Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[MoeMints]

You can't objectively prove something is sexist. There's no scientific method for proving sexism. Everything isn't math. It's a criticism, just like "this sucks" or "this is offensive to me as a gamer." I say call a spade a spade.

A spade being a spade is objective.
While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

 

[runic knight]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that criticism still be highly valuable to, say, Christians who preferred a lot of Christ in their rock? Who would be the likeliest consumers of that particular brand of criticism? Or say, if you were the kind of person who was very concerned about religious or ideological contexts when it came to the art you enjoyed, would you not appreciate a critic who explored those ideas?

As I said...the value of criticism is determined by its audience. I don't share tastes with Armond White, so I don't read his articles or take his opinions into consideration when deciding which films to watch, but that doesn't mean his criticism is "worthless". Just worthless to me. As I am not the center of the universe (ALAS!), the fact a thing is worthless specifically to me doesn't amount to very much.

It's fine to dismiss criticism, based on your personal outlook. It's fine to debate criticism. What I don't understand is any argument that says "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it is worthless" or "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it shouldn't exist".

 

[runic knight]

Perhaps he means criticisms based on personal tastes in art? You know, the idea that if you don't like it, that is fine but worthless to anyone else. People have their own taste and if it just boils down to "I don't like it" then all it is, is just sharing an opinion, one of countless others and is therefore suitably worthless on its own. Compared to, say, more professional criticism where the opinion is backed and explained better and ultimately supported with some argument that tries to add some degree of objectivity to things. Saying some music is bad because I don't like it means nothing to other people. Saying it is bad because it is cluttered, overly loud mess with generic lyrics, overdone premise and half the tune stolen from other, better songs...well, that at least has some relative criteria.

It could also relate to using criteria that is unrelated to the product itself. Such as making claims about the art having negative consequences on society as a whole even if such claims are completely unsupported, or trying to judge the art in the context of a religious or ideological context, even if the art itself isn't a part of that. See any attempt to censor rock music because it is not Christian enough.

So in both ways, criticism could be worthless.

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't that criticism still be highly valuable to, say, Christians who preferred a lot of Christ in their rock? Who would be the likeliest consumers of that particular brand of criticism? Or say, if you were the kind of person who was very concerned about religious or ideological contexts when it came to the art you enjoyed, would you not appreciate a critic who explored those ideas?

As I said...the value of criticism is determined by its audience. I don't share tastes with Armond White, so I don't read his articles or take his opinions into consideration when deciding which films to watch, but that doesn't mean his criticism is "worthless". Just worthless to me. As I am not the center of the universe (ALAS!), the fact a thing is worthless specifically to me doesn't amount to very much.

It's fine to dismiss criticism, based on your personal outlook. It's fine to debate criticism. What I don't understand is any argument that says "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it is worthless" or "I disagree with this criticism, therefore it shouldn't exist".

I have to ask though, what is the worth of an opinion echoed?

When I hear someone talking about criticisms, I assume that of journalists or columnist who are reviewing something. I assume it is reference to value of the product reviewed as measured in relation to the quality of its product and against the quality of the competitors. I may even assume it is in regards to its own merits.
I never assume that it is being judged by the light of a religion or ideological stance that it was never meant to appeal to or apply to. Not because I may not be part of those groups, but rather, trying to measure the product along those lines is worthless to the point or quality of the art itself. I know, I know, worthless is relative, and probably not the best word to use here, but only one I have at the moment.

For someone outside the target audience of the criticisms (say wrong religion), the opinion matters not at all by default. They do not share the same limiting mindset in trying to see how the art fits within the context of that world view. To someone within the targeting audience though, the problem can still arise when you have different opinions on what does or does not fit within it. The argument becomes a debate over the subjective interpretation of the religion itself, and still ultimately boils down to "in my opinion" once you cut through the fat of "for people who share my belief."

When it comes to something like video games as art, there are still aspects that are more objective. Functionality of the product, how well it works in general, can be seen in that way. Visual style can be explained (even if opinion on said style is still personal opinion). Even story and character aspects can be quantified to a degree that can help when it comes to the audience making their opinions. How well it fits into someone's personal (and yes, it will always be personal, as no two people have the exact same beliefs) morality or philosophical viewpoint just doesn't do the same thing, except to those who would already be slanted to that opinion.

So, if the opinion is merely an echo of the audience's view (or is just accepted blindly), can it really be said to have much worth as a criticism.

 

[Thr33X]

Feminism and gaming should never be made to exist in the same breath. Period. Femininity on the other hand in gaming, now that's something I'd like to see. I dare for any woman who writes or draws or dabbles in any form of game design to make a female character in a game that fits their lofty ideal of "what a woman is" and make it in a way that in effect doesn't alienate or objectify in and of itself. It can't be done, because what's one person's idea might not be the next person's.

Normally that's fine and dandy.

There was one a time where if one didn't like something, they just said they don't like it, it sucks, or whatever the case may be. Of a female character (let's say Ivy from Soul Calibur for example) suddenly got noticeably enhanced from one game to the next physically, there was a knee jerk reaction, but otherwise it's just what the designers wanted to do with the character.

Fast forward to 2013 and any depiction of the female body showing an inch of skin is all of a sudden a social injustice. What the crap? So now designers have to be mindful of the sensitivity of a minute group of consumers? That's pretty much the call to action being made here, and it's ridiculous. I've broken an oath I made to myself now to never post in one of these type of threads again...so now I must go find my dagger.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I have to ask though, what is the worth of an opinion echoed?

When I hear someone talking about criticisms, I assume that of journalists or columnist who are reviewing something. I assume it is reference to value of the product reviewed as measured in relation to the quality of its product and against the quality of the competitors. I may even assume it is in regards to its own merits.
I never assume that it is being judged by the light of a religion or ideological stance that it was never meant to appeal to or apply to. Not because I may not be part of those groups, but rather, trying to measure the product along those lines is worthless to the point or quality of the art itself. I know, I know, worthless is relative, and probably not the best word to use here, but only one I have at the moment.

For someone outside the target audience of the criticisms (say wrong religion), the opinion matters not at all by default. They do not share the same limiting mindset in trying to see how the art fits within the context of that world view. To someone within the targeting audience though, the problem can still arise when you have different opinions on what does or does not fit within it. The argument becomes a debate over the subjective interpretation of the religion itself, and still ultimately boils down to "in my opinion" once you cut through the fat of "for people who share my belief."

When it comes to something like video games as art, there are still aspects that are more objective. Functionality of the product, how well it works in general, can be seen in that way. Visual style can be explained (even if opinion on said style is still personal opinion). Even story and character aspects can be quantified to a degree that can help when it comes to the audience making their opinions. How well it fits into someone's personal (and yes, it will always be personal, as no two people have the exact same beliefs) morality or philosophical viewpoint just doesn't do the same thing, except to those who would already be slanted to that opinion.

So, if the opinion is merely an echo of the audience's view (or is just accepted blindly), can it really be said to have much worth as a criticism.

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

Fast forward to 2013 and any depiction of the female body showing an inch of skin is all of a sudden a social injustice. What the crap? So now designers have to be mindful of the sensitivity of a minute group of consumers? That's pretty much the call to action being made here, and it's ridiculous. I've broken an oath I made to myself now to never post in one of these type of threads again...so now I must go find my dagger.

Well...

A) "Minute" is a projection. There's no real way to measure how large or small the body of consumers that are sensitive to issue X or issue Y. Companies likely employ metrics, but even those will never be 100% accurate.

B) Who said "Have to"? Companies are free to react as they choose. Art and film and literature have faced hard questions since their inception, and it never slowed the flow of controversial art and film and literature. The idea that "Artists must be protected from criticism lest they start listening to it" is ludicrous. If an artist draws a pair of ambulatory tits, that is his prerogative. If the artist then responds to criticism of his tits and draws something different in response, THAT IS STILL HIS PREROGATIVE. Just as it would be his prerogative to ignore the criticism, or take it half way, or even respond to the criticism with an even more antagonistic piece.

 

[ShiningAmber]

I love how people here will argue that art is a medium that should never be censored. Artists should be free to express what they want and how they want it.

Women with huge breasts? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly raped? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly beaten? Sure thing.
Women with no personality? Sure thing.
Women with other ridiculous proportions? Sure thing.


Feminism? Oh, f*ck no.


Ridiculous.

 

[MoeMints]

While a criticism with no relative criteria is completely worthless.

Can you expand on this? I'm not sure what you mean by "relative criteria".

Criticism is generally pretty ephemeral. It's highly personal, and one's reading of it and interpretation of it tends to be highly personal as well. You can criticize something on pretty much any level, and the value of that criticism will be almost entirely determined by the audience absorbing it.

Runic actually has it fairly accurate, but specifically...

While criticism comes from personal perception, it being short-term and merely subjective should be the opposite of what it intends to be.

When one does not show any attempt to actually being a audience, peer, and/or credible judge of the maker who receives this criticism, you lose importance to those who have opposing views. In many times, even to the point of people only agreeing with you because they would already.

Such like the most cherrypicked games I see, I have definitely seen many a person not shown any attempt at understanding the core of the game and fanbase, rather doing reactionary claims that are just white noise after the 20th time we've been over this.

Love, hate, good, and bad, and all their variations should all be thrown out the window, or be given as little significance over the reasoning behind those terms.

My argument isn't "this critique is worthless because I don't like it", its "this critique is worthless because it wastes everyone's time that wasn't going to agree with it."

 

[runic knight]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

My argument isn't "this critique is worthless because I don't like it", its "this critique is worthless because it wastes everyone's time that wasn't going to agree with it."

I'm not sure determining something's worth by whether or not people who dislike/disagree it find it a waste of time is a very good metric. In terms of something like criticism, or even ART...which has no concrete substance...you don't eat it, you don't fuck it, it doesn't help you with any of your a-priori needs...everything is going to ultimately be subjective. I'm not sure I agree with any argument based on the principle of "It's subjective, therefore useless".

I can certainly understand favoring "expert" critique over bystander critique, especially if that critique is expressed better, or offers more interesting insight, but going too far down that road is argumentum ad auctoritatem. I'm interested in any well expressed criticism, regardless of whether or not it aligns with my preferences. Sometimes, in the case of things I cherish, unforseen and insightful criticism can be hard to hear, but I'm open to it. Not because I'm some spectacularly broad-minded individual. It's probably just because I'm wishy washy and prone to excessive neutrality. =P

Such like the most cherrypicked games I see, I have definitely seen many a person not shown any attempt at understanding the core of the game and fanbase, rather doing reactionary claims that are just white noise after the 20th time we've been over this.

You can criticize an element of a game without criticizing the game entire. For example, I go could on for HOURS about flaws with, say, Skyrim, without it changing my general opinion that the game is excellent based on its merits. A game could hypothetically be RAMPANTLY sexist, and still have excellent game play, or an astonishing plot twist. Criticism doesn't have to boil down to binary good/bad judgments.

When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

I get that, and I suspect it's because it's not an issue for you. Think of it as...let's see. Think of being, say, a black man in 1950's America...and issues of race are very important to you. And let's say a show comes along, and it has a black character, and he's a moron and a buffoon, and is illustrative of many of the ways in which you feel your race is unfairly portrayed in the media. The show is also an excellent comedy. Can you criticize the show for what you perceive as racism, despite the fact it's irrelevant to the show's quality as a comedy? Would that not be a legitimate, rational, or valid criticism? Could you not have that discussion, without insinuating that every show going forward would need to significantly alter itself to cater to a minority opinion?

 

[Thr33X]

I love how people here will argue that art is a medium that should never be censored. Artists should be free to express what they want and how they want it.

Women with huge breasts? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly raped? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly beaten? Sure thing.
Women with no personality? Sure thing.
Women with other ridiculous proportions? Sure thing.


Feminism? Oh, f*ck no.


Ridiculous.

Hate to go with the whole "if you don't like it, don't look at it" line, but that's pretty much where it bottom lines down to, because the creators are going to do what they want to do, the players are going to say what they want to say, and unless there is viable reason for change to be made (of which has not I don't think ever will be proven), the most one can do is turn the other cheek if they are truly offended by it, if it's not deemed offending enough by the general populace to be ruled as offensive.

 

[generals3]

I love how people here will argue that art is a medium that should never be censored. Artists should be free to express what they want and how they want it.

Women with huge breasts? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly raped? Sure thing.
Women repeatedly beaten? Sure thing.
Women with no personality? Sure thing.
Women with other ridiculous proportions? Sure thing.


Feminism? Oh, f*ck no.


Ridiculous.

Actually the reason why feminism is a f*ck no is because it is a restrictive ideology. If it was up to feminism many things would be a "no-no". If someone asked: would you be ok with a game like WoW (you know where women are not sexualized, where the DiD is not the plot-mover, where you can chose between female or male characters, etc.) I think everyone would say "sure".

 

[runic knight]

When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

I get that, and I suspect it's because it's not an issue for you. Think of it as...let's see. Think of being, say, a black man in 1950's America...and issues of race are very important to you. And let's say a show comes along, and it has a black character, and he's a moron and a buffoon, and is illustrative of many of the ways in which you feel your race is unfairly portrayed in the media. The show is also an excellent comedy. Can you criticize the show for what you perceive as racism, despite the fact it's irrelevant to the show's quality as a comedy? Would that not be a legitimate, rational, or valid criticism? Could you not have that discussion, without insinuating that every show going forward would need to significantly alter itself to cater to a minority opinion?

You could have that discussion. The problem is, you would be hard pressed to find people willing to have it civilly. Go ahead and start any conversation where you call someone a racist and see how well they respond. Today the word has a very negative stigma to it, so any use of it is seen as an attack and insult from the start. Hell, it is seen as an open threat in cases, as companies will cut you lose to protect their asses sometimes, making it even more antagonizing. Sexism is little better in that regard.
The problem is not with the discussion of women in games. Hell, I had a thread dedicated to that exact topic and exploring the how and why of it. The problem is that the conversation is rarely ever about that. Instead it is a war about labeling something as sexist or now (with all the bickering one would expect with a word with such a stigma). Furthermore, when offering criticism of a product in a reviewer/scoring sort of fashion, as is common in video game articles, it changes it from a discussion to a preaching when you judge the product by the merits of your own ideology first. If you represent a larger company or news group doing a review, is it fair to judge it by your ideology first, then whatever aspects of the product second, even if such aspects may have been the reason you were choosen to represent the company as a reviewer in the first place?

I do understand what you are saying. You are of the mind that because the issue doesn't affect me, of course I wouldn't perceive it the same. And that if the criticism was merited and opened a discussion, what is wrong with that? The problem is that it isn't I don't think the issue does not affect me, it does, it is just that the way it has been addressed has been as a proxy for other problems and issue people have within gaming. This is true on both sides of the debate.
You don't start a discussion with an insult or a debate with an accusation, yet that is what it always starts out as. When people complained about Dragon's Crown it was not "These art designs are part of a larger trend within the industry and we should examine how that reflects the industry's view of women or may affect the participation of them" It was "This art style is sexist because it is oversexualized". No discussion, just flame fodder, preaching to an audience that already agreed and otherwise dividing everyone else.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You don't start a discussion with an insult or a debate with an accusation, yet that is what it always starts out as. When people complained about Dragon's Crown it was not "These art designs are part of a larger trend within the industry and we should examine how that reflects the industry's view of women or may affect the participation of them" It was "This art style is sexist because it is oversexualized". No discussion, just flame fodder, preaching to an audience that already agreed and otherwise dividing everyone else.

I should probably make it clear that I don't consider all criticism to be fantastically worded or presented just because it's valid. If you choose to offer an inflammatory or accusatory criticism, and then compound things by poorly expressing it, you're likely going to stir up a lot of controversy. Some of these people are probably aware of that, and as controversy drives page views it's likely intentional. Just like Kamitani winkingly reminded us that all the attention being paid to Dragons Crown was a-ok with him.

If you think a criticism is poor, by all means dispute it.

Actually the reason why feminism is a f*ck no is because it is a restrictive ideology. If it was up to feminism many things would be a "no-no".

Feminism is not a remotely restrictive ideology, unless you consider equality of the sexes to be "restrictive". You may find individuals who self-identify as feminists who argue for restrictions, but that's on those individuals. It's like meeting a Catholic who likes ham, and thus assuming all Catholics like ham.

 

[MoeMints]

* snip*

This implies I think "bystander" critique is worse than "expert" critique.
Being relative to the intent of the product and having logic behind your statements I can say only needs one month of training to accurately do. Tops.
In fact, I've hated a huge chunk of experts in gaming recently, and mostly use thread opinions and low profile reviews as a control.

That and I wouldn't use "insightful" for a claim of sexism at all.
It is contextually an negative absolute most of a time. This is the very source of the problem.
There is virtually no window for discussion since it is a conclusion.

You can criticize an element of a game without criticizing the game entire.

Aesthetics no matter what the 80s/90s kids will tell you are completely relative to a game's quality for its intended purpose and demographic, especially action and fighting games.
Dragon's Crown/DoA/SC/Senran Kagura are not remotely the same games or have the same appeal with them removed.

And let's say a show comes along, and it has a black character, and he's a moron and a buffoon, and is illustrative of many of the ways in which you feel your race is unfairly portrayed in the media. The show is also an excellent comedy.

And this statement is where it really feels like people make a conclusion before evidence and correlations.
Is he the only black character? Do they go out their way to include him? Does he come off as a representation of an idiot who happens to be black or a black person who's idiotic? Does he have a family, and if so, do they act like him too without being a representation of something other than his race?

Like I imply Charmed, a witch sisters tv show, was sexist through the female characters never going through the same torments as males for the same crimes, or even far worse ones, them even being awarded or only mildly inconvenienced, even having perfect boyfriends. This comes from logical evidence, not just a personal feeling.

 

[broca]

As we have been talking about the possible issue of (self-)censorship and artistic integrity, i think this interview is kind of relevant:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/09/05/hotline-miami-devs-reconsidering-sexual-assault-scene/

It's basically one developer of hotline miami 2 saying that they think about changing the infamous acted rape scene, even as they as the concisely included it to make a point and not just to shock people (just like the way they used hyperviolence).

Bonus points to rps for seeing rape as a no-go but mass murder and hyper-violence as okay (yes, the rps guy says "That?s not to say all-out gore-soaked violence is any better or worse" but somehow all they talk about is the rape). I really hate this kind of mind set and i really can't imagine the kind of mental arithmetics that allows one to see rape as terrible but hyperviolence as ok. Or perhaps it's a cultural thing about americans who seem to have less of a problem with violence and more of a problems with sexuality?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

You assume that because that is the form of criticism you personally value. And even inside that realm, there are likely plenty of criticisms and opinions you dismiss offhand because they don't fit your personal criteria. Most of us flock to like minded people and opinions in all our doings, be it the critics we listen to or the art we consume or the friends we make. The internet makes it even easier for people to limit their exposure ONLY to those points of view with which they are inclined to agree, or at best rowdy satires of the points of view with which they do not.

There are certainly objective standards by which art can be judged, but that does tend to be a little dry and limited. No one is terribly intrigued by an article that says "Dragon's Crown Art Technically Competent". And most people are pretty good at judging the objective qualities at a glance.

I do think there's an effort underway to label certain forms of criticism as "no true criticisms" so they can be more easily dismissed, and I think that's unfortunate. I LIKE to hear different forms of critique. It doesn't necessarily change my mind about something every time I hear a new opinion on it, but I like to think it broadens my perspective.

As I said, the word worthless probably isn't the right one to go with. I do get what you are saying, I am just having a hard time articulating what I mean exactly. Something just doesn't fit with it. When I see people trying to criticize a video game because it doesn't fit in with their idea of feminism or morality or whatever else, it feels like someone is judging a tv commercial because it didn't hold up to the quality of the book they had sitting on the coffee table on the set next to the coffee the commercial was actually trying to sell you. I don't mean that to invalidate the criticism per say or undermine the ideologies themselves, but ask the point of doing so. No, the commercial is not going to stand up to the same quality standard because it was never made to do so from the start, and even if it does reference the story (for a split second), trying to use that to judge the whole by that standard seems so far removed from something with a point. I suppose that itself is just opinion though, so again, hard to word right here.

@ShiningAmber
I think most people are arguing against having to fit games within feminist ideology. Hell, I know more then one person has made the distinction between a game exploring the topic and games as a medium pushed into the ideology. And most do so because they want artists to be able to make whatever they want and not be bound into a ridged set of what they can or can't do.

Hhm... What if someone made an indie game that was somewhat similar to Papers Please? Maybe have a game set during WWI with the protagonist being a woman whose husband has gone off to the war and she goes into the work force to take care of her family?

Just trying to think of, what would a feminist game be?

 

[generals3]

Feminism is not a remotely restrictive ideology, unless you consider equality of the sexes to be "restrictive". You may find individuals who self-identify as feminists who argue for restrictions, but that's on those individuals. It's like meeting a Catholic who likes ham, and thus assuming all Catholics like ham.

All the bitching about sexualization and DiD trope shows how restrictive feminism is. X is not ok, Y is not ok, and who knows what's going to follow? If we were to apply feminist demands to games artists would be restricted.

And equality how? Equality of Opportunity? Outcome? (the former doesn't even apply in this context and the latter one is really a bad one)

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I get that, and I suspect it's because it's not an issue for you. Think of it as...let's see. Think of being, say, a black man in 1950's America...and issues of race are very important to you. And let's say a show comes along, and it has a black character, and he's a moron and a buffoon, and is illustrative of many of the ways in which you feel your race is unfairly portrayed in the media. The show is also an excellent comedy. Can you criticize the show for what you perceive as racism, despite the fact it's irrelevant to the show's quality as a comedy? Would that not be a legitimate, rational, or valid criticism? Could you not have that discussion, without insinuating that every show going forward would need to significantly alter itself to cater to a minority opinion?

While MoeMints made a good point about this, I'd like to bring up another. What games are doing something similar to this with women?

I'm trying to think of how to describe this properly but I guess I'll try it this way.

Let's look at, as an example, Aschen Brodel from Super Robot Taisen: Endless Frontier.

Spoiler

Now from the character's design, she has big breasts and is wearing a skintight outfit (Further, she has a form called DTD where the green parts of her outfit disappear). Now, the problem here is that feminism would often point to her body and outfit and cry sexism and talk about how it's portraying women poorly. But how is it doing that? How is just a character's physical appearance portraying women poorly? The character herself is actually very smart and is often the first one to point out the ridiculousness or stupidity of situations or people. She's also frequently mocking the character Haken whenever he's trying to be cool or hit on women. She's also just as powerful and competent a fighter as the two male protagonists in the game (The game actually has 4 female PC's and 2 male PC's)

But what is often brought up is simply a character's physical characteristics, it's as if people assume the person playing such a game is going to completely filter out any good characterization and just assume girls are only important for their bodies.

Let's bring up another character from a game I have, Pamela Ibis, from Mana Khemia.

Spoiler

Here's a character that seems to have many of the traits that most people would call stereotypically girly. She likes dolls, she's likes cute things, enjoys attention and can be a bit spoiled at times. This character is also very kind and is considered a friend amongst all the PC's. She's also just as much a fighter as any of the other characters. One can look at this character and just see a stereotypical depiction of a girl. Usual feminist rhetoric would say this character is perpetuating a negative stereotype about girls. This would be in spite of the fact that she's still participating with the guys, she's still fighting, she's still contributing to the group, and furthermore, she's not the only representation of girls. There's also the other three girls of the 8 PC's and they are all different from her.

This is one of the problems with feminism in games, people take a single facet of a character or look at a single moment with them and cry foul. Even in the case of the Sorceress from Dragon's Crown, she's sexually appealing, but she's also one of the PC's and she's a powerful magic user. The character is not wholly defined by that aspect and the people playing the game don't just look at the character that way because they play as her and care about how strong the character is in regards to the gameplay. The fact that she knows magic also means that she has to be intelligent enough and have studied enough to use it.

The example you use, or what you intended it to mean, is that it is portraying a certain kind of person as being stupid and that is all they are known for. But in many examples people use to claim that gaming is telling people women are weak or only meant for eye candy, the character are not in fact merely defined by being someone to rescue or having an attractive body.