Excessively Excessive
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
(Remember Plants vs Zombies, Peggle, Cityville, etc.?)
If only it was possible to judge things by more than one standard, or with more than one test. Or to pursue a closer examination of things that came back with a specific result.
[Weighing people is completely useless because it doesn't take into account how tall they are!] - Schrodinger's obesity.
Stupid or misguided(or manipulative) people using statistics poorly doesn't make statistics wrong.
[Weighing people is completely useless because it doesn't take into account how tall they are!] - Schrodinger's obesity.
Stupid or misguided(or manipulative) people using statistics poorly doesn't make statistics wrong.
And yet, those nude named turnip-discussing prostitutes are still more developed and portrayed than most women in movies get. You're still the one sounding derp here because your acting as though the Bechel Test is designed to do more than it claims to do, and your insistence that it's "completely broken" is starting to sound like music and movie genres are completely useless classifications due to a FEW genre-blending songs/movies. Passing the Bechel Test doesn't mean you're movie is fair in its representation of women. But if your movie fails the test, unless there are some REALLY extenuating circumstances (No men either) or technicalities, it doesn't represent women as fairly as it does males. It's mostly an artifact from an earlier time when movies were TERRIBLE with female characters.SpiderJerusalem said:
Also: I'd like to point out that games have been getting MORE modest in their portrayal of the female figure. I've not seen an even semi-popular game recently that features a completely bottomless warrior as a major character, and only one semi-popular hack-and-slash game featuring topless female enemies since Diablo II.
The Bechdel test is just meant to increase awareness of the problem. You have to consider who the intended audience of these "tests" is.SpiderJerusalem said:
It's not your die-hard "anti-Feminists," because they (like any die-hard) don't listen to things. And it's not the folks who are already in your camp, because they're already in your camp. Instead, it's targeting the people who could be receptive.
Know what people listen to first, when getting new information? Simple numbers, and simple rules. It's how we filter things. If it can't be boiled down to simple numbers and simple rules, we generally assume it's meant for people who already know what's going on. That is, not for newbies.
The Bechdel test presents simple numbers and simple rules, which might cause folks to notice, "Wow, it is kind of weird that female characters are so consistently treated in a particular way." Is it simplistic? Overly-simplified, even? Of course it is.
It's also simplistic to tell little kids, "The sky is blue." Sometimes it's one of several other colors, or a combination. But we start with the one they'll see the most often, just to get the ball rolling -- then they can learn all the exceptions as they meet them, by which time they'll be more prepared.
This test is basically about "teaching" people that there's a problem. And there is. And plenty of people genuinely don't realize it, because they've never had the right kind of attention brought to it. So the test tells them, "The sky is blue," or "There is a problem with how female characters are most often portrayed."
The kind of audience that will watch The Diving Bell and appreciate the strong female characters? They're not the sort of people the Bechdel test is targeting. Complaining about how the test applies to things it wasn't intended to measure would be like saying your ruler is broken because it won't give you an accurate weight.
Just because he referred to a broken measuring system doesn't mean his underlying point is wrong guys.
While I agree with Yahtzee that the pursuit of excess is the problem ,I don't really see the situation improving either. After all the underlying problem behind this is that the executives don't get what makes a good game, and given that this problem is common to ALL creative industries ( or rather, executives not pushing for quality as they know that that is an unreliable way to make money) I don't see it being fixed any time soon.
While I agree with Yahtzee that the pursuit of excess is the problem ,I don't really see the situation improving either. After all the underlying problem behind this is that the executives don't get what makes a good game, and given that this problem is common to ALL creative industries ( or rather, executives not pushing for quality as they know that that is an unreliable way to make money) I don't see it being fixed any time soon.
That has yet to be demonstrated by anything you've said, though. It isn't "part of the problem itself" unless someone is using it in an unintended way. If I use aspirin correctly, it cures my headache. If I use it incorrectly, it kills me. That doesn't mean aspirin has "become part of the problem." It just means I'm using it wrong.SpiderJerusalem said:
What you've got here is, probably unintentionally, reductio ad absurdum -- you're putting the subject in a situation far beyond its intended scope, and point out its failure in that context as some kind of overall failure.
When you're introducing something, you must glide over nuances. People learn the basics first. "T makes the sound 'tuh.'" That's what we tell little kids at first. Later on, they learn exceptions like "the" or "nation," in which T makes a different sound. But when we're teaching them, we don't say, "T sometimes makes the sound 'tuh,' but other times it sounds like 'sh' or 'thhh' or it can even be silent as in 'escargot,' but that's French..." And the kids are confused, crying, and/or asleep.
One might argue that the test is a bit pedantic. That has more validity than saying the test is part of the problem. But I'd counter that there are plenty of people saying, "Well what's the problem? I see women in movies all the time, so where's the big issue?" They really do need someone to point out the inequity, because they don't automatically know how to frame and recognize it.
1. This test isn't about strong female characters. It's about demonstrating how common it is for the woman/women in movies to exist almost entirely in service to the male characters -- they're eye candy, or a romantic interest, or they exist to complain to other women about men. It's not about pointing out strong female characters, but rather showing the rather overwhelming number of weak ones.
2. This test isn't about identifying good or bad movies, or identifying "movies that are problems." It's about identifying the problem as it often appears in many movies. No test is perfect, and there will always be exceptions.
Little Women, they talk about many other things than men. That movie most certainly "passes" the test. Gone with the Wind? Scarlet was a pretty weakly-written character in a lot of ways, so I'm not against that one. Doesn't mean it's a bad movie, of course.
You're chasing around exceptions and abusing them to discount the test. There's this bizarre idea that because something isn't entirely perfect, it's entirely useless. Tests like this aren't meant to be comprehensive, and in fact, any test that was comprehensive would be decried as too ridiculously convoluted and time-consuming to be of any use. It's a trap.
This test succeeds in two major ways:
1. It doesn't point out every instance, but it points out many instances of movies that don't contain much in the way of consequential female characters. It identifies a long-running and long-ignored problem.
2. You are not only talking about this test and the problems it is targeting, you are also going back and looking over movies through this new lens. Sure, you're doing it to find ways to prove the test wrong, but the fact is you're still doing it. The test has changed the way you view movies. Permanently? No clue. But for now, I'd say it's done it's job -- even for you.
The underlying point of the Bechdel Test is that, in many media, female characters are defined primarily by their relationships to men. If a work of fiction fails the Bechdel Test, it's because, whatever other characteristics have been assigned to the women in that story, the men are more important. It's not about performance, it's not about strength, it's about whether or not female characters can stand on their own and have conversations that aren't about the men in their lives. I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that male characters rarely have that problem.SpiderJerusalem said:
Mass Effect 3 passes the Bechdel Test. Assassin's Creed does not. This isn't to say that one is better than the other, just that the former represents women more fairly than the latter. That is all.
This article throws into sharp relief yahtzee's schizophrenic nature. Last week barrel scraping disdain and tonal dissidence, and irrationality. This week, an article that's actually about something. and something important approached with logic and critical thought. I applaud the article and hope that the excesses he points out are addressed appropriately soon.
I don't suppose you have a specific example of a female character who is objectified and put down by men, yet never speaks about it to anyone? Because so far all I've seen from you is pointless conjecture about how a hypothetical scenario could slip through the Test's net - as if Alison Bechdel is some omniscient calculator capable of encompassing all things everywhere.SpiderJerusalem said:
The fact of the matter is that sometimes, it really is as simple as two women being able to have a conversation about something other than men.
Things that are meaningless on their own may being meaningful in the aggregate. Since when is this even controversial?
If you're a week late paying a bill once, it isn't generally a big deal. If you're habitually late with your payment... (and saying "hey, that one time I payed on time" isn't going to help out much)
You are grossly overestimating the general populous. Most people do not consume enough of "medium x" to be able to look at trends, etc., just like most people aren't able to study the same cohort of smokers for 20 years looking for health problems. I'm glad your pack-a-day aunt lived to 109, but that isn't an earth-shattering counterargument.
If someone wants to use this test as "The Ulitmate Last Word on Women in Media," then they are wrong, not the test. If I fail using a screwdriver as a hammer, you're going to blame the screwdriver?
Who is making this argument to only ever use the Bechdel test and to ignore everything else? This is just seeing if there are hoof prints, it isn't telling us if they were horses or zebras.
Also, words mean things. A test that accurately and reliably measures what is supposed to measure isn't broken.
If you're a week late paying a bill once, it isn't generally a big deal. If you're habitually late with your payment... (and saying "hey, that one time I payed on time" isn't going to help out much)
The same way you weed anything out. You examine the data, particularly outliers, more closely.SpiderJerusalem said:
You are grossly overestimating the general populous. Most people do not consume enough of "medium x" to be able to look at trends, etc., just like most people aren't able to study the same cohort of smokers for 20 years looking for health problems. I'm glad your pack-a-day aunt lived to 109, but that isn't an earth-shattering counterargument.
If someone wants to use this test as "The Ulitmate Last Word on Women in Media," then they are wrong, not the test. If I fail using a screwdriver as a hammer, you're going to blame the screwdriver?
Who is making this argument to only ever use the Bechdel test and to ignore everything else? This is just seeing if there are hoof prints, it isn't telling us if they were horses or zebras.
Also, words mean things. A test that accurately and reliably measures what is supposed to measure isn't broken.
Now you're just being obtuse. The Bechdel Test refers to fiction. You are, presumably, also referring to fiction. But rather than engage in sincere dialogue, you're still tossing about meaningless speculation in lieu of concrete examples that prove your claims that the test is "broken".SpiderJerusalem said:
To illustrate: In Striptease, Erin's character arc progresses in relation to either her ex-husband or Ving Rhames' character. She has very little to say that isn't about one or both of them. Ergo, it fails the Bechdel Test by virtue of depicting a fictional female character whose existence is entirely defined by men.
To illustrate further: the Legacy of Kain series also fails the Bechdel Test, as there is only one prominent female character in the entire series. This does not reflect on the quality of Legacy of Kain as a whole.
And finally, Baldur's Gate passes the Bechdel Test irrespective of your main character's gender, because potential female party members talk to each other about topics besides you.
Tell you what: find a formula that can accurately anticipate all possible variables in any given situation, and we'll use that instead.
The Bechdel Test is a useful tool for illustrating precisely what Yahtzee's referring to: basic inequality of representation. Nothing more, nothing less. But since you either can't or won't see that, I don't think there's any point in furthering this discussion.
I wish people would just stop crying at the words 'Bechdel Test' and pay attention to what actually matters:The point Yahtzee is actually trying to make.
And frankly, i agree with his points, This industry has no self-control, it's all about excess and overdoing things...I still don't know how to change this, seeing as we all throw our money at the industry that keeps betraying us at every step.
And frankly, i agree with his points, This industry has no self-control, it's all about excess and overdoing things...I still don't know how to change this, seeing as we all throw our money at the industry that keeps betraying us at every step.