JediMB said:
I just think it's interesting that the post she replied to was left alone, but the post that exposed the flaw in her argument was flagged as spam.
But, hey, our precious YouTube comments are open for anyone, so the spam-flagging of my post and upvoting of hers also says a thing or two about the anti-Sarkeesian crowd.
No, it says a thing the location you were in and the comments you made. Make a post about how the xbox is bad in a video promoting it on a channel know to promote it, you'll get the same response. It is not any mark of one community or another there, but rather the idea that comments conflicting with the general consensus of the location will be more likely to be flagged. Try atheism/creationism for another example. Hell, make a comment like one of my criticisms in one of Sarkessian video. Oh... that's right, you can't. Well a pro-Sarkesian video then. Tell me, is that a sign of Pro-Sarkesian crowd when they spam flag and down vote your comment? (and they will)
True enough, but the games have changed a lot since the NES days. Nowadays Nintendo try (and sometimes succeed) to craft emotional stories where pretty much every character except for Mario and Link (as extensions of the player) have fairly well-established personalities.
Games as a whole are more complex, but notice that game series are bound by their own fame and can't risk alienating the core demographic who made the games a success in the first place? It is why Mario and Link are never more then glorified avatar puppets.
Sexism and laziness are not mutually exclusive. And, if anything, it says a lot about our cultures when we so often fall back on sexist tropes our of laziness.
But then I wouldn't accused Nintendo of being lazy with their NES games. They revolutionized or created multiple goddamn genres back then. The issue is more one of inexperience, as they likely had no idea how to (or even if they could) tell a story in a video game.
But they don't have that excuse anymore, obviously.
If it is a product of our culture, why are games getting the shaft in how they are looked at? Keep in mind they are a completely voluntary media and one highly receptive to suppy and demand because of the high production cost and the high cost of entry. If it is a cultural issue (and that is where I would put my money), then why blame games for what traits are more well received? It comes off like blaming a product because people like the color of one more then the other. And no, you can't blame games for providing the product when they offer a plethora of products beyond just the "sexist" ones. Hell, the only reason they don't more often is that they simply do not sell.. well, that is not entirely true. Some games sell very well to the female demographic, they are just not the huge budgeted Triple A titles everyone assumes the game industry is comprised solely of for the sake of arguing against it.
Beyond that, their are still many limitations beyond the technical kind. As I said, at the start, they had only so much time and space for story. Now, they have tradition to uphold (see above comment) as well as a fight with the idea of gameplay over story, where many customers want good, fun games and those are the hallmarks of the nintendo company. They never marketed themselves as the best story tellers, and they tend to use the simplest stories to justify the gameplay. Donkey Kong, Pikin, the motivations are all dirt simple. Beyond that, when they try to deviate from the tried and true with their properties, they are punished for it in relation to the cost. Mario is missing, Luigi's mansion, Super Princess Peach. Hell, the later two there are good, solid games but they still did not sell as well as a standard mario title would (mario sunshine not-withstanding). So at this point you are asking the game company to risk money on a product that has shown little chance of selling well to an audience that has shown little interest in that sort of game to begin with. It is not sexism to ignore that sort of demand, is is common business sense there.
This is all highly relevant for the NES games, but what about Skyward Sword, which was my focus for Zelda in those comments? For the entire game, Zelda is actually ahead of Link during his hero's journey, and Link is the one who needs to grow in order to catch up. Yet, at the end of the game, she's suddenly captured before the player is allowed to save the world by defeating Demise.
Pretty much the same thing happened in Ocarina of Time (where Zelda was a powerful warrior under the guise of Sheik, but was inexplicably sealed in a crystal right before the final dungeon) and The Wind Waker (where she was a daring pirate before the game put her in a dress and left her a the bottom of the ocean to be kidnapped).
I mentioned tradition and maintaining the status quo because of finial reliability in it. and I mentioned simple stories as an overall theme with nintendo in general. The next reason here is actually a little deeper. With Zelda in the later games, she does start off better then Link. Hell, she has to actively help him in the story in every incarnation I have played past Link to the Past, but keep in mind what that means. She is taking the mantle of the teacher, and it comes full circle when the student (the player) can surpass said teacher. Again, a lazy story element but again, nintendo is know for that stuff. The point of the game is for the player, though that can mean different things depending on the game's intent. With nintendo, most games are about simple enjoyability of the games. Bare bones story, shut up and let me play already. Zelda franchise is probably the most resistant to that of the main stable. But a theme in every one of their games is of getting stronger. Mario is pretty much on par at world 1 as he is world 8. Link grows in power, and the games reflect that in a variety of ways in the story (as they become more complex). There is usually an early face off with a tough enemy (Gannondorf confrontation before adult in Orcarina, Skull kid first thing in MM, The Black Bird in WW) were the player fails and has to come back later. A mentor role coincides with that well enough and when played by the princess, it is thematically fitting that Link, who once needed their help, shows he has grown stronger by helping them in return. Hell, in Orcanira, the entire Goron population is captured and Link needs to save them by showing he is stronger then their leader, who easily knocked him over as a child, again showing the growth theme. Or would that be racism there?
What you need to remember is that every character in the game is not a person with a gender but an element to tell the story to the player. It becomes a little clearer when you don't think of Zelda as a woman, she is her roles (mentor, rightful monarch, final fight assistance). That she is female doesn't matter when her gender literally means nothing in the context of the stories themselves, and she has no development. When you can literally exchange her for a talking potato sack (you can do this with most characters by the way) it undermines any argument about her being treated the way she is because she is a woman because the trait of being a woman was tacked on later. At that point it was either artistic or executive decisions saying "ok, make her a girl" that was continued due to tradition and not wanting to mess with the successful formula (remember, they are scared to fix what is broken when it backfires like it can).
Just like with laziness, the presence of marketing forces does not make it less sexist. Not to mention that the Zelda series has been known for ages to have Nintendo's largest female following, and it's complete bullshit that being male means that a male subject to female object dynamic is required in a game. Personally, I've been wanting Zelda as a playable character since Ocarina of Time, and I was freaking 14 years old at the time.
Also, the whole "players are male, let's cater only to males" thing is more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy, and making a game that appeals to men doesn't mean that female characters have to be pushed into roles where they lack agency
Market forces reveal that you are calling the wrong thing sexist though. That is the whole problem here. If I make dressed and sell them, because of the choices of the individuals buying them, there will be a huge lean towards traits that women like showing up in the dresses over time. Now, men are not prevented from buying them. Remember this fact.
At no point are people denied from buying the product. But I know that if I make a dress certain colors, sizes, cuts and designs, they will sell more then others and that is due to how those traits will be more attractive to one gender (the one buying the most often) then to another. Is it sexist that I make the dresses that way? No. Is it sexist that because they appeal to that demographic better, that one buys them most where others do not? No. The trend there is solely based on individual decision. The only thing sexist here is what influences the individual's opinion of what they like or not along gender lines. It is not sexist that men do not buy my dresses, and because of that it can not be sexist when I cater my product to what is selling. the same as it not being racist if I make chicken sandwiches but for some reason mostly white people buy them. Do I try to change what is selling well to appeal to a demographic that has shown very little interest so far or should I worry about the people actually buying stuff and make my product more suited to them? And before you answer, I know you personally want different things, I am talking about the general audiences here and will make mention to the bias way that audience's opinions are determined. Yes, it is stupid to rely on market testers so often but what can you do? That is business.
What is worse here is that games are far more equal then dresses, and active make neutral games as well as attempt to appeal to that female demographic all the time, and often to outright failure, yet try again and again. They actively try to do what you seem to want and yet the end result is that it just does not sell.
As for zelda, just because you don't like it does not mean they will change. Hell, I saw this idea for a clockwork zelda game where you play as her and save prince link. It looked awesome. Doesn't mean they will do it.
Every "character" in the early games are objects. Link is the player avatar and has no agency but what the player commands him to do. Gannon has no motivation to be evil beyond his being so. Zelda actually is the one with some motivation, being she is ruler who was usurped, but still, no real characters to begin with to worry about agency. They are flat caricatures, as they were meant to be when designed and as they are now trapped to be by fickle gamers and market expectations.
Now even if you and I have no qualms playing female characters, the demographic as a whole responds better to that (keep in mind, this does NOT mean they respond negatively to female characters, merely more responded well with the males then the females), so as a result it is more likely for that reason (to be the better pick compared to a competitor who may try to buck the trend). And because game makers are more often male, if they have the choice it will still be more likely males because they want to make games they like. I never said I liked that this cycle exist, I am merely trying to explain what it is. And when no character in your story (early ones)have real agency, it is rather one sided to complain about only the females. Also no, being imprisoned does not take away your agency, it takes away your freedom. Hell, I think Zelda in Twilight was imprisoned yet she still help bring change by making you her agent, or does the fact she made the decision to make use of you mean nothing because it is just a plot point to get you from point A to b? Cause if so, I will be more then happy argue how no decision in the game, or even the player themselves have agency in a linear story game like very one of them are.
Exclusion isn't fun.
And sometimes those points of data don't make a beautiful line.
Never said it was, but then again I was never arguing that. Hell, I could go onto arguing that no woman is actually excluded at all from the games (remember when I went over it being a 100% voluntary medium? That means the only one deciding who doesn't get to play is the person who would play the game in the first place, so they can not exclude you when the only one choose if you get to play or not is yourself) but I never made that case. All I am doing is explaining why things may be the way they are. It does not mean I like that things are the way they are and why calling games sexist for that is misguided at best. But if you want to make any headway in changing things, you damn well better know where to start and how to go about solving things.
I made an entire thread about doing just that you know, solving these issues.
