Flash Game Makes Players Beat Up "Tropes vs. Women" Creator

[Rainboq]

I'm not saying she's competent, but I can what she's trying to accomplish, and nor is she globe trotting, she's probably trying to get interviews with people nearby who work in the industry, but still, she'd need to travel to do so.

Honestly, I give her credit for trying to do what she's trying and to the people who are supporting her. But do I think she's the best choice at what she's trying to do? No.

Well then she can get a taxi, that's a couple of bucks or some gas or a lift from a friend, you do not need Kickstarter to do this.

And again, what makes her remotely qualified at conducting any interview, I'll tell you it is REALLY REALLY HARD! It's not just something you can dive into, you are interacting with someone trying to get information out of them that they may not want to fully disclose. And you have to be so careful. Interviews are extremely volatile situations, they can very quickly turn into an interrogation, people get defensive and things end messily with the interviewer walking out.

Any communication should be done via email correspondence. A DOCUMENTARY on video games should be done by someone with qualifications in journalism that Ms Sarkeesian doesn't have even close to. Journalism is a real profession in how to accountably handle interviews which is no trivial task and the smallest mistakes can have terrible outcomes when things are misconstrued or one falls for the temptation to deliberately misrepresent.

I am not going to give her credit for asking for so much money and then accepting so much more but not actually just knuckling down and doing it.

The "support" she needs is nice comments which she gets in spades, not money. And I wouldn't support her as she is less of a feminist (promoting women) and more of a Sex-Negative reactionary (attacking sexual women), there is no value in such a perspective on video games.

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

 

[Treblaine]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

 

[him over there]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

I'd just like to stop here and say, She has made over $100k? There is no way in hell that this project could possibly warrant that much money, especially when I could accomplish what she is setting out to do for under $100. I refuse to believe that there is any way that she is not keeping even a small amount of that money, especially since there is no other motive I can possibly think of for accepting donations past your goal.

 

[Rainboq]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

 

[Treblaine]

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

That is part of the problem. When I say "her project does not have adequate transparency" I mean she is no showing where this money she has accepted from the public is going, "transparency" is used a lot in British media to describe when an organisation shows they aren't misappropriating money, services or selection or whatever.

Also she is refusing to address any cutting criticism of her such as how she her project is not "transparent", only giving undue attention to trolls posting hate mail (classy thing is to discretely report them to police) for straw-man arguments or pandering to her sycophants.

 

[Rainboq]

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

That is part of the problem. When I say "her project does not have adequate transparency" I mean she is no showing where this money she has accepted from the public is going, "transparency" is used a lot in British media to describe when an organisation shows they aren't misappropriating money, services or selection or whatever.

Also she is refusing to address any cutting criticism of her such as how she her project is not "transparent", only giving undue attention to trolls posting hate mail (classy thing is to discretely report them to police) for straw-man arguments or pandering to her sycophants.

Have you tried asking? Have you asked her if she could display that info or disseminate it?

 

[Chives on top of me]

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

I'm sorry but can reword your entire post? It is really confusing on your stance especially the second paragraph of your statement. A bit of clarity would be appreciated.

Hmm... Lets see.. First paragraph: Pixels in a game do not make decisions.....

Second paragraph: Put a character in a bikini...be prepared to defend that action if it offends someone...

Clear?

 

[him over there]

I suppose, I suspect that she's trying to do the interviews in a professional manner, or those who are willing to do interviews aren't very accessible by car. And I never said she was qualified, but she's perfectly entitled to try. And if people want to give her money to do so, who are you to tell them otherwise?

She's entitled to ask for an interview but everyone has every reason to refuse as any person without expertise in interviewing is likely to hugely screw up an interview, and end up publishing something that they didn't actually mean. Interviews are done with accountable and internally regulated journalists for a reason.

She said she "needed" the money for this project and they believed her. But I've made clear she doesn't need the money for the project. That means she lied, and got money. They were lied to, they gave money under the impression it would help the project when it would only help her personal wealth. Most other Kickstarter project STOP accepting donations when they reach their target, she went 2600% above what she said she actually needed.

I DO have a problem when people give over money on false pretence, that is fraud in principal if not in legal actuality. I don't like it when people give thousands of dollars to a church like the church of Scientology as well under the pretext that a church needs thousands of dollars, even though they gave it up "willingly" they were manipulated. It's not a fair deal.

I'd just like to stop here and say, She has made over $100k? There is no way in hell that this project could possibly warrant that much money, especially when I could accomplish what she is setting out to do for under $100. I refuse to believe that there is any way that she is not keeping even a small amount of that money, especially since there is no other motive I can possibly think of for accepting donations past your goal.

Kickstarter usually has stretch goals, things where "if we make this much over our target we'll add this thing to our project"

How much can a webcam series possibly add to justify $100k? the point is there is zero reason for this kickstarter to exist in the first place and the superfluous amount of money combined with the lack of transparency regarding its use screams misspending scam.

 

[toobie]

Has anyone posted this yet?
I kinda have to agree with the guy.

 

[Treblaine]

You could, I don't know, ask her for a break down of how the money would be spent.

That is part of the problem. When I say "her project does not have adequate transparency" I mean she is no showing where this money she has accepted from the public is going, "transparency" is used a lot in British media to describe when an organisation shows they aren't misappropriating money, services or selection or whatever.

Also she is refusing to address any cutting criticism of her such as how she her project is not "transparent", only giving undue attention to trolls posting hate mail (classy thing is to discretely report them to police) for straw-man arguments or pandering to her sycophants.

Have you tried asking? Have you asked her if she could display that info or disseminate it?

I wouldn't be the first one (to criticise her) that she has refused to acknowledge. But I'll put my 2 cents in if you will. You DO agree that she should be totally transparent and open with how she spend $160'000 on an issue that is very important to us gamers? Right?

 

[Treblaine]

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

I'm sorry but can reword your entire post? It is really confusing on your stance especially the second paragraph of your statement. A bit of clarity would be appreciated.

Hmm... Lets see.. First paragraph: Pixels in a game do not make decisions.....

Second paragraph: Put a character in a bikini...be prepared to defend that action if it offends someone...

Clear?

Well let me address that clarification.

A character can make a decision.

Solid Snake decided to leave foxhound... not Hideo Kojima decided that Solid Snake should leave Foxhound. See, Solid Snake is a character who has feeling, emotions, ideas and opinions as well as tastes, preferences and prejudices.

A character in that universe dresses them self and dress the way they like.

News flash: millions of women ALL OVER THE WORLD decide to wear bikinis. And they don't have to answer to ANYONE why they do that.

The justification that you say the auteur must give or defend is within in the work itself where you see that this collection of pixels represents an abstract idea called a "character". An imaginary person. But you imagine their thought processes. Before demanding why Toby Garb didn't dress Lara Croft in a burka, why don't you consider the CHARACTER Lara Croft, why she might - like MILLIONS of women - decide to wear shorts and a top that exposes her arms.

 

[him over there]

1. Browse TV tropes articles for games fitting the trope.

Oh that's fucking rich using Tvtropes as a reference. Never mind the fact that many of the tropes are created by users themselves and have no qualifications but most of them don't even fit and are only squeezed into tangentially related tropes for the sake of it. Iv suppose this does validate tvtropes uselessness though, as this is the only time a list of times something happens without context or analysis is worthwhile.

 

[Chives on top of me]

Those women did not choose to dress like this, they were designed this way by MALE devs to cater to other MALE gamers.

Feminists don't have a problem with sexy women, just with the exploitation of female sexuality.

No. The character chose to dress that way in that story. As do women IN THE REAL WORLD. Go outside and you'll see women everywhere baring their arms and legs like Lara Croft. Why are you trying to escape the fiction that the world is set in, why does it matter what gender the writer is or who plays the game? There is NO REASON. It's an utterly hollow attack.

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

Yes, but is it not CONCEIVABLE that a character would decide to dress that way? And that there wouldn't be a problem if they did choose to dress that way. Why would Lara Croft have to cover her arms and legs? Surely if her character would want to wear shorts and a tank top then she would.

You see women who make such a decision every day.

Why should a writer have to explain a rationale as banal as why they dress a certain way. When you see a woman wearing shorts and a top that exposes her arms do you accost her and demand an explanation of why she decided to bare her arms and legs, she'd call you a crazy person and try to avoid you. CLearly women have their own reasons for dressing the way they dress.

You have to realise work of fiction only work if you are able to consider the characters motivations, if you only see this as a director ordering actors around then NOTHING WORKS.

So Solid Snake never made any decisions in any of the Metal Gear Solid games, Hideo Kojima did. No. Snake has motivations for doing what he does, as does every character.

You are comparing apples to, well, Photoshopped pictures of apples.

When you are talking about a character in a video game being sexist or not the motivations of the designers is everything.....Motivations for characters are in the narrative. The choices that Snake makes are because he was written that way...You don't question Snake. You question the writer.

 

[him over there]

1. Browse TV tropes articles for games fitting the trope.

Oh that's fucking rich using Tvtropes as a reference. Never mind the fact that many of the tropes are created by users themselves and have no qualifications but most of them don't even fit and are only squeezed into tangentially related tropes for the sake of it. Iv suppose this does validate tvtropes uselessness though, as this is the only time a list of times something happens without context or analysis is worthwhile.

I cant go through them again(i just ate) but if you feel like stomaching her abrasive narration, watch her videos. Find the tropes she is reviewing & compare them to the actual trope. Just know she tends to rename the actual trope for the purpose of making it look more harmful than ti actual is.

If you don't think you can make it, hide all deadly objects, grab some booze, & take a shot each time she rolls her eyes, talks down, or doesn't backup a statement.

Oh I've seen her videos, I just totally glossed over the fact she got her information from tvtropes of all places. Never mind the fact that the site user base itself is full of misogynists and rape apologists but the site is also devoid of any analysis and nearly any of the tropes are substantially grounded in legitimacy because they create them themselves. They have tropes that amount to "X happened", totally devoid of analysis or academic worth. She's probably the only person with a use for the giants contextless lists of times something happened.

 

[him over there]

1. Browse TV tropes articles for games fitting the trope.

Oh that's fucking rich using Tvtropes as a reference. Never mind the fact that many of the tropes are created by users themselves and have no qualifications but most of them don't even fit and are only squeezed into tangentially related tropes for the sake of it. Iv suppose this does validate tvtropes uselessness though, as this is the only time a list of times something happens without context or analysis is worthwhile.

I cant go through them again(i just ate) but if you feel like stomaching her abrasive narration, watch her videos. Find the tropes she is reviewing & compare them to the actual trope. Just know she tends to rename the actual trope for the purpose of making it look more harmful than ti actual is.

If you don't think you can make it, hide all deadly objects, grab some booze, & take a shot each time she rolls her eyes, talks down, or doesn't backup a statement.

Oh I've seen her videos, I just totally glossed over the fact she got her information from tvtropes of all places. Never mind the fact that the site user base itself is full of misogynists and rape apologists but the site is also devoid of any analysis and nearly any of the tropes are substantially grounded in legitimacy because they create them themselves. They have tropes that amount to "X happened", totally devoid of analysis or academic worth. She's probably the only person with a use for the giants contextless lists of times something happened.

She gets the basic idea from TV tropes. had she actually read the page she would not have gotten nearly half of her assessments so wrong. TV tropes tends to get a good deal wrong but they get more right than Sarkeesian has.

When tvtropes establishes more credibility than you it's time to pack it in, plain and simple.

 

[Treblaine]

When you are talking about a character in a video game being sexist or not the motivations of the designers is everything.....Motivations for characters are in the narrative. The choices that Snake makes are because he was written that way...You don't question Snake. You question the writer.

First of all, where are you getting sexist from wearing a bikini? We HAVE GONE OVER THIS.

Sexy =/= sexism. That's not feminism to object to women in Bikinis. That's Sex-Negative conservatism.

This is what you don't get, characters may literally only do things because the writer had them do that, but that doesn't mean that WITHIN THE NARRATIVE they did not that for their own volition. You DO question snake, you get inside HIS head, balance HIS (fictional) experiences, what HE knows, what HIS stated ideals are. It's not just completely arbitrary what Snake does as written by Hideo Kojima.

First look to the character motivations if they are reasonable before you go complaining to the auteur about contrivances.

Samus in Other M was a sexist depiction because her character motivations made no sense, it defies all logic of her role as an independent bounty hunter for her to do that but does fit a sexist depiction of women as totally slavish to a disinterested man to the point of needlessly jeopardising her life and unreliable due to her overpowering emotions where some random guy is needed to save her.

It is reasonable for a female character to dress either actively sexy or just refusing to cover up which some might perceive as sexy, millions if not billions of women do so without giving up their independence or agency. That's what feminism is, empowering and enabling women. Saying women or even the depiction of women have to cover up and be celibate to be respected is not achieving that.

Yes, this MUST apply to even virtual depictions of women, as this colours the wider impression of society. If we can't accept a woman being sexual and in control then that is a problem with society that needs to be remedied by demonstration that such a combination is not inconceivable.

 

[Blade_125]

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

I'm sorry but can reword your entire post? It is really confusing on your stance especially the second paragraph of your statement. A bit of clarity would be appreciated.

Hmm... Lets see.. First paragraph: Pixels in a game do not make decisions.....

Second paragraph: Put a character in a bikini...be prepared to defend that action if it offends someone...

Clear?

Well let me address that clarification.

A character can make a decision.

Solid Snake decided to leave foxhound... not Hideo Kojima decided that Solid Snake should leave Foxhound. See, Solid Snake is a character who has feeling, emotions, ideas and opinions as well as tastes, preferences and prejudices.

A character in that universe dresses them self and dress the way they like.

News flash: millions of women ALL OVER THE WORLD decide to wear bikinis. And they don't have to answer to ANYONE why they do that.

The justification that you say the auteur must give or defend is within in the work itself where you see that this collection of pixels represents an abstract idea called a "character". An imaginary person. But you imagine their thought processes. Before demanding why Toby Garb didn't dress Lara Croft in a burka, why don't you consider the CHARACTER Lara Croft, why she might - like MILLIONS of women - decide to wear shorts and a top that exposes her arms.

I almost called you a complete idiot for this post, but I see where you are going now. It's based on what kind of story is being told, the elements in it that would lead to how a character might dress.

So a better way to put it is not ask Lara Croft why she wears short shorts, but ask the creative team what kind of character and world are they trying to create, which will obviously influence the attire.

One problem with your line of argument is comparing a video game character to contemporary people. Yes plenty of girls show a lot of skin out in the street, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is while walking in a city in their day to day lives. Would they wear the same thing while traversing through a jungle ruin? That is wear chinves point becomes important. Can the creative team justify their decisions. If the character is travelling in the arctic and she is wearing a bikini, then that doesn't make a whole lot of sence. You argue that women can wear what they want, which I agree with. But are these character wearing what most women would want in a specific environment, or wearing what the designers think young men want them to wear?

Too much of this argument devolves into argung specifics that detract from the main point. It isn't that female characters dress a certain way. It is do these characters have a real personality, or are they put there only for visual stimulation for boys. If most female characters do not have a real personality then that is sexist. If they do have real personalities then it is not. Maybe we should go through a large number of games and keep tally of women with depth and women who are window dressing. Or you know, get someone else to do it for us.

Of course even this is narrowing into specifics more than we should. The problem isn't video games. The problem is the general attitude that the average person has, and this is reflected in all media.

I don't think Anita is the best at these videos (but I applaud her for trying to open peoples eyes at least). If you don't like her pervious videos then watch a movie called Miss Representation. A great documentary that looks at media as a whole and how it influences attitudes. It even shows how boys are raised to be closed off from their emotions and it makes it very hard to treat women with respect (I am not doing this explanation justice). If anyone reading this feels they are not sexist, or mor importantly that sexism doesn't exist, and doesn't like Anita's videos then I challange you to watch Miss Representation.

 

[Treblaine]

You realize how full of shit that reply is right?
The character makes NO "choice" real women (all real people) make choices. Whatever the character is wearing/not wearing is solely the responsibility of the person/group of people that decided to place the character in that outfit.

I see no reason why the creator should not be held to account or even forced to explain the "rational" behind any decision was made to dress their character in whatever manner.

(sorry for butchering the quotes still learning)

I'm sorry but can reword your entire post? It is really confusing on your stance especially the second paragraph of your statement. A bit of clarity would be appreciated.

Hmm... Lets see.. First paragraph: Pixels in a game do not make decisions.....

Second paragraph: Put a character in a bikini...be prepared to defend that action if it offends someone...

Clear?

Well let me address that clarification.

A character can make a decision.

Solid Snake decided to leave foxhound... not Hideo Kojima decided that Solid Snake should leave Foxhound. See, Solid Snake is a character who has feeling, emotions, ideas and opinions as well as tastes, preferences and prejudices.

A character in that universe dresses them self and dress the way they like.

News flash: millions of women ALL OVER THE WORLD decide to wear bikinis. And they don't have to answer to ANYONE why they do that.

The justification that you say the auteur must give or defend is within in the work itself where you see that this collection of pixels represents an abstract idea called a "character". An imaginary person. But you imagine their thought processes. Before demanding why Toby Garb didn't dress Lara Croft in a burka, why don't you consider the CHARACTER Lara Croft, why she might - like MILLIONS of women - decide to wear shorts and a top that exposes her arms.

I almost called you a complete idiot for this post, but I see where you are going now. It's based on what kind of story is being told, the elements in it that would lead to how a character might dress.

So a better way to put it is not ask Lara Croft why she wears short shorts, but ask the creative team what kind of character and world are they trying to create, which will obviously influence the attire.

One problem with your line of argument is comparing a video game character to contemporary people. Yes plenty of girls show a lot of skin out in the street, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is while walking in a city in their day to day lives. Would they wear the same thing while traversing through a jungle ruin? That is wear chinves point becomes important. Can the creative team justify their decisions. If the character is travelling in the arctic and she is wearing a bikini, then that doesn't make a whole lot of sence. You argue that women can wear what they want, which I agree with. But are these character wearing what most women would want in a specific environment, or wearing what the designers think young men want them to wear?

Too much of this argument devolves into argung specifics that detract from the main point. It isn't that female characters dress a certain way. It is do these characters have a real personality, or are they put there only for visual stimulation for boys. If most female characters do not have a real personality then that is sexist. If they do have real personalities then it is not. Maybe we should go through a large number of games and keep tally of women with depth and women who are window dressing. Or you know, get someone else to do it for us.

Of course even this is narrowing into specifics more than we should. The problem isn't video games. The problem is the general attitude that the average person has, and this is reflected in all media.

I don't think Anita is the best at these videos (but I applaud her for trying to open peoples eyes at least). If you don't like her pervious videos then watch a movie called Miss Representation. A great documentary that looks at media as a whole and how it influences attitudes. It even shows how boys are raised to be closed off from their emotions and it makes it very hard to treat women with respect (I am not doing this explanation justice). If anyone reading this feels they are not sexist, or mor importantly that sexism doesn't exist, and doesn't like Anita's videos then I challange you to watch Miss Representation.

I've been camping and seen women in short shorts. And when rock climbing. I was taught to abseil buy a guy who was wearing uber short short I only remember because I looked up and saw as he was abseiling down his shorts had ridden up and his white buttcheek was exposed. He didn't see any problem with wearing short short and I'd only ever have remembered this guy wearing them from the sudden white buttock sight.

So Lara Croft wearing short shorts... Why is that so hard to believe? What is interrupting your suspension of disbelief? What is so inconceivable about a woman or anyone wearing short shorts especially in very hot climates? In Lara's home she wears long baggy trousers.

"If the character is travelling in the arctic and she is wearing a bikini"

But she never did that. I don't think any character has ever seriously done that. Lara went to the Arctic and Antarctic with thick full body covering clothes. She made a crash landing from a plane flying from a tropical climate to a snowy mountainous environment, she found a coat and donned it. It's all totally in line with what a character like Lara Croft might WANT TO WEAR. Without JUST the contrivance of what suits boys.

How about you actually play through the Tomb Raider series and you'll see Lara Croft is no playboy "playmate" who just acts flirtatious, she is never flirtatious, she has a very definite character motivation though not exactly refined for one of the first video games generations with voice acting. Any even attempt at physically encroaching on her is met with sudden violence.

I was really disappointed by the Angelina Jolie Tomb Raider films as they got the Lara Croft character so completely and utterly wrong, she seemed too much like Trinity from the Matrix at times and no where near animately harsh enough. Lara is an English rose with thorns... and a submachine gun. She's cruel and murderous, more like the anti-hero of a spaghetti western. She wasn't serene and in touch with local customs, she'd indifferent and condescending when she talks with a monk, only focusing on the next treasure.

"Maybe we should go through a large number of games and keep tally of women with depth and women who are window dressing. Or you know, get someone else to do it for us."

And what good would that achieve? Art by a quota? That's open to misuse and calamity.

Sarkeesian is totally unsuited to such an analysis as she is a sex-negative reactionary social conservative, who makes sloppy and facile arguments that only stand by to criticism by her censoring all criticism on her videos and straw0manning trolls.

I'll try to check out this "Miss Representation" when I can. But consider that if you except me to accept that boys are indoctrinated to think a certain way, also consider that girls are indoctrinated to think a certain way as well, such as to denigrate and think less of women who are openly sexual without any good reason to consider them that way.

You can see why apart from Lara Croft there are not many female protagonists. Because they don't want to have to deal with all this bullshit of every characteristic about them second guessed and people willingly refusing to suspend their disbelief and pull back the curtain and demand the writer explain why he did this for the audience rather than stop - just for a second, and consider the character in the fiction.

 

[runic knight]

One problem with your line of argument is comparing a video game character to contemporary people. Yes plenty of girls show a lot of skin out in the street, and there is nothing wrong with that. But that is while walking in a city in their day to day lives. Would they wear the same thing while traversing through a jungle ruin? That is wear chinves point becomes important. Can the creative team justify their decisions. If the character is travelling in the arctic and she is wearing a bikini, then that doesn't make a whole lot of sence. You argue that women can wear what they want, which I agree with. But are these character wearing what most women would want in a specific environment, or wearing what the designers think young men want them to wear?

Being that women can and do often wear similar to what the characters wear (not during their own adventures, kinda hard to have unworldly adventures in reality, but you get the point), then the question almost becomes one of looking for it specifically. And if you look hard enough, you will find, be it giants of really just windmills. There is truth that a lot of the portrayal is more sexualized in some games (battle bikinis, anyone?), but far too often people make a knee-jerk reaction that sexy=sexist. That seems to be what a lot of people are complaining about when it comes to the kickstarter's representation of games.

Too much of this argument devolves into argung specifics that detract from the main point. It isn't that female characters dress a certain way. It is do these characters have a real personality, or are they put there only for visual stimulation for boys. If most female characters do not have a real personality then that is sexist. If they do have real personalities then it is not. Maybe we should go through a large number of games and keep tally of women with depth and women who are window dressing. Or you know, get someone else to do it for us.

That is an idea. Keep in mind, it might be hard if one doesn't look at underlying story elements. Some characters don't get developed because they are secondary characters or because the story is paper thin and sucks. From a feminist bias perspective, as was displayed by the kickstarter, lack of depth of a female seems to be instantly viewed as sexist, without context to the rest of the game. Such as saying a female character was underdeveloped in a minimalistic game where she was actually more complex then the player character himself.

Of course even this is narrowing into specifics more than we should. The problem isn't video games. The problem is the general attitude that the average person has, and this is reflected in all media.

I don't think Anita is the best at these videos (but I applaud her for trying to open peoples eyes at least). If you don't like her pervious videos then watch a movie called Miss Representation. A great documentary that looks at media as a whole and how it influences attitudes. It even shows how boys are raised to be closed off from their emotions and it makes it very hard to treat women with respect (I am not doing this explanation justice). If anyone reading this feels they are not sexist, or mor importantly that sexism doesn't exist, and doesn't like Anita's videos then I challange you to watch Miss Representation.

There is truth here, hidden under some things. The views of women and men is a gender identity that is slow to change in a culture. Media will of course reflect this. There is also an aspect not touched on of how games tend to use simpler stories to base around and often these are re-imaginings of older stories, that come with old and some would say sexist tropes built right in. Hero saves the princess, for instance.
I doubt anyone here things there is no sexism, but I think many feel Anita is being intellectually dishonest in her assessments and, ironically, misrepresenting things to fit her perspective better rather then a fairer assessment of what is going on.

 

[Chives on top of me]

When you are talking about a character in a video game being sexist or not the motivations of the designers is everything.....Motivations for characters are in the narrative. The choices that Snake makes are because he was written that way...You don't question Snake. You question the writer.

First of all, where are you getting sexist from wearing a bikini? We HAVE GONE OVER THIS.

Sexy =/= sexism. That's not feminism to object to women in Bikinis. That's Sex-Negative conservatism.

This is what you don't get, characters may literally only do things because the writer had them do that, but that doesn't mean that WITHIN THE NARRATIVE they did not that for their own volition. You DO question snake, you get inside HIS head, balance HIS (fictional) experiences, what HE knows, what HIS stated ideals are. It's not just completely arbitrary what Snake does as written by Hideo Kojima.

First look to the character motivations if they are reasonable before you go complaining to the auteur about contrivances.

Samus in Other M was a sexist depiction because her character motivations made no sense, it defies all logic of her role as an independent bounty hunter for her to do that but does fit a sexist depiction of women as totally slavish to a disinterested man to the point of needlessly jeopardising her life and unreliable due to her overpowering emotions where some random guy is needed to save her.

It is reasonable for a female character to dress either actively sexy or just refusing to cover up which some might perceive as sexy, millions if not billions of women do so without giving up their independence or agency. That's what feminism is, empowering and enabling women. Saying women or even the depiction of women have to cover up and be celibate to be respected is not achieving that.

Yes, this MUST apply to even virtual depictions of women, as this colours the wider impression of society. If we can't accept a woman being sexual and in control then that is a problem with society that needs to be remedied by demonstration that such a combination is not inconceivable.

What you don't seem to get is that you cannot remove the designer/author from the equation... It does not matter if the motivations make sense to you or not. It does not matter if the character is well written or not. What matters is how or why the character was written that way in the first place.

The question is not, Does the "character" want to wear this? or even, Is there proper motivation for the character to wear this? It is Why did the designer put a character in this outfit?

In DOA Extreme Volleyball there does exist in the narrative an explanation for why the female fighters are all in bikinis. They are on vacation on a tropical island and there even seems to be a lack of men...perhaps making even the most shy member of the group feel free enough to "dress down". Would you really call this a game that can be seen as a game empowering or enabling for women? Of course not... it is a game made for men/boys.

The designer is the one that must answer to anyone that has an issue.