daibakuha said:
Because it reinforces the fact that she's an object to be won from beating the game. The person you rescue isn't a character, she's a trophy.
Yes, I too liked the part in Aladdin where he (Aladdin) accidentally fell to that comment from the princess.
The idea isn't that she has no choice in the matter. Yes, if you do good things for people, especially daring things for people, it is not unreasonable to think that they would consider you more highly.
This isn't morally reprehensible. Likewise, I've never seen it stated that she has no say in the matter or that she is somehow obligated to give you more than gratitude. In fact, in a lot of scenarios you already have an existing relationship with the individual.
So, at best, you are maybe making an argument for a very specific scenario that I haven't seen in games yet.
The problem comes from the context the story gives these characters. They aren't characters at all.
Ok? Do you believe in a moral imperative of some kind that you have to know everything about a person before their life is worth saving? Or is their life saving purely because of the sanctity of life?
Besides, most damsel games have a preexisting relationship where they are characterized, so you're only discussing very specific sub-plots within the trope and even those aren't necessarily bad.
Like I said before, they're a reward, a trophy. Removing agency from someone is a good way for a bad to illustrate he's a bad guy, but the writers do the exact same thing by removing the character from narrative entirely.
Agency is the ability to act. If you can act freely then you don't need to be saved. Hero might as well sit at home doing nothing.
Their lack of agency is the conflict of the narrative that is to be overcome. It is central unless you're doing a Monkey Island-esque parody of the hero being a buffoon which works in a comedic game.
But as I just pointed out with examples I used at the end, they don't always require physical force. Lara Croft doesn't fist fight a bunch of dudes in that game.
The climbing alone would have been the most extreme level of physical endurance. Hanging off ledges by your fingers and even moving along said ledge with your fingers is a peak human feat that takes significant endurance and effort.
Likewise, I'm pretty sure I bopped more than a few skulls with a weapon and took quite a few strikes to the head too. Also, there were quite a few quick time events where a guy was overpowering her if you recall.
Lara Croft does it all. Physical, mental, all. I've got no problem with it. I wouldn't want my protagonist to be weak as hell so I'm happy that Croft has unlikely physical skills as a young girl against grizzled battle-hardened grown men/stranded sailors/pirates.
Nathan Drake rarely goes bare-knuckle as well, wanna know why? Because they'd both get overpowered by the sheer number of enemies and their enemies are much strong than they are physically.
Eh, I'd say Nathan gets into some pretty big brawls. They just don't gang up and bum-rush him in traditional action film fashion (where the potential enemies are just shuffling in the background to give the appearance of danger when the hero is actually only fighting one or two at any given time).
<youtube=8rHHMwWyyLg>
Look, most games are unrealistic. My point of contention is with Anita's claim against gender dimorphism which most people generally agree is incorrect and observably false.
I have no idea what this tangent is about, but weapons like a pistol, pepper spray, a taser and even a whistle are effective countermeasures against would be physical attacks.
A whistle? You mean a means to call for help from someone with the physical means to stop what's happening? All of these things are great if you're prepared for an assault. But if it comes down to trying to pull pepper spray out of your purse when the guy already has you then physical strength would make a big difference.
The idea is this, physical strength can be very relevant when people are trying to harm you. You're basically making the argument that Batman can beat Superman given enough time to prepare. True... but that's seldom the luxury we have as people.
But for the most part, they do have agency. Lara Croft doesn't rescue all of her friends on the island, she finds some and rescues 1. I think you have both a very narrow definition of what a protagonist is, and what conflict should be in a story. There are ways to tell even a straight hero story without removing female agency or anyone's agency really.
Um... first off, let's be clear. No one is actually having agency removed. The characters, even the protagonist, are just 1's and 0's. They don't have free will, they don't have agency, they're nothing. They are things. So morality isn't even slightly in question here.
Secondly, I'm explaining that in the damsel in distress, the individual needing to be saved IS the conflict in those narratives. If the individual does not need to be saved, then it's a different narrative altogether.
I'm sorry that people think it is somehow unethical to craft a story in which someone's life is at stake. But I find that to be particularly irrational to demand that a story not be told because the person being saved is a girl.
Please keep in mind, Anita's argument is not that these games are bad. It's that it's happening to a female. She doesn't care about a character having their agency taken away, she has a problem with it being a girl.
She says so in the third damsel trope video when discussing spleunky at the 6 minute mark. She explains that there's nothing wrong with damsel-ling the male character or dog and that only the female damsel is unethical to depict. So, either she is sexist and thinks that bad mechanics are justified against men or her objection is something else regarding it specifically happening to the female.
She says that the female damsel reinforced stereotypes about women being the weaker gender because they're frail/fragile/vulnerable. Which, as we are discussing, isn't a stereotype but is a measurable distinction between our genders albeit on average.
1. True: Saying that women are weaker than men as a gender (aggregate).
2. True: Saying that Sally is most likely (statistically likely but not necessarily) weaker than Tom because she is female.
3. False: Saying that Sally is automatically weak because she is a woman. There's a huge difference between the first two and the last one. But Anita is disagreeing with both medical fact and stereotyping when only stereotyping is wrong.
