Metal Gear Solid and rape

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

To be honest people are too easily offended. I'm really feeling like now in the digital age, people don't interact as much as they used to and simply get data-feeds shot into their eyes while not experiencing the real world. If you can't handle a topic of rape, child soldiers, lost limbs, the crippled and the broken in war or even actual character emotions in a video game than you are in for a ride when your life actually starts because you won't be able to handle anything.

When someone with vision can't push the envelope because people can't handle certain content, that's when you know society is screwed.

There's an irony to this post and its' criticism of a lack of interaction. Maybe if you heeded your own advice you'd understand why people might be upset by any or all of those topics. I don't particularly care for the scenario in Ground Zeroes nor have any strong feelings about it, mostly because the game itself failed to invest me in the characters (might have to do with me not playing Peace Walker) so it all just felt mildly melodramatic and over the top cheesy to me. But I can also see why the audio tapes and the treatment Paz gets, both within the story and on a meta level, might make people uneasy or upset them.

But I am beginning to realize that empathy is something that large swathes of our society has problems actually understanding or conjuring.

 

[debtcollector]

Here's the thing, all of that could've been achieved with just the one bomb. Big Boss wasn't aware she was booby trapped till they were already well on their way to Mother Base. And that sense of relief already kicked in once you escaped the facility and got Paz safely on the chopper. So why not have them discover the abdomin bomb untill it's too late, followed by Paz throwing herself out the chopper? Or just have the vadge bomb on its own, since it was completely unnoticable to everyone anyway, and make it double as an implication of the horrors she's been put through.

Honestly, I'm not happy about this answer, but if things happened like you said, then we wouldn't get the setup with the doctor on the helicopter, who is clearly going to be important in The Phantom Pain. (Like, we never see his face, he sounds exactly like Kiefer Sutherland, we don't know if he survived the blast, etc.) Not to say that I don't agree with you to an extent, and not to say that Kojima couldn't have implemented the doctor in a less grotesque way.

The fictionalized rape did make me feel deeply uncomfortable, but obviously that was the point, and I don't think it's a topic that should be taboo for games. I believe Kojima actually said that he wants to challenge taboos in this game, so there you go. What bothered me a bit more is that, in one of the tapes (the one where Chico is forced to rape Paz), at the very end, Chico is comforting Paz in their cell, and the last line on the tape is Paz asking "You wanna do it here?" This just struck me as very tone-deaf--following a rape with a seduction between the same two characters, when everyone's still shell-shocked from the former. On the other hand, we never hear Chico's reaction, and judging by Chico's character I would guess that he would refuse based on his current trauma. And having Paz, who has been trained as a deep cover honeypot agent for her whole life, have different views on sex would make sense...but I still think the line should have been cut, if only to spare the audience the mood whiplash of having to witness a rape followed immediately by two minors getting it on.

As for the vaginabomb, I'm okay with it in principle, and on its own I'd be totally alright with it, but with the surgery scene it feels like the game is trying to have its cake and eat it too. We get a (literally) gut-wrenching scene where people cut a girl open in order to save everyone's life, only to have the whole thing turn around and say "Nah, we'll have a shocking ending, too!" as the girl explodes. It makes sense narratively, as Skull Face is anticipating Big Boss' reactions, but I think it would have been better if we had the surgery or the vaginabomb, but not both. It's a minor quibble, though, and it really had no negative impact on my experience. Still hype for Phantom Pain.

 

[Ronald Nand]

I personally found the scene to be very powerful, what happened to Chico and Paz was horrifying and the game forced me to confront that reality, I honestly wanted to stop listening to the tapes even though there were hints as to Paz's location within them and when I was escorted Paz out of the prison camp I didn't want to her voice, with it only reminding me of the horror she went through. It horrified me to the point where I didn't want to see it anymore, or hear their suffering anymore.

I wasn't offended by the scene at all, I admired it for presenting me with this horrible reality of torture and rape of prisoners, and forcing me to look at it.

 

[omega 616]

Subject is a little dated, isn't it?

Anyway, mgs has always a bit all over the place in terms of tone.

It has been awhile since I played but I don't remember them saying or even implying the other bomb was in her vagina. When the scene happened, I actually assumed the bomb was in her head.

As for rape in the game, it's an audio file ... its not shown or anything AND if games ever want to taken seriously they need to deal with serious issues.

Not saying start pumping out games that are nothing hard hitting boundary pushers but a couple will only do good.

I am biased as a self confessed mgs fan boy bup I can't see the harm.

 

[crypticracer]

but I think it would have been better if we had the surgery or the vaginabomb, but not both. It's a minor quibble, though, and it really had no negative impact on my experience. Still hype for Phantom Pain.

I think you are on to something here. Having one of those hits the horrifying aspect it's going for, but having both feels overdone. She just went through surgery with no anethstetic, then surprise, just kill her off anyway, and then, oh that's no the big twist,your base was being attacked while you were gone. One of those would have been fine. All three, in a single cutscene, at the end of a demo is way overdone.

But that's Kojima. He doesn't know restraint, every cutscene has to have the plot of 2 action films. I'm not sure why, and it makes for some iffy moments during a game, but I think it works from the point of view of the games as a whole.

Again, I feel like the biggest problem is that it's not in the full game but the prologue demo.

 

[Doopliss64]

Why? Stockholm syndrome is actually a thing you know.

Stockholm syndrome doesn't work like that: it's the development of a sort of empathic bond between a hostage and their captor. That's not what's happening here. Paz doesn't show any evidence of defending or sympathizing with the motives of Skullface, rather a sudden physical attraction to Chico, a fellow captive who has been forced to have sex with her. Essentially, he screwed her until she decided she enjoyed it.

Though it's open to debate how much it's being invoked here, the trope of "woman is raped but secretly enjoys it" is problematic because it ties into the larger stereotype that women are fundamentally fickle, irrational, and ruled by base instincts, or that rape isn't really rape because they just can't help but enjoy themselves around penis, or something. Victim-shaming essentially. Lending credibility to the "Yeah, she said no, but I could totally tell she was digging it!" mindset, whether intentionally or no. It's an uncomfortably disingenuous portrayal of something that should by all means leave someone deeply emotionally disturbed.

 

[BarryMcCociner]

Plus, if you're getting offended by the sexual violence in a game that has sexual violence written on the fucking cover as a way of dissuading people who are offended by sexual violence from purchasing it you honestly shouldn't be legally allowed to make your own purchasing decisions.

That said, people are offended by different things, and I can totally understand those who didn't like it, or didn't want to experience that in a video game they were playing for fun. I just don't see that as a problem. If you don't like that sort of thing, the obvious solution seems to be to not play the game. The one change I really would support though is the introduction of warnings or whatever at the beginning of games like these, or anything with potentially shocking content. That way everyone gets to play (or watch or read) whatever they want, and no-one is caught out and unnecessarily distressed by something they didn't want to experience.

The problem I think is that its not black and white case of "I am always offended by any kind of sexual violence". I'm generally fine with sexual violence in a story if it's done tastefully and sympathetically (I'm absolutely fine with pretty much anything that happens on Game of Thrones for example). This whole 'vagina bomb' thing sounds silly beyond belief however. Would I be offended by it? It sounds like the answer is yes, but maybe its not as bad as I imagine. I really don't know until I play it, if I choose to play it. In order to make this choice, on this occasion, I've needed to have had the plot completely spoiled.

The problem with saying if you don't like that sort of thing, don't play the game is that I would quite like to play the bits of the game that involve the actual gameplay of stealthing around - I'm being potentially put off by a plot element that may be gratuitous and unnecessary, or which may be a deep and seering indictment of Guantanamo Bay depending on who on this thread I listen to.

It's actually never explicitly stated that the second bomb was in her vagina, it simply wasn't in her stomach where the first bomb was, that's just popular interpretation and as a lot of us know from theories like "Is Tingle Gay?" popular interpretation isn't always correct. It could have been in her chest cavity, throat, even in her brain. Microbombs have already been demonstrated to exist in MGS. Besides, MGS has always oscillated between camp and serious, like many of the action films that inspired Kojimas writings so the whole "it's serious material juxtaposed with camp" criticism kind of falls flat in my eyes.

And "tasteful" and "sympathetic" are subjective, what you consider to be over the line or unsympathetic could be incredibly different from that of 80% of the world population. Who do we listen to? How do we determine whose standards we use to define acceptable when everyone has different standards for what is acceptable?

How do you create a metric for offensiveness when offense is entirely subjective? It's much realistic in terms of accomplishing the goals of the warnings on the cover, to simply write what's there and if there's any chance that you could be offended by that content those warnings warn you of then you've lost your right to complain, much like the kid who refuses to abide by the warnings about wearing his safety goggles.

 

[Fox12]

The vagina bomb is pretty gross too but similar kind of thing, it's meant to shock given the new darker tone of the MGS5 project.

There's the problem. It's pure shock value. In the same way Elfen Lied and Future Diary had shock value. There wasn't much purpose to what happened, other then to try and tell us that the villain is super evil.

The issue isn't really the rape, it's the way it's portrayed. I'll be honest, Kojima isn't a good writer. The scene where Paz gets the bomb removed was almost comical in the way the main character just shoves his hands into her vital organs, while the rape scenes in question were a clunky mess. You don't go from having bee soldiers in one scene to depicting rape in another. If Kojima wants to make goofie shit, then he can have at it. I like goofie shit. But don't suddenly shift gears and expect people to take you seriously.

Rape can be handled well as a story telling device, but you have to be very careful. Berserks depiction of the rape of Guts was spot on, as it showed the psychological impact of the event. Silent Hill 2 handled it incredibly well, and with great subtlety and art. It was an emotionally flaying experience. But Metal Gear? It threw it in to be "edgy" and to make a villain seem more evil. But Kojima was too lazy too actually portray the effects of rape on a victim. It wasn't earned. I doubt it will get brought up again, at least by the victim, and if it does then I'm sure Kojima will muck it up somehow. If Kojima wanted to make a dark and edgy series about the horrors of war, then the last game in the series is a little late to start.

Spoiler

This is not the proper series with which to discuss the effects of rape.

 

[Fox12]

snip

Eh.

*shrugs*

He's a really bad writer. Every attempt he's made at serious commentary has been terrible up to this point. His embarrassing portrayal of rape was bad in Grounds Zero, but as you've pointed out they've been bad for 11 years, so I suppose that's nothing new. The scenes in question aren't disturbing, just groan worthy or kind of funny, which isn't what he was going for in those moments.

I'm not going to argue with you just because someone criticized your sacred cow. Kojima should stick to the cartoon antics he's used to. Leave the serious subject matter to people with a little bit of tact. If he wants to make a clown of himself instead, though, I suppose he can.

 

[LaoJim]

It's actually never explicitly stated that the second bomb was in her vagina...

Fair enough, if its a fan theory that got out of hand. I was under the impression that the game gave fairly direct hints in that direction, if not, then fine.

Besides, MGS has always oscillated between camp and serious, like many of the action films that inspired Kojimas writings so the whole "it's serious material juxtaposed with camp" criticism kind of falls flat in my eyes.

Not sure that's much of a defence, if the mix of camp and serious works it works, if it doesn't then saying that the series has always been like this doesn't provide much justification.

And "tasteful" and "sympathetic" are subjective, what you consider to be over the line or unsympathetic could be incredibly different from that of 80% of the world population. Who do we listen to? How do we determine whose standards we use to define acceptable when everyone has different standards for what is acceptable?

How do you create a metric for offensiveness when offense is entirely subjective? It's much realistic in terms of accomplishing the goals of the warnings on the cover, to simply write what's there and if there's any chance that you could be offended by that content those warnings warn you of then you've lost your right to complain, much like the kid who refuses to abide by the warnings about wearing his safety goggles.

Yeah, I think you are arguing something different here. It's always subjective if a work is any good or not, and its always subjective if a work is offensive enough. We can give thought-out, reasonable explanations for why we think its so and try to convince others of the validity of our arguments, but we can't demand they agree with us. Ultimately offence over this type of media isn't that important. You play it and enjoy it, I won't play it, no harm done. But at no point does anyone lose the right to say, in a polite way on a forum set up for this particular purpose "I played this game and I thought it was offensive", "I played this game and I thought it wasn't offensive", or "I'm not going to play this game because I'm worried (rightly or wrongly) that it might be offensive".

Perhaps 'offensive' is the wrong word; maybe we should just say "The story does/doesn't deal with mature themes in a good way" and treat that as one factor in our buying decision. I'm not suggesting and I don't think anyone else on this thread is suggesting that this content should be banned or in any way censored - mainly people are talking about whether it's good storytelling or not, and whether its the kind of story we want to hear. Kojima can look at both his fans, his critics and his own beliefs and decided for himself whether he was happy with the outcome and if it is worth pursuing this kind of story-telling in the future. Artists shouldn't be worried about if certain parts of the population are unhappy with certain themes that are presented.

Again, just sticking "Sexual Violence" on the box doesn't stop anyone having the right to say that they found the sexual violence to be poorly done and in bad taste.

I apologise to you both for coming off strongly...

Don't worry about it. It's a good debate to have.

 

[endtherapture]

snip

Eh.

*shrugs*

He's a really bad writer. Every attempt he's made at serious commentary has been terrible up to this point. His embarrassing portrayal of rape was bad in Grounds Zero, but as you've pointed out they've been bad for 11 years, so I suppose that's nothing new. The scenes in question aren't disturbing, just groan worthy or kind of funny, which isn't what he was going for in those moments.

I'm not going to argue with you just because someone criticized your sacred cow. Kojima should stick to the cartoon antics he's used to. Leave the serious subject matter to people with a little bit of tact. If he wants to make a clown of himself instead, though, I suppose he can.

He's not a bad writer. Metal Gear Solid 2 is probably one of the best games ever written. It goes beyond just being a game into being an art game 10 years before art games were a thing.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

snip

Eh.

*shrugs*

He's a really bad writer. Every attempt he's made at serious commentary has been terrible up to this point. His embarrassing portrayal of rape was bad in Grounds Zero, but as you've pointed out they've been bad for 11 years, so I suppose that's nothing new. The scenes in question aren't disturbing, just groan worthy or kind of funny, which isn't what he was going for in those moments.

I'm not going to argue with you just because someone criticized your sacred cow. Kojima should stick to the cartoon antics he's used to. Leave the serious subject matter to people with a little bit of tact. If he wants to make a clown of himself instead, though, I suppose he can.

I'm going to disagree with you here. Kojima isn't a bad writer per se, but he's not a good writer of tragedy or emotional trauma. As Endtherapture said, MGS2 has one of the best narratives ever written in video games (though it could stand to lose some of its' bloating, which is a recurring problem with Kojima) and MGS3 has a really good narrative arc and theme with the Boss (about how soldiers are expendable), ending in a poignant moment after her boss battle. But the Boss narrative works specifically because Kojima doesn't portray her as a victim, because as soon as he wants someone to be a victim or to have some enduring emotional trauma he just piles it on until it goes beyond tragic and reaches the point where it becomes unintentionally ironic. Raiden, the Beauty/Beasts and Paz are all examples of how Kojima just doesn't understand when to stop piling tragedy on and how conservation of suffering can actually be more effective.

Kojima has the ability for good writing and deliver of messages, the first three Metal Gear Solid games highlight this. He also has a tendency to go completely overboard whenever he wants to show suffering, tragedy and loss, as pretty much ever MGS game shows.

 

[Silver Patriot]

MGS2 for example implies that all of MGS1 was simulation of what actually happened, and that Raiden is just a representation of US the player,

No, it really doesn't.

Nowhere does MGS2 imply that the MGS1 we played was a simulation being played by Raiden, only that Raiden went through a VR simulation of it at some point.

In MGS 2 Raiden was supposed to represent the player. That's why in the beginning you had to enter not only your name, but your birth date, blood type and nationality for your node information. If you look at Raiden's dog tags at the end of MGS 2 they have your information on it. When they talked about Raiden's all virtual training [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tG6tQmH4RQ&t=8m8s] they were talking about both MGS 1 and it's VR Mission sequel [http://www.amazon.com/Metal-Gear-Solid-VR-Missions-Playstation/dp/B00001YVBL]. The idea being that you would go into the game with the same amount of experience Raiden had. You played MGS1 and some VR missions, so did Raiden.

 

[Ramzal]

To be honest people are too easily offended. I'm really feeling like now in the digital age, people don't interact as much as they used to and simply get data-feeds shot into their eyes while not experiencing the real world. If you can't handle a topic of rape, child soldiers, lost limbs, the crippled and the broken in war or even actual character emotions in a video game than you are in for a ride when your life actually starts because you won't be able to handle anything.

When someone with vision can't push the envelope because people can't handle certain content, that's when you know society is screwed.

There's an irony to this post and its' criticism of a lack of interaction. Maybe if you heeded your own advice you'd understand why people might be upset by any or all of those topics. I don't particularly care for the scenario in Ground Zeroes nor have any strong feelings about it, mostly because the game itself failed to invest me in the characters (might have to do with me not playing Peace Walker) so it all just felt mildly melodramatic and over the top cheesy to me. But I can also see why the audio tapes and the treatment Paz gets, both within the story and on a meta level, might make people uneasy or upset them.

But I am beginning to realize that empathy is something that large swathes of our society has problems actually understanding or conjuring.

lol. You.

Lets be frank here; I don't care if you didn't like it. I like the game and that's enough for me. Didn't like the game? Not my problem nor should it be. My issue is with people who want content like this removed because it makes them worried that we're insensitive to it. Did you ever stop to think that maybe---just maybe this is a way to raise awareness of it? Do you have any idea how very few people who play video games knew what START I was before they even touched Metal Gear Solid? I don't need to "heed my own advice" as you so wisely state because I live it.

I am close with people who have dealt with issues of oppression, sexual abuse, racism, broken homes and difficult lives while I have directly experienced some of this. I once put a picture of myself on the escapist to prove that I was black to make a point which was followed by the very people who cry "that's racist" normally to content that is pushing the norm, by being racist to -me- by saying "I bet you just typed in 'Black Kid' and pulled that picture off of google. and I did it just to be sure you didn't" despite the fact that I am not a kid and I am in fact black. To have a bunch of people who claim to be social justice advocates actively beat down someone who is a minority, proves it, and tries to share his point of view is a form of oppression and ignorance. So no, hop off it, I am a fully aware individual.

Again, I don't care if you don't like the game. I cannot stress that enough I do not give a flip how you spend your free time/hobbies. Not my business, not my issue, I regard that as though it is the wind. You don't care for it? Good for you. You don't care for how it is set? Also, your deal. I have more of an issue with people who act like the "million moms," where if there is any piece of content that does not fit their special idea of what society should BE rather than one that goes "No, this is how messed up society is and can be"---they flip out.

Will people be disturbed by it? Yes. But again--if you cannot handle the idea of someone being assaulted or used in a VIDEO GAME or a BOOK, then you will not be able to handle it in real life and possibly relegate yourself to your own corner of the world, shouting through the internet demanding change that you either don't actually fight for physically or put up anything to lose for the gain of real change. Simply put: They won't be able to cut it in real life.

Am I saying "Shrug it off!" No, but I'm sure you think I am. What I am saying is "Horrible things happen in the world, and probably won't happen to you so this maybe one of the few ways you can actually experience it in order to become a more aware human being."

And for the final time.

I don't care:
? If you don't like the series.

? If you don't like the game

? If you don't like the characters.

? Hate the fact that Jack B. is now Big Boss's voice.

? What you had for dinner last night.

What I do care about is:
? People not being able to cope with the horrors that life has to throw at humans.

? People not being able to accept that horrible things will always happen as they are out of our control.

? People thinking that writers, musicians, or authors owe them a perfect and equal world.

? People not being able to understand that no matter how hard to type, the world won't change because you feel offended.

? People not noticing that it is actually okay to be offended by art because it makes you think.

? People thinking that because they are offended, something must be removed.

This will sound cold but lets be honest. Rape is going to happen in the world. As I type this, odds are that some very unfortunate person is being subjected to it, that's a fact. If you cannot handle a video game telling you that it happens your life will only be more stressful and harder as you progress. You cannot move forward. You will be forever trapped in a state of mind that the world has nothing beautiful, wonderful or fantastic to offer and just being angry at the world for it's injustices.

I am not saying don't care. There's empathy and there's being a ruined wreck because you can't get pass what bad things happen out there or in a video game.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

-snip-

And I don't really care what you think. My point was that you getting annoyed at people who complain about the game and saying they need to get tougher skin is ignorant, as exemplified by this line in your post: What I am saying is "Horrible things happen in the world, and probably won't happen to you so this maybe one of the few ways you can actually experience it in order to become a more aware human being." It shows that you didn't stop to consider the idea that maybe people complaining are people who have been subjected to the bad things the game portrays. Or maybe they haven't but think the game deals with it in a poor way (for whatever reason).

To complain about their criticism is the lowest form of discourse, because it attempts nothing but to silence the people you disagree with. You aren't engaging with them to try and understand their point or trying to get them to see why they might be wrong or showing them why the writing is actually better than they first thought or anything constructive. You are effectively telling them to shut up because you think they are wrong.

Mind you, you are not alone in this and I am well aware that I'll probably come across as much harsher than I mean to in this post. You are just the last person in an ever growing line that keeps telling others that their criticism of games is bullshit because it is aimed at something you like. You are free to think so, obviously, but as a community we'd all be better off if we weren't so awfully quick to attempt to shut down opinions we disagree with.

 

[Ramzal]

-snip-

And I don't really care what you think. My point was that you getting annoyed at people who complain about the game and saying they need to get tougher skin is ignorant, as exemplified by this line in your post: What I am saying is "Horrible things happen in the world, and probably won't happen to you so this maybe one of the few ways you can actually experience it in order to become a more aware human being." It shows that you didn't stop to consider the idea that maybe people complaining are people who have been subjected to the bad things the game portrays. Or maybe they haven't but think the game deals with it in a poor way (for whatever reason).

To complain about their criticism is the lowest form of discourse, because it attempts nothing but to silence the people you disagree with. You aren't engaging with them to try and understand their point or trying to get them to see why they might be wrong or showing them why the writing is actually better than they first thought or anything constructive. You are effectively telling them to shut up because you think they are wrong.

Mind you, you are not alone in this and I am well aware that I'll probably come across as much harsher than I mean to in this post. You are just the last person in an ever growing line that keeps telling others that their criticism of games is bullshit because it is aimed at something you like. You are free to think so, obviously, but as a community we'd all be better off if we weren't so awfully quick to attempt to shut down opinions we disagree with.

Oh, man.

http://www.writingcommons.org/collaborate/common-comments/point-of-view/522-avoid-second-person-point-of-view-

This is a very useful tool. Another is not trying to tell someone directly what their intentions and thoughts are. This is a bit too much, I'm actually laughing out loud.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/attack-the-argument-not-the-person

To be honest, I'm getting the feeling that arguing is not something many people on the internet are capable of. The response I got is proof of this. Namely when what I am saying is taken out of context in order to attack a person rather than the point. (Which is done but to a minimal level) I'm seriously not going to defend myself here, think what you will but people being wrecked by MGS and rape is actually sad in the way that their world is rocked by this.

The use of "you" 15 times in only a few paragraphs as an attack on my character is proof of not being aware of how conversation and communication works in general towards a productive direction. Assume what you will.

Side note: Opinions are awesome in some cases--very few as a matter of fact. Most cases, opinions are formed when information is not present for an individual to make a statement about fact. Points of view however is beautiful through and through. It was keeps there from being an actual good or evil in the world and what will actually lead to real progression of the human race.

Generally I've experienced people who have been through the worst in life are fine with forms of media and art showing that it happens. Will they always partake in it? Possibly not. One of my very close friends is a Marine and he doesn't watch a single movie that has to do with Marines in combat. Why? Because he doesn't have to watch something he lived through already and he sees no point in it. Not because he can't take it, but rather he chooses to not participate while he is fine with others doing so.

And that's okay.

 

[Fox12]

snip

This is fair. Sometimes I think there's a point where adding too much tragedy to a characters arc becomes overbearing, and a tad bit ridiculous. It's usually in an attempt to become dark and gritty. But your right, it's more fair to say that Kojima is bad a certain type of writing then to say he's a poor writer all around. Or, at the very least, he knows how to make a fun game independent of the story/narrative, as Zone of the Enders shows. I'm not sure how heavily involved Del Toro was involved in PT, but I thought it showed great potential narratively, which is partly due to Kojima's involvement.