The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[wulf3n]

Anyone else read Dune? I'm pretty sure as an individual that goes to planets with extreme environments Samus must be wearing something like a still suit under her armor. It'd be thin, form fitting, and used in conjunction with her armor to regulate body temperature and recycle water, which is crazy essential when fighting aliens on a foreign planet.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Nintendo weren't thinking about the complexities of their universe and its technology as much as Frank Herbert was

 

[anthony87]

Um... We have several sensible counter-arguments. They have been brought up and linked in this very thread, try out the 1-16 page range. I can wait while you do that.

I'm aware, I simply don't think they're of any quality either.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about Anita Sarkeesian's stuff. Maybe we're all not so different after all....

 

[Gindil]

345 results since 1983? That factors into 11 women a year in games. round abouts, but before you get happy here, lets consider several things:
Not all of them from english games. Considering I don't want to learn another language just to game more, those are gunna have to be deducted. I'm not alone in this. It's pretty unreasonable to expect it.
They count gender select characters, which aren't to be included in my list. As venerable as Femshep is, she's not the star of her own game.
Some of whom are system exclusive. I'm pretty SoL as are others if I don't have that system, huh?
Some of whom are only briefly playable in a game that you otherwise play as a guy in. Well, I don't buy games to play as a guy unless they're pretty stellar, and I don't buy games to play as a female for only a fraction of the game.
Some of whom are only playble after beating the game as a guy. Having said that, I don't want the game spoiled before I even get to play as the female.
Some are NPC members of your party. I generally have to pick those up over time, and, well, they're NPCs. Side characters, not people you ply as from start to finish, starring in their own game. Deduct those.
The list is really padded by fighting game women. Fighting games, despite, ironically, being one of the greatest sources of playable women doesn't fit my list because those games don't focus on one character from start to end. No one has their own game in that.
It covers even the briefest of indie games.
Basically the list is so dilluted with stuff that doesn't apply to what I want, it's practically useless.

And so is your arbitrary Bechdel Test. I highly doubt you're going to play all of these games and it just seems like you're whining that you have no representation instead of using the list as a basis and finding games that may fit your standards and play them.

That list is includes things invalid to my argument and in no way invalidates my grievances with the industry.

Then take them up with the industry. It seems more and more that you're only interested in moving the goalposts when you've been presented with female protagonists and antagonists while ignoring the games and the stories therein.

It's not just the lack of female characters for me to play, and apparently reeasonably have access to as you're saying I should have a gaming PC, a Dreamcast, an NES, a N64, a gamecube, and pretty much every system under the sun, then the free time to track down the older games on the list, isn't the entirity of my problem with the industry.

I highly doubt you can play all of the games presented. But acting as if women are never in the games is rather disingenuous don't you think?

Lemme ask, how many games with female protagonists you play as from start to finish, with no jumping through hoops to get there, are we getting next year? And the year after that? What systems? Will the games be any good, and well marketed, or pretty much set up to fail against the male competition? What's the future of female repreentation, and the modern times of it?

The only one jumping through hoops is you with your gaming Bechdel test which eliminates 99% of the games that may be interesting. I'm not going to address it any further because it's ridiculous that you have such a rigid argument that doesn't allow you to play games on their merits with an obvious gender bias.

That's what really important. Going retro, and expecting people to buy old systems, nevermind buy multiple systems, and track down old games is pretty unreasonable.

And yet people do it and enjoy the games...

One really should consider "What if I have all the games off that list I can reasonably get, and I beat them all, and have no more intense drive to play them anymore? What's going to be coming out? What's new?" I'm pretty close there now, though a 3ds opened up my options a lil'bit.

When you can do it, maybe I'll plunk down more games for you to play.

Consider people just coming into games. The sort of people that can make you more money as they are willing, and able to spend it. Making them jump through hoops to get into what you want them to buy is only going to take you so far, if it takes you anywhere at all.

More than likely, the people coming into games are going to enjoy the games that they fancy the most. It doesn't make it easier to enjoy the games when you have gender blinders on.

How is it even remotely inviting to basically say "Oh, we don't really include you these days. If you want to game as your own gender, go buy old stuff, and be sure to pick up a bunch of old systems."

How is it even remotely inviting to stomp on old games and not play them for their merits and judge them accordingly?

In otherwords, I'm looking at a bigger picture than just what I want. I'm looking out for potential newcomers to gaming which is going to be necessary.

Not really... New comers would be introduced to new games just like new book readers are introduced to new books. Through friends and possibly family. That doesn't mean they need a test to find the games that are approved by committee.

Instead of inviting in more customers, the industry's more interested in segregating them away while they focus on an group that can't support the entire industry. At least not until so much compeititon dies off that monoplies happen.

You're making assumptions about the industry that are truly unfounded.

Oh wait, that's kinda happening now. CoD, and MW are practiclaly unchallenged, most sports games are only liscenced to one studio and competition is hard to mount. GTA is killing pretty much every open world game to where it's really hard to compete.

Right... TF2, Maple Story, and other F2P games are dying based on GTA and CoD... Those are assumptions that are again unfounded. Also, GTAV has been getting a lot of flack over their online game. And Minecraft is still a thing.

So why do people try and compete instead of take the paths of least resistance?

Maybe it's because you're not really here for the games and it seems more and more that you just want to complain about smaller details instead of looking at the games you like and enjoying them...

The third list fails to fix the prolems with lack of representation in the console arena, though, doesn't it? PC isn't the only gaming system.

But it sure is a list for some people.

If it's obvious via gendered words implying that you're a guy, you're a guy in a game. It's not fun overlooking it coz either way you're reminded of the gender of the character you're playing.

You're making no sense on this...

Since I like playing virtually anything that I can get my hands on that interests me, making a list of what I want in -a- game is absurd.

Funny that, when you accuse me of forcing people to jump through hoops...

What's needed is a lot of female lead games of various genres that aren't almost entirely PC only.

Then make them. Your list is arbitrary and ignores any game with a gender opposite female. I have no interest in someone that isn't even going to try games and only looks at things from a narrow lens.

Quina is not a playable female character that you play as from start to finish, she's a party member. Having an NPC in your party =/= playing as them from start to finish.
Playing as a female character for a fraction of the game's total play time = cop out.
They don't apply to the list.

Well, you get to play as her and she's a Hero in her own right as per the Monomyth theory. She applies to the list because the rules were that it was to be an ugly woman. And I showed her. Sorry, not interested in your list. Just play the games and enjoy them.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

"Because make no mistake, as innocuous as Tropes vs. Women turned out to be in comparison to the rage that preceded its debut, there is a status quo in gaming and it does seem recognize that a tipping point has been reached and that its time as the status quo is coming to an end."
1) Sad to say, but I think you're being way too optimistic, 2) you need an editor.

 

[QuantumWalker]

Again, more gross generalization. You are taking aspects of a small percentage and attributing them to the whole. This is the same reasoning behind bigotry.

Are you going to respond to anything I say with "gross generalization"? Because that would tell alot about whether it's worth responding to you anymore.

I'll take a crack at it then.

Dont pull that arrogant oblivion crap on me. Just because some amount of the gaming community and/or game industry might happen to be sexist and possibly uphold some sort of patriarchal coup, does not mean gaming in general is upholding anything other than wanting to play games.

Arrogant oblivion...whatever. Look, the reality is that games aren't this innocent, pure thing free from ideology, it does espouse patriarchal ideals. Men are killers, leaders, owners and protectors of women. Women are to be owned by men, protected, look good for their male, and be content with their lot in life. Failing that, they at least need to be able to kick ass while servicing the male gaze and pretending to subverting the above.

Here is the generalization you are making with this post and from what I can gather from your previous ones.

1) The idea that games have ever been free from the creators of the games themselves, and/or the environments that they arise in.

- I mentioned in a previous post how some of the foundational games that get brought up in historical discussions (Missile Command, Doom) were the product of either their creator trying to convey a message to his audience, or an amalgamation of the cultural entities that the creators enjoyed. In the case of Missile Command the creator was trying to convey the abstract horror that full on nuclear war would have, and the futility of trying to save everyone. In essence Missile Command functions similar to the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek in that the game presents the player with a no-win scenario. (although I believe Missile Command predates Wrath of Khan)

- Gaming history has never been free from ideology, I don't remember anyone in this thread saying otherwise so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this line of thought?

2) The idea that games perpetuate patriarchal ideas and sentiments.

- Depending on how you define patriarchy the assumption you are making about all games is that they present men universally as inherently dominant and good and women as inherently subordination. You seem to be operating on the assumption that "larger number of male protagonists == definite attempt to keep women down". But please correct me if I am wrong and elaborate on why you feel that games are more oriented towards enforcing a patriarchal ideal.

- One inconsistency with what you are saying and what is actually happening is that games themselves do not push women away. Certain games are definitely offensive to women (sex simulators for one) but in most other cases it comes down to whether or not the style of gameplay, types of characters, or game story appeals to the gamer whether they be male of female. Their seems to be a reason why women gamers form the majority of puzzle game and sim game players while men seem to form the majority of FPS Players. It may come down to a difference in how both genders view meaningful ways to spend their time with the hobby but their is always a gray area between the two.

- You also state that games present women as always attractive in order to appeal to the male gaze. The problem with that is, by default both male and female avatars are generally designed to be physically appealing and idealized as opposed to their users. For every buxom scantily clad female avatar you find their will exist an overwhelming number of handsome, toned, and unbelievably athletic male avatars. You would be hard pressed to find games that intentionally present the player with traditionally unattractive avatars to play as (the North American release of NIER comes to mind) and if they do you're looks may boil down to a non issue because NPC's won't react to your looks any different than they would otherwise (e.g. the various disfiguring scars you can give the PC of Mass Effect). Allow me to make a broad statement but outside of older RPG's that include a charisma stat I have never really played a game where my characters perceived appearance had an impact on the game (excluding playing a fantasy race that some NPC's didn't jive with)

- While you are correct in assuming that women

3) The idea that gaming narratives focus on enforcing oppressive imagery and ideas onto female gamers

- Plainly put you would have to make a pretty convincing argument to tell me how games try to present the idea that "women are property" as an acceptable norm. To steal an annoying overused phrase

• "Games do not exist in a vacuum"

Even if a game did exist with the intention of trying to un-ironically tell women that they belonged in the household it would be shot down and lambasted by most modern communities. Name one game that has appeared in the western world that tries to present sexist ideas as an acceptable norm that both men and women ahould aspire too and I will show you a game that got more negative press than Duke Nukem Forever.

- Their rarely if ever exists a work of gaming fiction that shows women in a subordinate position that does not try to justify that situation. Most commonly you will find either a game world set in a medieval style setting where historically women did not have the same rights as men, or you will find some sort of dystopian society. You can argue that these in-game justifications do not excuse the presence of those ideas but I think that any story has the right to present characters in whatever setting they choose too, even if I don't like the idea personally.

 

[Iszfury]

I feel compelled to post for the sake of spectacle, acknowledging that this thread will eventually reach 1K. And I'm now starting to realize that no matter how many gamers act only distantly fazed by Sarkeesian's comments ("we're no nonsense, trust us, we're only in for the games, her point wasn't really wrong but I disagree with her approach, blahblah, etc."), they've actually been made extremely insecure by recent events. They're projecting. They're uncomfortable. Gamers feel the status quo tipping; they're being forced to acknowledge trends and patterns that their own insular communities prefer to ignore. If that wasn't the case, they (we) wouldn't have to passive-aggressively rationalize the above positions ad nauseum. So many terrible euphenisms. Threads like this are a goddamned magnet, and we can't keep their greasy hands off of them. We claim to be disinterested but we're obsessing to hell, and the irony is biting.

 

[Do4600]

Okay, how about I attack her for having $160,000 to produce the show, buying a mountain of video games which she then takes pictures with, and then instead of using that resource to get her own footage that explicitly captures the quality she's looking for, she uses youtube footage.

Not to nit-pick your argument, but you make an assumption here on facts that are not in evidence-- she has a crew, some of which no doubt own games themselves. it is therefore entirely possible that the pile of games you're seeing is not, in fact, games she spent the KS money on, but the conglomeration of other people's collections.

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

A fair point, but I think it at least demonstrates that she has access to those games, and with access she should at least be able to use them as primary sources in her argument.

 

[DarkSpartan]

Okay, how about I attack her for having $160,000 to produce the show, buying a mountain of video games which she then takes pictures with, and then instead of using that resource to get her own footage that explicitly captures the quality she's looking for, she uses youtube footage.

Not to nit-pick your argument, but you make an assumption here on facts that are not in evidence-- she has a crew, some of which no doubt own games themselves. it is therefore entirely possible that the pile of games you're seeing is not, in fact, games she spent the KS money on, but the conglomeration of other people's collections.

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

A fair point, but I think it at least demonstrates that she has access to those games, and with access she should at least be able to use them as primary sources in her argument.

On this, we agree completely. She most likely has access to the hundred-plus games she's pictured with (whether they're hers or not), she shouldn't have grabbed LP footage from her YT peers. A nice recording rig shouldn't have cost her that much, either.

One more thing of note: We don't see any of the discs in question, either. That could just be a pile of empty cases. Regardless, she had months to make these videos... You'd think she'd've played at least a few?

 

[Iszfury]

"they're"? Sounds to me like YOU are the one projecting.

So I'm guessing you failed to notice how I intentionally changed pronouns at the end? Which insecurities am I projecting, by the way?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

345 results since 1983? That factors into 11 women a year in games. round abouts, but before you get happy here, lets consider several things:
Not all of them from english games. Considering I don't want to learn another language just to game more, those are gunna have to be deducted. I'm not alone in this. It's pretty unreasonable to expect it.
They count gender select characters, which aren't to be included in my list. As venerable as Femshep is, she's not the star of her own game.
Some of whom are system exclusive. I'm pretty SoL as are others if I don't have that system, huh?
Some of whom are only briefly playable in a game that you otherwise play as a guy in. Well, I don't buy games to play as a guy unless they're pretty stellar, and I don't buy games to play as a female for only a fraction of the game.
Some of whom are only playble after beating the game as a guy. Having said that, I don't want the game spoiled before I even get to play as the female.
Some are NPC members of your party. I generally have to pick those up over time, and, well, they're NPCs. Side characters, not people you ply as from start to finish, starring in their own game. Deduct those.
The list is really padded by fighting game women. Fighting games, despite, ironically, being one of the greatest sources of playable women doesn't fit my list because those games don't focus on one character from start to end. No one has their own game in that.
It covers even the briefest of indie games.
Basically the list is so dilluted with stuff that doesn't apply to what I want, it's practically useless.

And so is your arbitrary Bechdel Test. I highly doubt you're going to play all of these games and it just seems like you're whining that you have no representation instead of using the list as a basis and finding games that may fit your standards and play them.

Funny, the test holds up pretty well when you apply it to games with male protagonists. Really really well. Astoundingly well. Why am I being berated for wanting the same for women somewhat more commonly than they currently are across the systems?

I've never said "no representation." I know there's games with women in them, and I know they're rare. the fact they're rare is what's bothering me, and what's making the test seem arbitrary coz it's really hard to fill, isn't it?

That list is includes things invalid to my argument and in no way invalidates my grievances with the industry.

Then take them up with the industry. It seems more and more that you're only interested in moving the goalposts when you've been presented with female protagonists and antagonists while ignoring the games and the stories therein.

How do you know I'm -not- taking it up with the industry? What do you knwo about what I'm doing?
I'm NOT moving the goal posts, you are with your lists that by and large ignores the rules I've firmly placed.
You use Quina as an example, yet it's obvious she doesn't fit the simple test that hundreds of modern games pass with flying colors when the test is applied to males instead.

It's not just the lack of female characters for me to play, and apparently reeasonably have access to as you're saying I should have a gaming PC, a Dreamcast, an NES, a N64, a gamecube, and pretty much every system under the sun, then the free time to track down the older games on the list, isn't the entirity of my problem with the industry.

I highly doubt you can play all of the games presented. But acting as if women are never in the games is rather disingenuous don't you think?

Thank you for stating the obvious after not seemingly realizing it. I can't play all of those games. No one can. Yet you're presenting them to me like I can? And should?
Allow me to elaborate. I've played pretty much all the games I can get my hands on without ordering them online, buying a new old system, etc. etc. short of my newfound access to the nintendo handheld library.

Lemme ask, how many games with female protagonists you play as from start to finish, with no jumping through hoops to get there, are we getting next year? And the year after that? What systems? Will the games be any good, and well marketed, or pretty much set up to fail against the male competition? What's the future of female repreentation, and the modern times of it?

The only one jumping through hoops is you with your gaming Bechdel test which eliminates 99% of the games that may be interesting. I'm not going to address it any further because it's ridiculous that you have such a rigid argument that doesn't allow you to play games on their merits with an obvious gender bias.

why thank you for stating the obvious. My list eliminates 995 of every game. What would happen if it wasn't the case? what if it was easy to fill the list?
Well, I wouldn't be here for one, most likely coz my test wouldn't be hard to pass.

You wouldn't be jumping through hoops if the game industry made more female protagonists in general. The list would be easier to make, and longer... and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation coz I wouldn't be complaining a lack of representation coz there'd be representation.

That's what really important. Going retro, and expecting people to buy old systems, nevermind buy multiple systems, and track down old games is pretty unreasonable.

And yet people do it and enjoy the games...

But not everyone. It's not a universal thing. Simple as that.

One really should consider "What if I have all the games off that list I can reasonably get, and I beat them all, and have no more intense drive to play them anymore? What's going to be coming out? What's new?" I'm pretty close there now, though a 3ds opened up my options a lil'bit.

When you can do it, maybe I'll plunk down more games for you to play.

Again, the point is made. I can't. Yet you're handing the list to me like I can.
I'm not interested much in your suggestioons for games because you can't follow the simple rules of my "test." Infact you berate me over the rules to try and make me accept games that simply don't fit. My guess as to why? Coz you know full well the list is short, which is the point I'm trying to make, and what I want to see changed in the future.

Consider people just coming into games. The sort of people that can make you more money as they are willing, and able to spend it. Making them jump through hoops to get into what you want them to buy is only going to take you so far, if it takes you anywhere at all.

More than likely, the people coming into games are going to enjoy the games that they fancy the most. It doesn't make it easier to enjoy the games when you have gender blinders on.

I'm just considering the eventuality that a woman will look into gaming, and see how women are generally represented, and get turned off.
Considering the rarity, the commonality that they're dressed in a way that no woman would dress outside of a cosplay event, it's gunna get frustrating when you want to play a female character that's dressed in a way you'd be okay see your female family members in.

Why are you so angry at me for wanting to play my own gender? Why are you so mad at me for wanting to see more opportunities for this in the future? Seriously.

If you think I won't play a game with a guy protagonist, you're wrong. I'm just tired of nearly having to all the time if I want to game on consoles.

How is it even remotely inviting to basically say "Oh, we don't really include you these days. If you want to game as your own gender, go buy old stuff, and be sure to pick up a bunch of old systems."

How is it even remotely inviting to stomp on old games and not play them for their merits and judge them accordingly?

You'll have to note I didn't invite you to do anything, did I? You decided to offer up lists, and berate my test, and ignore the point of it. I didn't ask for a list of games going back to the 80's that's thrown at me without care of it containing what I want. I already knew the list existed.

In otherwords, I'm looking at a bigger picture than just what I want. I'm looking out for potential newcomers to gaming which is going to be necessary.

Not really... New comers would be introduced to new games just like new book readers are introduced to new books. Through friends and possibly family. That doesn't mean they need a test to find the games that are approved by committee.

Unless they want one of the rare games that fit my test. Those are rare. You're angry at me for not accepting close enough, or not even remotely close.
What if the family members don't know of games? Or friends don't? Generally the games that fit my test don't get advertized all that much, do they? Nevermind made often.

Instead of inviting in more customers, the industry's more interested in segregating them away while they focus on an group that can't support the entire industry. At least not until so much compeititon dies off that monoplies happen.

You're making assumptions about the industry that are truly unfounded.

Riiight, coz most games that pander/cater to women aren't pastels, and pink, right?
And generally stuff guys would shy away from instead of making a game with a female lead that guys who generally don't want to play as women (they exist. Several say as much in this very thread.) would want to play as them coz the game's genuinely good enough to have them over look the opposite gender protagonist?
The industry seems hard pressed to make games with female only leads that can stack up to huge blockbusters that star men. Especially on consoles.

Oh wait, that's kinda happening now. CoD, and MW are practiclaly unchallenged, most sports games are only liscenced to one studio and competition is hard to mount. GTA is killing pretty much every open world game to where it's really hard to compete.

Right... TF2, Maple Story, and other F2P games are dying based on GTA and CoD... Those are assumptions that are again unfounded. Also, GTAV has been getting a lot of flack over their online game. And Minecraft is still a thing.

Team Fortress 2 is a differnt arena from CoD. The former is whimsical, and cartooney, and not taken seriously. The latter is grimdark brown-grey toned serious stuff. Not quite fair to pit them against eachother. Or even against GTA. Same goes for maple story, which shares nothing with GTA, and CoD being an MMORPG.

Yes, Minecraft is still a thing. Coz it's stll pretty unique after all this time. It has no real competition in a 3d lego-ish building game.

So why do people try and compete instead of take the paths of least resistance?

Maybe it's because you're not really here for the games and it seems more and more that you just want to complain about smaller details instead of looking at the games you like and enjoying them...

Gee, I couldn't possible enjoy playing my own gender through an entire game! Being hard pressed to manage a varied library of games that manage this has to be fun, right?

And, no I'm not here looking for game suggestions. When did I ever say that? I've got another thread for that.
I'm here complaining about the bleak future of female representation I see coming coz I can't take getting games that fit my test for granted. And again, guys sure as heck can tkae it for granted, even with my test applied.

The third list fails to fix the prolems with lack of representation in the console arena, though, doesn't it? PC isn't the only gaming system.

But it sure is a list for some people.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like it was universally accepted by everyone. Obviously, it's not universaly accepted. I outlined my reasons. If you don't like them, then that's fine.

If it's obvious via gendered words implying that you're a guy, you're a guy in a game. It's not fun overlooking it coz either way you're reminded of the gender of the character you're playing.

You're making no sense on this...

When your character is talked about, gender terms are often used. He, him, she, her, etc. When your character is talked to, gender terms are often used, Sir, a guy's name, ma'am, a girls name.
Women generlaly talk to women and men differently. Men generally talk to women, and men differently.
It sounds an awful like you want you want me to ignore any referrences to gender in the game. You do realize it's self defeating to do that because I'm probably going to be aware I'm doing that?

Since I like playing virtually anything that I can get my hands on that interests me, making a list of what I want in -a- game is absurd.

Funny that, when you accuse me of forcing people to jump through hoops...

You wouldn't have to jump through hoops if the list was easier to fill while adhereing to my rules, right?

I'm not forcing you to jump through hoops coz I didn't ask you for anything, did I? I'm sorry if you misunderstood my lamentations of the bleak now, and future of videogaming as a desire to play games I can't readily get, or play on my laptop.

What's needed is a lot of female lead games of various genres that aren't almost entirely PC only.

Then make them. Your list is arbitrary and ignores any game with a gender opposite female. I have no interest in someone that isn't even going to try games and only looks at things from a narrow lens.

Really? the "make your own game" argument?
You know not a thing about the schedule I keep, nor the resources I have access to. Do you even know what it takes to make a game? And if I make my own game, and play my own game, that's pretty cheap since I already know how to go through optimally coz I made it! You may as well ask me to write my own novel, and read it.
And you expect me to play my own low quality game?
Geez.

You do know how I take the "make your own game" line, right? Not well, let me tell you, since in this case it seems like a "STFU!" move. Like pretty much every time the line gets thrown out there by people who have no idea what they're asking of people, or who they're asking to do it, and generally don't care enough beyond saying it like it's a magic cure suggestion.
That's putting it civilly.

My lens is narrow to prove a frikking point.

Quina is not a playable female character that you play as from start to finish, she's a party member. Having an NPC in your party =/= playing as them from start to finish.
Playing as a female character for a fraction of the game's total play time = cop out.
They don't apply to the list.

Well, you get to play as her and she's a Hero in her own right as per the Monomyth theory. She applies to the list because the rules were that it was to be an ugly woman. And I showed her. Sorry, not interested in your list. Just play the games and enjoy them.

[/quote]
Yet, she doesn't fit my test, does she? Quina doesn't have her own game. She's not the only playable character, and I use that term loosely.

If you're not interested in my list, why are you talking about my list, and how I make it? You're awful into the idea that you can move the goalposts, and break the rules of my test like it's no big thing, ignoring the point my test makes.

 

[wulf3n]

Even in the Tomb Raider reboot the lead developer stated that you aren't supposed to want to be Lara Croft, you're supposed to want to protect her.

It was Ron Rosenberg [http://kotaku.com/5917400/youll-want-to-protect-the-new-less-curvy-lara-croft] and he was not the Lead Developer, he was the Executive Producer.

Producing is different from company to company, industry to industry but the role of the producer is generally to ensure the game gets made, not how the game gets made, or what its intent is. His interpretation of the role of Lara doesn't necessarily reflect the intent of the designers.

edit: Removed link to his LinkedIn profile as evidence, changed to initial interview instead.

Didn't seem proper.

 

[Iszfury]

I have no strong feelings one way or the other!

I love you. You needed to happen to this thread. You're shrugging atop a pile of dead bodies. Too novel.

 

[wulf3n]

Thank you for the clarification, but I don't think it changes the outcome of my argument too much. I would still argue that the Tomb Raider reboot was only made the way it was because Lara Croft was a woman; the Nathan Drakes, Nico Bellics, and Joshua Fireseeds of the gaming world are unlikely to get that sort of treatment. Hell, even Jason Brody wasn't as outwardly pathetic as Lara Croft was, it's one tutorial sequence before he's busting caps with the best of them.

It all comes down to interpretation i guess.

To me the struggle and eventual triumph [note: I haven't played it yet so I'm basing this on what I've heard] demonstrates a greater strength than that of Nathan Drake etc.

It's the difference between John McClain and Dirty Harry.

What I believe the Developer/Producer distinction does indicate is the intent of the design of Lara's character.

If it were a Lead Developer or Lead Designer then I would worry as it would indicate a bias that could be deeply interwoven into the narrative. As it stands I think it's just the opinion of one person trying to describe what they believe the target audience wants from the game.

 

[Lictor Face]

Wikipedia is kind of a deplorable place for you to get citations from though. TVTropes too to an extent.


DAMMIT THIS IS COLLEGE LEVEL STUFF. HOW CAN SHE NOT KNOW THIS.

I'll just go on again to state that the citations appear to be the examples provided in the video, which is presented as original research.

Eh?

You do know what a citation is right? A citation is a small line of text that credits the source of an example ( Be it a video, quote, picture or whatever ).

So if I took say, a picture of a cat for my use in a research paper, I would have to credit lolcatz or something, as the image was taken directly from lolcats.

I do not dispute that Anita's "research" itself requires no citation since she came to that conclusion herself. But the videos ( which she used as examples to support her ideas ) were not personally filmed by her, they were from various Lets Play videos.

Since she used those videos. She should have credited the source of them, real name or the youtube channel, it does not matter. As long as you point out that you did not take the gameplay footage yourself, and it is someone else's. It is not plagiarism.

However she did not do that. Hell she didn't even need to make a proper citation. A small note at the end of the video " gameplay footage courtesy of BronyMaster" would have been sufficient in my opinion.

While youtube isn't very strict on this sort of thing, I would say it speaks poorly of the person committing the act of plagiarism, as it speaks of sloppy research and process.

 

[runic knight]

The thing is, Anita is more well known than anyone else I know of on the topic. She gets the most attention for better or worse.
Until someone can eclipse her, or at least get as well known as her, she's likely to be the go-to person on this topic.
Like it or not, she's pretty much the champion of the cause due to being more of a household name than, say, Jim Sterling who's a better, IMO in presentation.
People can criticise her all they want, but until someone who can do a better job arises, odds are she'll be the only one listened to.
Sadly, I don't see anyone really qualified on the subject, and job trying to take her place as opposed to criticise her to no end.


You talk sense about the business practices up until kickstarters, IMO. Kickstarters are extremely unlikely to generate the money needed to make a game, and not likely to generate a profit, so due to it only showing interest and not necessarily profit, they're likely to ignore it completely.
It doesn't help any that Double Fine failed with their kickstarter attempt in that they asked for a certain amount of money, but, despite reaching that point, needed more as development costs grew unexpectedly.

As far as Nintendo goes, they seem most likely to have games with gender select. Yeah, it might amount to a sack of flour character, but it's closer than not having gender select, and having to play as a dude, so it's something better. It's nothing to live off of in gaming, mind you, but it's something.
Sooner or later, diversity'll be necessary.

Despite Terrarria, and Minecraft going to console, and the success, it seems like a pet project to game companies more than anything. I doubt they're saying "Wow, that forumla was really successful! We shoulf make a AAA version of that, huh?"
And if a winning formula isn't getting copied by the big leagues trying to cash in on it, it's really unlikely they'll emulate the idea of female protagonists. I really don't see Indie games changing anything.
If an indie game were to change the industry's views on female protagonists, it deserves more awards than those that exists. Even a series could be pretty ground breaking if it made the game industry realize female protagonists could be profitable... but then they'll prolly strip the formula, and replace the woman with a guy in hopes of even more money... and probably screw up the formula in the process.

But what do you think it says about the issue and community when the face of the movement to change things is largely considered an opportunistic charlatan? Yes, she is the most well known name, but that is because of controversy and sensationalism making her infamous, and say what you will, that doesn't help things in the end. It makes her, and by extension the issues she is associated with, all the easier to dismiss. It adds fuel to the presumption that gamers are all just whiny entitled privileged brats with "first world problems" and paints the community itself as even more volatile then politics, and therefore not to be paid much attention to. Furthermore, because she eclipses the issue, it means the discussion is more about her and less about the issues, to the point that people who don't care about games in the least will still get into screaming matches of over the differences in political ideology in discussions that should be about the medium itself. Movements are seen in the public light by who they choose to represent them. If you have an Alex Jones or Bill O'Riley representing you, you aren't taken seriously, all the more when you lack the numbers to force them to acknowledge you. But having Anita be the face of this issue, by allowing the sensationalistic bullshit and volatile drama to be how the topic is discussed, it makes it very easy for people to dismiss or not care about the topic at all. This sort of fame wears on people and unless they have a vested interest, it becomes white noise ignored if not spited. Tell me, how has accepting the Demagogues of politics to be the face of their parties and ideals worked to actually solve problems?

You undervalue kickstarters quite a bit. No, they are not a golden bullet, but they can and have earned enough to make games, especially when one steps back and remembers games do not need the best graphics or the deepest gameplay. I really think you also dismiss the pc and tablet markets to concentrate on consoles because that is what you are most familiar with, and to your harm for it. The triple A market is shrinking, the corporate culture behind it mixed with the draconian control of the product to the customer and lack of innovation (in regards to marketing or gameplay, not the innovation for innovation sake gimmicks and hardware they push) has stagnated it quite a bit and it does seem content to be what it is now more then ever. But look at the new consoles. Look at Sony's and Microsoft's push for indie titles, look at GoG and Steam's audience base. Look at the indie titles that have boomed beyond whatever the AAA industry shoveled out that year except possibly the company cash cows. Hell, look at the likes of http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/ a game that I swear was made on a RPG maker online. You can and will find great games everywhere, even games that suit and represent your taste in protagonist and story as soon as you break free of the Triple A box you keep locking yourself in. And even if you only stick to consoles, the industry has noticed the rise of the indie to the point they are marketing consoles on how well and easy they are to get you those indie titles too.

I get the feeling that you want something quite specific here. There is some genre or bunch of titles that you want a female protagonist or a decent story for in particular, and I can relate there. But I am willing to bet that those titles and genre are so saturated by people who are receptive to lowest common denominator marketing and design, that those games are very unlikely to give you what you seek.

You say minecraft and the like are pet projects of companies, but the opposite is true. They were threats to the companies because they were so popular so they put them on their consoles as well. I am sure losing audience to a competitor or to pc gaming does scare the big 3, all the more with the leek to mobile gaming and the fickle audience taste making the multi-million dollar investment strategies the AAA use all the riskier. Hell, they would not have made the access to indie and the like part of the system if they did not see both threat and potential profit sides of that coin.

 

[QuantumWalker]

Here is the generalization you are making with this post and from what I can gather from your previous ones.

1) The idea that games have ever been free from the creators of the games themselves, and/or the environments that they arise in.

In fact

- Gaming history has never been free from ideology, I don't remember anyone in this thread saying otherwise so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this line of thought?

This seems to be precisely what valium, chaosord, and boncrusher are saying. Chaosord asserts that games express no ideology other than playing games, he argues from a position that gaming is ideologically pure, beyond it perhaps. Even KiteTales, when her video was brought up, asserts that games are to be made with gamers in mind, not the whims of cultural and social critics. That's the same "keep your politics out of my game reviews" argument that ignores games are not free from politics to begin with. When someone endorses her video as a take-down of Sarkeesian I'm left with the impression they also agree with her apolitical outlook of gaming.

I'll have to re-read the last few pages but at least in the case of chaosord I feel like he is stating that the term "gamer" has become too ubiquitous for people to try to broadly define all gamers as hateful towards women.

2) The idea that games perpetuate patriarchal ideas and sentiments.

- Depending on how you define patriarchy the assumption you are making about all games is that they present men universally as inherently dominant and good and women as inherently subordination. You seem to be operating on the assumption that "larger number of male protagonists == definite attempt to keep women down". But please correct me if I am wrong and elaborate on why you feel that games are more oriented towards enforcing a patriarchal ideal.

That's something of an oversimplification; the number of male protagonists over female protagonists is not in itself a problem but rather the interaction between protagonist and female character or the female character and her presentation to the audience. The modern military shooter has thus-far completely removed women from the battlefield, a move often cited as being due to realism, but which is in itself unrealistic and presented in a genre where realism doesn't factor in. The exclusion of women makes no sense, and is difficult to explain away as being caused by something other than latent sexism.

I feel like regardless of the level of realism you expect from modern military themed FPS's with regenerating health; with the exception of those games that take place in years like 2030, not having a female presence on the battlefield because of their setting is a perfectly valid justification for their lack of presence. Keep in mind that in most militarized countries where women participate their still exists a minimum physical standard for groups like the U.S. Marines or the British SAS that presents a hurdle that has yet to be successfully and consitantly cleared by women. This is not a condemnation of the female sex just a statement of truth regarding the current climate of modern military statistics. Women are not in branches of military that games like COD relegate to main character status, and if my memory serve correctly their are still women in those games as pilots, civilians, and a few other roles. Not glamorous in light of the actions of the main character but not offensive either. And those games do feature

Several critics are also noting the possible "dadification" of games, the trend of "serious" games to feature stories about fathers "doing what they have to" in order to protect their daughters/surrogate daughters. This is really just upholding patriarchal standards of man as the disposable protector and woman as the frail one in need of protecting. I loved The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, and Bioshock Infinite but they're three games who are guilty as hell of this sort of attitude.

No complaint here. I agree that the whole "dad saves daughter surrogate" plot device is starting to get played out with modern AAA releases. IMO it still hasn't gotten to the point where it's particularly egregious to see it happen but it's getting their pretty quickly.

One inconsistency with what you are saying and what is actually happening is that games themselves do not push women away. Certain games are definitely offensive to women (sex simulators for one) but in most other cases it comes down to whether or not the style of gameplay, types of characters, or game story appeals to the gamer whether they be male of female. Their seems to be a reason why women gamers form the majority of puzzle game and sim game players while men seem to form the majority of FPS Players. It may come down to a difference in how both genders view meaningful ways to spend their time with the hobby but their is always a gray area between the two.

A sex simulator isn't necessarily offensive to women; hang around women's blogs on tumblr for a bit, you'll be shocked, shocked I tell you are how much porn these ladies consume. Hell, I had a long back and forth with an acquaintance on her about about what kinds of porn we both like. I think you meant to say "rape simulator" like Custer's Revenge I mentioned several pages ago and the eroge rape simulator that was banned in Japan a few years back...whose name escapes me.

The name you are searching for is Rapelay and yes that is the game I am referring too. I wasn't trying to make a distinction between the body positive women blogs you are referring too and some mythical female gamers who doesn't have any interest in pornography. It's just that games like Rapelay or Custer's Revenge seem like they would be immediately off-puttting due to their subject matter and handling of content.

Even if we agree that women generally don't like dudebro shooters, and I can scarcely blame them, that isn't evidence that the games aren't shooing them away. As I said above, shooters tend to remove women from the battlefield completely and usually for nonsensical reasons (realism in an unrealistic game). How exactly is a game like Dragon Age supposed to appeal to a female demographic who is tired of women being treated as T&A?

Their is also no evidence that these games are intentionally trying to keep women out. It boils down to consumer tastes and preferences. For those gamers who want to play as a female avatar in a modern military setting they will be hard pressed to find that kind of game in the current market. But this does not directly conclude that these games are sexist towards women with their subject matter, just that the current market is limited in how it appeals to specific demographics.

And like I said above, even if the game features unrealistic mechanics ripped straight from an action movie; if the setting is set in a time and place where you wouldn't see women on the battlefield you cannot fault those games for not putting them out there. I haven't played a COD game since World at War but I've never seen the lack of female soldiers as an attempt at being exclusionary.

As for Dragon Age, the game features a female playable character and possible romantic leads seems like a direct appeal to the female demographic. Outside of that the gameplay distiction between the male and female avatars are virtually identical because the larger narrative does not utilize the gender of the character as an ultimate determination of how the story goes does not hinge on whether you are a man or a woman. You have to start off the same and you kill the same final boss.

You also state that games present women as always attractive in order to appeal to the male gaze. The problem with that is, by default both male and female avatars are generally designed to be physically appealing and idealized as opposed to their users. For every buxom scantily clad female avatar you find their will exist an overwhelming number of handsome, toned, and unbelievably athletic male avatars. You would be hard pressed to find games that intentionally present the player with traditionally unattractive avatars to play as (the North American release of NIER comes to mind) and if they do you're looks may boil down to a non issue because NPC's won't react to your looks any different than they would otherwise (e.g. the various disfiguring scars you can give the PC of Mass Effect). Allow me to make a broad statement but outside of older RPG's that include a charisma stat I have never really played a game where my characters perceived appearance had an impact on the game (excluding playing a fantasy race that some NPC's didn't jive with)

The mistake you're making is that male gaze is a matter of context and presentation as much as it is content. There's nothing wrong with a gorgeous, buxom young woman in and of itself. The problem arises because women in games are often presented as objects the audience is supposed to want to possess, to fuck while men are presented as the idealized avatar that the gamer is supposed to want to be. Even in the Tomb Raider reboot the lead developer stated that you aren't supposed to want to be Lara Croft, you're supposed to want to protect her. There's a huge difference between how games present attractive women and how they present attractive men.

This is true.

3) The idea that gaming narratives focus on enforcing oppressive imagery and ideas onto female gamers

- Plainly put you would have to make a pretty convincing argument to tell me how games try to present the idea that "women are property" as an acceptable norm. To steal an annoying overused phrase

• "Games do not exist in a vacuum"

Even if a game did exist with the intention of trying to un-ironically tell women that they belonged in the household it would be shot down and lambasted by most modern communities.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying, I'm not saying that video games are, as part of the narrative, telling women they belong in the kitchen. I'm saying that reinforcing the position of man as protector and women as protected is patriarchal. No, there aren't any video games I know of that present women as footstools that clean your floors and give blowjobs.

I think the real issue at work here is a matter of scope and prevalence. I play a lot of RPG's and in my history with the genre you will find a mix of playable characters ranging from guys and girls of all types of makes. But the conversation at large seems to be focused on the current AAA industry which favors genres like the FPS and sports games. That limited focus is going to skew perceptions because outside of those genres you will find a multitude of games that either feature female protagonists, or games where gender is not an issue because you can create your own character(s) and fluff them up how you want.(e.g. Sim games, MMORPG's, games with non-specific PC's)

As far as the constant repetition of games with male heroes and female's who need help, I look at this issue as a sort of cultural lag that occurs whenever a large change occurs. The perception and reality of gamers in the 90's was that men were the largest audience. That has changed in the recent decade but our current industry hasn't fully caught up with the change in community. I can sympathise with female gamers who are tired of the same cliched stories, or feel excluded from certain gaming experiences because they lack an avatar to project themselves onto.

As for your final statement I'll say this. The idea that men are protectors is something that is deeply ingrained in our planet's collected cultures. It's an idea that has existed for as long as we have developed cultures. I won't decry this idea for existing within our society even if the fairer sex feels like it is oppressive to them. But you bet that both you and I can agree that without variety in our narratives ideas begin to stagnate and lose their meaning.

Plus I could do without hypothetical games that try to make sexual gratification an incentive for cleaning. I have enough problems getting my roommate to keep his half in order.

 

[runic knight]

Just some notes here

See, that's the negative behaviour I'm talking about.

People like you just see everything around you, or what we do as a big conspiracy towards female rights

This is the second time in this thread I've had to respond to the notion that patriarchy is an anti-woman conspiracy instead of a set of behaviors and ideals.

They said conspiracy, not patriarchy itself. And given how Anita presents things in her video, it does suggest decisions were made with intent in relation to gender (her outlook on damsels and especially her presentation of star fox). Say what you will about what patriarchy means, but attributing motivation for choices to sexism is insinuating a conspiracy

The problem with Anita is, she already concluded to a result. She believes all male gamers hate women, and the games are made to oppress the women rights. In her videos, she twists the facts in order to fit her result. This is not a fair and ethical behaviour. You need to make the idea around the facts, not the facts around the idea. This is why we don't like Anita, not for she is a woman.

This is what's called an argument from fallacy, in essence you've taken the idea that she reached her conclusion first and then found evidence for it as proof that her conclusion is wrong. You, much like KiteTales, are aiming small and missing big.

Actually, I don't see them saying the result is true or not, I see them criticizing the method, which is what you just did by mentioning fallacy at all. Attacking an argument for how it doesn't follow the path of logic doesn't make the conclusion right or wrong, it just invalidates the argument itself. Also it seems this was mentioned as a rebuttal to the idea that gamers hate women, which is a sound rebuttal (not sure if someone in the thread mentioned that as an argument so it is a little out of place but still, sound rebuttal)

In gaming communities, there are well appraised games with female protagonist like Portal

And Portal's subversive deconstruction of the FPS genre and feminist undertones went completely disregarded by the majority of the gaming community. Much ado was had about companion cubes and the lies that were told about cakes but nothing about the feminism the game espouses. Hell, how many gamers know that the lead developer on Narbacular Drop, Portal, Left 4 Dead 1+2 was the same woman? It wasn't until five years later that a deconstruction of the FPS genre was taken seriously as a deconstruction of the FPS genre, even though many of the same critiques were raised by Portal.

Doesn't the fact that most gamers largely ignored the themes and subversion to instead concentrate on memes and gameplay sort of undermines the entire argument that the "implied" themes and interpreted undertones you claim are there in a lot of games actually have an effect on gamers or contribute to any grand patriarchal ideal? Hell, the fact that gamers loved the games and ignored the feminism does more to support the guy saying that games are just games, then it does to support you here. If they obviously largely ignored a feminist message, then it didn't do anything to "rock the boat" so to speak and threaten their manhood or whatever, despite being designed with the intent to do just that, by being a subversion of the norm. If there was some sort of patriarchy within gaming, then any such inversion of expectation or standard would have resulted in a backlash because it upset the status quo and people don't like that. But that didn't happen, and in fact most games on the list are beloved by fans and critics alike. It is almost like gameplay and enjoyable characters are what players actually care about, and most couldn't give two shits about whatever personal interpretations one can take from the story for these sorts of games.

Beyond Good & Evil

A relic that hasn't seen a release in years, regarded as a mistake by its IP holder, and only seems to get brought up when gamers need to tell us how fine the gaming community/industry are.

The game has a cult following, a rapid fanbase begging for the sequel, regarded as a failure monetarily (it sort of was at the time most likely due to poor marketing choices) and is brought up to demonstrate a lot of things, from how good games can still appear from the industry to how their has been a shift in the industry that means such games are no longer likely from the triple A market. But it does showcase well that regardless what you may think about the industry having some goal of keeping female protagonists out of games, they aren't trying to, they simply act in a way that is practical according to the bean counters in charge of the show.

American McGee's Alice

...wut

Game where you play as Alice in some sort of twisted wonderland. Had a sequel. Probably fits with the Beyond good and evil in your mind here.

These are some of the most loved games for the alleged "women hater" male gamers. I'd be happy to see sequels to those games, and I am sure male gamers will, too. Many fan-favorite RPG classics like Fallout 1/2, Morrowind, World Of Warcraft, VTM Bloodlines, Baldur's Gate 1/2, Diablo 1/2, Kotor 1/2 enable to choose male/female sex for the character. But Anita still argues that male audience of all these games hate women or plot againsts the women rights, just because Mario and Zelda games used "Damsel in Distress" stories...

Recently a youtuber by the name of Noah Caldwell-Gervais released a video looking at Troika's games, particularly Arcanum and VTM. His conclusion was that Arcanum was a beautiful swansong to the isometric RPG and that VTM was historically important for the transition to the first-person RPG but otherwise a terrible game. He also, albeit briefly, criticized VTM's portrayals of women, noting that it was odd that Arcanum existed in a world where women couldn't even vote but still managed to portray women better. Over at RPGCodex, this was met with cries of "white-knighting hipster ******!" for several pages, with one person going so far as to assume that his hyphenated surname was evidence that he was a sullen "mangina" whose wife wore the pants.

Oh nos! People are vitriolic on the internet? Who'd have thought? Should we now move on to water being wet or was there some point relating specifically to gaming that somehow separates this bit of common sense from any other instance of internet hate you would see over religion, politics, movies, or favorite snack food?

The point is that RPGs aren't immune from this sort of stupidity, and the only reason I don't think we see more of it on The Escapist is because of their strong policies against being a dick to other users. It's also very odd that you would bring up VTM and World of Warcraft, which have absolutely terrible portrayals of women as a positive.

You mean when it comes to anonymity, having an active moderation team and a clear list of rules can do stop nearly all and most of the worst asshattery you would see in a completely free forum? Yeah, I think people already knew that, and make that argument quite a lot as for why pc gaming (with the player controlled and moderated servers) are so much better and nicer places then the likes of X-box live.

 

[Auron225]

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts, fee-dee-dee-dee
There they are standing in a row,
bum-de-bum-de-dum...

Big ones, small ones,
Some as big as your head!

...Just thought I'd lighten the mood around here. Give the mods something kinda happy to read before they lock this thread

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads, but thank you for the smile while I was clearing the queue.

Anytime I guess that would explain why this thing is now 29 pages long...

Auron225! Awaaaay!

 

[Lictor Face]

This thread is beginning to smell like a nuclear powered ball of fail.

Theres like a warning/suspension handed out every two pages or so.

Hell i don't even remember the main driving point of this thread now.

 

[IceForce]

Sadly we can't lock Featured Content/News Threads

Any reason as to WHY?

Because this thread is pretty bad. In fact it's one of the worst I've ever seen.
Had this thread been made by any ordinary user, it would've been locked within the first 3-5 pages.