCs the player can interact with outside of combat tend to have worlds that feel unpopulated compared to what they should be (e.g. Skyrim) because we simply don't have the technology or resources yet to make every NPC like an actual person. However, there are also ways to avoid turning NPCs into simple objects the player looks at or interacts with in no greater way than they would a trophy, and while many games have tried and succeeded to various degrees at making women in their worlds seem like more than just objects for the predominantly male audience, we've still got a ways to go before female characters receive the same level of representation and characterization as male characters do.

I think skyrim dose a little better then most with it's something something AI thingy. The NPCs might not always be flushed out or the highest point of writing, but they have a bit of personality and even actions they take under their own volition. There are some places where NPCs are basically turned into game objects though. An example in the video were the courtesans from assassins creed and we can add in the thieves and mercenaries too. They don't really exist for any other reason then for the player to come and along and pick up and use them.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress, and women are the only ones ever in such a situation. The intent to willingly code in a level based around a sexy club which features sexy women dressed - or undressed - sexually, almost certainly to appeal to the male player, is not exactly benign. And need I remind us all the other sexism charges this game faced? *coughkungfulatexnunscough*

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

P.S.: To prove I'm trying to take the middle ground here, I leave you with a Bro Team quote:

(shoots stripper) THIS IS SEXIST.
(shoots guy) THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.

I find it hard to believe you're taking the middle ground when you're advocating that elements of the game's tone is worthy of criticism. Hitman has always had seedy underground sex-ridden locations, the same that are depicted in films and are present in reality.

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

So any game where you can kill women?

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

I always never got that. Should the strippers be invincible or something? What sense would that make? You can kill men in the droves, as shown in the trailer, so why would women be any different.

Oh yea, it's only sexist when its against women. Carry on.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I just don't see why you don't shut up about her and let her sink into obscurity. All this controversy over some silly woman making cheap YouTube videos, where it is you who is keeping her in the spotlight with all the threads and all the insults and shit. Just don't give her the time of day, don't post about her and she'll be making videos for a couple of thousand views at most. It's the constant controversies that is keeping her in the public eye and allowing her crap to be spread to more people.

I guess in the age of Steam achievements though, people use controversy to get forum badges and shit? I don't know, it all just seems so pointless to me.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress, and women are the only ones ever in such a situation. The intent to willingly code in a level based around a sexy club which features sexy women dressed - or undressed - sexually, almost certainly to appeal to the male player, is not exactly benign. And need I remind us all the other sexism charges this game faced? *coughkungfulatexnunscough*

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

P.S.: To prove I'm trying to take the middle ground here, I leave you with a Bro Team quote:

(shoots stripper) THIS IS SEXIST.
(shoots guy) THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.

I find it hard to believe you're taking the middle ground when you're advocating that elements of the game's tone is worthy of criticism. Hitman has always had seedy underground sex-ridden locations, the same that are depicted in films and are present in reality.

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

So any game where you can kill women?

Just because they have done similar things in the past, that does not mean it's okay. And yes, strip clubs do exist in reality. So does child pornography. Neither make a game more classy for their inclusion.

And no, not any game where you can kill women. Not all women are strippers. That comment has some unfortunate implications.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress, and women are the only ones ever in such a situation. The intent to willingly code in a level based around a sexy club which features sexy women dressed - or undressed - sexually, almost certainly to appeal to the male player, is not exactly benign. And need I remind us all the other sexism charges this game faced? *coughkungfulatexnunscough*

Obviously, Sarkeesian is taking things too far. But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

P.S.: To prove I'm trying to take the middle ground here, I leave you with a Bro Team quote:

(shoots stripper) THIS IS SEXIST.
(shoots guy) THIS IS ACCEPTABLE.

the real world also has strip clubs, where, mostly women work

is reality sexist?

The real world also has S&M clubs. Put one of those in your game, and people would be a little disturbed.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I think skyrim dose a little better then most with it's something something AI thingy. The NPCs might not always be flushed out or the highest point of writing, but they have a bit of personality and even actions they take under their own volition.

Just to clear something up, I wasn't criticizing Skyrim's approach. I was just pointing out that when characterizing every NPC is a priority then things like scale (i.e. population size) need to be sacrificed. Comparatively, games like The Witcher, Grand Theft Auto, and Assassin's Creed characterize a very small number of their NPCs, but they also have a sense of scale that Skyrim lacks. I'm not really against either system, but I do think games going for scale should remain aware of how they may end up unintentionally turning certain groups into objects in the world rather than characters inhabiting that world.

I always never got that. Should the strippers be invincible or something? What sense would that make? You can kill men in the droves, as shown in the trailer, so why would women be any different.

Oh yea, it's only sexist when its against women. Carry on.

I've pointed out in other threads based around this video that I think the best option when approaching the problem isn't to make women invincible, it is to make it so the game's world as a whole recognizes that women aren't just objects. For instance, Dishonored gave us a few female allies, all of whom had a decent amount of characterization and independence. When we did go to the brothel, it gave us numerous threads to follow to piece together the dark history of the place and let us see a bit into the lives of many of the workers. Despite giving us a brothel level with plenty of women to kill, the game's overarching view of women was that they were people just like everyone else, and appreciating some eye candy and/or killing them was only a very small percentage of the interaction the player had with the world's women.

Now, I'm not saying that every game has to approach the scenario like Dishonored. The Witcher's (at least the first game's) rather subversive approach to its otherwise objectified view of women could never have worked in Dishonored's approach to the subject, and Mario platformers would hardly benefit from trying to give a detailed story, but they've still recently given us a little more context to the situation than the earliest Super Mario Bros. games. However, the general idea still remains: If the extent, or the vast majority, of a game's interaction with female NPCs is to appreciate eye candy, kill them, "win" them at the end, and/or just toy around with them, then the game's world, rather unrealistically and likely unintentionally, presents women as a whole as little more than objects for the likely male protagonist, likely male antagonist, and likely overwhelmingly male dominated cast of lesser characters to use for their own purposes. Simply recognizing that female characters can, in fact, be independent characters that mean something more than just how they serve men can go a long way to making those moments where they can be killed and/or do serve a man's purpose seem like just one way in which they can interact with the world rather than being their sole, or at least primary, purpose for existence in the world.

 

[briankoontz]

Anita is fundamentally correct. What's the range of possible interaction available in these types of games in general? Punch, shoot, drag around. To kill or not to kill, that is the question.

Obviously this is true with respect to both male and female victims, but that doesn't make it right that men are treated just as badly.

NPCs in games are usually victims, and the best they can hope for is that they get lucky and the player doesn't kill them. They're a lot like the people in Gaza right now, while the "heroic" IDF is saving the world (or at least Zionist Israel), one Palestinian corpse at a time.

This comes back to the fact that in the majority of video games, the protagonist is playing a mass murderer. This premise shapes the entire game experience and how he interacts with NPCs.

You HAVE to kill creatures en mass in video games because otherwise there's no game. Otherwise you just run around doing nothing and not advancing the plot. This is the core of what Anita means (admittedly not the best example since those strippers aren't required for the plot) - you either PLAY THE GAME by killing the strippers or you reject fully experiencing the game by bypassing them.

2013 saw a decline in the percentage of mainstream games that feature killing as a primary aspect of gameplay to 61% from the 80% of the previous eight or more years, but that's still a ridiculously high number, far higher than every other artform in human history.

Mass murder is so common in video games and has been for so incredibly long that players don't even notice it. They don't understand it, don't criticize it, don't want to criticize it, don't want to understand it.

The only way to advance most games' plots is to kill. Not only do games boil down to "to kill or not to kill, that is the question" but just like Anita says, the game only WORKS if you kill. The penalty for not killing is stalling the game.

Consider The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us. These games have really good, sometimes great NPCs precisely *because* they aren't there just to get blown away by the protagonist. Neither game is *about* murder in the way most games are. Because the games aren't about murder, they can explore complex reality and *build* characters. Because the games don't trivialize people's lives in order to accommodate them as bullet bags they can express mature reality.

We might want to give serious thought to an industry which for decades has been dominated by the idea of a world filled with evil monsters which a Level 1 hero or noble soldier fortunately is willing to commit genocide against to save the world and make himself more powerful and rich. No other artform in history is built on this premise, even comic books with their militant fascist violence are mild in comparison.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

I've pointed out in other threads based around this video that I think the best option when approaching the problem isn't to make women invincible, it is to make it so the game's world as a whole recognizes that women aren't just objects. For instance, Dishonored gave us a few female allies, all of whom had a decent amount of characterization and independence. When we did go to the brothel, it gave us numerous threads to follow to piece together the dark history of the place and let us see a bit into the lives of many of the workers. Despite giving us a brothel level with plenty of women to kill, the game's overarching view of women was that they were people just like everyone else, and appreciating some eye candy and/or killing them was only a very small percentage of the interaction the player had with the world's women.

Now, I'm not saying that every game has to approach the scenario like Dishonored. The Witcher's (at least the first game's) rather subversive approach to its otherwise objectified view of women could never have worked in Dishonored's approach to the subject, and Mario platformers would hardly benefit from trying to give a detailed story, but they've still recently given us a little more context to the situation than the earliest Super Mario Bros. games. However, the general idea still remains: If the extent, or the vast majority, of a game's interaction with female NPCs is to appreciate eye candy, kill them, "win" them at the end, and/or just toy around with them, then the game's world, rather unrealistically and likely unintentionally, presents women as a whole as little more than objects for the likely male protagonist, likely male antagonist, and likely overwhelmingly male dominated cast of lesser characters to use for their own purposes. Simply recognizing that female characters can, in fact, be independent characters that mean something more than just how they serve men can go a long way to making those moments where they can be killed and/or do serve a man's purpose seem like just one way in which they can interact with the world rather than being their sole, or at least primary, purpose for existence in the world.

Well, you can really make anything seem like an object if you try hard enough. Te shopkeepers in games like Skyrim or Resident Evil have no other purpose but to sell you loot. The enemies you murder in droves have no other purpose but being hacked into pieces for slaughter.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Just because they have done similar things in the past, that does not mean it's okay. And yes, strip clubs do exist in reality. So does child pornography. Neither make a game more classy for their inclusion.

The game's subject material is dark, hence why it utilizes venues such as strip clubs. You are criticizing them for this as if to say it is wrong.

And no, not any game where you can kill women. Not all women are strippers. That comment has some unfortunate implications.

You missed what I was trying to say.
Your comment:

But any game where you would not have to go out of your way to beat up female strippers is asking to be called out.

You can beat up or kill women in various other games, why is it such a big deal if they are strippers?

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

There is that spot in absolution where you have to use the body of a dead stripper to distract some guards. Well I guess you don't have to have to, but it is about the only way you can do that segment without getting shot at. You are kind of right in a factual way. The game dose punish you killing people, but I can't bring myself to defend the game on this ground. Taken as a whole, the game is very squick. Like I am thinking back to playing it and am feeling kind of sick about some of the content.


It is kind of possible to give every character a little bit of back story/personality. Games do it all the time with idle chat. It's not a lot, but when spent well it can lead to some neat characterizations. Oh and then watchdogs did that clever thing with the profiler. The kind of problem is that the idle chat for a stripper, or prostitute is all about them inviting you to be perverse. You know the stripper in GTA 5 even a fair amount of dialog. It's just all their dialog is about sex, so there is opportunity to give them character or a back story. They just don't.

Actually that dead stripper had a backstory, she was trying to leave the sex trade she was forced into and the owner/operator/scumbag-pieceofshit gave her a one way vacation to "Hawaii", where "Hawaii" was just a burned out abandoned building next door to the strip club where the scumbag-POS would take strippers who were uppity or otherwise "trouble" in his eyes, force them to commit sex acts then kill them, which is what happened to that particular stripper.
And using her body, which had been rotting in that building for god knows how long, to distract the cops was in a sense a bit of closure for her as the cops didn't give a shit what happened to her, now they were forced to deal with it.
In my eyes that was a very human story about the exploitation of women. If you'd taken a few seconds to actually listen to the background conversations in the strip club level prior to that, the body would be explained and given a backstory.

 

[IceForce]

I quite like how many people in this thread have put a positive twist on that dead stripper you find in the derelict building. I hadn't thought of it that way, so thanks.

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress, and women are the only ones ever in such a situation.

It's a real-world portrayal.
Sure, you could argue that no video games, ever, should have brothels / strip clubs / strippers / prostitutes in them, but why impose such restrictions? If you want to frame a game around seedy city underbellies, it would be silly to NOT include the world's oldest profession.

And yes, strip clubs do exist in reality. So does child pornography. Neither make a game more classy for their inclusion.

False equivalence, given that child porn is illegal, and strip clubs aren't.

 

[IceForce]

Anita is fundamentally correct. What's the range of possible interaction available in these types of games in general? Punch, shoot, drag around. To kill or not to kill, that is the question.

Obviously this is true with respect to both male and female victims, but that doesn't make it right that men are treated just as badly.

If you can perform the same actions to both male and female characters, with little or no difference between them, then that means that aspect of the game is not sexist.

Anita's whole point is to show examples of sexism and misogyny in video games. She has certainly produced a few good examples (Red Dead Redemption, for example), but where she shoots herself in the foot is when she starts showing footage of "terrible" acts performed on female NPCs, when you can perform exactly the same acts on male NPCs too.

If you can do the same to both, then it's not inherently sexist.

Yes, it may be gratuitously violent, but last I looked the name of Anita's series is "Tropes vs Women in Video Games", not "Tropes vs Violence in Video Games".

NPCs in games are usually victims, and the best they can hope for is that they get lucky and the player doesn't kill them. They're a lot like the people in Gaza right now, while the "heroic" IDF is saving the world (or at least Zionist Israel), one Palestinian corpse at a time.

I'm glad you brought up the example of Gaza, because that's not inherently sexist either.

Whether you be man or woman, if you're living in Gaza right now, you're just as much at risk as anyone else living there.

Just because something is bad, violent, or abhorrent, doesn't mean that it's automatically sexist.

Unfortunately, Anita has gone down the route of showing violent acts performed against female NPCs in video games, even though the violent acts are not even unique to female NPCs at all. And she's ended up discrediting herself in the process.

Could it be due to scope creep? Probably.

 

[IceForce]

I always never got that. Should the strippers be invincible or something? What sense would that make? You can kill men in the droves, as shown in the trailer, so why would women be any different.

I'm not particularly a fan of making strippers or female NPCs invincible, because children in video games are already like that, and it's silly.

Besides, making female NPCs invincible would essentially be giving them preferential treatment just because they're female, which is worst than the status quo, in my opinion.

 

[IceForce]

However, she is not wrong. The saints are a part of the finished product and are indeed highly sexualized (to the point of it being its unique character trait) antagonists, and her inclusion and design does indeed open the game up for misogynous implications: these stripper assassins are designed to be sexualized and objectified, and you are meant, as a player to derive enjoyment from their killings.

When she said she would be using footage from Hitman Absolution, I was sure it would be footage of the nun assassins. So I was quite surprised when I saw the footage was of another part of the game entirely.

Indeed, there is definitely a point to be made against those female nun antagonists. But for whatever reason, Anita decided to target a different point instead.

That she chose the wrong footage to ilustrate the point does not invalidate the existence of said issue.

I does invalidate it when the topic of her video is "Women as Background Decoration".
Obviously, the Saints are not "background decoration", so footage of them wouldn't fit in this video.

 

[IceForce]

I guess in the age of Steam achievements though, people use controversy to get forum badges and shit? I don't know, it all just seems so pointless to me.

I can assure you, I didn't make this thread to get a badge.
If you look under my avatar, you'll see I already have the badge.

I don't doubt that the reason behind a number of these threads, might be to get a badge. But that's not the case here.

 

[WindKnight]

There is that spot in absolution where you have to use the body of a dead stripper to distract some guards. Well I guess you don't have to have to, but it is about the only way you can do that segment without getting shot at.

Really? I do not remember that. In all fairness that may have occurred after I stopped giving a fuck about being stealthy so there's that...

Did you beat the level after the strip club? That is where this segment is. I kind of think if you found the area you would know it. It's not the only place the game has sexualized violence on women. I mean it opens the game with you killing a woman in the shower. Heck that shower is the title screen.

what about the men you kill constantly, all the time, throughout the game?

plus doesnt it bother you in the slightest that she fabricated proof?

if what you are saying its true and hitman is a women beating simulator, why show false proof?

How many of those men are sexualised?

How many of those men are presented as sex objects?

How many of those men do you kill naked in the shower?

 

[Batou667]

I agree, and I wrote a long post in another thread about how Anita completely misrepresented the tone and game mechanics of that Strip Club section - which I now can't find, because the Sarkeesian threads tend to get locked and deleted with quite some regularity. Anyway, suffice it to say that the strip club section of the game is designed to build antipathy towards, and justification for killing, the corrupt club owner, there's no reason or motivation whatsoever to harm any of the girls, and if you do find yourself dragging the strippers around in circles you're flat out playing the game wrong and must be either very bored or have worrying sexual kinks that could be better catered for elsewhere.

The same can be said for that one section later on where you discover dead stripper and use her corpse as a distraction. Yes, in very literal terms the stripper has become objectified and is "used" as a game mechanic - but I'd say it's justified in the context of further underlining what a bastard the club owner was. It's not included for laughs, the dead girl isn't sexualised (again, if this part of the game turns you on, that's between you and your psychiatrist), and I don't think it can be said to support any kind of trend of misogyny in the game. Heck, if the players principles prevent him/her from interacting briefly with the dead female body to accomplish a clean getaway, the alternative is to simply walk downstairs and kill the group of male police officers - and if that's considered the lesser of two evils, I might argue that suggests misandry, not misogyny.

What's a bit more interesting about the latest FemFreq video is this idea of "can implies should" - the idea that in a game that provides any kind of sandbox, any choice the player is given is implicitly condoned, even if it's self-destructive or triggers a lose-condition. The developers of Absolution wouldn't have gone to the effort of coding death animations for civilians if they weren't reasonably confident that some players would kill civilians, for example. But does this mean the developers want players to kill civilians? I'm not so sure.

I'm sure plenty of people remember the similar discussion around Skyrim when it first came out, and people discovered that you could potentially kill any man, woman or animal in the game - but not children. Kids were invincible. And some people set about creating mods to let you kill children, too. Hold up, let's read that last bit again - people went out of their way to make it so that you could kill children?! Why on earth would people want to do that? In isolation and out of context it sounds horrible. But I think that's oversimplifying things. We could make an argument about consistency and creating a less restricted experience where you can roleplay a truly evil character, or run the risk of a stray arrow hitting a kid in a battle, or have heightened stakes when a dragon attacks a village. None of this stems from an actual, real-life desire to kill kids. Yahtzee uncharacteristically waded into the argument, and, also uncharacteristically, I found myself disagreeing with him: his counterargument was that in a game where you could have sex with adults, would we insist on making kids fuckable too? Aside from this being a silly slippery-slope argument (killing is often justified in games, sex less often), I'd say the same consistency argument could be applied. In a hypothetical game where you could have sex with any man, woman and animal - consensual or not - then yeah, it'd be a weird omission to have kids in the setting that you couldn't do the same to. I'm not saying for a minute that this would be a moral or enjoyable game, but hey, once you set a precedent...

I dunno. Does "can" imply "should"? If a button is there for pressing, can all possible in-game interactions be seen as just variations on a button-press, or has it become more complicated than that?