The core problem with Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[FutureExile]

I've been watching Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games. While it's far from terrible, the more I watch the more I believe the series isn't all that insightful or offers very much in the way that will have have permanent relevance to the overall culture of video games. The series does have, at least for now, some novelty because video games are still a relatively new form of media and having a serious and intelligent discussion about them for many hours is still somewhat uncommon. But this is more of an accident of history. As video games grow increasingly popular, they will be discussed and criticized ad-nausea by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Once this happens, the novelty of her more-or-less paint-by-numbers take on how video games portrays women will begin to fade and will become just one of many similar works with almost identical points of view.

I think the core reason for the series' lack of very much genuine insight has to do with Anitia Sarkeesian's seeming lack of interest in video games in and of themselves. Since she doesn't appear to play video games for pure enjoyment, she fails to understand that the big breasts on the maiden offering you a fetch quest are no more central to the experience of a video game than the pieces on a chessboard are to a chess player. They are there merely as window dressing or, at best, something to entice a spectator into playing. When a game grabs hold of you ? fully grabs hold of you for hours and hours - it is the mechanics of the game that become important. Everything else becomes a symbol or token, a mere abstraction that exists only to convey a piece of information about the current game state. This is the experience that games offer that nothing else can provide in quite the same way. But this core experience is difficult to talk about. We lack the vocabulary to describe much of what make video games unique. Critics who can find a way to talk about and offer insights into such things will become the true pioneers of video game criticism and might find at least a degree of cultural permanence. But I'm afraid that Anita Sarkeesian will not be one of those critics.

 

[FutureExile]

she fails to understand that the big breasts on the maiden offering you a fetch quest are no more central to the experience of a video game than the pieces on a chessboard are to a chess player.

So you could not have them in the game, and it wouldn't change much, is what you're saying?

If you are asking me whether or not it would fundamentally change the core experience of the game, the answer is no, it would not. It would however diminish the initial appeal of the game to some segments of the gaming public.
If you are really asking me whether it would be a good thing to ban all adolescent titillation from video games since it doesn't add to the core experience of a game and therefore doesn't need to be in there in the first place, the answer is also no. Adolescent titillation has its place, like everything else.

 

[FutureExile]

she fails to understand that the big breasts on the maiden offering you a fetch quest are no more central to the experience of a video game than the pieces on a chessboard are to a chess player.

So you could not have them in the game, and it wouldn't change much, is what you're saying?

No, it's not important BUT it's removal would be an assault against artistic expression and free speech.

Also, did he just say chess pieces aren't central to the game of chess?

In the sense they are there only for keeping track of the state of the game. Whether you have a cheap chess set from Kmart or a set made of ivory, it doesn't really matter to core experience of the game. They are completely superficial.

 

[Fireaxe]

The core problem with Sarkeesian is that she has a conclusion and cherry picks evidence from a medium she has no experience in to justify her conclusion. This is literally the polar opposite of how one should come to a conclusion.

 

[FutureExile]

she fails to understand that the big breasts on the maiden offering you a fetch quest are no more central to the experience of a video game than the pieces on a chessboard are to a chess player.

So you could not have them in the game, and it wouldn't change much, is what you're saying?

No, it's not important BUT it's removal would be an assault against artistic expression and free speech. Also, did he just say chess pieces aren't central to the game of chess?

Stop making these fucking threads. What insight did you provide, OP, that overrode the observation of "Wow, there's like 5 Anita Sarkeesian threads and 20 feminist threads on every page of this fucking forum. My addition certainly wouldn't be redundant at best..."?

I've read many comments praising/criticizing the series for its politics and/or accuracy. I'm offering a criticism of its shortcomings divorced from all of the noise (at least as much as possible). I'm not criticizing her politics, I'm not talking about her relationship with the press, I am talking about the work on a fundamental level and the key flaw I think it has, one that has little to nothing do with how Tropes is being discussed elsewhere.

 

[FutureExile]

In the sense they are there only for keeping track of the state of the game. Whether you have a cheap chess set from Kmart or a set made of ivory, it doesn't really matter to core experience of the game. They are completely superficial.

But you'd understand if, say, a black guy took umbrage at someone's Minstrel Show Chess Set complete w/ Welfare Queen and wasn't particularly impressed by being told how it's all superficial compared to the core game experience, no? That's what choosing "adolescent male fantasy" as your coat of paint can be perceived as by some women.[/quote]

That would be something worth taking umbrage of. But I'm willing to bet that if you played the game enough, you wouldn't even notice the pieces anymore. They would just be markers.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

This is a sticky topic. I don't want to say that Anita isn't allowed to criticize games. She is. I also don't want to make a claim that she is or she isn't a gamer. I have no idea how someone would judge that even. Almost everyone plays games. I also don't want to say that you have to be a gamer to criticize games. An outside perspective is actually rather helpful because it's not yours.

Now that I said all that, I think a inside perspective could be helpful too. Someone who is really versed in game theory. (That is theory's about games not the actual game theory. ) There are elements of games that make them different then books or movies and you could conduct some rather inserting ideas if you understood these differences and took them into account.

 

[FutureExile]

This is a sticky topic. I don't want to say that Anita isn't allowed to criticize games. She is. I also don't want to make a claim that she is or she isn't a gamer. I have no idea how someone would judge that even. Almost everyone plays games. I also don't want to say that you have to be a gamer to criticize games. An outside perspective is actually rather helpful because it's not yours.

Now that I said all that, I think a inside perspective could be helpful too. Someone who is really versed in game theory. (That is theory's about games not the actual game theory. ) There are elements of games that make them different then books or movies and you could conduct some rather inserting ideas if you understood these differences and took them into account.

I once read a quote by Sid Meier saying that games actually take place in the mind of the player, not on the screen. This has stuck with me for many years and I believe it to be true and pertinent to to the discussion at hand. Someone who is not attracted to games in and of themselves rather than simply as an interesting academic or social subject will ultimately not understand how players view and interact with the world on a very fundamental level. The locations and characters in a video game become mere placeholders and pieces of information when the game is actually played. Someone who doesn't "get" video games might believe all sorts of horrible things are going through a video game player's head when they are playing GTA. But it is actually quite an abstract experience and not damaging to an otherwise healthy psyche. It's this missing insight combined with the lack of interest in core game mechanics as a subject (which is what games fundamentally are) which makes a lot of "serious" video games criticism both misguided and ultimately doomed to irrelevance.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

This is a sticky topic. I don't want to say that Anita isn't allowed to criticize games. She is. I also don't want to make a claim that she is or she isn't a gamer. I have no idea how someone would judge that even. Almost everyone plays games. I also don't want to say that you have to be a gamer to criticize games. An outside perspective is actually rather helpful because it's not yours.

Now that I said all that, I think a inside perspective could be helpful too. Someone who is really versed in game theory. (That is theory's about games not the actual game theory. ) There are elements of games that make them different then books or movies and you could conduct some rather inserting ideas if you understood these differences and took them into account.

I once read a quote by Sid Meier saying that games actually take place in the mind of the player, not on the screen. This has stuck with me for many years and I believe it to be true and pertinent to to the discussion at hand. Someone who is not attracted to games in and of themselves rather than simply as simply an interesting academic or social subject will ultimately not understand how players view and interact with the world on a very fundamental level. The locations and characters in a video game become mere placeholders and pieces of information when the game is actually played. Someone who doesn't "get" video games might believe all sorts of horrible things are going through a video game player's head when they are playing GTA. But it is actually quite an abstract experience and not damaging to an otherwise healthy psyche. It's this missing insight combined with the lack of interest in core game mechanics as a subject (which is what games fundamentally are) which makes a lot of "serious" video games criticism both misguided and ultimately doomed to irrelevance.

I don't know if I agree with your conclusion. Well I agree with the thought. There is more to the game then what is on the screen. There is more in a game then what the maker puts into it. Because the player adds a lot to it. You can't really examine a game without looking at the player because until the game is played, it is incomplete.

You seem to be drawing a conclusion that the player will strip down the game and remove context. Like if your playing CoD your not shooting terrorist, your shooting enemies. I can see that on some level. It's a slightly bothersome thought though? (Isn't that a little like demonetization or objectification?) On the other hard context matters in games. If your playing a game were you shoot blank cubes, it's different then if your shooting giant bugs. Story matters. It impacts how you feel about what you do in a game.

 

[Silvanus]

If you are really asking me whether it would be a good thing to ban all adolescent titillation from video games...

Nobody said that. I don't think anybody on this forum has advocated banning it.

It's a strawman, designed to make the critics look like censors, though they never supported censorship. I don't understand its traction.

 

[Racecarlock]

So the woman is not so much a person as she is background dressing.

And this is not insulting how?

 

[silver wolf009]

So the woman is not so much a person as she is background dressing.

And this is not insulting how?

Presumably because the story doesn't involve her, meaning she's an extra. Extras are supposed to be background dressing.

 

[FutureExile]

Ok, so no one's saying that we should ban anything. There are just some segments of the gaming public who would like to be able to enjoy the cool game mechanics without so much adolescent titillation.

Yes, "ban" was a loaded word. "Move beyond" might have been a better choice of words on my part.
The problem with this line of thinking, though, is that it leads to a subtle trap that many of its proponents either don't foresee or think is actually a positive outcome. Namely, it takes the choice away from other people, a choice they have every right to make for reasons you may or may not agree with or understand. They may be sexist. Or maybe not. It's hard to say, no? Maybe I want to buy a game where women in skimpy outfits catfight. Am I am gross person? Maybe. So mock me. Point out its stupidity. Post pictures of me leering at my computer screen to the internet. But don't call for the elimination of my little pleasures, as pathetic as they may be. That treats me like a child.
A better solution is to create or support games that portray people in the manner you like. Instead of people advocating for a kind of half-voluntary censorship that eliminates voices and options, use the zeal towards growing the culture and business of video games. It's better to grow this hobby outwards than force reform on its center. Doing so will create a culture of video games that caters to everyone. Yes, there's room in this debate for public scolds and busybodies, even Anita. They are part of the great gaming culture too, in their own odd little ways. But no one, not the public scolds, not the press, not the gamers, no one is ever right one hundred percent of the time. That's why it's better to create things you like than to try and tear down things you don't.

 

[FutureExile]

So the woman is not so much a person as she is background dressing.

And this is not insulting how?

No, everyone and everything is background dressing in a game. Men, women, bushes, trees, houses, dwarves, spaceships, make-believe worlds, entire galaxies. Everything. The mechanics of the game turn everything into mere pieces of information about the current state of the playfield. Information the player uses to advance towards his or her intended goal. Only a lunatic thinks the giant crab he killed in World of Warcraft is in any way real. This is why Tropes is such a dead end when it comes to games criticism. The actual experience of playing a video game has little to do with the details she focuses on. How can something so divorced from the reality of how people actually interact with the game world be anything other than of modest interest. Tropes isn't terrible, it's just not very insightful.

 

[FutureExile]

If you are really asking me whether it would be a good thing to ban all adolescent titillation from video games...

Nobody said that. I don't think anybody on this forum has advocated banning it.

It's a strawman, designed to make the critics look like censors, though they never supported censorship. I don't understand its traction.

Well, the subject of my original post was about what I view as the core weakness of Tropes as video game criticism, divorced from the current rancor and politics . However, since you've asked, I think forbidding discussion of a subject is censorship.In fact, that is the dictionary definition of censorship. This website isn't banning discussions of a certain person who name starts with a Z (which, by the way, this thread is not really about) but many sites were and some still are. You might approve of the censorship, you may think that this censorship is or was necessary, but at least own up to it. There have been lots and lots of people supporting censorship lately. And many people - including developers, journalists and gamers - have applauded it. And many of those people are the ones now calling for wholesale reforms in the video game industry and video gaming culture. And I personally haven't seen anyone who applauded the initial shutting down of any discussion of that subject come out and say "well, I still think there is nothing to this business but shutting down an open and frank discussion was the wrong thing to do in retrospect." Not a single person. Why should I believe their initial impulse toward stifling dissent has changed? I'm sure they believe it was all done for the greater good.