Sexism in gameplay

[Arakasi]

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment.

I wouldn't look at any other art form if it didn't entertain me in some way. Are you saying movies shouldn't apply either because they are also a form of entertainment?

Games were primarily entertainment.

...And that excludes them from being art how?

In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

Non-sequitur, please explain.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first.

Even if artistic and entertainment were well defined to be entirely opposing I fail to see how that would change how one should judge them.

They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.

At least partially, yes, they want games to be recognised for what they are. Early videogames were still art though.

The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

There are some games which are more artistic than others or more stylish but all of them are still art forms.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art.

No one said that art had to be good. I personally don't like the Mona Lisa and think it is insane that so many people do. Art can still be good or bad, but it is still art.

I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

Why would it be getting worse? Every indication seems to suggest that people are becoming less and less sexist, and with the people the art will follow, or it will die.


In short, I think you need to read the definition of art:
Noun
-The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
-Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Both apply to videogames.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment. Games were primarily entertainment. In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first. They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.
The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art. I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

You take a polarized stance, and I can appreciate that.
Early games were not thought of as art - we are now looking back on them and deciding which ones are "artistic" and which ones are not (just like the Modern Museum of Art has done). When I say entertainment, perhaps "amusement" would serve it better. Something to pass the time that's fun...I'll explain later.
My general observation is that gameplay is being lost to graphical display and storytelling. It would seem we're in a stage where gameplay is being questioned -and even thrown out entirely- for this consideration of it being "art". I'll come back and explain the other things that I've not been clear about.

 

[MonsterMMORPG]

i believe that Sexism is being used at poor quality games

 

[Toy Master Typhus]

I wouldn't finish a book if got 1/4 of the way through and wasn't enjoying it. Does that mean I am wrong because I haven't finished it? Is it my fault the author failed to connect with me in that time? The beginning of a story is supposed to lay the groundwork for the middle and end. To set the rules and get you engaged to see things through to the end. I was not engaged at all by the beginning. If getting to the end meant dragging that useless thing to the end, I wasn't going to have it.

No, it is not your fault for being bored by a game and not having interest in it. It is your fault for arguing over something you know not the material of.

Again, I didn't feel like I was in charge of two children. I felt like I was in charge of one child and a sandbag.

So how exactly would you have improved that gameplay exactly, make her an AI and then come back here because everything thinks it is sexist that she acts like a 'tard?

But the fact that you can replace her with an object and have the result be the same says a lot about her character, don't you think? I can't think of any story I've enjoyed where that would work, or where I would want that to happen at all. And if we're talking about a story about two children, it should be even less so. Any time you've got a child whose role and impact on the story would remain the same if replaced by an object, you've got some serious characterization issues. You haven't just missed the mark, you've gone over the fence and into the next county.

No you couldn't. Half the reason you can't leave the castle is because you take Yorda with you. The Ico sees her in a cage and asumes she's there for the same reason he is and decides to bolt with her. Right when the gate is clear and you think you are about to get out of that hell-hole, The gates are fucking slammed on them and Yorda's mother (The witch of the castle) stops both of them and appears saying that Ico may leave but Yorda can't saying that she is her daughter and that there will be dire consequences if he does. Ico wants to take Yorda with him but renders it as her decision. Which she decides to go with him.

This happens at about 1/3 into the game(according to my playtime). Now call me crazy but if she was a brick, at that point he probably would have thrown it down and end-zone dance his way out of that castle at that point. And we wouldn't have had to sit through the other 2/3 of the game.

 

[Lilani]

No, it is not your fault for being bored by a game and not having interest in it. It is your fault for arguing over something you know not the material of.

I am only arguing about my experience up to that point. Her only role in the game up to the point I played was a sandbag, so that's all I know of her. Nothing else applies to my experience. And if you're frustrated with this argument, then perhaps you should stop arguing over my personal tastes in games. You like Ico? Fine. Whatever. No skin off my back. I don't. It's you and the other guy who are trying to prove me wrong. If you want to bring this back strictly to how Ico is sexist I would be happy to oblige, but it seems instead this has slipped into why I'm "wrong" for not liking it.

So how exactly would you have improved that gameplay exactly, make her an AI and then come back here because everything thinks it is sexist that she acts like a 'tard?

Some sign she was an autonomous being would have been nice. Maybe some sort of inclination to self-preservation. Even if not attacking the creatures then at least running away and not just hanging around while Ico is fighting. She acts all scared when she's getting pulled under, but since she never does anything beforehand to prevent it I feel frustration at her stupidity more than empathy for her situation. Even when you're in a huge area she insists on staying right where the enemies are, setting herself up just right to get caught. You can say "Oh, but she's a child so she's panicked!" but I'm not feeling it. All I see there is a useless little shit who needs to start trying a little harder if she wants to make it out alive.

No you couldn't. Half the reason you can't leave the castle is because you take Yorda with you. The Ico sees her in a cage and asumes she's there for the same reason he is and decides to bolt with her. Right when the gate is clear and you think you are about to get out of that hell-hole, The gates are fucking slammed on them and Yorda's mother (The witch of the castle) stops both of them and appears saying that Ico may leave but Yorda can't saying that she is her daughter and that there will be dire consequences if he does. Ico wants to take Yorda with him but renders it as her decision. Which she decides to go with him.

This happens at about 1/3 into the game(according to my playtime). Now call me crazy but if she was a brick, at that point he probably would have thrown it down and end-zone dance his way out of that castle at that point. And we wouldn't have had to sit through the other 2/3 of the game.

Again, no matter how much you tell me about Yorda's role in the future of the game, that does not change the fact that I have zero empathy for her from the start. I don't care if she is some sort of walking plot point, if none of this exposition changes how she behaves when danger is near, then I'm afraid I have no fucks to give. I cannot bring myself to care about someone who just sits there like an idiot while enemies are nearby and then has the fucking nerve to act all scared when she gets caught. No. Fuck that.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment.

I wouldn't look at any other art form if it didn't entertain me in some way. Are you saying movies shouldn't apply either because they are also a form of entertainment?

Games were primarily entertainment.

...And that excludes them from being art how?

In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

Non-sequitur, please explain.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first.

Even if artistic and entertainment were well defined to be entirely opposing I fail to see how that would change how one should judge them.

They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.

At least partially, yes, they want games to be recognised for what they are. Early videogames were still art though.

The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

There are some games which are more artistic than others or more stylish but all of them are still art forms.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art.

No one said that art had to be good. I personally don't like the Mona Lisa and think it is insane that so many people do. Art can still be good or bad, but it is still art.

I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

Why would it be getting worse? Every indication seems to suggest that people are becoming less and less sexist, and with the people the art will follow, or it will die.


In short, I think you need to read the definition of art:
Noun
-The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
-Works produced by such skill and imagination.
Both apply to videogames.

I think that definition is polarizing. The connotation is that when you use the word "art" it means visual art, and that's very narrow. By this definition, designers are artists. It leaves out what happens between the player and the game. I don't want to watch someone play, I want to play. Playing is primarily amusement, not art.

Regarding sexism in entertainment, I assumed you understood that I refer to the way men and women are typically portrayed. The female form is typically exploited for sex, and the men are all powerful. I don't see anime, hentai, porn, swimsuits, or whatever people consider entertainment to be dieing out. As long as those things exist, sexism will exist. I see sexism as limiting the way men and women are portrayed.

Early games were considered amusement, not art. I didn't go to a museum, I went to the arcade. Arcades were in amusement parks, and other places. The current generation tends to look back and redefine things. I dissagree with that.

Here's my main gripe - Dear Esther is art. Ico is Art. I don't need to play dear Esther to experience it because I can watch on YouTube. Does that make it a game? I don't think so. I don't want to watch games, I want to play them. I'd only watch if I was trying to learn how to play better, not because I thought the games were art.

I don't want games to be passive. As each generation comes and goes, games are more about story and graphics. The interactivity (or gameplay) is being pushed aside in the name of art, and I'm not into it at all. Video Games need their own consideration, thier own catagory within culture now.

We play games actively...at least that's the way it was. Perhaps we need another name for things like Dear Esther...maybe art works for that. Double Dragon, Street Fighter, and a half dozen games in my head are not art. We can extract the characters from the game to make art from them, but play is play. Art is art. I can play in an artsy way, but we all don't play games for the sake of art. I don't interact with a painting in the same way I interact with a game. That's my polarized view.

 

[The Lunatic]

It really depresses me that people are apparently so weak willed to over analyse things to this extent.

"Peach is a Woman! Look! She does typical woman things! Why isn't she doing MAN things! For Equality!".

Because that's not her character.

That's not the way she was designed.

That's really all there is to it. I'm pretty sure most men don't see peach and think "Oh, all women must be like that".

Likewise, I'm sure most women don't look at Marcus Fenix and think "Oh, all men must be like that".

There is no "Sexism" in characters, people are capable of being stereotypes. Any character is capable of acting in any way, the idea that we have to be offended because a certain character acts a certain way is just silly.

I have enough security in my view of the world to know that a female character in a video game acting like a stereotypical female isn't going to rock my view of women and make me think they're all weak and helpless.


The argument is basically "There isn't enough diversity for women in games".

You're absolutely right.

The same is true for men.

Majority of male characters: Some hero figure, generally experienced in whatever they do (Generally killing other things.), emotionally undeveloped.

Majority of female characters: Needs protecting, serves as goal for protagonist, often sexualised.

Both are completely inaccurate to any reality.

One may argue the females are more "Negatively portrayed", but, this is really just opinion. While you yourself might not want to be some Disney princess who's rescued from every situation, there are a fair amount of people that do.

Likewise, while some men may want to be the hero who's emotionally stunted and detached, there's a fair amount of us that really can't think of much worse.

But, at the end of the day, it's completely irrelevant, because I'm entirely capable of saying "Hey, this is just a character. Maybe he's just like that."

And the moment it stops selling so well, I'm certain change will happen.

It's just silly to think that any change can happen just by bitching hard enough, that's not how it works. Games are products, if games with well developed female characters who aren't stereotypes start to sell well, you can sure as hell bet they'll be more of them.

But, that's not the case. People buy and support characters which are stereotypes, some of the favourite characters in gaming are hilariously stereotypical characters with almost zero personality beyond this.

Because, at the end of the day, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. And when fun comes into it, reality takes a back seat, and given that males make up the majority of this market, it's obviously going to pander to stereotypical male fantasies.

And the most common of which is...

Games exist to make money, and they're going to do that however they see fit. They're most certainly not here to be respectable about it. And for the most part, that's going to involve things like this. And I fully suggest that if you want to change that, you actually work towards doing so rather than bitching on a forum or supporting somebody else's bitching.

If a game's portrayal of a man, or a woman offends you, don't buy it.

Likewise, any game that you deem progress on this, support it.