The core problem with Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

You're presuming that all players, or even the majority of players, care for interacting with the challenge/mechanics of a game to the exclusion of the context.

For myself and many other gamers, the context is of utmost importance, rivaling or even surpassing the mechanics of play.

So yeah, I understand the overall points you're trying to make in this thread, but I'm afraid they only apply to players who approach games with the perspective that you do.

And what's the context here? That "men, women, bushes, trees, houses, dwarves, spaceships, make-believe worlds, entire galaxies" are all being oppressed because they're not the main character in the game but just non playing units used by the developer to create a world where the gamer can play?

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

 

[Paragon Fury]

Anita has several issues, not least of which is that she is a twit of the highest degree. But some of her issues are:

1: She picked a conclusion and works only towards that; which is the exact opposite of "good" research and investigation.

2: Her methodology and standards are unknown; and her finances and how she ran her Kickstarter are completely in the shadows and shady as hell.

3: She, and the people she has hired to help her "investigate" clearly know very little about video games. The first BIG clue to this should've been the very first time she ever mentioned Bayonetta as being a "single mother" way back at the beginning of this mess......when Bayonetta herself says not 1/3rd of the way into the game that she has no interest in children or being a mother.

4: Anita is, simply put, an idiot. I had the displeasure of reading her Master's Presentation before she got it taken down. It was so bad. So, so, so bad.. On every level. It wouldn't have passed a freshman course in a Bachelor's degree program, yet she apparently was able to get a Masters out of it. It extremely worrisome that she is getting her "expertise" and "professional knowledge" from an institution that would let tripe like what she writes pass.

She has got issues....and she only keeps making it worse.

 

[Breakdown]

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.

You're presuming that all players, or even the majority of players, care for interacting with the challenge/mechanics of a game to the exclusion of the context.

For myself and many other gamers, the context is of utmost importance, rivaling or even surpassing the mechanics of play.

So yeah, I understand the overall points you're trying to make in this thread, but I'm afraid they only apply to players who approach games with the perspective that you do.

And what's the context here? That "men, women, bushes, trees, houses, dwarves, spaceships, make-believe worlds, entire galaxies" are all being oppressed because they're not the main character in the game but just non playing units used by the developer to create a world where the gamer can play?

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

Anita doesn't discuss the medium or context though. The examples she picks are from open world games that need women and men as non-significant entities in order to create an illusion of a crowded building, or city or other environment. The women as background objects trope is redundant in this context.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

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.

You're presuming that all players, or even the majority of players, care for interacting with the challenge/mechanics of a game to the exclusion of the context.

For myself and many other gamers, the context is of utmost importance, rivaling or even surpassing the mechanics of play.

So yeah, I understand the overall points you're trying to make in this thread, but I'm afraid they only apply to players who approach games with the perspective that you do.

And what's the context here? That "men, women, bushes, trees, houses, dwarves, spaceships, make-believe worlds, entire galaxies" are all being oppressed because they're not the main character in the game but just non playing units used by the developer to create a world where the gamer can play?

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

Anita doesn't discuss the medium or context though. The examples she picks are from open world games that need women and men as non-significant entities in order to create an illusion of a crowded building, or city or other environment. The women as background objects trope is redundant in this context.

Actually, she does. We must be watching two different things, so there's no point in us talking about this anymore.

 

[DrOswald]

Anita has several issues, not least of which is that she is a twit of the highest degree. But some of her issues are:

1: She picked a conclusion and works only towards that; which is the exact opposite of "good" research and investigation.

2: Her methodology and standards are unknown; and her finances and how she ran her Kickstarter are completely in the shadows and shady as hell.

3: She, and the people she has hired to help her "investigate" clearly know very little about video games. The first BIG clue to this should've been the very first time she ever mentioned Bayonetta as being a "single mother" way back at the beginning of this mess......when Bayonetta herself says not 1/3rd of the way into the game that she has no interest in children or being a mother.

4: Anita is, simply put, an idiot. I had the displeasure of reading her Master's Presentation before she got it taken down. It was so bad. So, so, so bad.. On every level. It wouldn't have passed a freshman course in a Bachelor's degree program, yet she apparently was able to get a Masters out of it. It extremely worrisome that she is getting her "expertise" and "professional knowledge" from an institution that would let tripe like what she writes pass.

She has got issues....and she only keeps making it worse.

Honestly, I don't know if we can blame Anita for many of these things. In my experience, Anita's level is pretty much par for the course when it comes to that area of Academia in my experience (not just feminism, but the study of social issues in general). I don't know if it is really this bad, I may have just been unfortunate in the people I have interacted with in that field, but from what I have seen Anita is doing exactly what pretty much everyone else in her field does. It is probably how they actually taught her to conduct research and present evidence.

That doesn't make it ok, and it certainly doesn't invalidate your complaints, but I don't think we can lay all of this solely at Anita's feet.

 

[Breakdown]

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.

You're presuming that all players, or even the majority of players, care for interacting with the challenge/mechanics of a game to the exclusion of the context.

For myself and many other gamers, the context is of utmost importance, rivaling or even surpassing the mechanics of play.

So yeah, I understand the overall points you're trying to make in this thread, but I'm afraid they only apply to players who approach games with the perspective that you do.

And what's the context here? That "men, women, bushes, trees, houses, dwarves, spaceships, make-believe worlds, entire galaxies" are all being oppressed because they're not the main character in the game but just non playing units used by the developer to create a world where the gamer can play?

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

Anita doesn't discuss the medium or context though. The examples she picks are from open world games that need women and men as non-significant entities in order to create an illusion of a crowded building, or city or other environment. The women as background objects trope is redundant in this context.

Actually, she does. We must be watching two different things, so there's no point in us talking about this anymore.

I went and checked the transcript and err... yeah you're right she does.

 

[Guerilla]

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

And since the trend is that there aren't many playable female characters since core gamers are mainly male and the industry is being practical, she thought it would be perfectly fine to call this women as backround decoration. Yeah, no deliberate hyperbole here because she's desperately trying to push her agenda as per usual, right?

And btw you do exactly the same by saying stuff like "in videogames women are exploited non-significant entities". They're just freaking NPCs for god's sake...

And then you guys wonder why gamers don't like feminists. Are the trees "exploited" too? I never played as a tree so they must be.

 

[FutureExile]

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...

That's such a presumptuous and vague critique that it's actually worse than the 'out-of-context' evidences she brings forth. You really are in no position to dictate in what context she should enjoy games.

Anyway, her major issue is her delivery. Dry as a nun's tit. A rocket-launcher-wielding, spandex-clad nun's tit.

It's not a vague criticism. It gets to the heart of why much modern criticism of video games is so poor. Viewing video games as merely a social construct rather than as a subject that is worthy of study in and of itself is by definition superficial. Let me put it this way: if Anita is correct that many video games are merely misogyny simulators, then Jack Thompson is also correct that many video games are murder simulators. It's the shared fallacy of an outsider struggling to understand the core experience of playing a video game. Games are only fun because they seem inherently unreal and abstract while they are actually being played. If you were really battling space aliens on the moon it would be horrific. But of course this isn't what people experience when playing a game. This is why so many people who approach the subject of video games from the perspective of an outsider have skewed views of what playing a video game is actually like or how it affects the game player's psyche. They fundamentally misunderstand the experience. Therefore talking about games from the outside in (from a social perspective) rather from the inside out (about its mechanics) can be interesting but is inherently limited and in the end produces little real insight.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Her videos are about tropes. A trope is a trend, a recurring thing that frequently appears across a medium.

It's not about how these things appear in any specific game--in fact, she frequently states in her work that if many of the examples she uses in her work occurred in isolation, then it would be a non-issue because it wouldn't be a trope--it's about how women as exploited non-significant entities in video games is a recurring trope and what that may say about the medium and our broader culture.

And since the trend is that there aren't many playable female characters since core gamers are mainly male and the industry is being practical, she thought it would be perfectly fine to call this women as backround decoration. Yeah, no deliberate hyperbole here because she's desperately trying to push her agenda as per usual, right?

And btw you do exactly the same by saying stuff like "in videogames women are exploited non-significant entities". They're just freaking NPCs for god's sake...

And then you guys wonder why gamers don't like feminists. Are the trees "exploited" too? I never played as a tree so they must be.

She's an idealist. She believes in trying to make the world better according to her values of what would better the world. Not everyone is a pragmatist; saying "the industry is just being practical" carries little to no weight to the idealist.

And if you watched the videos you would see that "women as background decoration" is not saying that all women are background decoration; the video doesn't even talk about the lack-of-female-protagonists issue.

 

[RA92]

Viewing video games as merely a social construct rather than as a subject that is worthy of study in and of itself is by definition superficial.

She's not reviewing games, she's criticizing recurring elements in video games from a feminist perspective. Analyzing something through the lens of certain social/cultural theories is something very common in literary criticism (see postcolonial criticism, for instance).

A game isn't all mechanics - there is also the context in which the mechanics are put in. By analyzing that you can gauge quite a bit about what kind of sensibilities the developer is trying to appeal to or to cultivate.

People are taking this way too personally. She's isn't asking for a ban on video games like Jack Thompson.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

Saying it doesn't make it true. I'm sorry, but simply responding with "yes she is" doesn't make it so.

I'm yet to see a claim that she was cherry picking that wasn't in itself dishonest. If you want to try, feel free. But stick to specific claims/examples, preferably ones you can actually cite.

 

[Beliyal]

Judging something produced for the purpose of entertainment on how much entertainment it provides you is the real important criteria.

...

I dunno about you guys, but I play games to have FUN. Not to fight perceived social injustice, not for social commentary or messages. I play them to relax, unwind, tune out the shitty day and smile.

While I get where you're coming from, I must say that this "fun" criteria is terribly subjective and doesn't at all exclude the possibility that things can be fun as well as problematic in their depictions and portrayals of various things. Of course games should be rated by, among other things, how much fun they are, but that doesn't give them a free pass so that no one should ever question anything about them. The problems is; who decides "fun"? What if you find something fun and entertaining (for example, shooting Muslims; to you, they might be just a pixelated enemy in a video game, no big deal), while hundreds of thousands of people consider it offensive? Should they have the right to voice their opinion and say that it's offensive? But you had fun, so it doesn't matter, because we should judge games based on how much fun you had, and not based on how they portrayed a real group of people. Needless to say, I disagree. While fun is definitely an important point when discussing video games, it's far too subjective to be meaningful in any major way. And when we're talking about a piece of media, especially the one that is hugely influential and popular, I think it's our duty to analyse it and criticize things it did wrong (as well as praise things it did well). Just because something was fun, doesn't mean it was flawless and that those flaws are not worth discussing (especially if those flaws are a reflection of real problems).

I play games for fun as well. I think we all do. The difference is that sometimes I get slapped in the face while I'm trying to relax and unwind and tune out the shitty day because I see offensive, degrading and dehumanizing stuff in games. For some people, a lot of games end up not being fun (or at least annoying), because they see themselves as terrible and outdated stereotypes, perhaps even see stuff that happens to them IRL and the game doesn't handle those problematic situations with respect, but as a game mechanic or a way to get more experience and/or money. I can totally understand that some people might get into a game to tune out the shitty day, only for the game to turn the day into an even shittier one. To me, it would be a common courtesy and respect for other people to talk about issues in video games and for us to try and get rid of the problematic stuff (or at least to make it less common). It's not going to make games less fun; it's going to make them fun for everyone.

(I hope the post doesn't sound hostile. I can never tell, so just in case, hostility and arguing are not my intention.)

 

[Guerilla]

She's an idealist. She believes in trying to make the world better according to her values of what would better the world. Not everyone is a pragmatist; saying "the industry is just being practical" carries little to no weight to the idealist.

And if you watched the videos you would see that "women as background decoration" is not saying that all women are background decoration;

So we can agree that she's trying to force her agenda on gamers? I'm an idealist too, but I don't fucking spam people about how studios should be owned by the developers and that the greed of the capitalist system is ruining the industry. I might mention it here and there if the discussion brings it up but I'm steering every fucking discussion and everything I see in videogames towards my cause. That's how you make people sick of you and your agenda.

the video doesn't even talk about the lack-of-female-protagonists issue.

Actually that's EXACTLY what she's talking about. She's passive-aggressively trying to force devs to create more main female characters by calling female NPCs backround decoration.

 

[carnex]

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

Saying it doesn't make it true. I'm sorry, but simply responding with "yes she is" doesn't make it so.

I'm yet to see a claim that she was cherry picking that wasn't in itself dishonest. If you want to try, feel free. But stick to specific claims/examples, preferably ones you can actually cite.

I explained it to you on our first discussion about her videos, I think it was after her second video, why she was cherry picking and that way misrepresenting games as a whole to prove her point.

Of course you dismissed it, just like you dismissed other arguments that were presented to you as proof that her "research" is actually worthless and ideologically driven towards preconceived conclusions.

 

[Something Amyss]

Of course you dismissed it, just like you dismissed other arguments that were presented to you as proof that her "research" is actually worthless and ideologically driven towards preconceived conclusions.

I don't remember this, but given your recent bouts of dishonesty I have trouble believing that you offered any cogent evidence on the subject.

 

[carnex]

Of course you dismissed it, just like you dismissed other arguments that were presented to you as proof that her "research" is actually worthless and ideologically driven towards preconceived conclusions.

I don't remember this, but given your recent bouts of dishonesty I have trouble believing that you offered any cogent evidence on the subject.

Bouts of dishonesty? Would you point them out to me? I do my best not to be dishonest, so i would like to be presented with my writings where I'm dishonest.

 

[Something Amyss]

Bouts of dishonesty? Would you point them out to me? I do my best not to be dishonest, so i would like to be presented with my writings where I'm dishonest.

You mean aside from twisting m words and such, where I have already pointed it out to you?

Pardon me if I don't see this as another attempt at dishonesty. If you can't even talk to me without lying about what I said, pardon me if I don't buy into your claims elsewhere. In fact, I think I'm done even trying here.

 

[carnex]

Bouts of dishonesty? Would you point them out to me? I do my best not to be dishonest, so i would like to be presented with my writings where I'm dishonest.

You mean aside from twisting m words and such, where I have already pointed it out to you?

Pardon me if I don't see this as another attempt at dishonesty. If you can't even talk to me without lying about what I said, pardon me if I don't buy into your claims elsewhere. In fact, I think I'm done even trying here.

Well pardon me for telling you again to present me with evidence or people will have full right to conclude that you are not exactly attached to truth. This is second time you are asked for a proof and all you do is go on full on assault. I didn't lie, all I did is asked a simple question and go prolonged no with some seriously strange explanations.

Well, you could ask Kodu what cherry picking for arguments is, he explained it too but in his case you didn't partake in that conversation as far as I remember.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

She's an idealist. She believes in trying to make the world better according to her values of what would better the world. Not everyone is a pragmatist; saying "the industry is just being practical" carries little to no weight to the idealist.

And if you watched the videos you would see that "women as background decoration" is not saying that all women are background decoration;

So we can agree that she's trying to force her agenda on gamers? I'm an idealist too, but I don't fucking spam people about how studios should be owned by the developers and that the greed of the capitalist system is ruining the industry. I might mention it here and there if the discussion brings it up but I'm steering every fucking discussion and everything I see in videogames towards my cause. That's how you make people sick of you and your agenda.

the video doesn't even talk about the lack-of-female-protagonists issue.

Actually that's EXACTLY what she's talking about. She's passive-aggressively trying to force devs to create more main female characters by calling female NPCs backround decoration.

If you were trying to be an activist for your agenda, you might annoy some people, but that doesn't deprive you of the right to be an activist; being an activist of any kind means riling of feathers and annoying and/or making enemies of some people. That's just the way it works.

And I have to say that for you to say that you know what her REAL agenda is and that she's just being passive-aggressive about it is quite presumptuous.

She does think that there should be more female protagonists and mentions it in other videos, but she doesn't mention this the "Women as background decoration" video that we are discussing (unless you actually believe your presumptuous nonsense about knowing her real angle and claiming that she's just being passive-aggressive about it).

And how exactly does expressing the opinion "there should be more fleshed-out female characters in video game narrative" translate into "try to force developers to create more main female characters?" That's like saying that if I express the opinion "Chocolate is the superior flavor of ice cream" then I'm trying to force people to change their minds about ice cream flavors. People put their opinions out there; other people are free to agree/disagree/dismiss. If developers are swayed by her opinions, that's up to them and there's nothing you can do about it, unless you want to restrict her free speech by censoring her.