Kinda sexist? Would you change it? How?

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Not a GG thread, bring that up and I'll shank you.
The purpose of this thread was to get two vehemently disagreeing sides to come to a bit of an understanding. The two sides that disagree the most are GG and "anti" GG, so excluding them from the discussion with threats of knife-death was a shortsighted decision.

Critiquing games from a feminist perspective and/or pointing out things that are targeted at men, or, sexist etc, is fine, debate over it is a good thing, freedom of speech, yada yada.

I don't think this is where the divide lies however. We see sexism and other discriminatory concepts as bad, something that should be gotten rid of. When we label Assassin's Creed as sexist, or Bayonetta, or Tomb Raider, or any other game, to some people it comes across as "X is sexist, so we must get rid of it". Thing is, I don't think this is what most people mean when they say that. If a person or a law is sexist, we see that as a bad thing, but if a game has a sexist element, (the women being side characters, all the player characters being men etc,) it's not necessarily "bad", it just "is". People don't mean "we must destroy it!", it's merely an observation.

So, partly inspired by the recent Jimquisition, if you observe a sexist element in a game, whether it's the only showing of women being background characters, the female lead constantly needing the male's help, gratuitous crotch shots in Bayonetta:

Would this alone drive you away from the game?
Would you change it?
What would you have preferred the dev team did differently about this sexist element?
Etc?

Note: When I stated certain things are sexist in some way, I was using examples, not my own observations (though my observations may or may not align with some of these examples, they aren't the point here, please don't lose focus of the actual question).

Be civil, no shitfights, ->stay (roughly) on topic<-, try to be concise.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depends on the severity.

LotR, for example, is about a bunch of straight white guys who are generally born into money fighting black people and working class monsters. Yeah, there's a bit of a problem there. But I still like the movies, and occasionally try re-reading the books (but skip the bloody endless singing).

As to whether I'd change it? You mean, would I pass a law making it changing, or if I was a script editor or something I'd talk to the writers and get them to do things differently because that's my job? If I was involved at a high level at a LotR rip-off film, I'd question if the elves and dwarfs and not evil humans all need to be white, if there would be different ethnicities amongst them, or if elvish and dwarfish is a different ethnicity in of itself (not sure about that last, though).

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Depends on the severity.

LotR, for example, is about a bunch of straight white guys who are generally born into money fighting black people and working class monsters. Yeah, there's a bit of a problem there. But I still like the movies, and occasionally try re-reading the books (but skip the bloody endless singing).

As to whether I'd change it? You mean, would I pass a law making it changing, or if I was a script editor or something I'd talk to the writers and get them to do things differently because that's my job? If I was involved at a high level at a LotR rip-off film, I'd question if the elves and dwarfs and not evil humans all need to be white, if there would be different ethnicities amongst them, or if elvish and dwarfish is a different ethnicity in of itself (not sure about that last, though).

So the racist elements don't drive you away from it, but if it were to be remade today, what exactly would you change if you had control over it? Would you say there must be a greater mix of skin colour throughout the movie, would you leave selection of actors/extras to a selection committee to choose actors/extras on their own and tell them to disregard skin colour (random (for the US)), or would you keep what the original trilogy had, and keep the same sort of, uh, medieval geographical based racial segregation (similar to certain medieval periods).

Edit: and to what extent would you agree with my hypothesis (the biggest paragraph)?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So the racist elements don't drive you away from it, but if it were to be remade today, what exactly would you change if you had control over it?

Well, I'd tone down the stuff about kings, especially rightful kinds that solve everything due to their bloodlines. An Athenian style democracy, a Roman style Republic, or a Norse style Thing could work just as well, and be a lot less overdone. It's a bit annoying how keen the west is on democracy, but keeps pumping stuff praising the same old boring monarchies.

Also, more women, though the LotR movies did female characters better than the source material.

Would you say there must be a greater mix of skin colour throughout the movie, would you leave selection of actors/extras to a selection committee to choose actors/extras on their own and tell them to disregard skin colour (random (for the US)), or would you keep what the original trilogy had, and keep the same sort of, uh, medieval geographical based racial segregation (similar to certain medieval periods).

Well, racial segregation wasn't really such a thing, at least not as it is portrayed. Sure, you'd have lots of white people in Britain, for example, but there has long been lots of contact with Africa. Rome ruled large parts of both at the same time, for example.

In any case, there are different bloodlines and ethnicities mentioned. If Aragorn is from a special line of kings who were very different from most mortals, why shouldn't he be of a different ethnicity to most people? Likewise, elves and dwarfs, there's no reason they should be played by people of the same ethnicity, and especially not wizards, who aren't even in a species, I think. Seems very dodgy to have a diverse world in which you can have elves and dwarves and wizards as long as they are white.

I could see it going either way, either having nation groups having distinct (ish) ethnicities, or that things are cosmopolitan and nations are quite mixed.

Oh, the one thing people cannot really do, is to say that their made up world must be populated/dominated by straight white guys because of "realism", and then fill it with dragons and wizards and talking trees.

Edit: and to what extent would you agree with my hypothesis (the biggest paragraph)?

I'd say you were very much correct. People are very quick to equate "This has a sexist element" with "Ban this, it hurts my feelings" and argue against the former while claiming it's the latter. This is very tiresome.

 

[Queen Michael]

Depends on the severity.

LotR, for example, is about a bunch of straight white guys who are generally born into money fighting black people...

I haven't read that book since 2006; who are black?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depends on the severity.

LotR, for example, is about a bunch of straight white guys who are generally born into money fighting black people...

I haven't read that book since 2006; who are black?

The evil men from distant parts of the world who joined Sauron's forces, or at least some of them. I think at least one nation is supposed to be African or Middle Eastern.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Depends on the severity.

LotR, for example, is about a bunch of straight white guys who are generally born into money fighting black people...

I haven't read that book since 2006; who are black?

The mercenaries riding the elephants are black. From what I remember (of the movies) they're only present in the second to last fight in the third movie though.

 

[mecegirl]

I don't think there is much that can be done for a piece of media that has already been released. And as a whole, part of why elements of a piece of media being sexist/racist/whatever is often dependent on how often that element is used in other media. Having a damsel in distress isn't the issue, its that the trope has been done to death. Which has unfortunately left a lot of female characters without agency. Unless such a thing is caught during the development stages not much can be done to change anything. What can be done, and part of why people criticize media, is that the next project can avoid relying on the sexist/racist/whatever trope.

So for thaluikhain's LorR example. The issue isn't necessarily that all the protagonists in LotR are white. (Though it should be noted that the people of medieval Europe did have positive contact with other ethnicites. So there was no need to cast them only as villains.) The problem is that almost every time a fantasy book gets made into a movie all of the protagonists are White.

Movie maker's have options. It seems like race bending is the go to answer in these situations, but they wouldn't have to change character's races in a cast if they chose a source material that was already diverse. So next time they could choose to make a big budget film based off of Tales of Earthsea (and not Whitewash the protagonist like the Sci Fi channel did back in the day). Or, if actually creating a brand new fantasy world they could make the main cast what ever race they wanted.

Or the next time there is a female protagonist for an Assassins Creed game it can be for the main title. But as for the one that is going to come out next its too late for that.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

So the racist elements don't drive you away from it, but if it were to be remade today, what exactly would you change if you had control over it?

Well, I'd tone down the stuff about kings, especially rightful kinds that solve everything due to their bloodlines. An Athenian style democracy, a Roman style Republic, or a Norse style Thing could work just as well, and be a lot less overdone. It's a bit annoying how keen the west is on democracy, but keeps pumping stuff praising the same old boring monarchies.

Also, more women, though the LotR movies did female characters better than the source material.

Would you say there must be a greater mix of skin colour throughout the movie, would you leave selection of actors/extras to a selection committee to choose actors/extras on their own and tell them to disregard skin colour (random (for the US)), or would you keep what the original trilogy had, and keep the same sort of, uh, medieval geographical based racial segregation (similar to certain medieval periods).

Well, racial segregation wasn't really such a thing, at least not as it is portrayed. Sure, you'd have lots of white people in Britain, for example, but there has long been lots of contact with Africa. Rome ruled large parts of both at the same time, for example.

They had contact certainly, but there wasn't exactly an influx of migrants from either side. Mainly just traders and ambassadors. Not until slavery anyway...

In any case, there are different bloodlines and ethnicities mentioned. If Aragorn is from a special line of kings who were very different from most mortals, why shouldn't he be of a different ethnicity to most people? Likewise, elves and dwarfs, there's no reason they should be played by people of the same ethnicity, and especially not wizards, who aren't even in a species, I think. Seems very dodgy to have a diverse world in which you can have elves and dwarves and wizards as long as they are white.

I could see it going either way, either having nation groups having distinct (ish) ethnicities, or that things are cosmopolitan and nations are quite mixed.

The part of the world LotR takes place in isn't really that big, (to my understanding). So it could be seen as having the distinct(ish) ethnicities in one area, and the far off mercenaries from another. Of course there's no ironclad reason for them to be any certain race (including the elves, dwarves, and wizards), but there's no ironclad reason for them not to be either.

Oh, the one thing people cannot really do, is to say that their made up world must be populated/dominated by straight white guys because of "realism", and then fill it with dragons and wizards and talking trees.

Tolkien is indeed a product of his time, as were his books. I think we're a lot more open-minded and progressive these days (compared to 50-60 odd years ago atleast). So perhaps it's to be expected that a book written by a white man from that era and culture would turn out that way.

As for the original examples I've mentioned, they're a lot more modern, and thus have a societal pressure to be so (more modern). Would you make alterations to them if you had a say? These works are certainly more progressive than Tolkien's, and society kind of expects them to be, but do you think the sexist/racist elements they exhibit today warrant an intervention? Or do they drive you away, or just not bother you at all beyond a mere observation?

Edit: and to what extent would you agree with my hypothesis (the biggest paragraph)?

I'd say you were very much correct. People are very quick to equate "This has a sexist element" with "Ban this, it hurts my feelings" and argue against the former while claiming it's the latter. This is very tiresome.

But you can see how it's easy to misinterpret. Or rather, the default interpretation would be "sexism is bad on a moral level. If you're saying this is sexist, you must think it's bad on a moral level." This is where the divide stems from I think. Well most of it anyway.

 

[iTomes]

No. However, in a lot of cases sexist or racist content harms the story which is ultimately a problem in the sense of general enjoyment. If a game has no interesting female characters (and, please, "interesting" does not automatically mean "strong independent wymyn that dont need no man", sexist stereotypes or tropes can still be part of an interesting character) then a games story is probably going to become less entertaining. However, I dont see anything fundamentally wrong with having a sexist, racist or other in the real world unacceptable element in a game. Thats why it is a game, after all, and not the real world.

I think a fundamental problem that some of these "critics" have is that they dont quite understand the way that racism or sexism in certain games is supposed to affect both the consumer and society as a whole. Fundamentally speaking it is not a bad thing to have sexist/racist content in a game so long as the consumers actually understand that it is racist/sexist and why it is so. This can actually very well be a positive thing since it allows consumers a certain change of perspective that can improve their behaviour in real life. Culture criticism can be extremely helpful here, in both pointing out and explaining sexist or racist content, which in turn can then allow consumers to see it for what it is and perhaps learn valuable lessons that they can apply in real life as a result. The issue is that a somewhat more modern approach at criticism is not to start a mutually stimulating discussion with consumers but to instead attack the medium in question and act in a manner that indicates that certain content should somehow *not* be a part of the game. That type of behaviour is just generally harmful and does not help to actually improve anything at all.

 

[Thaluikhain]

They had contact certainly, but there wasn't exactly an influx of migrants from either side. Mainly just traders and ambassadors. Not until slavery anyway...

I don't agree. Greek colonists settled all over the Mediterranean sea, including a substantial number in what we'd ow call Turkey (which played a major part in the lead up to the Persian Wars). The Persian Empire was made up of a very diverse mix of nations, and nearly got established in Europe. The Macedonians under Alexander took over the Persia Empire, when he died Macedonians divided the place up between them. Rome sent legionnaires all over, from Germany to Morroco to Persia. The Iberian Peninsula kept receiving lots of people from North Africa until the Reconquista, and a tribe of I believe Vandals went down the other way and settled in Africa.

The part of the world LotR takes place in isn't really that big, (to my understanding). So it could be seen as having the distinct(ish) ethnicities in one area, and the far off mercenaries from another. Of course there's no ironclad reason for them to be any certain race (including the elves, dwarves, and wizards), but there's no ironclad reason for them not to be either.

I think it's a big part of what we'd call Western Europe. Like you say, they could be of any race, but currently the default is that they are all white (well, in the Desolation of Smaug there was a black extra), and there is no reason for this to be the case.

Tolkien is indeed a product of his time, as were his books. I think we're a lot more open-minded and progressive these days (compared to 50-60 odd years ago atleast). So perhaps it's to be expected that a book written by a white man from that era and culture would turn out that way.

Certainly, though even for the time, he had some questionable ideas.

Many of them are copied and pasted into modern works, however.

As for the original examples I've mentioned, they're a lot more modern, and thus have a societal pressure to be so (more modern). Would you make alterations to them if you had a say? These works are certainly more progressive than Tolkien's, and society kind of expects them to be, but do you think the sexist/racist elements they exhibit today warrant an intervention? Or do they drive you away, or just not bother you at all beyond a mere observation?

I'm not really familiar with them. Also, Tolkien is much more influential, way too many fantasy writers rip off Tolkien, and many that don't try to be the anti-Tolkien or somesuch.

IMHO, discussing Tolkien's themes and elements is de facto talking about those of much of fantasy in general, and that's the sense I'm doing it. No point talking about Tolkien in of himself, he's too dead to listen. Modern people still recycle him, though.

But you can see how it's easy to misinterpret. Or rather, the default interpretation would be "sexism is bad on a moral level. If you're saying this is sexist, you must think it's bad on a moral level." This is where the divide stems from I think. Well most of it anyway.

Yes and no. On the one hand, yes, it's a very common, and IMHO, seriously flawed way of looking at sexism (or other problems) in the sense of being a binary, sexist or not, with no grades or scales. Based on that way of looking at it, something is either morally reprehensible, or fine, with no middle ground.

However, that's a very bad way of looking at things, something many people keep arguing against. I don't see how that viewpoint can really be defensible.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I don't think there is much that can be done for a piece of media that has already been released. And as a whole, part of why elements of a piece of media being sexist/racist/whatever is often dependent on how often that element is used in other media. Having a damsel in distress isn't the issue, its that the trope has been done to death. Which has unfortunately left a lot of female characters without agency. Unless such a thing is caught during the development stages not much can be done to change anything. What can be done, and part of why people criticize media, is that the next project can avoid relying on the sexist/racist/whatever trope.

So for thaluikhain's LorR example. The issue isn't necessarily that all the protagonists in LotR are white. (Though it should be noted that the people of medieval Europe did have positive contact with other ethnicites. So there was no need to cast them only as villains.) The problem is that almost every time a fantasy book gets made into a movie all of the protagonists are White.

Movie maker's have options. It seems like race bending is the go to answer in these situations, but they wouldn't have to change character's races in a cast if they chose a source material that was already diverse. So next time they could choose to make a big budget film based off of Tales of Earthsea (and not Whitewash the protagonist like the Sci Fi channel did back in the day). Or, if actually creating a brand new fantasy world they could make the main cast what ever race they wanted.

Or the next time there is a female protagonist for an Assassins Creed game it can be for the main title. But as for the one that is going to come out next its too late for that.

Argh, I'd like to stick to games as I'm not much of a movie buff, but I'll try. LotR was a product of it's time, I think we've progressed a lot since then. It's doubtful that a novel or movie produced today with the same flaws as LotR would be received happily. As for AC, I agree it was a bit of a mis-step to remove female characters from co-op. Or do you mean a proper, voiced character as a female?

Reading over it again, is using an over-used trope really sexist/bad morally? A female character without agency doesn't strike me as any different than a male character left without agency.

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of variety in ethnicites etc, but I don't think it's wrong that they're used. And would race-bending from a less diverse source material solve anything? Going in with the objective to race-bend a source material into something more diverse, is just the other side of the same coin as whitewashing.

Anyway, back on topic, what would you do, if anything, about thing like gratuitous shots of Bayonetta (like the one shown in the latest Jimquisition) or the implied attempted rape in Tomb Raider? (I haven't played the Reboot since it was released, so it's hard to recall exactly what that was, but I've heard it mentioned multiple times).

 

[Thaluikhain]

Argh, I'd like to stick to games as I'm not much of a movie buff, but I'll try. LotR was a product of it's time, I think we've progressed a lot since then. It's doubtful that a novel or movie produced today with the same flaws as LotR would be received happily.

Surely most big movies and games are still about how straight white guys save the world?

Reading over it again, is using an over-used trope really sexist/bad morally? A female character without agency doesn't strike me as any different than a male character left without agency.

Any given example, not really. But when it keeps happening again and again disproportionately, there's an issue.

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of variety in ethnicites etc, but I don't think it's wrong that they're used. And would race-bending from a less diverse source material solve anything? Going in with the objective to race-bend a source material into something more diverse, is just the other side of the same coin as whitewashing.

IMHO, not really. Come up with something new, rather than play around with something old.

Again, nothing wrong with an individual movie about white people. When the vast majority of big movies are almost exclusively about white people, there's an issue.

Anyway, back on topic, what would you do, if anything, about thing like gratuitous shots of Bayonetta (like the one shown in the latest Jimquisition) or the implied attempted rape in Tomb Raider? (I haven't played the Reboot since it was released, so it's hard to recall exactly what that was, but I've heard it mentioned multiple times).

IIRC, the problem with the rape was mostly how it was handled. It gave the impression they were trying to be edgy, had a female character, and jumped straight to rape. This may not have been the case, in which case their PR needed a rethink. Likewise, not so much a problem with an instance of rape, but in that there is a definite trend. If it was a male character, they'd almost certainly have used some other trauma, which could have been used just as well with her.

Also, IIRC, they compounded their mistake when they discussed the game. It wasn't so much that you play as Lara, and want to not suffer some terrible fate, you follow Lara, and want to protect her from some terrible fate.

Not played Bayonetta, but from the shots in Jimquisition and other discussion, yeah, they looked like they were going a little too far. Also...don't wear high heels in a fight, and don't stick guns on them. Do that, and I cannot take you seriously.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

They had contact certainly, but there wasn't exactly an influx of migrants from either side. Mainly just traders and ambassadors. Not until slavery anyway...

I don't agree. Greek colonists settled all over the Mediterranean sea, including a substantial number in what we'd ow call Turkey (which played a major part in the lead up to the Persian Wars). The Persian Empire was made up of a very diverse mix of nations, and nearly got established in Europe. The Macedonians under Alexander took over the Persia Empire, when he died Macedonians divided the place up between them. Rome sent legionnaires all over, from Germany to Morroco to Persia. The Iberian Peninsula kept receiving lots of people from North Africa until the Reconquista, and a tribe of I believe Vandals went down the other way and settled in Africa.

One could argue that since he was from England, and thus affected by what you've said far less, he was basing it off medieval England. But I see what you're getting at.

The part of the world LotR takes place in isn't really that big, (to my understanding). So it could be seen as having the distinct(ish) ethnicities in one area, and the far off mercenaries from another. Of course there's no ironclad reason for them to be any certain race (including the elves, dwarves, and wizards), but there's no ironclad reason for them not to be either.

I think it's a big part of what we'd call Western Europe. Like you say, they could be of any race, but currently the default is that they are all white (well, in the Desolation of Smaug there was a black extra), and there is no reason for this to be the case.

Haven't seen Smaug, but I think the above covers this.

Tolkien is indeed a product of his time, as were his books. I think we're a lot more open-minded and progressive these days (compared to 50-60 odd years ago atleast). So perhaps it's to be expected that a book written by a white man from that era and culture would turn out that way.

Certainly, though even for the time, he had some questionable ideas.

Many of them are copied and pasted into modern works, however.

Were they? Was mainstream society (at the time) questioning the ethnic makeup around the time the books were released?

But you can see how it's easy to misinterpret. Or rather, the default interpretation would be "sexism is bad on a moral level. If you're saying this is sexist, you must think it's bad on a moral level." This is where the divide stems from I think. Well most of it anyway.

Yes and no. On the one hand, yes, it's a very common, and IMHO, seriously flawed way of looking at sexism (or other problems) in the sense of being a binary, sexist or not, with no grades or scales. Based on that way of looking at it, something is either morally reprehensible, or fine, with no middle ground.

However, that's a very bad way of looking at things, something many people keep arguing against. I don't see how that viewpoint can really be defensible.

It's certainly not a good looking at thing from that perspective. However, as you've said yourself, it's very common. This is I think is what's causing causing the gap between some people. So sort of bringing it up as a reminder in a conversation/argument/debate where someone might misinterpret it would be extremely helpful.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Were they? Was mainstream society (at the time) questioning the ethnic makeup around the time the books were released?

Ethnicity, probably not, I meant his class issues.

All of his heroes are kings or princes or lords or idle rich people or a gardener who becomes rich. He chose to have orcs and trolls talk with working class accents. Tolkien was upper class himself, with ideas on how things should be run that were rather reactionary. He didn't like the industrial revolution because it led to social mobility.

It's certainly not a good looking at thing from that perspective. However, as you've said yourself, it's very common. This is I think is what's causing causing the gap between some people. So sort of bringing it up as a reminder in a conversation/argument/debate where someone might misinterpret it would be extremely helpful.

The problem is, it very often is brought up, without much effect. Plenty of people will overlook that sort of thing, and interpret any criticism on something they like as a personal attack. If I give a game you like a score of 9 out of 10, then I am going to make you eat your children, it seems. Still race or gender issues in, and things don't end well.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Argh, I'd like to stick to games as I'm not much of a movie buff, but I'll try. LotR was a product of it's time, I think we've progressed a lot since then. It's doubtful that a novel or movie produced today with the same flaws as LotR would be received happily.

Surely most big movies and games are still about how straight white guys save the world?

Yeeeeees but not every "good guy" is white while none of the "bad guys" are. I'd say we've definitely come a long way.

Reading over it again, is using an over-used trope really sexist/bad morally? A female character without agency doesn't strike me as any different than a male character left without agency.

Any given example, not really. But when it keeps happening again and again disproportionately, there's an issue.

One might call it tiresome writing, but there isn't any actual "issue" with it is there?

I wouldn't mind seeing a bit of variety in ethnicites etc, but I don't think it's wrong that they're used. And would race-bending from a less diverse source material solve anything? Going in with the objective to race-bend a source material into something more diverse, is just the other side of the same coin as whitewashing.

IMHO, not really. Come up with something new, rather than play around with something old.

So you think it's morally wrong that tropes are used. That's how this is coming across, correct me if I've misinterpreted it.

Again, nothing wrong with an individual movie about white people. When the vast majority of big movies are almost exclusively about white people, there's an issue.

Well when Hollywood is composed of mostly white writers, directors, and actors... It's not really an issue and more of a predictable result. Like most Chinese or Japanese movies are comprised of mostly asian people. Because there's mostly asian people in that business.

Anyway, back on topic, what would you do, if anything, about thing like gratuitous shots of Bayonetta (like the one shown in the latest Jimquisition) or the implied attempted rape in Tomb Raider? (I haven't played the Reboot since it was released, so it's hard to recall exactly what that was, but I've heard it mentioned multiple times).

IIRC, the problem with the rape was mostly how it was handled. It gave the impression they were trying to be edgy, had a female character, and jumped straight to rape. This may not have been the case, in which case their PR needed a rethink. Likewise, not so much a problem with an instance of rape, but in that there is a definite trend. If it was a male character, they'd almost certainly have used some other trauma, which could have been used just as well with her.

Also, IIRC, they compounded their mistake when they discussed the game. It wasn't so much that you play as Lara, and want to not suffer some terrible fate, you follow Lara, and want to protect her from some terrible fate.

Not played Bayonetta, but from the shots in Jimquisition and other discussion, yeah, they looked like they were going a little too far. Also...don't wear high heels in a fight, and don't stick guns on them. Do that, and I cannot take you seriously.

For Tomb Raider I do vaguely remember them handling that shittily.
As for Bayonetta, she's not meant to be taken seriously. It's meant to be over the top (like most Japanese action games). Hence why they went over the top with the sexuality as well.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

Were they? Was mainstream society (at the time) questioning the ethnic makeup around the time the books were released?

Ethnicity, probably not, I meant his class issues.

All of his heroes are kings or princes or lords or idle rich people or a gardener who becomes rich. He chose to have orcs and trolls talk with working class accents. Tolkien was upper class himself, with ideas on how things should be run that were rather reactionary. He didn't like the industrial revolution because it led to social mobility.

Were there criticisms of this around the time of release? or were class based criticisms noted a few years down the track?

It's certainly not a good looking at thing from that perspective. However, as you've said yourself, it's very common. This is I think is what's causing causing the gap between some people. So sort of bringing it up as a reminder in a conversation/argument/debate where someone might misinterpret it would be extremely helpful.

The problem is, it very often is brought up, without much effect. Plenty of people will overlook that sort of thing, and interpret any criticism on something they like as a personal attack. If I give a game you like a score of 9 out of 10, then I am going to make you eat your children, it seems. Still race or gender issues in, and things don't end well.

Thing is, from arguments I've seen at least, I haven't seen it brought up in that way. I haven't seen "By the way, I'm just noting how this might be seen from a feminist perspective that it might come off as a little bit sexist, there's nothing about the game itself. This is just an observation, I'm not calling the game sexist". What I have seen is "I can criticise it all I want", which leads people think that person thinks the game is sexist and abhorrent (and should be destroyed on moral grounds).
Granted people can sometimes act like children when it comes to review scores, but there's no numbers involved in this, and I think communication is key to everyone understanding what everyone else is trying to get across.

Edit: I feel like I should've put this in the gaming forum and removed the "no GG" disclaimer. The purpose of this was to get people who would otherwise be pissy at eachother to get along, but I've fucked that up from the beginning x.x

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeeeeees but not every "good guy" is white while none of the "bad guys" are. I'd say we've definitely come a long way.

Oh, sure, there's a lot that doesn't have those problems, but then most still do, to an extent at least.

Any given example, not really. But when it keeps happening again and again disproportionately, there's an issue.

One might call it tiresome writing, but there isn't any actual "issue" with it is there?

Two issues come to mind.

Firstly, that the media plays a large part in how we view the world. If we (generally) keep on portraying one ethnic group as the heroes, and another as the villains...if a government did that on purpose, we'd call that propaganda.

Secondly, if the audience sees one ethnic group as more naturally the heroes, and one as more naturally the villains, that is saying something about the audience. Not an issue with the movie or game as such, but a reflection on how groups are being seen.

So you think it's morally wrong that tropes are used. That's how this is coming across, correct me if I've misinterpreted it.

Not used as such, but used overwhelmingly.

If make a game with one French person who is a cannibal, for example, no big deal. If the game industry as a whole keeps portraying the French as cannibals, and rarely anything else, there is something going really wrong somewhere.

Well when Hollywood is composed of mostly white writers, directors, and actors... It's not really an issue and more of a predictable result. Like most Chinese or Japanese movies are comprised of mostly asian people. Because there's mostly asian people in that business.

Ah, but why is Hollywood mostly white, disproportionately so? You'd expect it would follow US demographics, more or less, but this isn't the case.

Also, actors who aren't white find it a lot harder finding roles (other than Thug #2). Even when the character is a PoC, it's very common to give it to a white person anyway. This also applies to stunt doubles. Even if the writers and directors are white...they live in a nation with lots of people who aren't. Surely having PoC around isn't such an alien thing?

This is particularly noticeable when the story is set in a real world location with lots of people who aren't white in reality, but the story presents the area as overwhelmingly white. Especially when they stick in lots of made up creatures.

As for Bayonetta, she's not meant to be taken seriously. It's meant to be over the top (like most Japanese action games). Hence why they went over the top with the sexuality as well.

Well, that's not necessarily a defence. In any case, going OtT can be done well or done badly.

However, I'm not familiar with her enough to really say.

Were there criticisms of this around the time of release? or were class based criticisms noted a few years down the track?[/quote

Couldn't tell you for sure, but I'd be surprised if people weren't talking about class issues, given they were published in the early Cold War.

Thing is, from arguments I've seen at least, I haven't seen it brought up in that way. I haven't seen "By the way, I'm just noting how this might be seen from a feminist perspective that it might come off as a little bit sexist, there's nothing about the game itself. This is just an observation, I'm not calling the game sexist". What I have seen is "I can criticise it all I want", which leads people think that person thinks the game is sexist and abhorrent (and should be destroyed on moral grounds).

Dunno, this sort of clarification has gotten tossed about in (say) those threads you don't want this turning into without any result, but maybe those threads are just like that.

 

[Verlander]

Would this alone drive you away from the game?

There's a place for sexualisation, so if it's fitting in with the character then no. If it's sex for sex sake, yeah, it might.

Would you change it?

I might not buy it. It's easier for me to not buy a game than it is to buy one.

What would you have preferred the dev team did differently about this sexist element?
Etc?

I'd rather we had more engaging games that didn't rely on this kind of representation.

That Jimquisition summed it up nicely tbf

 

[Vault101]

"how to fix it" is beside the point really you can't (often) change something thats already out there

but if we know why some things are...problematic then mabye we don't do it in the future

that said if you would LIKE to know how some things could be changed then by all means ask me

I'm taking requests!