Excessively Excessive

[Canadamus Prime]

That's all very well Yahtzee, but how do we change this pattern of behavior?

 

[Dastardly]

But that is the problem! Bringing awareness to something by oversimplifying everything to the point that becomes a part of the problem itself!

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.

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.

It is not a working system to raise awareness by grossly gliding over a multitude of nuances so important to the cause. It's a poor use of "the end justifies the means" because once anyone actually takes a look at the "scores", they'll realize just how broken they are.

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.

If they really wanted to raise awareness, it could be done with simple questionnaires that cause people to think. "Who was a strong female character in the last movie you saw?" "Why?". It's a poor example, yet still better than just giving films a cursory glance and saying "these are a part of the problem" because they do not fit into the narrow guidelines set forth.

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.

Because by these tests, you'd have to start discounting films like Little Women and Gone With the Wind. Or why stop there? You could discount people who have actually been praised and awarded by women's rights societies, like Joss Whedon.

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.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

The Bechdel test is such a broken system that I can't even begin to understand why people insist on bringing it up.

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.

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.

 

[rayen020]

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.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

How do you weed out the female characters that are there for the service of the male characters when your entire test is based on something as flimsy as these parameters? It reduces EVERYTHING to a standardized level, thus making everything weak if it doesn't fit the narrow margin. It puts a character that might spend the entire movie nude, being objectified and put down on the same level as a strong female hero simply because words are not exchanged for some arbitrary reason.

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.

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.

 

[4173]

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)

How do you weed out the female characters that are there for the service of the male characters when your entire test is based on something as flimsy as these parameters? It reduces EVERYTHING to a standardized level, thus making everything weak if it doesn't fit the narrow margin. It puts a character that might spend the entire movie nude, being objectified and put down on the same level as a strong female hero simply because words are not exchanged for some arbitrary reason.

The same way you weed anything out. You examine the data, particularly outliers, more closely.

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.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

What in the hell are you talking about? In real life? In movies?

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".

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.

Which is exactly a part of the problem. She isn't. Yet her test (carried on by others), attempts to act as if they were an authority on this subject because of this standardized testing process.

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.

 

[l3o2828]

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.

 

[4173]

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".

And now you're just misrepresenting what was written. You, yourself, posted an example that I contradicted regarding this movie and illustrating precisely why the test is broken. If everything is laid out on the same level, regardless should they be, you will always get broken results. That's why people are fighting against things like the SAT's in the states.

The Bechdel Test is a useful tool for illustrating precisely what Yahtzee's referring to: basic inequality of representation.

And it is at that broken. How is this not getting to you?

It's not about quality.

It's not about which is a better movie.

It's about the test, itself, making something important nothing but an overtly simplified banality that (if we're to believe the posters in this thread) nobody can agree on as to it's purpose, or disagree with it completely.

The same way you weed anything out. You examine the data, particularly outliers, more closely.

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.

So which one is it? Do we trust the public to weed out the data, to look closer, to understand, or are we grossly overestimating the general populous? Because if someone truly cares about the matter, they've already given the Bechdel test a look and found it wanting.

So who then does it serve?

Both/Neither.

As I see it, it's only useful for medium sized groups. An example would be along the lines of (completely hypothetically) the 20 highest grossing movies of the summer, or something. The group is small enough that the presenter can directly address exceptions/loopholes/technicalities etc. but large enough that the disinterested consumer may not have noticed the trend/attitude/atmosphere etc.

This is just my particular take. I'm not saying it is great and vital. I'm not saying this is how it was originally intended to be used. I'm certainly not saying that it is used, if I am correct, this way all that often.

Frankly, I'm arguing about "broken" more than I'm defending the Bechdel test specifically.

 

[oktalist]

The Bechdel test demonstrates that an inequality exists in certain sectors of popular culture. That's all it does, that's all it purports to do, that's all it was ever intended to do. If you have a problem with that, then the problem is yours, not the test's.

 

[Dastardly]

And how are you still not seeing the problem with the test being simplified then?

One might say I'm simply failing to see a problem that isn't there. You very much want to be against this test for some reason. Perhaps you're one of those folks that turns a bit angry at any intimation that male and female characters aren't exactly handled in an equitable manner, I don't know.

What I do know is that you're not being rational in this. And at this point, you're so entrenched in your anti-test position, that it's not a matter of logic anymore. You're emotionally invested in not being wrong on this, emotion being the enemy of reason.

My hope is that, recognizing that, you can take a step back and reassess. No one's keeping score here.

How can you sit there and claim that it's OK for it to be simplified (as if the people reading about the test and looking at the results were kids.

Not kids. No one said this test was for kids. It is for people who, perhaps like children, aren't aware of what they don't know. Many people really, truly aren't aware that there is any difference in the standard treatment of male and female characters. Usually, those people are males. We only tend to really notice an inequity when it's not in our favor -- just human nature.

How do you weed out the female characters that are there for the service of the male characters when your entire test is based on something as flimsy as these parameters?

See, this is the thing you keep saying you're "not saying." You're making this test something it isn't. It's not supposed to weed out all of those female characters. This is an x-ray, not surgery. It's just there to point out some of the general symptoms.

One of the symptoms of stroke is loss of balance. Does that mean every person that experiences a loss of balance is experiencing a stroke? No. Another is slurred speech. Does that mean everyone that slurs their speech is suffering a stroke? No. Does it mean everyone experiencing both is in the throes of a stroke? No.

You can go down the list of the handful of major stroke symptoms. And it's possible to have all of those symptoms and not be having a stroke. Does that mean such a list is completely useless, and can never be helpful to anyone? (Anyone who says yes is an idiot, by the way.)

If you go down that list and you have most or all of the symptoms, it means you should consider more carefully whether or not you (or the person you're observing) are having a stroke. It might mean go see a doctor just in case. But it's not a diagnosis.

This "test" is no different.

It puts a character that might spend the entire movie nude, being objectified and put down on the same level as a strong female hero simply because words are not exchanged for some arbitrary reason.

No it doesn't, because this test says nothing about "levels." You're adding that. Once again doing exactly the thing you keep telling us to stop saying you're doing (but you're doing it anyway). It's simply pointing out a different problem.

The problem isn't the sexual objectification of women. The problem is the more subtle marginalization of women, and the default to the male perspective. That can happen in the titty-fest gratification movies, or it can happen in the latest Oscar bait. Because it's not about the obvious problems. It's about pointing out the less obvious ones.

Nobody ever said it was. Stop pulling that into this.

You have my word that I'll stop bringing it up the instant you stop doing it.

No, this test has done nothing of the sort. I've viewed movies for a damn long while with an eye for good characters, regardless of gender. The test is what it is, a broken, overtly simplified attack point for people who refuse to discuss a matter at length, but would rather reduce it to simple bullet points and say "there, look, it's a problem", without realizing that their contribution is only harming themselves.

Sorry, but this test was designed exactly for people like you, and it has done its job perfectly. You're absolutely the perfect example of what this test is supposed to do. But because you hate the idea of the test, you would certainly never admit that to yourself or others... but there it is. You've proven that this test:

1. Successfully generates discussion on what constitutes fair female representation in movies.
2. Causes people to look back over movies they already know through a different lens.
3. Does so by using a simple set of rules to very generally indicate a problem.

You're the proof.

 

[Able Seacat]

Spoiler

I hope the last line will come true; "Eventually publishers have got to understand that the only excess that's guaranteed to work is being excessively good."

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

In an attempt for Yahtzee to identify the roots of the issue of feminine portrayal in media and remedy them he just gave us another reason to flip out over the "women" issue.

Counter intuitive or ingenious in demonstrating our ignorance?

You Decide!

EDIT: Also, Hold the phone. Can't the Bechdel test be applied to guys as well?

 

[bullet_sandw1ch]

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.

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.

the AC series might be like that intentionally, as in the 1500's women had no rights. if ubisoft wrote the same way, in a completely modern game, would it still fail?

 

[Kargathia]

As an aside, the comment, "it's always difficult to rid ourselves of such basic, instinctual things, in the same way human beings will probably never shake off instinctual racism," is so mind-numbingly ignorant that it's almost beneath contempt.

Humanity's predilection for instinctual discrimination is quite well-documented, and there are zero indications of it diminishing any time soon. I fail to see how his comment is in any way ignorant.

OT: I sincerely doubt the AAA industry will take the cue from indie developers that quality matters more than quantity. Chances are they'll take whatever aspect they felt made an indie game good, and promptly continue to excessively enlarge it.

 

[Yosarian2]

To get back to the article: I think the rule of "more" is kind of an inherent rule of sequels in general.

The first movie of a series, or the first season of a show, or the first book in a series, or whatever, might just be about saving people trapped in a building from terrorists, or stopping the President from getting assassinated, or killing a couple of vampires, or something like that. But each sequel has to be bigger then that. By the second or third book/movie/season, you're going to be Saving The World from nuclear weapons/evil gods/The Dark Lord/ whatever. Think of almost any series of movies, books, or television show; anything from 24, to action movies, to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Each season always has to be Bigger then the one before it.

Consider the high percentage of big video games that are long-running franchises, and I think that explains a lot of the whole "excess" thing he's talking about. It can also happen within a video game; each section of the game, each chapter, has to be an acceleration to the chapter before in order to come to a big climax, as the threat level increases and your character gets stronger. Each phase of the story has to be scarier then the one before it. Each new power you get has to be bigger and flashier then the one before it. So by the time you get to the end of the game, things tend to get a little absurd. (Think about the final moves in classic final fantasy games, where the "each move has to be more cool looking then the one before it" rule gets to such absurd levels that every round of the battle you're blowing up the sun or something equally absurd.)

 

[Scrustle]

I'm generally getting bored of excess in games. It's not really the graphical quality but things like action sequences in games that try to one-up each other. Bombastic is the perfect word for it. But that word has the wrong reputation. People use it to describe something that's good, but the word means quite the opposite. It means something which is big and impressive but has no meaning behind it. We should be trying to avoid games being bombastic. A developer should feel bad for his game being called bombastic. It basically means the game is just full of stupid meaningless explosions with no artistic merit.

 

[Diana Kingston-Gabai]

the AC series might be like that intentionally, as in the 1500's women had no rights. if ubisoft wrote the same way, in a completely modern game, would it still fail?

Bear in mind that Lucy Stillman and Rebecca Crane are both part of the "Desmond" storyline, which is set in the present day. But even if you set that aside, it's not an issue of rights per se: there are women like Maria and Caterina Sforza who participate in the Altair/Ezio segments, but per the specific parameters of the Bechdel Test, they don't have any significance independent of the protagonist. They exist in the story only in relation to him.

As for Ubisoft as a whole... to be honest, the only game I can think of that meets the Test's requirements is Beyond Good and Evil. It's been a while since I played Heroes of Might & Magic V or VI, but if they had any female warlords conversing with female lieutenants, that would also pass.

 

[Voltano]

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.

I noticed this when taking my game design classes at college that I was learning a lot more of how to make "excessive" animations, graphical tricks, or how to make something look "realistic" than focusing on core mechanics of a game--or how some games are good while others are not so good. I think the major problem here is triple-A games are influenced more by marketing and attempts to "one-up" the competitor in sales.

Activision releases "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" a few years back and it was a massive success. Prior to that, Microsoft released the "Halo" series on their proprietary console, and it was a massive success. This leads to other developers/publishers to think that they need to mimic these games to earn more revenue, instead of focusing on making an interesting game. So they focus on making their "game" more flashy and pretty than the competitors, relying on trailers and "awesome scene quota" numbers to follow so their game could sell well. In turn, this makes them slowly (at least to most gamers' opinions) turn their games into films with less interaction and more emphasis on trying to impress us.

Indie games seem to have similar problems that they want to take a familiar game, but make it "bigger" or flashier, in some cases. Since "Minecraft" was released I have met an instructor at my college that wants to make an FPS, block-building sandbox world similar to "Minecraft" but made in C#/XNA. I'm sure there are some similar indie games that try mimicking "Angry Birds" but make it more flashy. It may only be a matter of time before Activision, EA, or Ubisoft release their "Minecraft" clone.

 

[RvLeshrac]

I like how everyone is still talking about the 4ch/Goonswarm events. Because, of course, attention wasn't the intent at ALL. They were totally focused on attacking women. Yup. Couldn't possibly have been attention. All of these people across the world giving them shitloads of media attention isn't encouraging them to go do the same thing again.


Ignoring people doesn't work in real-life because they're right in front of you. On Teh Internets, ignoring people causes them to, functionally, not exist.