The Big Picture: With Great Power

[Gindil]

Here's my issue: She made a video for her Kickstarter page where she has all of the consoles.

I don't know what that has to do with anything. To the best of my memory, she never said she needs money to buy consoles. She--and I--said she wanted to buy "hundreds of games."

Again... That's a hard thing to understand based on how other gamers don't ask for money for their habit. It just seems odd to ask for this money for a "project" of being able to play games then tell people that girls are mistreated in games. It's an acknowledgement that she doesn't play games and doesn't share the same passion as females like Felicia Day, Lisa Foiles, and others who can at least tell you the basic stories that they know and love. Hell, I'd trust Brenda Romero and her "Sex and Videogames" book over Anita simply because she's been able to explain sex and relationships in games from a developer standpoint. As I said, it's just... Off, for lack of a better word.

Wouldn't you already have a few of the games?

I consider myself a gamer, and I doubt I have a full thirty games to my name. That number, incidentally, includes what I still own from the NES.

And I'm one too, but horribly mangling stories about Zelda and Princess Toadstool and ignoring criticisms of gamers as "trollspeak" isn't quite the same as being someone with a new spin on how gaming can improve without saying that Damsels in Distress is the cause.

She already had a studio. And like I said, it wasn't a low budget affair. The quality had already been in place since she finished her first series and moved onto Bayonetta.

I'm not sure how good quality implies high budget, but okay.

As I say, she already has all of the tools and she's starting from a higher position than most gamers. To then say she needs money to review games when people have started further back than her and done far more is kind of saying a lot about her quality and quantity.

Nope. She needs to be a lot more accurate when saying that a trope's existence is leading to the moral decay of an industry.

Has she said "moral decay of an industry?"

Hyperbolically speaking, but she implies that a basic plot narrative that has been around since Greek times, by her own admission, should be removed because it "disempowers women". Arguably, I put her as a moral panic similar to what created the Hays Code, but I digress on that topic. The point here is that she's trying a moral panic over gaming, especially in factoring the entire "9 seconds" issue where she tries to put games in the same category as domestic violence.

When female protagonists are in trouble, they also get saved.

Leaving aside for now that I'm not sure "female protagonist in trouble" is anything but passingly similar to "damsel in distress," how many male protagonists can you think of who have been in the same position? Scanning through my library, the only games I see when that happens are Megaman X3 (X is cornered by Sigma in a cutscene and someone hits him with an antivirus), and arguably Chrono Trigger (after his death, Crono needs to be resurrected, but you can beat the game without doing so) and Metal Gear Solid (but only if you don't save yourself). That would require a generous reading of events to categorize as something that occurs in ten percent of my games.

FFX - Yuna saves herself 3 times. Beyond Good & Evil has a role reversal. Alyx saves Gordon in HL2. Portal has Chell saving Weasley until he becomes the big bad. Hell, you had to put Zero back together in MMX2. Sleeping Dogs has you saving Jackie tons of times. Saints Row has you trying to save one of your main boys in Carlos who's also a love interest... It doesn't end well and it's pretty damn traumatic. And Dragon Age II has you start the game and make a choice between your brother (Carter) or sister (Beth) whether you're a mage or a fighter. Whichever one you pick decides which one will die by a demon. Snake gets captured and tortured but has others help him escape from it. MGS2 has Raiden in trouble until Olga saves him (the naked fangirl service was not good to me but anyway...). Luigi's Mansion and Mario is Missing are both a series where Luigi is the hero, saving Mario while Yoshi's Island has you helping out baby Mario. The Fire Emblem series has a crapton of them. Squall in FF8, while Tifa saves Cloud in FF7... You had Bad Dudes saving the President (Reagan). And the girl in Secret of Mana was all about saving her boyfriend Dyluck. And I won't get into Mass Effect and all of the times that you save men and women.

I could go on, but that's more than 10 games where there's either a male in distress or you're seeing the role reversal. And no, it's not always played for laughs. That Saints Row one is pretty damn graphic.

Hell, Zelda in Twilight Princess went willingly to save her kingdom and was pretty powerful as a sage.

Less powerful that a shepherd, though.

... Wut?

And they don't fit the narrative about Zelda being the Triforce of Wisdom and doing what's best for the realm.

Then why was the narrative crafted that she was the Triforce of Wisdom and not of Courage?

facepalm

So let me get this straight... You just want a female version of Link. Is that all? You're not even interested in the back story, you just want a female version of Link? Because the other way to interpret your argument is to say that you don't care about any reason that stories exist if a woman is hurt in anyway and that is way too pedantic to believe that's someone's argument.

Meanwhile, the fact is, most people that want a "reverse" gender role don't see outside of the "Damsel in Distress" narrative except for gender.

I don't understand what this sentence means.

Exactly what it says. People don't care about this "trope" except for the gender aspect and it seems that the storytelling part is ignored along with games that play around with both genders in regards to being in distress.

And all this really shows is that she keeps her supporters ignorant of the facts. All that really is is that Zelda is at a different stage of the Monomyth Theory than Link.

Why? Why couldn't she be in Link's place?

Uhm... She's a Goddess with untold amounts of power and the only thing that you're caring about is the gender? Really? I think you missed the entire point of these games and how she's been there to help out the Hero (That's you) regardless of how women are perceived in this world. And it's becoming disturbing that you can't see Zelda and her Wisdom in maintaining the realm while Link does the gruntwork and tries to help out people as a courageous fighter. I really think you might want to look up player agency though... A game that plays itself is really boring. See also: Other M.

Also, just as a suggestion, Zelda, being a princess, told Impa to find someone willing to answer the call to action.

...Are you arguing that telling an old woman to go find some random dude to save the kingdom is equivalent to protagonism?

Ah great, you're willing to ignore backstory...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What do you mean that she made less impact?

I mean, while Hyrule was under her watch, it became a hellscape. When Link returned, he defeated every monster plaguing it, saved two entire species from extinction (the Gorons and the Zoras), reformed a criminal organization into a peaceful, sovereign nation (the Gerudos), and sealed Darth Vader himself in a void beyond time and space. What did Zelda do, aside from teach him a couple of songs and give him the Arrows of Light? That amounts to heroism in the same way the guy who sold John McClane his gun is the hero of Die Hard.

I didn't say she made the same impact, or a different impact. I said she made less of an impact in seven years than Link did in less than one month.

That's rather pedantic and petty. You're trying to say that since Zelda can't save the realm with the Master Sword, she's less of a character? That's not sexist on my part. That's not discriminating of women or anything else. Nope, I'm just going to move on and say you're ignoring what she did to come to a presupposed conclusion that she was useless in seven years while also doing her best to protect the realm and keep Ganon from finding her and the other sages.

Not talking about women in gaming like Tyris (Golden Axe) or Ms. Pac-Man makes her argument weaker by making it seem as if women just can't be heroes and don't have strong personalities or that gamers don't like playing as women.

Her Kickstarter page--and I'm not a backer, so this is information available to the public--mentions she will be making a video called "Mrs. Male Character," or words to that effect. I have no doubt that if she chooses to address Ms. Pac-Man, she will do so there. I don't know Golden Axe, but without even bothering to look it up, I will guess that Tyris is probably a Vallejo babe with a sword and a fur bikini and would thus fit under the topic of the "the Fighting Fucktoy" or the "the Sexy Sidekick" videos she mentions.

Yeah, I can see it now... Samus as "A girl with Boobs". While Tyris' backstory of revenge and her having the best magic in the game of Golden Axe is ignored just because of what she wears.

sigh

Sorry, that should be "narrative", in regards to Damsel in Distress. The original Mario Bros was all about jumping on turtles coming from a pipe. And Wrecking Crew had no damsels... It was all about destroying buildings.

Er, so, your point is that she's required to mention games that have no female characters at all as proof of how well women are treated by the video games industry? Isn't that like saying a video criticizing depictions of black people in movies is required to mention the Wizard of Oz as a positive example of black people in cinema?

No, it's just pointing out that her use of "core" is just wrong because that allows her to exclude games such as the RPGs that she wants to ignore since Peach is playable in those. There's nothing wrong with being honest about all of the games instead of making a category that only fits a narrative of women in distress. Add the games where Peach is kidnapped, but don't act like the games where she has agency just aren't there (Mario RPG and Paper Mario)

I want you to take a step back for one second and honestly ask yourself a question: If Mario had to save a prince at the end of Mario Land, would you be as emotionally invested in the story?

That's a bit of a bad example, because I can't make myself care about the ironic-quotation-marks "story" of a Mario game at all (except for Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario: the Thousand-Year Door; represent, guys!), but I'd certainly be more interested in a game where there's a prince to be saved rather than a princess. How would the writers portray him? Five to one says he'd be an effeminate fop whose weakness and shrill, girlish voice are played for laughs, but still, if the writers portrayed him well and honestly, I'd love it

.

That's actually the argument for a Prince Link...

And if you want to know about a game where the Prince was a playable character, Arthus in Warcraft III went from goody goody to the Lich King over the span of that game. Just an aside...

Still, back to the Princess (Toadstool). The reason for her being kidnapped in the first game was because she had the power to dispel King Bowser's magic that turns her people into the fungus you see around the game. The game actually says bricks, but I think that's a translation issue. So there's a reason to kidnap her. Usually, the woman have a lot of power and taking them represents throwing the realm into chaos.

If Princess Toadstool was instead Prince Toadstool, would you have felt like the Prince should have been able to take care of himself and gotten out of this mess?

Can Prince Toadstool fly like Princess Toadstool (Super Mario Bros 2), participate in brawls like Princess Toadstool (the Smash Bros series), or fight with weapons and magic like Princess Toadstool (Super Mario RPG)? If so, yes, I'd expect him to be able to get his own fat ass out of Bowser's weaksauce traps.

And there we go. You've just explained why having a game with a female character makes more sense than having a male as a captor...

Women aren't weak, and needing a helping hand every now and then doesn't make it so.

The point isn't that women are weak; it's that they're being portrayed as weak. Perhaps that's what you meant to say, but I think the distinction is important enough to underline.

Again... BS. Peach and Zelda aren't weak. They're usually the most powerful people of the realm, Zelda doubly so since she is protecting it for seven years while Link sleeps most of it off. They're the most important people to the realm and they're the ones going through the ordeal of capture until others save them to restore order to the realm. We know that both Princesses have magic. It just so happens that both have magic that counters the magic of the villains. And villains gonna villain. Nothing has said that they're weak just because they're captured. And still... Both have games where it's shown that they aren't weak. Zelda has the Spirit Tracks game where you control her while Peach has Super Princess Peach, Mario RPG, etc.

Just because they're damsels does not say they're weak. That's the point to remember.

Her videos won't address those problems.

Okay, but again, that's not what I asked. I asked if you think there is a problem that needs to be addressed, and if so, how it needs to be done.

[/quote]

The first time you asked me, you asked about her videos. You're now changing the question. And quite frankly, the answer remains the same. She can't do it. I'm moving on to people that can find better ways to talk about this. EC explains that making great characters can happen regardless of gender. I believe great characters, regardless of gender or minority, won't rely on focus groups or writing. They just stand on their own.

As such, I'd rather talk about Kitetales* and others that can explain females in games with a much better and less patronizing** way. Anita's way seems to be to try to tear the door down of gaming studios with the most clout. I just don't think that'll be effective. I think the better option is to try to help produce more women and minorities that help to influence the gaming industry. Games like Portal and Journey were indeed created by women and enjoyed by all. That's a far better option than throwing around words like "patriarchy" and "cisgender" and turning people off.

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZueOCLGt1tw

**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

 

[JimB]

That's a hard thing to understand based on how other gamers don't ask for money for their habit.

Um, the games she's buying aren't for her habit. They're for her videos. I don't know if making videos is her full-time job or what, but for the purposes of the Kickstarter, it's not her habit or her hobby.

And I'm one too, but horribly mangling stories about Zelda and Princess Toadstool and ignoring criticisms of gamers as "trollspeak" isn't quite the same as being someone with a new spin on how gaming can improve without saying that Damsels in Distress is the cause.

I think you're changing the topic. You were talking about how a gamer ought to already have hundreds of games, while I have fewer games than I have years alive on this planet, as do most people I know. Maybe that says more about my socioeconomic status than it does about what constitutes a gamer, but still, I think you're holding her to an unfair standard if you expect her to already have hundreds of games paid for from her own pocket.

As I say, she already has all of the tools and she's starting from a higher position than most gamers. To then say she needs money to review games when people have started further back than her and done far more is kind of saying a lot about her quality and quantity.

So she's good. Doesn't mean she can't be better.

Nope. She needs to be a lot more accurate when saying that a trope's existence is leading to the moral decay of an industry.

Has she said "moral decay of an industry?"

Hyperbolically speaking.

Isn't that what you criticize her for doing?

Final Fantasy X: Yuna saves herself three times.

Really? I only remember the team saving her from her moronic idea to expose Seymour by marrying him. Hm...wait, was there a sewer scene, maybe? Did that happen?

Anyway, I'll concede most of those, a few because I already mentioned them and some because I haven't played them and can't say. I don't think those games overpower the damsel trope, though.

Hell, Zelda in Twilight Princess went willingly to save her kingdom and was pretty powerful as a sage.

Less powerful that a shepherd, though.

...Wut?

Link is a shepherd, or I guess a goatherd. Nothing Zelda does is equivalent to what Link does. No magic she possesses, no skill, no strength, and all the armies she can command are all useless. Link still has to save Hyrule by picking up a stick and beating evil with it, which is a thing Zelda could not do.

So let me get this straight: You just want a female version of Link. Is that all?

No. I'm asking why it had to be Zelda who was in distress and had to be saved. Why couldn't Zelda have saved herself? Is it because she's the Triforce of Wisdom, as you say? Then why is she required to be the Triforce of Wisdom? She's imaginary; she can be cast in any role the writer wants. Why not the Triforce of Courage? What is the process that leads to the decision made there?

You're not even interested in the back story, you just want a female version of Link?

Isn't the backstory what we're discussing right now?

Meanwhile, the fact is, most people that want a "reverse" gender role don't see outside of the "Damsel in Distress" narrative except for gender.

I don't understand what this sentence means.

Exactly what it says.

Okay, but that does not increase my understanding of its meaning. If you would kindly rephrase it, I would be grateful.

She's a goddess with untold amounts of power and the only thing that you're caring about is the gender? Really?

No, I care that her untold amounts of power are good for nothing but sitting in a tower waiting for a kid with a metal stick to do all the work she can't or won't do for herself with her untold amounts of power.

I really think you might want to look up player agency, though.

I have been operating under the assumption that if Zelda had the power to save herself, she would be the protagonist.

Ah great, you're willing to ignore backstory.

What about backstory justifies the choice to make the two female characters in the game helpless damsels who need to be saved by a man? What about that word "backstory" renders those writer's choices as immune to criticism and/or analysis?

You're trying to say that since Zelda can't save the realm with the Master Sword, she's less of a character?

No, I'm saying she's a damsel in distress, and that pretending she accomplishes things seems like a willful misreading of the situation to me.

I'm just going to move on and say you're ignoring what she did to come to a presupposed conclusion that she was useless in seven years while also doing her best to protect the realm and keep Ganon from finding her and the other sages.

What did she do, aside from free Ruto? How did she make life better for anyone in Hyrule? Whose lives did she save, and how?

Samus as "a girl with boobs."

Uh. Yes, I'm reasonably sure she, like most women, has boobs.

While Tyris's backstory of revenge and her having the best magic in the game of Golden Axe is ignored just because of what she wears.

Are the male characters in Golden Axe objectified to the same degree Tyris is?

No, it's just pointing out that her use of "core" is just wrong because that allows her to exclude games such as the RPGs that she wants to ignore since Peach is playable in those.

I only know two (I haven't played the others), and in Super Mario RPG, she spends the first half of the game as a captive, weeping in a tower until Mario saves her despite her being a perfectly powerful PC in her own right. In Paper Mario: the Thousand-Year Door, she's playable, but only in scripted scenes that rely on the male computer to allow her to participate in in the first place, and she has to get naked for nearly each one. I'm not sure the RPGs are doing your argument any favors.

That's actually the argument for a Prince Link.

Er...so? Is that a bad thing?

Still, back to the Princess (Toadstool). The reason for her being kidnapped in the first game was because she had the power to dispel King Bowser's magic that turns her people into the fungus you see around the game. The game actually says bricks, but I think that's a translation issue. So there's a reason to kidnap her. Usually, the woman have a lot of power and taking them represents throwing the realm into chaos.

Except power is a tool, not a character, so this kind of story reduces the woman to an object. She could just as easily be the football with the nuclear launch codes.

You've just explained why having a game with a female character makes more sense than having a male as a captor.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. Are we talking about the same thing, here?

Peach and Zelda aren't weak.

They're weaker than an overweight plumber and a teenager with a tunic and a sword.

Zelda has the Spirit Tracks game where you control her, while Peach has Super Princess Peach, Mario RPG, etc.

In Spirit Tracks, she's a ghost who can't do anything until Link provides her a body to use and who becomes paralyzed with fear by the sight of rats. In Super Princess Peach, the premise is that being emotional gives her powers. They made her a superhero powered by PMS.

Just because they're damsels does not say they're weak. That's the point to remember.

They're weak enough to be constantly in situations where a man has to save them from another despite the supposed amounts of power they possess. They are weaker than all the men in the equation.

 

[Tribalism]

Is this intended to refute my point, or just explain it? Because I don't disagree with any particular thing you say between this line and the next one I intend to quote; I just also don't think an explanation is a valid excuse.

This was to make sure we're on the same page. I know people who would refute this and I like to be clear when I write something, especially of this length.

Aren't all opinions?

Opinions aren't facts. You might believe her to be witty and clever, but not everyone does. This lends to why her videos are criticised.

Fine, but why wouldn't the conversation then be about the content of her videos and not how fuckable she is?

Constructive criticism is difficult. Actually deconstructing a 4-6 minute video produced professionally and responding with ways to improve it is beyond most people's attention span. Some people want to vent and find appearance as their outlet. It's the same reason smart kids with glasses are called any variety of names despite having no flaws that are relevant to point out. For what relevance it holds to the discussion, any criticism I've posted about Lisa on her videos have been related to the content. The short and simple answer to this one is that people are spiteful, lazy and aggressive.

She's also one of the few Escapist features to appear on the image for her feature. She also dominates the screen time for most of her feature. This... does affect how people respond. In the same way that letting people know you're a homosexual opens you up to being called a "******" (or any non-white race opens you up for racial slurs), making yourself not only visible but the focal point of your feature makes your appearance open to scrutiny. Which leads to...

So offering a simple opinion piece makes her appearance relevant?

No. Let me explain. I first stumbled upon Lisa Folies' videos when browsing the video features via the "slideshow" of features on the right hand side of the main page. Keep in mind that how you present a feature is everything, that's advertising 101 and why marketing divisions exist for any major product. The first two things I saw when I saw Lisa's feature were "Top 5" and a pretty face. To break this down:

"Top X" lists are generally something I view as the lowest common denominator in terms of entertainment. You state your opinion and it either agrees with or disagrees with the status quo. If it agrees, you bring nothing to the table worth discussing and only serve to echo what countless more-qualified-than-you reviewers have said before you and does nothing more than tick boxes. If it disagrees, you'd need to bring some explanations to the table of why your opinion means more than countless others who disagree with you. Superman 64 isn't on your top 10 list of "worst games ever"? Well you better have 10 games that are worse than it and the evidence to back it up! I hate that I watch them, but sometimes I really need a distraction.

People being prominent in commentary videos annoys me (note, this is only commentary videos, videos such as Let's Plays are another kettle of fish). There's a subject to be discussed and the images in the video can be used to demonstrate that fact. Whether it's gameplay, a visual summary or just tangentially related text*, they're all more relevant than seeing the commentator's body language/bedroom or studio. The exception to this is visual gags**, which should be used sparingly. Emphasis can be given solely through speech. Lisa's appearance in the image is not positive, in my opinion... it does not lend well to promoting the feature. Jim Sterling has stated in one of his videos that "fake gamer girls" is an issue the gaming community struggles with. Regardless of whether or not it's "a thing", attractive women are perceived by gamers to be "less of a gamer" (which probably stems from gaming being a hobby of isolation which many social outcasts turn to and generally speaking women have better social standings if they're attractive). This tarnishes the feature's reputation in the eyes of such gamers.

Now, I try to hold off on prejudice, but when I see a pretty face presenting a top 5 in this manner, my expectations are low. It's not that she's attractive, it's that the video seemed to be of low quality and my expectations were met. Her appearance is only relevant because that's how she advertises the feature. The Jimquisition is heavily dosed in satire. The fact that Jim's catchphrase is "Thank God for me" is arrogant. The humour comes from the fact that many people act like they have something to say when they have nothing worthwhile saying. Here, he makes valid points, ones which no other critic of the industry might and is worthy of some of the praise he pre-emptively gives himself. This cocky attitude is the reason why his "pensive" portrait in the feature preview lends itself to the content and is a good example of advertising.

Yeah, that was more in-depth than I'd have liked.

No, but they do get filled with plenty of hate for his message rather than his appearance

I addressed this above, but I'll repeat it for clarity: For the majority of his feature, he uses visual aids instead of himself. The skits at the start and the end can be skipped and his message is clear (in fact, I find his skits a little too arrogant/random, so I do tend to skip them). When it's time to talk seriously, he talks and just that. There's also the fact that it's more socially acceptable to hate on skinny people over fat people (I can present a picture that illustrates this PERFECTLY if you're interested). Quoting the rest of this would be treading old ground.

I actually haven't seen any of her videos. They tend to be too long and take up too much of my daily ration of bandwidth. I therefore can't speak as to her.

Her reviews are very brief. I haven't viewed her material beyond that except the occasional podcast.

*A Dose of Buckley does good use of this and has an overall good understanding of how to present a commentary. His videos are award winning quality (you'd only have to search a few videos back for his announcement of this) and he has a video on how to "do" a commentary video correctly. He also justifies not appearing in his feature aside from for parody in this video. His channel is here, if interested: http://www.youtube.com/user/ADoseofBuckley
**The presenter for MMOGrinder is a great example of using moderate on-screen time to great effect. He justifies/explains this in one of his earlier videos, though I'd be hard pressed to find it. His site is here, if interested: http://mmogrinder.net/

edit: messed up one of the quote boxes.

 

[TomPreston]

You know... when MovieBob suggests geek culture needs to grow up, it's quite disheartening to see so many posts in this thread dealing once again with arguing about Anita. She was only briefly MENTIONED in the video, but by looking at the forum posts you'd think the whole video was about her.

That's... kinda sad...

He kind of does this crap for the negative attention.

And calling for a "new" geek culture when this one works just fine except for his own biased opinion is kind of one of the reasons people aren't going to accept being moralized to.

Anita was only name dropped. She wasn't the subject of the whole episode so I don't see why anyone would focus so hard on that one topic out of everything ELSE he brought up. And the fact people DO kinda indicates that current geek culture isn't exactly working "just fine," as you suggest. From what I've seen of geek culture thus far I think it could really use a wake up call.

Also... the dude's an entertainer. He makes videos to keep people entertained. Of course he does videos like this for attention. It's how he gets PAID.

 

[wuggles]

I actually agree with MovieBob completely. As a black female nerd I don't usually feel welcome in nerd communities. This article (http://www.racialicious.com/2013/02/12/im-a-black-female-cosplayer-and-some-people-hate-it/) discusses the problems a black person had just trying to cosplay as Sailor Venus. People told her she looked like a gorilla and worse. Yet whenever white people want to cosplay as, say, Korra from Legend of Korra, all of a sudden "It's the 21st century get over it". For another example of the nerd community's problem with race, look no further than the AV Club comment section. They can have relatively intelligent discussions about shows like "Community" or something, but when there was an article about Tyler Perry, people were outright saying stuff like "All black people love Tyler Perry, they're so stupid" and "All black directors are inherently inferior". The nerd community needs to stop acting like they are being oppressed and start realizing that they are doing some oppressing.

 

[Bruce]

Thousands of years ago, the male was the hunter who earned the food for his family through strength. As such, strength is a desirable trait in a man

Thousands of years ago, when people mostly lived in hunter gatherer societies, well, that probably wasn't true. Early humans were generally more prone to scavenging their meat, so a divide where you have male as hunter, would also be a divide in which you have male as being largely useless. It took a fair while for tools to become good enough to actually do much in the way of serious hunting.

Further if one takes modern hunter gatherer societies into account, there is no guarantee of that particular division of labour. The Aeta for example, actually include both genders doing the hunting. Aeta women tend to have a 31% success rate versus the 17% success rate in male single gender hunting trips. They tend to hunt together because it is when both genders work together that they get their best success rate (41%).

 

[gjkbgt]

I

Yeah the nerd community sucks.

But the thing to take away from this Geeks becoming main stream is that now we don't need to hang out with those people anymore

When there were relatively few geeks we had to associate with them or get left out

Now these enough of us to just fuck them

 

[Archer666]

As a bixsexual, white immigrant of a country that is not very popular due to the way its people behave I think it's silly to list stuff like that when making a comment. It screams of attention seeking. Also, after reading Bobs book, him saying how others need to act better is pretty hilarious.

 

[Darmani]

My issue with Anita. It seems to me any violence against women seques into domestic violence against women. Also she uses terms like patriarchy. That right there makes this a sermon, not a discussion.

And I will not have a discussion with feminist mythology adherent. Taking on social movement of philosophy as a belief and preaching about it to the masses is the right of anyone. So is disdaining it for what it is.

 

[JimB]

This was to make sure we're on the same page. I know people who would refute this and I like to be clear when I write something, especially of this length.

Ah. Nope, I agree with more or less everything you said in those paragraphs.

Opinions aren't facts. You might believe her to be witty and clever, but not everyone does. This lends to why her videos are criticized.

Fair enough, and I wouldn't be objecting if her videos were taking the criticism rather than her appearance. Hell, I'd at least potentially be okay with her appearance being the topic of discussion if she was just Vanna White and her whole job was to look pretty while flipping over cards someone else wrote (though I'd have different complaints about her job, but never mind those hypotheticals).

Constructive criticism is difficult.

That is a direct answer to the question I asked, and I understand that. I hope you, in turn, understand that I am not accusing you of being obtuse when I say the question wasn't intended so literally; it was a condemnation of people who think her looks are what we should be talking about. That constructive criticism is hard is no excuse. In fact, it's the opposite of an excuse, because it essentially means the commenters are too lazy to talk about anything other than Ms. Foiles's appearance.

"Top X" lists are generally something I view as the lowest common denominator in terms of entertainment. You state your opinion and it either agrees with or disagrees with the status quo. If it agrees, you bring nothing to the table worth discussing and only serve to echo what countless more-qualified-than-you reviewers have said before you and does nothing more than tick boxes. If it disagrees, you'd need to bring some explanations to the table of why your opinion means more than countless others who disagree with you.

All of that is fair enough. I like the videos not for the lists, but for the jokes the lists are an excuse to make. I like to imagine Ms. Foiles sitting down at her dinner table with a sheet of paper under her palm and a pencil snagging her lower lip as she mutters to herself, "What pretext can I create to make fun of Rikku's outfit in Final Fantasy X-2? Hm...let's do a list about scarves!"

I snipped some criticism of her production values that I personally disagree with but that I think are totally valid. I'm only ignoring them because I think they're beside the point I'm trying to make. I'd have loved to have seen them in the commentary for one of her videos, though. Well done you.

Her reviews are very brief.

Huh. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, because where I saw her name pop up was in hour-long discussion about this or that.

edit: messed up one of the quote boxes.

Oh, I hate it when I do that.

 

[Durgiun]

Every time Bob mentions ''heterosexual white cis-gendered etc.'' I want to sit him down on a couch, pull out a notepad, a pencil and a cigar and ask the guy:
''Was war deine relationship mit deine Mutter like?
Hast deine Vater liebed dich enough?
Do du seen deinself as eine Frau?''

Or, to make the point lucidly, Bob stop acting like this:
<youtube=GTqncgRnpyU>

 

[Doug]

I have to say... why? When I became a gamer/nerd, it wasn't because I thought "Awesome, I will one day prove mainstream culture foolish and replace it with this." I thought "I enjoy these things" and "I want something to escape with from the bullies and such" - I don't see why Bob is saying we always wanted to be the 'new mainstream' - honestly, I dislike it as it puts us out there for the looking a-upon.

However, I do agree that the sexist, racist, and so on shit needs to stop. It was never good or cool when it started, its even less so now.

 

[Gindil]

Um, the games she's buying aren't for her habit. They're for her videos. I don't know if making videos is her full-time job or what, but for the purposes of the Kickstarter, it's not her habit or her hobby.

She's speaking in colleges on an unspecified schedule as well as "researching" these games. But that's rather a tell... Why research these games just because they're popular which is her entire point? Again, she went into this project with a conclusion in mind. All of the parts can be found online which is what I suspect she did instead of playing the games in depth. Hell, it'd take her months to play all of those games if you really think about this.

And I'm one too, but horribly mangling stories about Zelda and Princess Toadstool and ignoring criticisms of gamers as "trollspeak" isn't quite the same as being someone with a new spin on how gaming can improve without saying that Damsels in Distress is the cause.

I think you're changing the topic. You were talking about how a gamer ought to already have hundreds of games, while I have fewer games than I have years alive on this planet, as do most people I know. Maybe that says more about my socioeconomic status than it does about what constitutes a gamer, but still, I think you're holding her to an unfair standard if you expect her to already have hundreds of games paid for from her own pocket.

No, I was talking about how she was supposedly a gamer. She takes a lot of stories out of context and I can't support this idea she is one when stories are one of the main reason to enjoy games. I don't suspect her to have hundreds of games, I just expect her to be honest about the stories if she is trying to research gaming culture. I'd ask the same of Nostalgia Chick when she talks about movies and films or MovieBob when he's not preaching to everyone about geek culture.

As I say, she already has all of the tools and she's starting from a higher position than most gamers. To then say she needs money to review games when people have started further back than her and done far more is kind of saying a lot about her quality and quantity.

So she's good. Doesn't mean she can't be better.

Isn't that what you criticize her for doing?

For creating a moral panic, yes. Not for speaking in hyperbole. That's not her style.

Really? I only remember the team saving her from her moronic idea to expose Seymour by marrying him. Hm...wait, was there a sewer scene, maybe? Did that happen?

Rikku helped kidnap her and overall, she just did her own thing while the men looked stupid.

Link is a shepherd, or I guess a goatherd. Nothing Zelda does is equivalent to what Link does. No magic she possesses, no skill, no strength, and all the armies she can command are all useless. Link still has to save Hyrule by picking up a stick and beating evil with it, which is a thing Zelda could not do.

... You've just dismissed Zelda as a character who is a goddess on one hand, a part of the Seven Sages, and powerful enough to hold Ganon so that the Master Sword can slay him when his Triforce of Power tries to rule the kingdom from Wisdom and Courage...

No. I'm asking why it had to be Zelda who was in distress and had to be saved. Why couldn't Zelda have saved herself? Is it because she's the Triforce of Wisdom, as you say? Then why is she required to be the Triforce of Wisdom? She's imaginary; she can be cast in any role the writer wants. Why not the Triforce of Courage? What is the process that leads to the decision made there?

All you're asking for is a gender switch. That's it. Literally, all you want is a girl to be in the same role as Link. The only reason you keep going on about this is because you're literally ignoring the powers of each Triforce to just say "I want a girl character as the holder of the Triforce of Courage." There is literally no other difference, from a storytelling perspective, that matters to you except gender and this sentence is that proof? Again, it's not about Zelda being a playable character. When you read what each Triforce does, it's not the gender that matters. Zelda is a hero in her own right who has done a lot for the kingdoms she reigns over. It's tied to the Triforce of Wisdom that allows her to make wise decisions. In Twilight, she gave herself up so that her kingdom would be okay. In the first game she hid the Triforce from Ganon. Again, the gender here doesn't make a difference. Link has no agency and is just your link to the world. Whether male or female, that's easily solved by just making a female Link. That still won't change the basic storyline where a royal is needing the help of a commoner that rises to the challenge to stop the villain. You're placing way too much stock in Zelda's gender and you're not looking at her and what she's done in the games, nor how the Triforces work. If you want a female Link, that could be arranged, and I'd agree. Let people make a choice on that. But how about recognizing that the PC being a male or female doesn't mean all that much when the story has the same basic beats?

Okay, but that does not increase my understanding of its meaning. If you would kindly rephrase it, I would be grateful.

The same trope, DiD, would still be in effect even though a female is the hero. What's happened is that someone reimagined the same plot device but with the roles reversed. Now, Zelda is a commoner and we have Link as a prince.* Sure, the magic might be a little different, but the items always differ in a Zelda game. But the key point is that people don't think outside of this plotline narrative to something new. It's one of 36 basic plotlines in storytelling that you can't just remove because it's how we tell stories.**

*http://dresdencodak.tumblr.com/post/47724463171/inspired-by-anita-sarkeesians-video-game-tropes
** http://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/storytelling/36plots.php

She's a goddess with untold amounts of power and the only thing that you're caring about is the gender? Really?

No, I care that her untold amounts of power are good for nothing but sitting in a tower waiting for a kid with a metal stick to do all the work she can't or won't do for herself with her untold amounts of power.

It's not like she doesn't do anything but wait to be saved. Being a pirate captain or running from your advisor who's betrayed you kind of puts a crimp on the places you can go... Just sayin.

Ah great, you're willing to ignore backstory.

What about backstory justifies the choice to make the two female characters in the game helpless damsels who need to be saved by a man? What about that word "backstory" renders those writer's choices as immune to criticism and/or analysis?

The part that says she's in her ordeal phase and goes through it to be a heroine in her own right based on Joseph Campbell's Monomyth Theory. Oh, and Nintendo is lazy*. But seriously, usually it's because Zelda is so important to the plans that she's kidnapped. Being a powerful sage has a drawback of making you a large target. Oh, and some of those sages are male also. Just sayin.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxcLxClQ08

You're trying to say that since Zelda can't save the realm with the Master Sword, she's less of a character?

No, I'm saying she's a damsel in distress, and that pretending she accomplishes things seems like a willful misreading of the situation to me.

... Maybe... Just maybe, there's more to being a hero than being physically strong? I doubt highly that Robin Williams would name his own child Zelda if he thought she was weak.*

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcZhY_Zo-yg

I'm just going to move on and say you're ignoring what she did to come to a presupposed conclusion that she was useless in seven years while also doing her best to protect the realm and keep Ganon from finding her and the other sages.

What did she do, aside from free Ruto? How did she make life better for anyone in Hyrule? Whose lives did she save, and how?

That just seems like someone who will never be satisfied with an answer and will continue to find something to complain about... It's like asking after a tornado how many people you saved while having to make tough choices about who to save...

Samus as "a girl with boobs."

Uh. Yes, I'm reasonably sure she, like most women, has boobs.

Sorry, "Man with boobs". The point? She's not going to do a good job of this...

Are the male characters in Golden Axe objectified to the same degree Tyris is?

One looks like Conan and the other looks like a Dwarf. Plenty of eye candy for everyone.

No, it's just pointing out that her use of "core" is just wrong because that allows her to exclude games such as the RPGs that she wants to ignore since Peach is playable in those.

I only know two (I haven't played the others), and in Super Mario RPG, she spends the first half of the game as a captive, weeping in a tower until Mario saves her despite her being a perfectly powerful PC in her own right. In Paper Mario: the Thousand-Year Door, she's playable, but only in scripted scenes that rely on the male computer to allow her to participate in in the first place, and she has to get naked for nearly each one. I'm not sure the RPGs are doing your argument any favors.

She still ignored her being a good healer and having powers of her own. And knowing that Mallow is a bigger crybaby than Peach is, it still doesn't say she's weak. So this idea that a woman "loses agency when she's captured" flies out the window because we see that she's still a strong character in her own right. And dammit, someone get Mallow some tissues...

Except power is a tool, not a character, so this kind of story reduces the woman to an object. She could just as easily be the football with the nuclear launch codes.[/quote[

As I said before, that isn't even a part of critical analysis of anything and a misconception of the subject-object dichotomy of philosophy that has NOTHING to do with gaming. That form of reductionism can be used on anything like Mario's jump power portends to patriarchy because he's the only one in the Mushroom Kingdom that can jump high. It just makes no sense and makes some erroneous leaps in logic that don't translate to good statements.

Peach and Zelda aren't weak.

They're weaker than an overweight plumber and a teenager with a tunic and a sword.

Nope. The only one seeing that are people intently looking to make them out to be weak regardless of their other strengths and capabilities.

In Spirit Tracks, she's a ghost who can't do anything until Link provides her a body to use and who becomes paralyzed with fear by the sight of rats. In Super Princess Peach, the premise is that being emotional gives her powers. They made her a superhero powered by PMS.

Still powers and agency not explored by Anita...

Just because they're damsels does not say they're weak. That's the point to remember.

They're weak enough to be constantly in situations where a man has to save them from another despite the supposed amounts of power they possess. They are weaker than all the men in the equation.

Uhmm... No... For Peach, for every seven males, you rescue one female in the "core" games. For Peach, she usually helps out a ton in the realm before being captured and does her best to defeat Ganon. You might not agree with their powers, but they're indeed there. You might not like them being captured, but they usually represent the kingdom falling into chaos. We don't celebrate the heroes on their journey, we celebrate the successful restoration of peace and tranquility to the kingdom with the safe return of the princess. It's the same as in feudal times when knights fought for damsels who remained in the towers protected instead of being on the battlefield. All you're playing is the role of a knight rescuing a princess from a dragon. Similar to Beowulf who fought against Grendel as well as the Dragon or other epics like Illiad or the Odyssey. Nothing stops the gender being changed, which I agree could be done for the hero. But the basic storyline won't change all that much. But it's kind of sad when people look only at the gender and come to some really weird conclusions about said genders instead of actually recognizing the stories being told for what they are. Updated versions of stories told through timeless ages....

sigh

 

[JimB]

This time my tone is because I'm pissed off at you. I'll mention why when I get to the parts that offend me.

Why research these games just because they're popular which is her entire point?

Because she wants to talk about them with some authority.

Again, she went into this project with a conclusion in mind.

You know, you keep saying things like that, but you never say her conclusions are wrong.

Hell, it'd take her months to play all of those games if you really think about this.

How long was the wait between her Kickstarter ending and her first video being published? Wasn't that months? Wasn't it, in fact, so long a time that people started accusing her of having stolen the money and run?

I was talking about how she was supposedly a gamer. She takes a lot of stories out of context and I can't support this idea she is one when stories are one of the main reason to enjoy games.

Then you changed the topic to be talking about it, because if you follow the quote links, you brought this up in response to me telling you video games cost money, which I said because you said you didn't know why she needed money to buy games.

And incidentally, you don't get to dictate what a person's reason for enjoying a game is or should be. A game is a game, which means it's meant first and foremost to be played rather than watched and passively absorbed for the story.

You've just dismissed Zelda as a character who is a goddess on one hand, a part of the Seven Sages, and powerful enough to hold Ganon so that the Master Sword can slay him when his Triforce of Power tries to rule the kingdom from Wisdom and Courage.

Yes, I did, because none of what you just said ever prevents her from being taken hostage, locked in a tower, and forced to sit with her thumb up her ass while a mute kid runs around smacking monsters upside the head and eventually saves her, which task she is completely incapable of performing for herself.

No. I'm asking why it had to be Zelda who was in distress and had to be saved. Why couldn't Zelda have saved herself? Is it because she's the Triforce of Wisdom, as you say? Then why is she required to be the Triforce of Wisdom? She's imaginary; she can be cast in any role the writer wants. Why not the Triforce of Courage? What is the process that leads to the decision made there?

All you're asking for is a gender switch.

No, god damn it, I am asking fucking why. You keep insisting that "it's backstory" is justification for the choices the writers made, and I want to know why they justify it. I am not advocating for anything, and I'm not suggesting anything. I am repeatedly asking why, and you keep ignoring it in favor of telling me what I want. Fucking knock it off and either answer the questions or drop the line of discussion.

(That's one of the places where I got pissed off. There's another.)

Literally, all you want is a girl to be in the same role as Link.

Why is that a bad thing? Why couldn't she be?

Again, it's not about Zelda being a playable character.

No, it's about her being completely ineffective as a ruler and a survivor.

When you read what each Triforce does, it's not the gender that matters.

If gender doesn't matter, then why are you so openly contemptuous of the idea of switching genders?

The same trope, Damsel in Distress, would still be in effect even though a female is the hero.

Uh, okay. Thank you for clarifying, but I don't understand what this observation has to do with anything. I know that if a damsel is in distress, then a damsel is in distress.

It's not like she doesn't do anything but wait to be saved. Being a pirate captain or running from your adviser who's betrayed you kind of puts a crimp on the places you can go.

Yup. It puts such a crimp on your plans that even when you've taken a ship thirty times the size of Link's and a crew that outnumbers him eight to one, you still surrender your plans to save the fish-guy's pearl to him because he's the hero, not you.

I doubt highly that Robin Williams would name his own child Zelda if he thought she was weak.

I really, really do not care what Robin Williams named his daughter.

I'm just going to move on and say you're ignoring what she did to come to a presupposed conclusion that she was useless in seven years while also doing her best to protect the realm and keep Ganon from finding her and the other sages.

What did she do, aside from free Ruto? How did she make life better for anyone in Hyrule? Whose lives did she save, and how?

That just seems like someone who will never be satisfied with an answer and will continue to find something to complain about.

And here's the other part where I get pissed off. Gindil, you are the one who insists that Zelda was being heroic during the seven years of the Ocarina of Time; and not just heroic, but equally heroic as Link. You are the one who brought it up, and I am asking you what heroic things she did because the only time I can remember anyone saying she did anything at all is the Zora king saying she rescued Ruto. If she's equally as heroic as Link is, then I have provided a list of the things Link accomplished and the people he saved. What things did Zelda accomplish that are in his league?

She's not going to do a good job of this.

You are the one who, at the beginning of the post I'm responding to, criticized Ms. Sarkeesian for having a preconceived outcome in mind before she even began playing the games. Now you're doing the same to her and her videos.

One looks like Conan and the other looks like a Dwarf. Plenty of eye candy for everyone.

That is not objectification. Does the art style emphasize the male characters' strength and warrior attributes? Does it do the same for Tyris, or does it focus on how hot she looks in a bikini?

She still ignored her being a good healer and having powers of her own.

None of which she uses to ever help the man risking life and limb to save her until after the saving is done.

The only one seeing that are people intently looking to make them out to be weak regardless of their other strengths and capabilities.

Okay, then what do they do that makes them stronger than Link or Mario? What do they actually accomplish?

Still powers and agency not explored by Anita.

They're scarcely agency, and in at least one case the "powers" are downright offensive. They're not helpful to your case.

For Peach, for every seven males, you rescue one female in the "core" games.

And none of those seven males have names, so I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the three characters who do have names: Mario, Bowser, and Princess Toadstool.

For Peach, she usually helps out a ton in the realm before being captured and does her best to defeat Ganon.

I assume you mean "for Zelda." But, again, how does she "help out a ton?"

Nothing stops the gender being changed, which I agree could be done for the hero. But the basic storyline won't change all that much.

So? Who said I wanted the basic storyline changed that much? All I'm asking is, if you defend the capture of Princess Zelda as a necessary symbol of a kingdom falling into chaos so Link can save her, then why do you scoff at the merest inference that maybe a symbol of national chaos could be Prince Link getting captured, whom Zelda has to save?

 

[Arkynomicon]

Bob, never ask me to check my CIS privilege again. It's rude, pompous, self righteous as all hell and trying to force other people to join under one ideology is frankly fascist.

 

[Tribalism]

Just gonna conclude our discussion, JimB, not trying to get the last word in or anything. I've got to say, despite my immediate reaction, this is one of the few internet-based discussions I've not felt was a waste of time.

That is a direct answer to the question I asked, and I understand that. I hope you, in turn, understand that I am not accusing you of being obtuse when I say the question wasn't intended so literally; it was a condemnation of people who think her looks are what we should be talking about. That constructive criticism is hard is no excuse. In fact, it's the opposite of an excuse, because it essentially means the commenters are too lazy to talk about anything other than Ms. Foiles's appearance.

My comment wasn't meant to enable this sort of behaviour. In an ideal world, it'd be nice if everyone who was going to take a negative stance on any produced content could give constructive criticism. The games industry is full of bad criticism or complete lack of it. Many reviewers use phrases such as "game feel", "clunky mechanics", "it's an experience" or just flat out "fun" to avoid explaining why something does or doesn't work. The sad thing is, most of these people aren't going away any time soon. If you want to curb that sort of behaviour, you can try to raise the issue with some of the worst offenders. That said, people have been saying "just ignore Anita and she'll go away" and... yeah.

All of that is fair enough. I like the videos not for the lists, but for the jokes the lists are an excuse to make. I like to imagine Ms. Foiles sitting down at her dinner table with a sheet of paper under her palm and a pencil snagging her lower lip as she mutters to herself, "What pretext can I create to make fun of Rikku's outfit in Final Fantasy X-2? Hm...let's do a list about scarves!"

It'd be interesting to see the opinions of other viewers on this. If her comedy is the highlight of her show, she'd probably benefit from expanding out into a format which can focus more on that, provided The Escapist would let her. From the little I've seen of her shows, she does enjoy the little "aside" skits and since those parts are well received (I got a short laugh from her mystique/blue screen scene) I'm sure The Escapist could benefit from giving her a chance to express that. I wouldn't watch it, but still.

(I also didn't mind Rikku's outfit in either game. Her hair in X-2 is another matter, though...)

Well done you.

Thanks. I wrote those posts in the early hours of the morning (3am at least) so I'm surprised they were well received/not a sloppy mess.

Huh. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, because where I saw her name pop up was in hour-long discussion about this or that.

Unless I'm mistaken, those are the podcasts. I understand most people don't have time to listen to all of THOSE, especially if they view enough other content from the rest of the site. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escapist-podcast
That's the series I was thinking of, but she doesn't seem to feature in every episode, at least the last one.

 

[runic knight]

I will apologize here though if the reply is sort of rambling, rather tired at the moment and it is hard to properly grasp the concepts I am trying to share with words in order to translate and share them.

No more rambling than my responses tend to be. I really wish that, instead of Mr. Garrison's sex change, I'd used all his "I love poontang" statements as my example for people who need to announce that kind of thing being liars; it would have been way less potentially inflammatory.

eh, I did get the general idea you were going for. My counter example would still have been chosen though, if only to show the confusion possible when looking at blatant presentations and assuming it is trying to hard and that is a sign of the reverse.

I suppose I just can't divorce myself from the feeling that the idea of 51% here is devoid of value in any discussion not based in emotional appeal rather than rational discourse.

Since a group's behavior can only be defined by the behavior of the majority of that group's components, if we insist on treating the group as an individual, then 51% is good enough for me. I suppose in interests of fairness it would be nice to have a disclaimer, but still.

Perhaps the disclaimer is all I really was seeking there then. Just something to acknowledge that even among a group with a majority shared trait does not mean all members will have that trait, or even it is fair to assume they will. Rationally defensable, yes, but it comes so close to the stereotype defense argument to me.

It is the same issue I have with labeling a person a liar when you are debating them. It is true, as everyone has lied and therefore are technically a liar, but it presents a misleading, negative view that is done more for emotional responses in the audience than any actual discussion or clarity of opinion.

Still, if someone lies often enough, it's not unfair to point that out.

It is when used solely to sway opinion. It is a sort of ad hoc fallacy. And it adds a subjective aspect to a negative label that carries a stigma. The requirements for someone to be a liar in yours eyes as opposed to just someone who has told a lie may be different to other people, yet the word "liar" carries a strong stigma that may be more manipulative then rationally relevant.

Intent is not so easily inferred as ballistics, as not all people think the same way. You try to compare an objective science to a subjective interpretation, and it doesn't work.

Actually, the original "intent follows the bullet" statement isn't about measuring ballistics but about intent. It means that if you're aiming at Joe but actually shot Bob, you can still be prosecuted for shooting Bob because intent follows the bullet, and "But I meant to shoot Joe!" is not a defense (though it is a factor in determining the crime you'll be charged with, but never mind, let's not complicate it). What the industry is aiming for with Zelda doesn't much matter to me since Wind Waker is the only version of her I can think of where she participates in the story except as an exposition dump or glorified treasure chest. I suppose she does a little something in Twilight Princess, but I dislike that game too much to be charitable to it, so I don't think you can trust my objectivity when I say her participation in the final fight is nothing more than assigning the bow to an automated firing button.

But that sort of is my point, the "crime" if you will, to be charged. Trying to shoot joe in self defense and accidentally hitting bob is tragic, yes, but a far cry better then trying to shoot joe just because and getting bob in the attempt. The intent of the shooter matters in what amount of discipline society gives. In that regard, the intent of the creators is taken into account by the society the game is released in, and it is why outright racist and sexist games never get a foothold (any KK made game, for instance, I recall at least one that was released online.) but games where sexist undertones can be inferred by some people are not shunned by the majority of society itself. Manslaughter compared to outright murder.

I'll mention my Mario Communist idea again, as the same idea is prevalent among all games (working class plumber is required to keep the ruling government working by opposing the tyrannical royalty overreaching itself in the way of the oppressive King Koopa. It is a story about the strength of the working class, though perhaps more akin to the French revolutionary notion then the more vilified current incarnation).

Given that Mario games don't tend to have story, I think that theory works better as a motif or a reference than as a plot analysis, though it's not an unconvincing case you make.

Exactly, it can be compelling, but it can also be contradictory to other inferred motifs, if you will. The mere fact you an get contradicting tones based on individual reaction shows how unreliable such subjective interpretations can be.

Beside that flaw, you make broad, unproven claims about the commonality of the trope and a subjective inference of the game industry based on said subjective inference. The entire thing is personal interpretation being used to support more personal interpretation. There is nothing objective about it, and it is more akin to religious persecuting practices then any valid court of law.

Do you suggest there is any way to objectively prove intent? For my part, I'm satisfied that the video games industry is generally sexist. My conscience doesn't bother me when I make that statement. I have too many Soul Calibur games, too many Final Fantasy games; I have heard too many complaints and seen too many videos to believe otherwise. I have not read any peer-reviewed, published, academic studies (is there even such a thing?), but the world I am aware of, the world I perceive, is one in which the video games industry is pretty sexist.

And I think the industry is rarely sexist. I have never seen a major publisher outright discriminate against anyone based on sex, religion or gender and I do not think that when they don't try to risk sales by changing core traits that it is inherently sexist. Misguided, close minded and far too conservative, sure, but not sexist. Without either the active discrimination or the revealed intent to create prejudice, I just can't see it. I suppose that goes back to what I was saying about subjectively defining things though.

Damsel does not mean weakness; weak damsel does not mean negative view of women as whole.

There's this episode of Law & Order, I forget which one. The plot has something to do with a girl who gets her brain bashed in at a party. Turns out she was gay and her girlfriend did it. One of the two of them wrote an e-mail to the other that read, "Why can't they understand it's not all about sex," which is how the ADA figured out the victim was gay: She realized the writer was complaining that people think being gay is all about fucking. They don't understand that gay people want all the same things straight people want: someone to hold hands with, to talk to, to fight about washing the dishes with; a good job, a nice house, a comfortable bed; blah blah blah. People think that being gay is one hundred percent about sex, because that's all such people talk about.

I bring that up because I think it maps to this situation: If the only woman the games industry likes to put into a game is a weak damsel (and I concede that it's not, but I'm exaggerating for now since that's the only trope we're discussing), then I have to assume that's what they think women are.

But by that logic one could get very incorrect statements about every era of artistic history. Renaissance era religious art would suggest that people only think positively of religion. It ignores the outside influences and how that would affect the art made. For games, market demand and patterns heavily dictate decisions for larger publishers. Publishers will push hard to get less risk patterns used, showing that many aspects of the game that are considered negative by yourself are done not because of developer intent but rather a market demand, or at least a perceived one. Thus it would be just as valid an inference that games have little sexist intent but rather are guilty of heavy pandering to a culture with what you see as a sexist nature. A guy who sells burgers can be assumed to like them, but perhaps they hate them and it is just a lucrative job.

I am pretty sure you are aware the folly of trying to use anecdotal evidence in even simple discussions, yes?

Yeah, but my own experience is the only basis I have to form my perceptions of the world, so I'm kind of stuck with it. If you can think of some more games where men are in distress and/or saved by damsels, feel free to point them out. I kind of wanted to mention Final Fantasy IX, but no one really saves Zidane; they just yell at him until he decides to save himself.

In that same game, the guy who is turned to stone has to be saved by the actions of the princess (though helped by the guy's friend). Your entire party is saved last minute by Beatrix in the airship. Also, you devalue the mental aspect of characters and how they may need psychological help as well as physical. They were not just yelling at him, but trying to get him to snap out of a state of shock. Some by yelling, some by requests of help (The dragon knight and Steiner), some by appealing to his desire to help others and how that had helped them (the kids) and other aspects. It could be argued that he did indeed need saving, though I think it is more long the lines of just decent character interaction to show how the friendships between them all had grown and affected them.

If you define sexism that way, it cheapens the word though. It renders the use of it worthless when the definition is so broad and also reveals a concentration on gender first and an inability to separate gender from things.

If things are only permissible to members of a certain gender, I think they are contributory to, or at least a symptom of, the underlying problem. Put a man in a dress and he will be treated like a joke to be laughed at or an abomination to be scorned, whereas a woman in pants is no big deal: What does that say about gender roles in America? I think it says men are admirable and it's okay to emulate us, but a man who wishes to emulate a woman is cheapening himself and is therefore worthy of derision.

That is a fair assessment. Though keep in mind that a woman who has a defined stash is just as laughed at, suggesting perhaps it is more the uncommon blurring of social gender roles rather then one more desirable then the other and just fashion with women in regards to wearing pants has become more normal, not as part of trying to be manly, but merely as just evolution of acceptable gender fashion.

The details are associated with successful products are reused and like them or not, pattern of gender sales or not; that alone is not discrimination. I highly doubt that at any point anyone in the industry said "women can't buy this."

No, they just said, "We won't sell this to women because we'd rather sell to men."

Wrong. They said "we will market to men because they buy it more often." I have never heard a publisher say they do not want women buying their games. Even ones like DOA have done nothing to refuse purchase by women. The only arguement that can be made is that the traits of the game don't appeal to very many women and that such traits are discriminatory because of that, though that argument falls flat because the very idea that such traits exclude women are decided upon by the individuals buying the product through, in part, societal pressures about what does or does not appeal to a woman. Think the lawn tractor advertisements.

Too often we start with association of traits towards genders and it took your last reply to settle in before I realized that any attempt to associate traits as positive or negative towards a gender as a whole actually are sexist themselves by presuming that a gender makes someone predisposed towards or against aspects of the game, rather then merely as reflections of society itself and gender roles previously established.

Yep. And I don't know many female gamers personally, so perhaps I oughtn't to speak up, but the ones I do know don't say they want games for women. They say they want to stop feeling like they're being excluded from games. They want Final Fantasy X's camera not to be aimed directly at a female character's ass for every cut scene, not to have the camera staring at the guys's asses.

Same response as above. Traits that don't just don't usually appeal to a woman are not exclusionary. It is a perceived exclusion flawed because the traits themselves are subjectively decided as exclusionary by the individual. No one is stopping women from buying the games, they are merely not designing the games in question with that smaller market share in mind.

Do women dislike scantily clad characters with no personalities? Can you even answer that without making a claim that, at its heart, is sexist by nature, according to your definition of the word?

Sure: I define sexism as a matter of prescription rather than description; as a matter of saying, "This is how women should feel" rather than "This is how women feel." Most of the women I know are irritated, embarrassed, or otherwise turned off by the things female characters wear--or more accurately, don't wear--in video games, and I can't blame 'em for that. Now, it's worth noting that I also don't know any women who rage about it night and day, either; my most eloquent friend described it as a papercut. Every time she sees some big-tittied slut in a leather harness and high-heeled hooker boots in a fighting game, she gets a little papercut. She'll never bleed out from it, but it stings all the same.

I am sorry for your friend, but I can point to my sister who sees all that stuff as merely ascetic choice and simple developer stupidity in design. She doesn't feel hurt or anything by it. It is not an affront to her, it is just there. Who should be "right" in their opinion here? Who should have their will enforced on the game?

When it comes to video games though, it is an unfair stigma to attach for doing what every other media is doing, many far worse.

Moral relativism isn't much of a defense. That there are media more sexist than video games does not mean video games are not sexist. It just means the accuser has prioritized discussing video games, probably because he's more interested in them than those other media.

No, not that games can't be sexist or some even aren't, rather it ignores the source of the problem entirely. Also, when one is trying to apply a subjective interpretation onto a media, it is important to take into account cultural and societal standings on those issues. Not that it will make something more or less sexist in regards but rather how perceptive people will be to the claims made and how one would try to sway opinion. My point here is twofold. First, that callign games sexist for doing what every other aspect of media is doing, and doing worse, comes off more as picking on the easiest target rather then making a stance against something you see as sexist. Secondly it dismisses the cultural standard and general collective opinion to claim your subjective interpretation is correct.

Many movies, for instance, use the damsel trope and probably on a very disproportionate gender line too.

Yeah. If you haven't heard of it before, Google "Bechdel test" some time and see if you own a single movie that would pass it. It's a good way to make yourself feel uncomfortable.

I hate the Bechdel test to be honest. I get the point of it, but I think far too many people use it, well, like you are trying to. It reveals a pattern of common traits within movies concerning female characters, yes. Everything inferred from that pattern though is the same subjective debate we have been having about similar patterns in games.

Close, though for someone arguing about the 51%, you seem to mix the details of hate and indifference to suffering.

Not at all. I think most people define hate as an intense emotion, like rage. That's valid, sure, but for these discussion, I don't care about unexpurgated emotions. As long as hate stays inside your head, I don't care if you hate women. For these discussion, though, I define hate according to its behavior. Like, there was this guy I argued with once (he's not on this site, as far as I know) who said that he has gay friends and likes movies made by gay directors, so that means no one can accuse him of hate when he fights against gay marriage rights. That's crap: Of course he hates them, because regardless of how hot or turbulent his emotional state is, he's still fighting to deny gay people legal rights.

Similar situation here. If you're willing to insult and demean all women to profit off that behavior, then you hate women.

I find flaw in your example. I know some people who have no ill will against gay people and argue against it because of religious, economic or personal beliefs concerning marriage itself. While I can and do argue often about them being wrong, I can not rightly claim they hate gay people based on their actions when they themselves can provide an intent that justify the actions.
You define hate by actions, but you ignore that actions can have a plethora of motivations, some even benign even if the result of the action is perceived by yourself as negative.
I also am curious where people are insulting, demeaning all women for profit. You make it sound like you believe that no female character can portray negative traits or be in damsel situations without it being hateful.

Why are scantily clad women in media often considered sexist if they are not discriminating (read: actively prohibiting) other women from enjoying the media and it is a cultural notion pushed on the women that determines their dislike of the detail?

I think that's outside the scope of this discussion, but the only guess I have to field is passively observing women on a screen or in a book is not as emotionally engaging as taking control of a woman's actions, as one does in video games.

I am sure you are aware how flawed that concept is and has been argued when the same notion that it is somehow "worse" in a game because of player control when it comes to violence. If a scantily clad woman in a game is sexist, fine, but whatever makes that sexist would have to be universally so. If it is the control aspect, then it would have to be the control of a female itself, regardless of scanitly-ness for the claim to be logically consistent.

Intent is creator's will and voluntary decisions tied together.

I'm not sure how one can make a decision involutarily.

Voluntary decisions can still have unintentional consequences. A child drawing a spaceship that looks like a penis, for instance. That was what I was referring to, the decisions they made intentionally and the motivations behind those decisions.

A female character is intentional; that the female represents all women is not.

I forget who said this, but the quote I like here is: "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action." Obviously, when the numbers are as huge as those available in video games, three isn't a conclusive number itself, but I think the tropes repeat often enough for reasonable people to be convinced of underlying assumptions informing them.

But it is those assumptions that are flawed, not the frequency of occurrence. I haven't been arguing that the pattern exists, I have been instead trying to discuss the reason for it. Rather then assume a creator is using female characters as representative of all women or a trope as representative of their feelings towards them, I have provided alternative explainations, ones supported by other behavior they have shown. Market demand and testing, for instance. Story retreading and alluding is another (if majority of stories from past are male-centric, then alluding or reusing them will be too). Simple story limitations from earlier games and sequelitis today to rehash those simple stories. Simple resonance within our culture to those stories and by extension those tropes.

Sorry about the half reply. Work jumped up on me.

 

[Gindil]

This time my tone is because I'm pissed off at you. I'll mention why when I get to the parts that offend me.

Why research these games just because they're popular which is her entire point?

Because she wants to talk about them with some authority.

She doesn't. Kind of the point I'm making.

Again, she went into this project with a conclusion in mind.

You know, you keep saying things like that, but you never say her conclusions are wrong.

That's like saying creationism isn't wrong just because I believe it already. If I go in with my conclusions in mind, I'm not going to be objective. How are you going to tell me that Shigeru Miyamoto was one of the first people to use this "trope" when that's actually Ultima, who came out first with a "princess in danger trope", which influenced the RPG elements in gaming? The point here is that if she's going to do the research and look into the past history of gaming, you have to stay objective and not let your bias come into play.

Hell, it'd take her months to play all of those games if you really think about this.

How long was the wait between her Kickstarter ending and her first video being published? Wasn't that months? Wasn't it, in fact, so long a time that people started accusing her of having stolen the money and run?

She hadn't told them anything and she hadn't said what she was playing or nothing. It's a little different when you're talking to your backers and not telling them anything before they start leaking information about how you don't keep them updated. Hell, Twitch TV is a thing. She could have backers watch a private showing and that'd be something to say they can play these games while researching. As it stands, she still gives her press releases instead of actual ways to see what's the big things about the games that seem sexist.

I was talking about how she was supposedly a gamer. She takes a lot of stories out of context and I can't support this idea she is one when stories are one of the main reason to enjoy games.

Then you changed the topic to be talking about it, because if you follow the quote links, you brought this up in response to me telling you video games cost money, which I said because you said you didn't know why she needed money to buy games.

The games costing money really isn't as important as understanding the story and context of a game and she's failed understanding any of the stories she critiques on multiple levels. And when I was talking about the money issue, my main point was that requesting the cash to play video games seems off because if she had the passion of a gamer, she'd be looking into deals and not marketing on Kickstarter. Like I said, this just seems off compared to others who enjoy gaming as either a hobby, collecting, or just for reviews as beginners into the history of it. From the looks, we seem to be talking past each other where I'm talking about the hobbyist and others who would be playing games for enjoyment while Anita's main goal seems to be profit. It not because she wants to be fair or objective. It's seems her agenda, as I've found, is to fabricate controversy while pleading to others that she's the victim.

And incidentally, you don't get to dictate what a person's reason for enjoying a game is or should be. A game is a game, which means it's meant first and foremost to be played rather than watched and passively absorbed for the story.

I'm not dictating anyone's tastes. But I can tell you I like RPGs and enjoy MMOs while avoiding horror games because they scare the crap out of me. Knowing someone's preferences helps to see what they like in a story. For me, story is one of the first aspects I look into and I've read tons more about Xenosaga that few others would want to know. Same with Zelda from the Hyrule Historia. Knowing what Anita likes or doesn't might help to show the various games that she might see through a different lens. But if she's not here to help the industry, why play with a narrow focus on an issue she created?

You've just dismissed Zelda as a character who is a goddess on one hand, a part of the Seven Sages, and powerful enough to hold Ganon so that the Master Sword can slay him when his Triforce of Power tries to rule the kingdom from Wisdom and Courage.

Yes, I did, because none of what you just said ever prevents her from being taken hostage, locked in a tower, and forced to sit with her thumb up her ass while a mute kid runs around smacking monsters upside the head and eventually saves her, which task she is completely incapable of performing for herself.

So nothing else matters except gender. Good to know.

No. I'm asking why it had to be Zelda who was in distress and had to be saved. Why couldn't Zelda have saved herself? Is it because she's the Triforce of Wisdom, as you say? Then why is she required to be the Triforce of Wisdom? She's imaginary; she can be cast in any role the writer wants. Why not the Triforce of Courage? What is the process that leads to the decision made there?

All you're asking for is a gender switch.

No, god damn it, I am asking fucking why. You keep insisting that "it's backstory" is justification for the choices the writers made, and I want to know why they justify it. I am not advocating for anything, and I'm not suggesting anything. I am repeatedly asking why, and you keep ignoring it in favor of telling me what I want. Fucking knock it off and either answer the questions or drop the line of discussion.

Let's get on the same page here. Most writers follow Joseph Campbell's Monomyth theory*. In the Monomyth theory, you have seventeen basic steps that go into making a narrative and story. The Monomyth is gender neutral and for this here, Zelda and Link are considered heroes in their own right. Link can get captured and usually has to escape because the player has to have a way to escape, not necessarily an NPC coming to rescue them (that's Deus Ex Machina). So developers devise ways for Link to escape when in a bind like this. But for Zelda, she is still a hero from this ordeal. Zelda is the one to gather allies to aid Link. Zelda is the one with the magic to help defeat Ganon on numerous occasions. In some games, she helps fight him. Same with Midna helping in Twilight Princess. All three characters are heroes regardless of the Ordeal that they face. That's the part where you're misunderstanding everything I've said. You keep harping on the gender as if that matters to the storyline. It doesn't. Yes, LoZ is all about an epic story similar to Beowulf or The Odyssey, but again, the gender of the hero Does. Not. Matter. So when I'm saying all you're asking for is a gender switch, it's because the basic steps here will be the same regardless of gender. Zelda doesn't save herself because she's not the PC. This says nothing about the technological limitations of past games that is absolutely ignored by Anita's argument. Can you imagine how hard it would be to be Zelda hiding the Triforce on the NES then playing as Link to uncover said pieces? Or playing as Sheik during the 7 years of Ganon's rule while Link slept?

We're following the game from the Hero's perspective. From when you pick up the controller to after the journey, you see what Link sees and he's literally your link to the world (Yes, that's the joke). That being said, maybe Nintendo could be less lazy, but the plot requires Ganon to take the royal because that royal is the largest threat to his power. That says a lot more about Zelda as a woman in that she's aware of this danger and constantly does what she feels is the best for her kingdom. I just don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that just because she's imprisoned, that makes her less of a character just because she needs help from someone else. It's pretty damn noble that she can rely on Link to save the realm when she's unable to and usually, she's the one to bring it back to its proper majesty.

Except Majora's Mask. That was all Link.

*http://thewritersjourney.com/hero%27s_journey.htm

Literally, all you want is a girl to be in the same role as Link.

Why is that a bad thing? Why couldn't she be?

Based on the story, the owner of the Triforce of Wisdom doesn't matter, they'd have the same temperament and do what's best for the realm. All I'm saying is that storywise, it's the exact same thing just with gender reversed. It doesn't say anything about the women being weak, it's just literally the same exact story but a male Zelda and a female Link. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying all you want is a female Link because that would make the most sense if you want an adventure as Zelda. Nowadays, that can be done, but as I keep mentioning over and over, it's the same story but a different gender and I'd like more focus on something more interesting than just gender swaps. If you can have a different adventure as a female Link because she has a smaller frame, that'd be interesting. If you can have different powers as a male Link than a female one and play it two players, that be fun. But just a gender swap? Pass.

Again, it's not about Zelda being a playable character.

No, it's about her being completely ineffective as a ruler and a survivor.

For seven years? For being a pirate leader? For having the courage to face a world and hide a Triforce? For saving sages and princesses while also creating a sword that has her blessing that she gives to the chosen hero?

Really?

When you read what each Triforce does, it's not the gender that matters.

If gender doesn't matter, then why are you so openly contemptuous of the idea of switching genders?

I'm not. I'm just pointing out the story is gender neutral.

Uh, okay. Thank you for clarifying, but I don't understand what this observation has to do with anything. I know that if a damsel is in distress, then a damsel is in distress.

Yup. It puts such a crimp on your plans that even when you've taken a ship thirty times the size of Link's and a crew that outnumbers him eight to one, you still surrender your plans to save the fish-guy's pearl to him because he's the hero, not you.

And here's the other part where I get pissed off. Gindil, you are the one who insists that Zelda was being heroic during the seven years of the Ocarina of Time; and not just heroic, but equally heroic as Link. You are the one who brought it up, and I am asking you what heroic things she did because the only time I can remember anyone saying she did anything at all is the Zora king saying she rescued Ruto. If she's equally as heroic as Link is, then I have provided a list of the things Link accomplished and the people he saved. What things did Zelda accomplish that are in his league?

Yeah. It just happens to be a male damsel. While most people jokingly say it's "Dude in Distress", it's really not about gender. Hell, let's really think about Zelda here...

Zelda 1 - Ganon wants the Triforce of Wisdom, Zelda refuses to give it up, and instead of having it simply taken from her by force she breaks it, hide the pieces, and end up Ganon's captive because he wants to force her to open up the eight dungeons inner chambers while Impa is chearching for Link on Zelda's order. What people tend to forget is that when Link go into the first eight dungeons, he is not venturing into Ganon's domain, but exploring Zelda's safehouses: safehouses which proved to be beyond the villain's ability to crack open.

Zelda is hardly helpless, even in the first episode of the series: she's captive, sure, but she ends up that way not because she's a powerless victim but because she:
1. Refuses to run from her kingdom
2. Refuses to capitulate.

In fact, the last installment takes this idea and go even farther with it (Spoilers ahead): Zelda/Hylia can't defeat Demise on her own nor use the Triforce herself, so what does she do? She fights the villain to a standstill, keeps it prisoner, biding her time because she knows that sooner or later a mortal with the potential to conquer the Triforce will appear, and when said mortal is finally born, she grooms him, trains him, and blatently manipulates him into finishing the job. Sure, she's not the one who plunge the sword in Demise's chest, but she's the one who engineered the events which turned Link into someone capable of plunging said sword, a sword which She forged herself, for God's sake

One could easily conclude that if Ganon and other villains go after Zelda first and ignore Link in the early stages of the story, it's because She is the biggest threat: Link is the retainer, the glorified guard dog of the Kingdom, Hyrule's nuclear deterrent: sure: he's impressive and deadly once unleashed, but you need someone to release the guard dog's leash: that's why it's Zelda's Legend and not Link's.

And over the years, Zelda has become more inclusive in the series. She's done more and more and more. Creating the Master Sword, using her powers to maintain Hyrule, reincarnating as a wise woman and one of seven sages. She's indeed powerful and the stories are about her, not Link, her glorified guard dog. That's the power of her character. She can be kidnapped, turned into a golem, and crystallized, but she's the one that has the power over and over, to restore the realm of Hyrule to peace and prosperity.

She's not going to do a good job of this.

You are the one who, at the beginning of the post I'm responding to, criticized Ms. Sarkeesian for having a preconceived outcome in mind before she even began playing the games. Now you're doing the same to her and her videos.

Nope. After 35 videos, I just have to say she's not good at this. You can only give someone the benefit of the doubt so long before you realize that they aren't going to change their mind about their own notions of what's good for women such as a trope that's been around for centuries.

One looks like Conan and the other looks like a Dwarf. Plenty of eye candy for everyone.

That is not objectification. Does the art style emphasize the male characters' strength and warrior attributes? Does it do the same for Tyris, or does it focus on how hot she looks in a bikini?

The male wears a loin cloth. And the dwarf looks like a dwarf. You might just want to look it up.

She still ignored her being a good healer and having powers of her own.

None of which she uses to ever help the man risking life and limb to save her until after the saving is done.

Right... Beating Smithy as a woman that likes pink is a bad thing...

The only one seeing that are people intently looking to make them out to be weak regardless of their other strengths and capabilities.

Okay, then what do they do that makes them stronger than Link or Mario? What do they actually accomplish?

Zelda's above. Peach actually rescues Mario when given her chance.

Still powers and agency not explored by Anita.

They're scarcely agency, and in at least one case the "powers" are downright offensive. They're not helpful to your case.

Using emotions is offensive? You realize other heros have used the same thing, right?* I won't talk much on it, but Witchers in Left 4 Dead relied on people's paternal and maternal instincts in order for you to get close while she would become enraged and kill you. Sorry, just because Peach's powers are run by emotion in a game doesn't mean they're automatically offensive.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man_2:_The_New_Adventures

For Peach, for every seven males, you rescue one female in the "core" games.

And none of those seven males have names, so I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the three characters who do have names: Mario, Bowser, and Princess Toadstool.

They were kings of their lands that Bowser overthrew to rule them all. Those are still characters just like Toad and Yoshi.

For Peach, she usually helps out a ton in the realm before being captured and does her best to defeat Ganon.

I assume you mean "for Zelda." But, again, how does she "help out a ton?"

Yeah, I did, and see above. Still Peach did a lot when she returned the fungus to normal. I think that was the story about the fungus in the Mario Bros movie too... Don't ask.

Nothing stops the gender being changed, which I agree could be done for the hero. But the basic storyline won't change all that much.

So? Who said I wanted the basic storyline changed that much? All I'm asking is, if you defend the capture of Princess Zelda as a necessary symbol of a kingdom falling into chaos so Link can save her, then why do you scoff at the merest inference that maybe a symbol of national chaos could be Prince Link getting captured, whom Zelda has to save?

[/quote]

You aren't accepting that storyline. You're making it out to be sexist because it happens to a woman as if nothing bad can happen to a girl with authority under her belt. I don't scoff, I'm just pointing out that the exact same story line would occur regardless of gender and you're making this out to be something of a dismissal. It's why I criticized you before about how you're not seeing a plotline outside of the very same "Damsel in Distress" scenario you seem to think is only for women. It's not. Sure, Nintendo has written a ton of stories on their consoles with Zelda and Peach being captured. But both women are respected and loved by their constituents. It's not just because of their physical strength, but their positive influence on their respective worlds. That's the timeless aspect I keep referring to. In order to tell a story, there has to be some sort of conflict. Mario and Link have no true conflict in themselves that would push a person forward in their games. Most of their games work best by saving someone else. For Luigi, it's saving Mario. For Mario, it's saving Peach from Bowser. For Link, it's saving Hyrule, where Zelda is a part of that story just as much as Link.

We do save people in most modern games. Female on male, male on male, and male on female. But that isn't the the entirety of gaming. Revenge plots like in the Ninja Gaiden games where your father is killed is just as valid as saving a girl who is an FBI agent in the same game.

Maybe you aren't interested in the lore of Zelda*, but it's pretty interesting. The stories of these games aren't told by just a kidnapping. It's about all of the events leading up to the climax. The time you invest in these games and wanting to enjoy the characters as they go through their struggles. That's been the point. It's the power of myth manifested in a new entertainment medium. We play games to tell stories. Whether that story is about how we sniped 5 guys in a row in Call of Duty, or saved the princess in Zelda, or fought against a corporation in Remember Me, we enjoy the narratives to tell us better things about our own culture in different perspectives. I think that's a far better interest in games than taking a tally count of how many people are hostages.

*http://www.zeldadungeon.net/2013/03/the-integrity-of-zeldas-lore/

 

[JimB]

I did get the general idea you were going for. My counter example would still have been chosen though, if only to show the confusion possible when looking at blatant presentations and assuming it is trying to hard and that is a sign of the reverse.

Sure. I just regret how transphobic my example came off, and how I was too dumb to have thought of a different example using the same character.

Perhaps the disclaimer is all I really was seeking there then.

I couldn't argue with that.

But that sort of is my point, the "crime" if you will, to be charged.

The crime we reference is only a technicality to determine the maximum sentence we can impose, because an accidental shooting is a crime different from premeditated murder and one with different penalties; the end result--the dead guy--is still the same.

I have never seen a major publisher outright discriminate against anyone based on sex, religion or gender, and I do not think that when they don't try to risk sales by changing core traits that it is inherently sexist.

By your use of the word "outright," I assume you apply a grading scale to acts of discrimination. I don't. I don't care if the sexism is outright or subtle except in terms of how much it hurts people I care about. That it is sexist is enough for me.

As for what counts as discrimination, I think refusing to let female characters wear sensible or appropriate clothing in combat situations when male characters can (pretty much every fighting game ever) is sexist, and I think...oh, bugger it, I'm about to just recite Ms. Sarkeesian's planned video topic list anyway, so yeah, that stuff. I think that stuff is sexist.

But by that logic one could get very incorrect statements about every era of artistic history.

I'm not sure I can respond to this, because I'm very confused by it. I don't see how it relates to what I said.

In that same game, the guy who is turned to stone has to be saved by the actions of the princess (though helped by the guy's friend). Your entire party is saved last minute by Beatrix in the airship.

Fair points. I'm fairly sure they are outnumbered by the amount of times Stabber (I named her Stabber) and Eiko tend to get captured and kidnapped, but all in all, my use of Final Fantasy IX oughtn't to be taken as a condemnation of it. It tends to be a fairly egalitarian game, if only on a comparative scale.

Also, you devalue the mental aspect of characters and how they may need psychological help as well as physical.

Hm...maybe. Tell you what, I'll concede that point while I think about it. If I don't bring it up again, assume I decided you're right.

Wrong. They said "We will market to men because they buy it more often."

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy for you.

Even ones like DOA have done nothing to refuse purchase by women.

Honest question, or at least a question that is more honest than a gotcha: If someone made a video game like DOA about male characters who wear only banana hammocks and whose bulges bounce up and down in gelatinous slow motion with every step and whose butt cheeks make light clapping noises around their thongs, would you feel uncomfortable and excluded?

Think the lawn tractor advertisements.

Sorry, I don't know those. What are you talking about?

Traits that don't just don't usually appeal to a woman are not exclusionary.

Not in one game, nor in five, but as a general trend?

Who should be "right" in their opinion here? Who should have their will enforced on the game?

Me. That probably sounds cheeky, but no, really. If I've decided to try to change the world through argumentation, then I've decided I'm right, and everything follows from that. Admittedly I'm not terrifically interested in video games, and all I really want is some more people to say, "Hey, it would sure be great if Cammy's victory pose was, like Ryu's, about her strength and her feelings regarding the fight rather than about her ass," so I'm willing to let the industry evolve on its own from there because I'm just a magnanimous guy like that, heh.

No, not that games can't be sexist or some even aren't, rather it ignores the source of the problem entirely.

Expression of sexist ideas is a source of sexism, and it needs to be combated too.

Damn, need to finish this reply later.

Crud, I thought you already had done. Well, I've done too much work on this reply to delete it now, so just let me know when you get around to it.

She doesn't. Kind of the point I'm making.

Yes, your point is that she's a liar. I don't believe your assertion.

The point here is that if she's going to do the research and look into the past history of gaming, you have to stay objective and not let your bias come into play.

Even if I accept that bias has tainted her work (and I suppose I may as well, since I still haven't seen the videos), it doesn't mean her ultimate conclusion is factually incorrect. Flawed methodology can still lead to the correct answer, just for wrong reasons.

She hadn't told them anything and she hadn't said what she was playing or nothing.

Oh, Christ. You're going to sit here and tell me that she couldn't have played the games because she didn't take months to do so, and when I point out the months which logically would have been used for just that purpose, you're going to argue that she wasn't playing games because she didn't Tweet her progress every night? Why would you have believed her claims anyway, since you've already dismissed her as a liar?

The games costing money really isn't as important as understanding the story and context of a game and she's failed understanding any of the stories she critiques on multiple levels.

Then why did you bring up the cost of games?

And when I was talking about the money issue, my main point was that requesting the cash to play video games seems off because if she had the passion of a gamer, she'd be looking into deals and not marketing on Kickstarter.

She gets to write off these expenses as business-related. Sounds like a deal to me.

From the looks, we seem to be talking past each other where I'm talking about the hobbyist and others who would be playing games for enjoyment while Anita's main goal seems to be profit.

Ah yes, profit, the source of all evil. How dare that immoral bugbear not pay for them out of her own pocket, reducing her own food budget so she can donate to the world a bunch of videos she'll be called a liar and a thief for making.

Its seems her agenda, as I've found, is to fabricate controversy while pleading to others that she's the victim.

Unless you have some kind of proof that she went up to some guy on Youtube and said, "I hope you get raped," thus prompting him to respond, "No, I hope you get raped," then she did not initiate a goddamned thing and she is, in fact, the victim.

I'm not dictating anyone's tastes.

Yes you are. You just said she's not a real gamer because she's not passionate about stories.

So nothing else matters except gender. Good to know.

Gender and the specific fucking context I mentioned about how it's always the women who are written as helpless victims who apparently have the powers of a motherfucking god but still can't keep from being trapped in a room while some dude from fucking nowhere finds a beating stick and becomes more powerful than the goddess by extricating her from the difficulty she couldn't.

Zelda doesn't save herself because she's not the PC.

Right. Someone made a choice to say, "She is not the PC." Why did they make that choice?

All I'm saying is that storywise, it's the exact same thing just with gender reversed. It doesn't say anything about the women being weak, it's just literally the same exact story but a male Zelda and a female Link. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm just saying all you want is a female Link because that would make the most sense if you want an adventure as Zelda. Nowadays, that can be done, but as I keep mentioning over and over, it's the same story but a different gender and I'd like more focus on something more interesting than just gender swaps. If you can have a different adventure as a female Link because she has a smaller frame, that'd be interesting. If you can have different powers as a male Link than a female one and play it two players, that be fun. But just a gender swap? Pass.

So a female Link following the same path the male Link has is too repetitious? Then why aren't you complaining about how the last, what's it been, fifteen games now? have all been the same damned thing as the first one, the same formula and the same progression of events?

For seven years?

Yes. Her kingdom was shattered and two entire species of intelligent beings nearly went extinct. That is incompetence.

For being a pirate leader?

Yes. She's captured first by a bird, and later by Ganon. She's incompetent as a survivor.

For having the courage to face a world and hide a Triforce? For saving sages and princesses while also creating a sword that has her blessing that she gives to the chosen hero?

I don't know what these two refer to.

I'm just pointing out the story is gender neutral.

The casting of the characters is not.

Zelda is hardly helpless, even in the first episode of the series: she's captive, sure, but she ends up that way not because she's a powerless victim but because she:
1. Refuses to run from her kingdom
2. Refuses to capitulate.

And fails to defend herself effectively.

[a bunch of stuff about games not Ocarina of Time

Okay, Gindil, seriously, I'll say this again: You said that Zelda, acting under the guise of Shiekh in Ocarina of Time, accomplished as much good as Link and was as heroic as he. So I'm going to ask you again: What did she do that supports your claim?

After thirty-five videos, I just have to say she's not good at this.

But after however many games she's played, she's not allowed to make similar assumptions. Got it.

The male wears a loin cloth. And the dwarf looks like a dwarf. You might just want to look it up.

I'll assume that means the female character is drawn to be sexy while the men are drawn to be powerful, then.

Beating Smithy as a woman that likes pink is a bad thing.

I do not have any idea how you got there from what I said. You were arguing that Princess Peach is a character with as much protagonism as any of the men in the group (who outnumber her four to one, incidentally), so when I point out that she completely abandons protagonism to wait to be saved for the entire first half of the game, you interpret that as a dig on wearing pink?

Using emotions is offensive?

Gaining super powers based on emotion, like weeping so much it causes beanstalks to grow, when they could have been based on learned skills applied with self-control is kind of offensive, yeah. It's a joke, and a fairly harmless one, but still kind of offensive.

They were kings of their lands that Bowser overthrew to rule them all. Those are still characters just like Toad and Yoshi.

If someone without a name or an arc in a story is a character, then the word "character" has just been stretched to the point of uselessness.

You aren't accepting that storyline. You're making it out to be sexist because it happens to a woman as if nothing bad can happen to a girl with authority under her belt.

Of course bad things can happen. Bad things are required to happen. Without bad things, there's no conflict, and without conflict there's no plot. What I object to is that in every game, Zelda is incapable of fixing the bad things, facing the conflict, and resolving the plot. She can only hope Link will do it for her. She is bad at her job as ruler.

It's why I criticized you before about how you're not seeing a plotline outside of the very same "Damsel in Distress" scenario you seem to think is only for women. It's not.

Conviction for crimes and jail sentences in America are not only for black people, but when we see how disproportionately black people are likely to be convicted and sentenced, it becomes a problem.

 

[runic knight]

I did get the general idea you were going for. My counter example would still have been chosen though, if only to show the confusion possible when looking at blatant presentations and assuming it is trying to hard and that is a sign of the reverse.

Sure. I just regret how transphobic my example came off, and how I was too dumb to have thought of a different example using the same character.

Eh, it happens.

But that sort of is my point, the "crime" if you will, to be charged.

The crime we reference is only a technicality to determine the maximum sentence we can impose, because an accidental shooting is a crime different from premeditated murder and one with different penalties; the end result--the dead guy--is still the same.

Yes, but what happens after? Depending on how it happened you might have a societal push for change in laws to prevent another pointless murder if it was just a nutjob who caught bob in the crossfire where as self defense accidental kill would be seen as unfortunate but not something that could have been prevented by a change of law. To tie it back, part of the reason I dislike games being called sexist as freely as they are for things I don't think of as sexist in the first place is because I know very few who label something like that without the intent to pressure for change. And while I would love some change, I know little good comes from change for change sake. The issues relating to female characters in games are many, but I think we should figure them out better before trying to guild developers into changing by use of a stigma. Otherwise we might change from one trope to another and be right where we started except with the developers feeling that actually did something (and thus would be less inclined to do it again for a while).

I have never seen a major publisher outright discriminate against anyone based on sex, religion or gender, and I do not think that when they don't try to risk sales by changing core traits that it is inherently sexist.

By your use of the word "outright," I assume you apply a grading scale to acts of discrimination. I don't. I don't care if the sexism is outright or subtle except in terms of how much it hurts people I care about. That it is sexist is enough for me.

I don't apply a scale, I apply a simple question. Does trait X prevent a woman from purchasing, using or participating in the game because she is a woman? Simple as that. If it does not prevent that, then it is not discriminate. If it does prevent that, but not because she is a woman but rather because of say differences in what the woman as an individual enjoys in games, then it is not discrimination.
I don't quite follow what you mean by "how it hurts" people. Are you talking about female portrayal in games being insulting to some women, being damaging somehow overall or something else? Because any possible notion I can think of that would cause hurt is not sexist by nature but rather up to the one hurt as an individual to decide if it hurts them.

As for what counts as discrimination, I think refusing to let female characters wear sensible or appropriate clothing in combat situations when male characters can (pretty much every fighting game ever) is sexist, and I think...oh, bugger it, I'm about to just recite Ms. Sarkeesian's planned video topic list anyway, so yeah, that stuff. I think that stuff is sexist.

Clothing choices reflecting artistic style and market patterns are sexist? And refusing? Your present the idea that the characters have a will of their own in which to express a desire. They are character avatars designed and outfitted based on what will appeal the most to the demographic paying the most. And that is before we get into the absurdity of the idea that there is appropriate clothing to begin with in games where people throw fireballs and can punch a car into a pile of scrap.

But by that logic one could get very incorrect statements about every era of artistic history.

I'm not sure I can respond to this, because I'm very confused by it. I don't see how it relates to what I said.

The idea is that if you look at patterns of created art alone that are prevalent in order to understand the mindsets of the creators, you will have a shallow and most likely incorrect view. In one example I referred to an ear where religious iconography was used a lot in art in a positive way. I then offered that by that pattern of religious stuff in positive light, it must have meant that the people were very pro religion. In reality, they may not have been. It was a counterpoint about looking games in that light without taking into account outside forces influencing what they made in the first place.

In that same game, the guy who is turned to stone has to be saved by the actions of the princess (though helped by the guy's friend). Your entire party is saved last minute by Beatrix in the airship.

Fair points. I'm fairly sure they are outnumbered by the amount of times Stabber (I named her Stabber) and Eiko tend to get captured and kidnapped, but all in all, my use of Final Fantasy IX oughtn't to be taken as a condemnation of it. It tends to be a fairly egalitarian game, if only on a comparative scale.

It is one of my favorites, right up there with tactics.

Also, you devalue the mental aspect of characters and how they may need psychological help as well as physical.

Hm...maybe. Tell you what, I'll concede that point while I think about it. If I don't bring it up again, assume I decided you're right.

Alright

Wrong. They said "We will market to men because they buy it more often."

There's a self-fulfilling prophecy for you.

very true, but not one that is motivated by a sexist intent. As said, i will happily claim developers and publishers are lazy, conservative, greedy and the like, because they will even say as much themselves, though with a lot of spin on it.

Even ones like DOA have done nothing to refuse purchase by women.

Honest question, or at least a question that is more honest than a gotcha: If someone made a video game like DOA about male characters who wear only banana hammocks and whose bulges bounce up and down in gelatinous slow motion with every step and whose butt cheeks make light clapping noises around their thongs, would you feel uncomfortable and excluded?

Not at all. I would feel it was not made for me and would not buy it, but I would nto feel that the product was in some way preventing me from buying it or not using it. My own tastes and preferences would be what prevented me from buying it or not using it, but that is not a fault of the developers.

Think the lawn tractor advertisements.

Sorry, I don't know those. What are you talking about?

was an incomplete thought. It was a reference to how all lawn tactor adverts show guys driving them around the yard.

Traits that don't just don't usually appeal to a woman are not exclusionary.

Not in one game, nor in five, but as a general trend?

See my post about the bananna hammock game.

Who should be "right" in their opinion here? Who should have their will enforced on the game?

Me. That probably sounds cheeky, but no, really. If I've decided to try to change the world through argumentation, then I've decided I'm right, and everything follows from that. Admittedly I'm not terrifically interested in video games, and all I really want is some more people to say, "Hey, it would sure be great if Cammy's victory pose was, like Ryu's, about her strength and her feelings regarding the fight rather than about her ass," so I'm willing to let the industry evolve on its own from there because I'm just a magnanimous guy like that, heh.

You'll find it very hard indeed to bring change the way you are going about it. To be honest, a lot of what you seem to want would be eagerly sought after by most gamers if you went about it a different way. Most of us are sick of the trends we see, from over used tropes to pandering attempts to general feeling of being marketed to like we are all horny teenage outcasts. The problem is when we see what would be considered outsiders trying to force change based on an agenda. Then it is no longer a change for the better but for the goals of someone else. Given how much gamers have to fight off violence bs, you rally believe they would react any better to another emotional ploy?

No, not that games can't be sexist or some even aren't, rather it ignores the source of the problem entirely.

Expression of sexist ideas is a source of sexism, and it needs to be combated too.

Except what you think of as a sexist idea is not the same as the next person. And what you want combated might be a trait another person enjoys in games. If you want change, go after the source, the rest will follow. If there is not a market for the expression of traits you consider sexist, it will not be marketed to.

Damn, need to finish this reply later.

Crud, I thought you already had done. Well, I've done too much work on this reply to delete it now, so just let me know when you get around to it.

I have, though in the other post lol.