[Silencer]

Duplicated posts deleted.

[Shinrei]

I am partly curious but mostly being a smartass when asking the following:

I wonder how many of you who assert that these games reinforce sexism and genuinely contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypical gender roles would turn around and vociferously deny that violence in video games has any correlating negative impact on society?

[Silencer]

Shinrei, on 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I am partly curious but mostly being a smartass when asking the following:

I wonder how many of you who assert that these games reinforce sexism and genuinely contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypical gender roles would turn around and vociferously deny that violence in video games has any correlating negative impact on society?

The man raises a good point. Given, studies are inconclusive, but tend towards suggesting video games have negligible/no lasting effect on violent tendencies and/or help to *alleviate* violent impulses (at least discounting extremely obviously biased ones which draw a definitive conclusion from terrible unscientific practices to advance their own agenda, though again, on the whole, it's inconclusive), what evidence then, do we have that video games depicting women poorly increases/has any effect on perceptions of women in society?

I think that, ignoring the fact that this only really ties into the "moral responsibility" argument which is, for most I assume, a distant second or more to the "it'd be damn nice to have stronger and more developed and respected female characters in games in general" argument, this question is interesting; I'd suggest that there is a difference between reinforcing an intangible (I don't mean that in the "can't feel its effects" sense, I guess) but already-present disposition, and inciting someone to actual physical violence, which involves both breaking the intangible/physical barrier and overriding existing societal and psychological constraints against the thing it supposedly provokes. I.e. you're fighting an uphill battle in the case of violence, whereas the ball is already rolling downhill apace in the case of sexism?

That hastily-strung-together speculation aside, I definitely think it has a lot to do with predispositions. That is to say, yes, a violent video game can and might push someone who is (strongly) predisposed to acts of violence ( and partially lacking psychological constraints against it) "over the edge" and/or just generally give them ideas. In the same sense, people who are, or in this case a society which is, predisposed towards 1D female characters may be reinforced in their views and encouraged to more openly practice the resulting behaviour in everyday life. It's not going to "make" people sexist or more so, if they are not already predisposed that way. As that awesome motivational with Morgan Freeman on it says, "What's the best way to stop racism?" "Stop talking about it.", you know?
And again, to reiterate, this is not a "be-all and end-all", cause-effect link. This is a "drop in the pond", that stacks up with other drops to form a problem.


And finally, all that is again very secondary to, "we want better female characters, dammit" (notwithstanding period-accurate or deliberate explorations of certain portrayals of women, just to repeat my earlier post ).


Is your semi-smartass/curious question answered? XD (goes my semi-smartass/sarcastically arrogant reply )

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 14 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

I am partly curious but mostly being a smartass when asking the following:

I wonder how many of you who assert that these games reinforce sexism and genuinely contribute to the perpetuation of stereotypical gender roles would turn around and vociferously deny that violence in video games has any correlating negative impact on society?

I would say that video games as an outlet are a good outlet. I would also say that video games both reflect and reinforce stereotypical behavior in people who play them. When all you get is 'women are dumb' from every input you have, you tend to start believing it. Just as if you get 'killing people is the way to solve disputes' from every input you have, you tend to start believing it.

I already commented that I want stories to move beyond 'save the dumb woman from her kidnapper', just as I would object if every single game was an orgy of slaughter and a revel of blood covered victims like a game say POSTAL or the 'No Russian' level from CODMW2.

The games that are literally nothing but an celebration of murder and drugs are few and far between, in the same way that Women shown in non-helpless roles are.

[cerveza_fiesta]

@SHin,

The most recent research has shown no causal link between video game violence and violent acts, only that violence in media (of any type) may stimulate pre-existing violent tendencies in unstable individuals. Research is ongoing however, and consensus is still very much out on that issue. Your question is therefore loaded. Someone answering in the affirmative with respect to the gender topic must also necessarily accept that violent video games promote violence, or else be forced into a contradiction - when it isn't clear that there's a contradiction at all (except in your view).

Anyway, the two ideas are roughly equivalent I guess. The way they're used in games differs though. Negative / unrealistic portrayal of women in video games tends to be more of a plot device wheras violence is more of a game mechanic...but maybe that doesn't matter.

Despite the "perfect world" ideals we've been talking about (D'rek's gender spectrum diagrams), it's pretty important to ask whether the negative/unbalanced/whatever portrayal of women in video games actually does any harm. To draw a direct parallel to the violence debate, do rational individuals simply recognize the offending content for what it is? Does it only affect and reinforce gender stereotypes among individuals predisposed to misogyny? Would doing something about portrayal of women in video games have any net benefit in that light?

That's a worthy research topic I think.

[Obdigore]

cerveza_fiesta, on 14 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

@SHin,

The most recent research has shown no causal link between video game violence and violent acts, only that violence in media (of any type) may stimulate pre-existing violent tendencies in unstable individuals. Research is ongoing however, and consensus is still very much out on that issue. Your question is therefore loaded. Someone answering in the affirmative with respect to the gender topic must also necessarily accept that violent video games promote violence, or else be forced into a contradiction - when it isn't clear that there's a contradiction at all (except in your view).

Actually, the consensus is very much not out on this subject. The only people who think there is a casual link between a 'normal' partaker of video games (read: someone who can see the different between reality and fantasy) are the same people who deny global warming. Those with something to prove.

http://psychcentral....sion/21824.html
http://www.washingto...nd-gun-murders/
http://www.utsandieg...s-and-violence/
http://chronicle.com...world-violence/
http://www.uta.fi/ar...-Aggression.pdf

Quote

Two studies examined the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression or violence in the laboratory
and in real life. Study 1 participants were either randomized or allowed to choose to play a violent or nonviolent game.
Although males were more aggressive than females, neither randomized exposure to violent-video-game conditions nor previ-
ous real-life exposure to violent video games caused any differences in aggression. Study 2 examined correlations between trait
aggression, violent criminal acts, and exposure to both violent games and family violence. Results indicated that trait aggres-
sion, family violence, and male gender were predictive of violent crime, but exposure to violent games was not. Structural
equation modeling suggested that family violence and innate aggression as predictors of violent crime were a better fit to the
data than was exposure to video game violence. These results question the common belief that violent-video-game exposure
causes violent acts.

I tried to avoid those places that would be pro one side or another. If you honestly believe that there is any real debate in the acedemic community, I ask you to present your sources at this point in time.

[dietl]

BalrogLord, on 14 March 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Efficient market theory and positive accounting theory are positive business models

i'll accept your point on normative for the purposes of this thread. I don't think its really relevant to the topic and we shouldn't get too side tracked. That being said i wouldn't mind pursuing this further in pm if you're ok with it.

Even a blind man can see this in the bright light of a black hole, yes... positive business model whatever.

I agree that this doesn't really contibute to the topic so let's leave it at that. I think we can all agree that companies need to take a risk by making games that have innovative elements and that many many companies are not willing to risk their profit with this. For some reason Mr. Krabs comes into my mind. Let's say it like this: I don't agree with Milton Friedman. If you do, I don't think I can or even want to change that, but what often irks me is the missuse/rape of the word 'logic'. I see it in many discussions that someone points out that 'Logic says X' or 'A is true for logical reasons' when its definitely not the case. "Logic" says nothing! Every statement is based on principles, defintions or assumptions. Something is true for logical reasons if and only if it is true by definition. People try to give their arguments more power than they deserve.
So, Enough of my little rant.

I think there is a trend from other media that people are asking more and more for realism. And tropes are in general not realistic in a certain way. People use tropes only for lazyness, because they have no time or other resources to create something that is as complex as the real world. So I support every trend that makes companies use less tropes. It has been said before that they aren't bad/good per se, but I think they are still something to avoid or at least to subvert when someone tries to create any art.

[pathos]

I just want to add that I dont think using the mario/donkey kong games as examples of games that only use the DID trope are that good. Mario 2 you can in fact play as Peach, Mario 64 doesnt have a DID element (as far as i can remember i could be wrong). The mario bros game i played in the arcade involved nothing more than knocking over "bad guys" by hitting the platform under them and then jumping on them. With regards to the Donkey Kong games I have played Donkey Kong Jr where you play The ape's child trying to rescue him from mario who has captured him and the Donkey Kong island games you play as both the male and female ape.

[Morgoth]

So, are we people now seriously arguing that because video game does not measurably influence one kind of behaviour, they cannot influence any kind of behaviour?

[cerveza_fiesta]

Obdigore, on 14 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

cerveza_fiesta, on 14 March 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

@SHin,

The most recent research has shown no causal link between video game violence and violent acts, only that violence in media (of any type) may stimulate pre-existing violent tendencies in unstable individuals. Research is ongoing however, and consensus is still very much out on that issue. Your question is therefore loaded. Someone answering in the affirmative with respect to the gender topic must also necessarily accept that violent video games promote violence, or else be forced into a contradiction - when it isn't clear that there's a contradiction at all (except in your view).

Actually, the consensus is very much not out on this subject. The only people who think there is a casual link between a 'normal' partaker of video games (read: someone who can see the different between reality and fantasy) are the same people who deny global warming. Those with something to prove.

http://psychcentral....sion/21824.html
http://www.washingto...nd-gun-murders/
http://www.utsandieg...s-and-violence/
http://chronicle.com...world-violence/
http://www.uta.fi/ar...-Aggression.pdf

Quote

Two studies examined the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression or violence in the laboratory
and in real life. Study 1 participants were either randomized or allowed to choose to play a violent or nonviolent game.
Although males were more aggressive than females, neither randomized exposure to violent-video-game conditions nor previ-
ous real-life exposure to violent video games caused any differences in aggression. Study 2 examined correlations between trait
aggression, violent criminal acts, and exposure to both violent games and family violence. Results indicated that trait aggres-
sion, family violence, and male gender were predictive of violent crime, but exposure to violent games was not. Structural
equation modeling suggested that family violence and innate aggression as predictors of violent crime were a better fit to the
data than was exposure to video game violence. These results question the common belief that violent-video-game exposure
causes violent acts.

I tried to avoid those places that would be pro one side or another. If you honestly believe that there is any real debate in the acedemic community, I ask you to present your sources at this point in time.

TBH I didn't research indepth and used too strong of wording with the "very much out" comment. I was trying to be diplomatic toward one with an opposing point of view. Apparently there is more of a consensus as to *no* causal link than I thought. Thanks.

EDIT

And anyway, it wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I was calling out the loaded question and trying to draw a parallel between the game violence and portrayal of women themes. Could the research from the violence aspect of video games be directly applied here? If rational, reasoning, thinking individuals see a woman portrayed in a less-than-ideal light, does it actually affect anyone's attitude?

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 14 March 2013 - 05:29 PM

[Shinrei]

@lol Morgoth. I said, I was being a smartass.

It's just a poke at people to suggest that they are quick to dismiss any insidious affect on society from video game violence, but turn around and accept that sexism of DiD has an insidious affect on society.

I think there are fair arguments that they are not the same thing and therefore should be considered differently (see others posts above).

That being said, we HAVE research on violence in video games and society. Is there any actual research of the same for sexism?

[worry]

That's a good question, and I think the answer (for video games specifically) is no. I don't think they've been taken seriously long enough (and I don't count politicians scapegoating them for the past few decades as serious). So I think what Sarkeesian is doing is a good jumping off point, if nothing else. There has of course been plenty of discourse in terms of media in general, as well as the gendering of products (especially aimed at young people). Video games do straddle the boundaries between media, product, and games/toys. It might always be a bit tougher than violence (since that at least has the potential for raw numbers to enter the picture).

But anyway, there's been plenty of discourse on, say, the "princess-ification" of girls, whether that's negative or harmless. Then there's the issue of whether it's the princess aspect that matters, or the passivity of princesses in the stories we tell each other. In other words, it comes back to being the subject vs. the object, having agency, etc. I agree wholeheartedly with both how Sarkeesian differentiates between Zelda (who's grown in agency to what is essentially "sidekick" level) to Peach (who is usually passive throughout; SMB2 was given a fair shake and Super Princess Peach was given a "to be continued" so far), and how it's still a shame that Zelda does generally get kidnapped later in even these games anyway. It's always Link's story, but I'd love to see a Zelda/Sheik vehicle. As an aside, I'm playing Spirit Tracks right now, by coincidence, and there's a moment in the game where you solve a block-positioning puzzle and Zelda literally says "Wow, impressive, I've never been good at these kinds of things!" that really stuck out like a sore thumb.

There's also some emergent thought on androcentrism (the valuing of the masculine over the feminine, regardless of who's doing it) over traditional sexism (males over females). There's a pretty neat video that went viral last year I think which demonstrates this notion:


And here's some discussion of it: http://thesocietypag...alyzes-her-dad/
It's interesting the distinction between what the girl says and what her father says...I was not wholly familiar with sociological terms like symmetrical analysis and asymmetrical analysis, though it's the kind of concept a layman can recognize without knowing the right words for it.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 14 March 2013 - 10:57 PM

[Silencer]

dietl, on 14 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 14 March 2013 - 02:41 AM, said:

Efficient market theory and positive accounting theory are positive business models

i'll accept your point on normative for the purposes of this thread. I don't think its really relevant to the topic and we shouldn't get too side tracked. That being said i wouldn't mind pursuing this further in pm if you're ok with it.

Even a blind man can see this in the bright light of a black hole, yes... positive business model whatever.

I agree that this doesn't really contibute to the topic so let's leave it at that. I think we can all agree that companies need to take a risk by making games that have innovative elements and that many many companies are not willing to risk their profit with this. For some reason Mr. Krabs comes into my mind. Let's say it like this: I don't agree with Milton Friedman. If you do, I don't think I can or even want to change that, but what often irks me is the missuse/rape of the word 'logic'. I see it in many discussions that someone points out that 'Logic says X' or 'A is true for logical reasons' when its definitely not the case. "Logic" says nothing! Every statement is based on principles, defintions or assumptions. Something is true for logical reasons if and only if it is true by definition. People try to give their arguments more power than they deserve.
So, Enough of my little rant.

I think there is a trend from other media that people are asking more and more for realism. And tropes are in general not realistic in a certain way. People use tropes only for lazyness, because they have no time or other resources to create something that is as complex as the real world. So I support every trend that makes companies use less tropes. It has been said before that they aren't bad/good per se, but I think they are still something to avoid or at least to subvert when someone tries to create any art.

I agree with the general misuse of the word logic (and the word 'rational' to boot, which I think I've called certain people on before...) however there isn't much point in getting upset over it as it will undoubtedly continue given the way the word is now used colloquially to broad effect and nobody really bothers to correct them any more. I blame Spock.

Regards the Tropes issue you raise; I disagree. While there is a basis for what you say, it is not entirely true. Take for example, Reality is Unrealistic. It used to be a much better page but suffice it to say it still summarises how, for many people, the 'Tropes of the Trade' have supplanted reality in their perception of what depictions are "realistic". When people cry out for more "realistic" portrayals of something, they don't necessarily mean realistic.
It is also fair to say that Tropes ARE reality. Tropes are not inherently unrealistic any more than a painting is inherently surrealist or whatever. In fact, the very foundation of tropes are as codified descriptions of patterns in media - it's not a dictionary definition of the concept but it's how the phrase is most commonly used today. Therefore any given Trope can be more or less realistic, depending on the pattern it represents, and even more than that, no Trope exists in isolation - subversions and aversions are Tropes themselves, and it is not always "more realistic" to do so, nor is it always "better". In the same vein, as media is a reflection of reality, you can see how easy it is to then see tropes in reality - they are, after all, what influenced the patter to appear in fiction in the first place, regardless of the form that influence took (limited experience/perspective bias/deliberate subversion/etc).
Throw on top of that the fact that fiction is by its very nature something other than reality (or, rather, it conveys something other than reality - fiction itself by virtue of existing in reality is...OK I'll stop) and there is no unified call for fiction to be "realistic". While as above it is clearly influenced by reality, that doesn't speak to what it portrays, for good reason. People still like escapes from reality, and they still enjoy things like Star Wars, or The Princess Bride, regardless of their level of "realism".

Basically, this ties back into my point that: having a negative stereotype depicted in a work is not inherently bad or wrong. If it is done well, or for the right reasons, it's perfectly acceptable and helps avoid creating an anachronism in period-pieces. THAT is why "Tropes are not (inherently) Bad" - you're arbitrarily limiting Tropes to a specific subset in order to support the view that less tropes should be used...I think as a skilled debater, you can see the flaw in your reasoning there.

Morgoth, on 14 March 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

So, are we people now seriously arguing that because video game does not measurably influence one kind of behaviour, they cannot influence any kind of behaviour?

I don't think anyone outright said that, Cpt. Strawman. In fact most of us argued for the differences in the (potential) influences of different kinds of behaviour. Shin's question however was a valid one, no matter how you read it.

[King Lear]

Silencer, on 15 March 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

(/snip)

Basically, this ties back into my point that: having a negative stereotype depicted in a work is not inherently bad or wrong. If it is done well, or for the right reasons, it's perfectly acceptable and helps avoid creating an anachronism in period-pieces. THAT is why "Tropes are not (inherently) Bad" - you're arbitrarily limiting Tropes to a specific subset in order to support the view that less tropes should be used...I think as a skilled debater, you can see the flaw in your reasoning there.

Morgoth, on 14 March 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

So, are we people now seriously arguing that because video game does not measurably influence one kind of behaviour, they cannot influence any kind of behaviour?

I don't think anyone outright said that, Cpt. Strawman. In fact most of us argued for the differences in the (potential) influences of different kinds of behaviour. Shin's question however was a valid one, no matter how you read it.

Depicting negative stereotypes isn't inherently bad, although that's doesn't mean that the stereotype (and therefore the depiction) is incorrect though. And presenting negative stereotypes without investigation or comment in media is generally going to be wrong and bad because that's the point where you start perpetuating and enforcing the stereotype, and it the perpetuation that is harmful (and frequently anachronistic, because a stereotype is seldom a nuanced reflection of reality). Most media won't bother going into the details of the stereotype (why it is a stereotype, how it got to be one, what impact the stereotype has on whatever it is that doesn't fit the stereotype etc etc because it generally superfluous to what they're trying to do. Relevant example ahoy: Princess Peach isn't the purpose of Super Mario Bros, the purpose is to play the game and beat each level. Peach may as well be a magical chair for all the roll she has to play in the game. The developers don't care about her lack of agency or anything because she, as a character, is irrelevant. The problem is that being irrelevant as a character is a part of the trope Female as Object to Attained and it's pervasive. I'm not really disagreeing with you here as such, but I do take exception to the anachronistic thing, because a massive amount of period-media is anachronistic because creators rely on stereotypes that don't necessarily hold a factual basis instead of doing proper research. Which I understand, because 1) it's hard to recognise when you don't know something because you think you do, and 2) research takes a long time, but that doesn't mean they get to get away with it damn it

And actually, I agree with Morgoth, that's exactly Shin's question was designed to do (it's a traaaaaap), even if that's not necessarily a view he holds (although I frequently find the role of devil's advocate suspect). So not really valid. Looking at the impact of video game violence requires at least some analysis: who's inflicting the violence? who's receiving it? what are the connections between the two? Is the violence gendered, is it racially motivated, is the setting accurate (thinking about war games here) are you able to pick the other side or is the player always a member of one group while the other side is forever and always 'othered'? What are the trends? how do those trends fit in with other social narrative about the "other" and about who does violence and who receives it and whether or not it is 'deserved' or accompanied by slurs. Those sort of questions. Not 'does play acting pulling a trigger incline you to go and shoot up your school', because if that was the case we'd ban kids from playing cops and robbers in their back yards.

Problematic violence in video games does exist and it is problematic depending on context... kinda like how the depiction of female characters in video games is often problematic. It's not the existence of the violence or the women, it's how it/they are depicted. Going on a shooting spree at school as a direct result of playing a game that involves shooting aliens is about as likely as rescuing a woman from an over-large and rather spiky turtle because you play super Mario Bros. The point is that shitty depictions of women (and anyone else for that matter, although that's not what we're talking about here) have a pernicious influence on our thinking. It's a facile question and a touch smugly derailing because negative depictions of women =/= ALL video game violence ever.

edit: for spelling mistakes and whatnot

This post has been edited by Ornery Owl: 15 March 2013 - 02:21 AM

[Silencer]

Ornery Owl, on 15 March 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Silencer, on 15 March 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

(/snip)

Basically, this ties back into my point that: having a negative stereotype depicted in a work is not inherently bad or wrong. If it is done well, or for the right reasons, it's perfectly acceptable and helps avoid creating an anachronism in period-pieces. THAT is why "Tropes are not (inherently) Bad" - you're arbitrarily limiting Tropes to a specific subset in order to support the view that less tropes should be used...I think as a skilled debater, you can see the flaw in your reasoning there.

Morgoth, on 14 March 2013 - 04:35 PM, said:

So, are we people now seriously arguing that because video game does not measurably influence one kind of behaviour, they cannot influence any kind of behaviour?

I don't think anyone outright said that, Cpt. Strawman. In fact most of us argued for the differences in the (potential) influences of different kinds of behaviour. Shin's question however was a valid one, no matter how you read it.

Depicting negative stereotypes isn't inherently bad, although that's doesn't mean that the stereotype (and therefore the depiction) is incorrect though. And presenting negative stereotypes without investigation or comment in media is generally going to be wrong and bad because that's the point where you start perpetuating and enforcing the stereotype, and it the perpetuation that is harmful (and frequently anachronistic, because a stereotype is seldom a nuanced reflection of reality). Most media won't bother going into the details of the stereotype (why it is a stereotype, how it got to be one, what impact the stereotype has on whatever it is that doesn't fit the stereotype etc etc because it generally superfluous to what they're trying to do. Relevant example ahoy: Princess Peach isn't the purpose of Super Mario Bros, the purpose is to play the game and beat each level. Peach may as well be a magical chair for all the roll she has to play in the game. The developers don't care about her lack of agency or anything because she, as a character, is irrelevant. The problem is that being irrelevant as a character is a part of the trope Female as Object to Attained and it's pervasive. I'm not really disagreeing with you here as such, but I do take exception to the anachronistic thing, because a massive amount of period-media is anachronistic because creators rely on stereotypes that don't necessarily hold a factual basis instead of doing proper research. Which I understand, because 1) it's hard to recognise when you don't know something because you think you do, and 2) research takes a long time, but that doesn't mean they get to get away with it damn it

None of which actually argues against what I was saying AT ALL. I very clearly and repeatedly stated that it has to be done with specific intentions - that is to say, doing it *as* commentary on perceptions, doing it because your work is derivative of a time when said views were commonplace, or, dare it be said, doing it because you intend to write an Aesop about misconceptions. My point about period pieces is precisely that - it's not exclusively related to depictions of women, for a start - if you were doing a film set in 1850's America and white people were going around treating black people like they were equals who had the right to vote etc that would be an anachronism. Similarly a period piece that depicts a state military consisting of several women would be incorrect in a large percentage of cases. THAT is my point. Don't strawman my point to try and argue against people indulging the trope of "Did Not Do the Research" when my point implicitly and explicitly excludes those examples from falling under it, tyvm!

Quote

And actually, I agree with Morgoth, that's exactly Shin's question was designed to do (it's a traaaaaap), even if that's not necessarily a view he holds (although I frequently find the role of devil's advocate suspect).

No wonder you and I so often sit on the opposite side of the table. Devil's Advocate is the BEST role, both for provoking discussion and raising otherwise awkward points. Without Devil's Advocates, many a discussion would not exist, imo.

Quote

So not really valid. Looking at the impact of video game violence requires at least some analysis: who's inflicting the violence? who's receiving it? what are the connections between the two? Is the violence gendered, is it racially motivated, is the setting accurate (thinking about war games here) are you able to pick the other side or is the player always a member of one group while the other side is forever and always 'othered'? What are the trends? how do those trends fit in with other social narrative about the "other" and about who does violence and who receives it and whether or not it is 'deserved' or accompanied by slurs. Those sort of questions. Not 'does play acting pulling a trigger incline you to go and shoot up your school', because if that was the case we'd ban kids from playing cops and robbers in their back yards.

Uhm...have you SEEN some of the "research" on the links between video games and violence? Because I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of them ask just that last little question and naught else. Granted, those are the crap ones whose conclusions we can readily discount, but to act as if most studies on the subject take into account all, or even any, of those other factors is just silly.
And...I know you and I both have allergies towards NZ Herald, but you surely must've heard about the people who in fact DO want to ban kids from playing cops and robbers, surely...[inb4 "don't call me Shirley"]

Quote

Problematic violence in video games does exist and it is problematic depending on context... kinda like how the depiction of female characters in video games is often problematic. It's not the existence of the violence or the women, it's how it/they are depicted. Going on a shooting spree at school as a direct result of playing a game that involves shooting aliens is about as likely as rescuing a woman from an over-large and rather spiky turtle because you play super Mario Bros. The point is that shitty depictions of women (and anyone else for that matter, although that's not what we're talking about here) have a pernicious influence on our thinking. It's a facile question and a touch smugly derailing because negative depictions of women =/= ALL video game violence ever.

edit: for spelling mistakes and whatnot

But that is hardly the distinction made in the context of discussions on video game violence. Unless you're arguing with rational individuals who have little bias on the subject and are somewhat informed of the (decent) studies on the matter, you DO get people claiming that playing Halo makes you more inclined towards school shootings. The point is that, actually, the type of violence is less of a problem than the...hrm...readiness? Of the player's mind to adapt those depictions to the real world. The most realistic simulation of a school shooting on the planet is not going to make you or I more inclined to go out and commit one (it may in fact make us less likely to do so) - but if the person playing it is already considering doing that and has reduced psychological inhibitions towards doing that, then yes, it is going to have an effect.

Which is why, if you read my posts, I make a point of stating that the difference between your everyday violent game and blanket depictions of women in media is that one is fighting an uphill battle (videogame violence) and the other is just one more little push on the rock that is already rolling downhill - I don't argue that media doesn't have an effect on people's thinking, just that there are more circumstances than "does" and "does not" and more factors than are being taken into account (which I think we both agree on).


In fact in general I get the feeling that you and I agree on the subject and that you're just picking fights where there are none.

[King Lear]

The problem is that you're assuming my post is arguing against yours instead of using it as a platform for expressing my own thoughts, which while might be a bit different from yours, if they're not saying 'I disagree about X, generally, I'm not disagreeing, so piss off to your 'picking fights where there are none' comment Also without devil's advocate arguments would exist, because there are always people who are wrong and refuse to think about things thoroughly because accepting whatever 'wisdom' they were brought up with is easier than looking for facts. Not to mention the position is a luxury for people especially when talking about social issue who don't have to deal with the lived experience of whatever that issue is and I find that somewhat repugnant to be honest. But that's neither here nor there.


And my point about anachronism is that if you're doing a film set in 1850's America, showing why the fact that they did not treat black people as equals is bad is still more preferable in terms of dealing with stereotyping instead of just showing it as a 'given' or ignoring it. Which comes back to my point about research. A lot of media simply ignores disenfranchised people in the period they're dealing with. Their dimensionality is often disappeared because they're not integral to the plot or whatever. Like Peach, they're decoration for the sake of (in this case) historical authenticity. Which is kinda lame, actually, and not exactly sitting outside of the 'not harmful' box.

Quote

Uhm...have you SEEN some of the "research" on the links between video games and violence? Because I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of them ask just that last little question and naught else. Granted, those are the crap ones whose conclusions we can readily discount, but to act as if most studies on the subject take into account all, or even any, of those other factors is just silly.
And...I know you and I both have allergies towards NZ Herald, but you surely must've heard about the people who in fact DO want to ban kids from playing cops and robbers, surely...[inb4 "don't call me Shirley"]

Underlines = my point. Those studies are useless for actually studying violence in society. Also people who actually want to stop kids from playing games like that don't change the fact that the argument is clearly idiotic.

This post has been edited by Ornery Owl: 15 March 2013 - 03:47 AM

[worry]

The Devil already has an advocate in video games. His name is....

Spoiler

Mr. Mime!!!

[Shinrei]

Ornery, you're well justified in not trusting devils advocates. However in this case, I have experienced enough of the "shoe on the other foot" so to speak, seeing the portrayal of non-Japanese in Japanese media in Japan. These often a play up the stereotypes (stilted Japanese, culturally clumsy, over exaggerated expressions, gestures and loudness to name a few) and I can't help but believe it helps these stereotypes remain fresh in the conciousness of those who don't really bother to consider these things. We need to move beyond the pigeonholing.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 15 March 2013 - 08:59 AM

[dietl]

Silencer, on 15 March 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

I agree with the general misuse of the word logic (and the word 'rational' to boot, which I think I've called certain people on before...) however there isn't much point in getting upset over it as it will undoubtedly continue given the way the word is now used colloquially to broad effect and nobody really bothers to correct them any more. I blame Spock.

Regards the Tropes issue you raise; I disagree. While there is a basis for what you say, it is not entirely true. Take for example, Reality is Unrealistic. It used to be a much better page but suffice it to say it still summarises how, for many people, the 'Tropes of the Trade' have supplanted reality in their perception of what depictions are "realistic". When people cry out for more "realistic" portrayals of something, they don't necessarily mean realistic. It is also fair to say that Tropes ARE reality.


Basically, this ties back into my point that: having a negative stereotype depicted in a work is not inherently bad or wrong. If it is done well, or for the right reasons, it's perfectly acceptable and helps avoid creating an anachronism in period-pieces. THAT is why "Tropes are not (inherently) Bad" - you're arbitrarily limiting Tropes to a specific subset in order to support the view that less tropes should be used...I think as a skilled debater, you can see the flaw in your reasoning there.

I wasn't really upset . I know my rant was a drop in the ocean. As much as I like Spock, from time to time he says pretty stupid things (mostly as a plot device to make Kirk look better ) ;-) .

I agree with you and when reading my comment I will have to take back some things ( like "I think they are still something to avoid or at least to subvert when someone tries to create any art."). Great art can be created with tropes. This argument wasn't thought out well enough. But the point you make about tropes not being unrealistic is something I at least wanted to hint at with: "And tropes are in general not realistic in a certain way. "

Maybe 'trope' was the wrong word. Should have used 'cliché'.

The best discussions are the ones where everybody plays Devil's Advocate

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
intro video



on anita on video games
Been seeing a quite a few critique videos, it's always good to have both sides. In hindsight, after watching a few of her videos i have noticed that she talks about the objectification of women, but what of the objectification of men. Yes it's not exactly the same thing, and ehr focus is feminism, however i feel that if the intent is truly to spark discussion should we not be talking about the objectification of gender as oppossed to the objectification of women

What is gender anyways? it's a concept that has always eluded me. I'm tempted to view gender as a social construct yet the existence of individuals requring gender correction seems to contradict this notion. Kinda unfortunate on my part since there an individual in my program i've talked to a few times who had her gendered corrected. I probably ask her next time i see her.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 12 April 2013 - 03:11 AM