It can't actually be avoided in this medium. Hamhandedly dumping an implausible gender utopia on the audience in a film will raise eyebrows, because we need the protagonist to have something oppressing them, giving them a reason to take up arms. But we begin playing a game with different assumptions, namely that we have as much agency as possible. We are willing to surrender agency if that itself is a plot point (e.g. the famous BioShock bit), but generally we feel insulted if the game doesn't let us do something, or if it doesn't hide that fact from us (e.g. we don't get mad at cliffs and fences obstructing our way out of the map, but invisible walls frustrate us).Labyrinth said:I do believe it's done with the best of intention. There are always issues in narratives of whether you use an accurate depiction, in which case people will be unsure if you're doing it for accuracy or because of actual sexism; or if you do something like that to point out that you're conscious of the issues, but it comes across as a bit condescending.Seneschal said:*snip*
There's no perfect way to go because showing a gender utopia would not necessarily be as compelling as showing inequality, if it's addressed. And there are always problems of coming across as preachy.
The same goes for gender options - we can watch Game of Thrones and not be offended at the limited roles of female characters (because the sexism is present, crucial to the story, and well-addressed), but if BioWare implemented the same sexism in the Dragon Age character creation process (as if they hadn't been inspired by GRRM enough), that would set us off, because we are willing to tolerate some implausibility and handwaving as long as we get to play.