The core problem with Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[FutureExile]

Right, so we're talking specifically about websites regulating the subjects that can be discussed. Of course, the majority of forums do this to greater or lesser extents. These forums are private entities (and relatively small ones); would you really dispute their right to moderate?

Also, I wrote directly in response to what you said about "ban[ning] all adolescent titillation from video games", not regulating forum content. The point stands that nobody is calling to do that.

The act of regulating the subjects on a message board is censorship. The only way it couldn't be considered censorship is by changing the definition of the word. Should a video game message board allow pornographic pictures to be posted? Probably not. If I ran a message board, I wouldn't allow it. But I wouldn't deny that I am censoring content. I would say that such posts aren't allowed because it isn't relevant to the discussion so therefore that kind of content will be censored. But I would own up to the act of censorship and provide rational, defensible reasons why such content is being censored.
But according to many major gaming sites (The Escapist is a notable exception), mass deletion of posts, banning of people who are making reasonable points and forbidding discussion of the subject full stop is somehow not censorship at all, even though it clearly is. Maybe many people in the video games media do not think of themselves as the kind of people who censor. Maybe that's why they won't admit to the censorship, not to other people, not to themselves, not to anyone. Or maybe they just cannot defend the heavy-handed manner in which it was carried out.

 

[krebons12]

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.

I think that may be her point. That people are turning breasts into a sign that says "come play the game" rather than them just happening to be that size because that's what the creator of the game wanted them to be.

Also, I'm pretty sure that, unlike the breast sizes, chess pieces are important to a chess players experience since without them, the chess player only gets to experience looking at a tiled board.

 

[FutureExile]

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.

I think that may be her point. That people are turning breasts into a sign that says "come play the game" rather than them just happening to be that size because that's what the creator of the game wanted them to be.

Also, I'm pretty sure that, unlike the breast sizes, chess pieces are important to a chess players experience since without them, the chess player only gets to experience looking at a tiled board.

Once the game is being played, the pieces are important only in the sense that they convey information about the state of the game. Whether the queen has large breasts or no breasts at all, makes no difference to the core experience of the game player. Critiquing superficial elements of a game is valid, but ultimately a dead end. That's why Tropes just isn't very insightful.

 

[shrekfan246]

The "core problem" is that she uses snippets of game footage that are, at best, taken completely out of context, and at worst, completely misrepresent the game they're taken from.

She then uses this footage to confirm her already-present bias.

Man, I fail to see how that's any different from what average gamers do every single time any sort of game trailer comes out.

OT: I've been hammering away at this point a lot lately, but I think the core problem is that people seem to equate "I don't think this is a positive thing and I'd like to see less of it" with "This should never exist ever again under any circumstances, and you're all horrible evil subhumans if you disagree!"

Not just talking about Sarkeesian here, either. "Censorship" has been the misused war cry of the gaming community for a long time now, and at least 75% of the time it's being used by people who have no idea what it actually means or why it doesn't apply to what they're talking about.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

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.

I think that may be her point. That people are turning breasts into a sign that says "come play the game" rather than them just happening to be that size because that's what the creator of the game wanted them to be.

Also, I'm pretty sure that, unlike the breast sizes, chess pieces are important to a chess players experience since without them, the chess player only gets to experience looking at a tiled board.

Once the game is being played, the pieces are important only in the sense that they convey information about the state of the game. Whether the queen has large breasts or no breasts at all, makes no difference to the core experience of the game player. Critiquing superficial elements of a game is valid, but ultimately a dead end. That's why Tropes just isn't very insightful.

I think you are under valuing context, setting and story. A lot of the time a player will play a game for these superficial elements. It's not all about the gameplay. In fact I think I play more games for these then I might for gameplay.

 

[AkaDad]

You know, if people hadn't harassed, made threats, and attacked feminists/feminism, and instead criticized Anita in a reasonable way, people wouldn't have jumped to her defense like they did.

If it wasn't for all that, I may not even know that Anita even existed.

 

[Silvanus]

Okay first of all let's clarify that I was talking about censorship in general. Outright banning something is only one extreme form of censorship. I never said anything that specific, you're being misleading.
Second of all let's clarify that criticising something is not the same as declaring something to be inherently bad. It is much more extreme, misleading again.
My claim was that at certain times a need or desire for censorship in some form is implied.

And that is correct. If somebody who actively presents themselves as an individual that wants to change an industry, declares that something within said industry is an inherently bad thing. The only logical conclusion is that they want it gone.

Remember, "inherently bad" is your own extrapolation, and you're extrapolating again from that. Your conclusion is not the only logical one. Many people still call things "regressive", or "crap", every single day without wishing any action to be taken against the peoples' ability to express those things.

Talking about how people don't support freedom of thought in action when the subject of your criticism has taken no action against freedom of thought is surely absurd.

The act of regulating the subjects on a message board is censorship. The only way it couldn't be considered censorship is by changing the definition of the word. Should a video game message board allow pornographic pictures to be posted? Probably not. If I ran a message board, I wouldn't allow it. But I wouldn't deny that I am censoring content. I would say that such posts aren't allowed because it isn't relevant to the discussion so therefore that kind of content will be censored. But I would own up to the act of censorship and provide rational, defensible reasons why such content is being censored.
But according to many major gaming sites (The Escapist is a notable exception), mass deletion of posts, banning of people who are making reasonable points and forbidding discussion of the subject full stop is somehow not censorship at all, even though it clearly is. Maybe many people in the video games media do not think of themselves as the kind of people who censor. Maybe that's why they won't admit to the censorship, not to other people, not to themselves, not to anyone. Or maybe they just cannot defend the heavy-handed manner in which it was carried out.

Righto.

Still, you were talking about "banning all adolescent titillation from video games" before, and when I responded to that, you changed the subject. You are still talking about the other subject.

 

[carnex]

You know, if people hadn't harassed, made threats, and attacked feminists/feminism, and instead criticized Anita in a reasonable way, people wouldn't have jumped to her defense like they did.

If it wasn't for all that, I may not even know that Anita even existed.

Truer words have never been said. And it's not even the fact that she came in knocking the door down shaming people and getting all hissy fitty stating all but that she demands things removed that she is harassed for in the first place. She made herself famous and she touched what some people see as sacred. You know, like religion for example. It comes with the territory of being internet celebrity.

Of course it didn't help that she acted that way and that she stated that her material, that is, lets face it, worthless as anything worth seriously considering, is to be used as educational tool.

Nobody deserves death threats, harassment and other forms of abuse and everyone gets it unfortunately. But god damn, what she was putting out is insulting, shallow, academically worthless, ideology driven, fake/bad source supported and I don't even want to write this anymore as I look as pure hatred to myself and yet I didn't state anything that isn't pure truth.

 

[FutureExile]

Okay first of all let's clarify that I was talking about censorship in general. Outright banning something is only one extreme form of censorship. I never said anything that specific, you're being misleading.
Second of all let's clarify that criticising something is not the same as declaring something to be inherently bad. It is much more extreme, misleading again.
My claim was that at certain times a need or desire for censorship in some form is implied.

And that is correct. If somebody who actively presents themselves as an individual that wants to change an industry, declares that something within said industry is an inherently bad thing. The only logical conclusion is that they want it gone.

Remember, "inherently bad" is your own extrapolation, and you're extrapolating again from that. Your conclusion is not the only logical one. Many people still call things "regressive", or "crap", every single day without wishing any action to be taken against the peoples' ability to express those things.

Talking about how people don't support freedom of thought in action when the subject of your criticism has taken no action against freedom of thought is surely absurd.

The act of regulating the subjects on a message board is censorship. The only way it couldn't be considered censorship is by changing the definition of the word. Should a video game message board allow pornographic pictures to be posted? Probably not. If I ran a message board, I wouldn't allow it. But I wouldn't deny that I am censoring content. I would say that such posts aren't allowed because it isn't relevant to the discussion so therefore that kind of content will be censored. But I would own up to the act of censorship and provide rational, defensible reasons why such content is being censored.
But according to many major gaming sites (The Escapist is a notable exception), mass deletion of posts, banning of people who are making reasonable points and forbidding discussion of the subject full stop is somehow not censorship at all, even though it clearly is. Maybe many people in the video games media do not think of themselves as the kind of people who censor. Maybe that's why they won't admit to the censorship, not to other people, not to themselves, not to anyone. Or maybe they just cannot defend the heavy-handed manner in which it was carried out.

Righto.

Still, you were talking about "banning all adolescent titillation from video games" before, and when I responded to that, you changed the subject. You are still talking about the other subject.

Well, I've conceded elsewhere in this thread that "banning" was a poor choice of words, so fair point. However, I still think it is a bit disingenuous for many people (although not you personally) to use eliminatist language about the "death of the gamers" and so forth while all the while denying they are trying to create an atmosphere where choice and options are artificially stunted for what they perceive to be the right reasons. It's reasonable to look at their current rhetoric and actions and see trouble going forward. This is doubly true when forums and media where such debate traditionally took place are now suddenly shut off from such discussion.
But, again, I do not believe you are a fan of censorship and stifling debate so I worded that poorly and I retract any suggestions that you are. But many people, many, many more than I would believed before this whole mess, seem to be. And it's pretty worrisome.

 

[theNater]

Once the game is being played, the pieces are important only in the sense that they convey information about the state of the game. Whether the queen has large breasts or no breasts at all, makes no difference to the core experience of the game player.

And yet, mysteriously, very few chess sets(as a percentage of the total number of chess sets) have pieces that resemble extremely buxom women. Why do you suppose that is? Don't chess piece manufacturers want the extra sales that titillation will get them?

 

[FutureExile]

Once the game is being played, the pieces are important only in the sense that they convey information about the state of the game. Whether the queen has large breasts or no breasts at all, makes no difference to the core experience of the game player.

And yet, mysteriously, very few chess sets(as a percentage of the total number of chess sets) have pieces that resemble extremely buxom women. Why do you suppose that is? Don't chess piece manufacturers want the extra sales that titillation will get them?

Google Kama Sutra chess set. If you dare. And then play it with someone you love.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Assuming this is true, why is it then something that is so frequently revolted against to the point of ubiquity? If this is true, why are so many people so terrified that the big bad feminist is going to take their boobies away?

I think you're trying to artificially distinguish in the same way people try and designate True Gamers[sup]TM[/sup]. It's silly an absurd and playing games doesn't necessarily bring you to the same conclusion.

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.

And yet, people have fits over Lara Croft's bewbs getting reduced in the latest Tomb Raider. Were you correct, the "piece" (Lara) should be completely interchangeable. We could toss in Nathan Drake and nobody would care. But we even had complaints about her appearance changing slightly between TR2013 and TR2013 Definitive.

Gamers take the aesthetics of the game more seriously than chess players appear to based on your assertions. And rightfully so, to a degree. This is an interactive visual media. Aesthetics and style are a big element. Chess, generally speaking is chess. Visuals in gaming are used almost as another game mechanic, to provide anything from a sense of "realism" to a sense of surrealism. There is no particular story to chess, no meta narrative. It can itself be a metaphor, but it's not doing anything other than being a game. Most games feel the need to at least tack on a perfunctory story, it's so expected.

The Queen isn't taken hostage from the start of chess. The Knight isn't out for revenge against the Pawn who shot his Rook. There is no need to set tone, or depict the pieces in any fashion at all.

Gaming, frankly, is not chess (unless it's a chess video game, but I am yet to see the narrative of a board game video game criticised). This should be obvious.

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?

It's only an assault on artistic expression and free speech if the removal is mandatory. Criticism doesn't infringe on free speech, nor is asking people to critically look at what they create or play. Unless Anita's passed a law recently I missed, this isn't at issue. Any removal would be voluntary and even then, removal isn't necessary. I use again the example of Saints Row IV with tentacle bats, jiggly bewbs, BDSM Kinzie, and a rectal probe gun. And yet, you have one of the devs sharing the TVW videos and talking about how consideration went into the game. That same game I'm talking about.

As for the chess pieces, it was fairly clear OP meant the shapes of the chess pieces, not the pieces themselves. The quest giver remains, the issue is window dressing.

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.

I somehow doubt you've actually watched her videos. If you have, that's a rather disingenuous conclusion, though.

SHe's not really interested in the whole feminist thing I suspect she's basically taking the most inflammatory approach and stand point that will gain her not only attention but an instant loyal following of equally close minded real feminists and white knights ever so eager to jump in on what they see as the sure fire 'winning' side of an argument

Which is why she lingered in obscurity making these videos and blogging for years, and why she took perhaps the least inflammatory approach to it humanly possible. I'm sorry, I just don't know how a boring woman reading a TV Tropes list could be construed as inflammatory by anyone.

 

[Something Amyss]

You and alot of others seem to think women are really *that* thin-skinned as to be bothered by every depiction of the female form that doesn't look like them. You're also assuming some of those ladies I mentioned don't appeal to the tastes of some women.

Ignoring the fact that women on this site alone have been critical of the things you're saying women don't care about, you made a post on the previous page indicating Anita "plain popsicle" Sarekeesian was being inflammatory. Perhaps it's unwise to accuse dissenters of being thin-skinned if you feel that way.

Though no, he's not assuming that those women don't appeal to the tastes of some women, because when he's talking about alienating women, he's almost certainly talking as a whole. Yeah, that's right, most people understand that #notallwomen.

It doesn't matter.

 

[theNater]

Google Kama Sutra chess set. If you dare. And then play it with someone you love.

I acknowledge that such chess sets are out there, but you almost never run into them unless you actively go looking for them. This is not the case for video games.

Why is that different, do you think?

 

[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.

I somehow doubt you've actually watched her videos. If you have, that's a rather disingenuous conclusion, though.

Given she self admittedly hasn't played many games -- including those she uses as examples, it's perfectly reasonable to state that

1. She doesn't have substantial experience in the medium as a player (imagine discussing film tropes having not watched films)

2. She is, deliberately or not, cherry picking.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Given she self admittedly hasn't played many games -- including those she uses as examples, it's perfectly reasonable to state that

1. She doesn't have substantial experience in the medium as a player (imagine discussing film tropes having not watched films)

2. She is, deliberately or not, cherry picking.

Having her as the figurehead does not mean that she doesn't have a sizable team of experienced gamers helping her research and draw conclusions. Since she said that this was the way way TvW would play out back in the Kickstarter, it is not only bad form but entirely pointless to accuse her of not having enough "gaming cred". It is a decent attempt at not having to confront her arguments but rather get off the hook with an ad hominem though. Too bad you got called on it.