[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 10 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

I think one can argue that in a vacuum "a damsel in distress" can be one of several neutral plot devices...but the sheer wealth of evidence/examples Sarkeesian gathers here for the imbalance of damsels in distress (as opposed to say, dudes in distress) -- from that Starfox re-write example to the Double Dragon intro (played it countless times as a kid, was always disturbed by that punch) through the comparison of imprisoned males (agency) vs imprisoned females (no agency) -- lends weight to it being a problem and not just a choice. I also don't think the notion of who you're selling it to (ie perhaps mostly males in the 80s) excuses the problems in the trope, if you're cashing in on people's worst natures. Sure, customers shape culture, but it's not a one-way interaction. For instance, I was pretty disturbed by the constant misogynist talk -- admittedly from mostly villains -- in Arkham City. It was a bombardment that uglied an excellent game. And I couldn't help but connect the notion that it didn't sound so different from the talk of plenty of gamers, even if the game put it in villains' mouths. I also kind of think there are plenty of male gamers who, while ambivalent about the tropes like this, will generally side with buying a good game despite its problems. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to see changes.

I appreciate the mention of Beyond Good and Evil, fantastic protagonist. Perfect Dark was solid along these lines too, at least as far as I got (unfortunately never completed the story mode). I don't want to keep wondering what's gonna be in D.I.D. part 2, but I am curious if she'll have a take on Braid and what it might be.

I was thinking of Perfect Dark while reading this thread.

Frankly, I don't play enough video games to have noticed it still exists, and those I do play tend to be RPG or sports games such where I choose my own stories so another reason I might not have noticed it.

Interesting topic.

[Illuyankas]

D, on 10 March 2013 - 03:40 AM, said:

Ew, okay Illy now you've got me reading about boob jiggle physics controversies... yeah okay I am definitely limiting my previous statement back to no more than soul calibur 2 and before. And I was thinking about Cassandra, Taki and Xianghua in my head, mostly (ok, well no I was thinking about Maxi a lot in my head, but you know what I mean )

And what? When does Saria get kidnapped? She is all motherly and helps run the village and then is sad that her friend is leaving but she teaches him a song that is helpful like any good supporting character in a zelda game should. I don't remember her getting kidnapped?

(I am not good knowledge to make talk good on this topic I think)

Oh, Saria is one of the Sages so she gets sealed up behind the first adult dungeon boss, only to transform into a giant key who shows up a grand total of four times later on in the game, one of those with a line and none of them for more than twenty seconds.

[MTS]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 March 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

worrywort, on 10 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

I think one can argue that in a vacuum "a damsel in distress" can be one of several neutral plot devices...but the sheer wealth of evidence/examples Sarkeesian gathers here for the imbalance of damsels in distress (as opposed to say, dudes in distress) -- from that Starfox re-write example to the Double Dragon intro (played it countless times as a kid, was always disturbed by that punch) through the comparison of imprisoned males (agency) vs imprisoned females (no agency) -- lends weight to it being a problem and not just a choice. I also don't think the notion of who you're selling it to (ie perhaps mostly males in the 80s) excuses the problems in the trope, if you're cashing in on people's worst natures. Sure, customers shape culture, but it's not a one-way interaction. For instance, I was pretty disturbed by the constant misogynist talk -- admittedly from mostly villains -- in Arkham City. It was a bombardment that uglied an excellent game. And I couldn't help but connect the notion that it didn't sound so different from the talk of plenty of gamers, even if the game put it in villains' mouths. I also kind of think there are plenty of male gamers who, while ambivalent about the tropes like this, will generally side with buying a good game despite its problems. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to see changes.

I appreciate the mention of Beyond Good and Evil, fantastic protagonist. Perfect Dark was solid along these lines too, at least as far as I got (unfortunately never completed the story mode). I don't want to keep wondering what's gonna be in D.I.D. part 2, but I am curious if she'll have a take on Braid and what it might be.

I was thinking of Perfect Dark while reading this thread.

Frankly, I don't play enough video games to have noticed it still exists, and those I do play tend to be RPG or sports games such where I choose my own stories so another reason I might not have noticed it.

Interesting topic.

The DID trope definitely still exists, though perhaps in less overtly sexist tones, and it's getting slightly better I think. As Sarkeesian noted, even the Zelda games have been trying to give Zelda a little more agency, even if they still end up reverting to the stale formula that they have used a dozen times before. On an even more recent note Far Cry 3 did a pretty good and realistic job I thought.

Spoiler

Not only did you have Handsome Men in Distress, but there's an express mention of one of the guys being raped while in captivity. The guys are vulnerable and have as little agency as the women, and in fact one of the women even escapes on her own while the men have to be rescued by the protagonist.

[Assail]

So you mean to tell me.... these people are spending countless hours trying to prove that an age old story arc/plot device in video games is disempowering women?

This is definitely one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever witnessed.

[Morgoth]

I thought Mass Effect did the whole thing very well. All of the women have their own personalities, goals, dreams. I know agency is the popular word and most of them have that aplenty. And except for the "designer copied look and dress from his favourite dominatrix porn" Justicar, I don't think dress was used to overly sexualise the characters. Well, Miranda, there were some butt shots, but there's nothing inherently wrong with playing on a characters sexuality as long as that does not become a defining feature.

Fighting games on the other hand are embarrassing.

And chain mail bikinis. Christ, I'm not buying any games with that sort of shit. You know when those sorts of things are used that the writing will be awful too.

Dragon age wasn't too bad, but DA2 on the other hand went at times full retard. Especially with cup size. When every female character holds a third of their total mass in the chest area, you know the character designers are people who struggle to understand the point of regular showers.

[Silencer]

Please bear the discussion board rules in mind when posting, everyone. Civility and no personal insults!

[Morgoth]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Assail, on 10 March 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

So you mean to tell me.... these people are spending countless hours trying to prove that an age old story arc/plot device in video games is disempowering women?

This is definitely one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever witnessed.

[Post has been unapproved for content]

Though I agree that Assail's post was rather daft, and perhaps not too surprising, I don't think we need to use that sort of language in here. There are enough opposing view points in the DB for the use of language to be important even in respons to that sort of post.

This post has been edited by Silencer: 10 March 2013 - 12:15 PM
Reason for edit: To remove the offending content from the quote, to avoid redundancy. :P

[HoosierDaddy]

Evidently I pushed the ball past the post.

Apologies for having done so.

[Morgoth]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 March 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Evidently I pushed the ball past the post.

Apologies for having done so.

I would still let you cuddle any time

[the broken]

worrywort, on 10 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

For instance, I was pretty disturbed by the constant misogynist talk -- admittedly from mostly villains -- in Arkham City. It was a bombardment that uglied an excellent game. And I couldn't help but connect the notion that it didn't sound so different from the talk of plenty of gamers, even if the game put it in villains' mouths. I also kind of think there are plenty of male gamers who, while ambivalent about the tropes like this, will generally side with buying a good game despite its problems. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to see changes.

These people work for the Joker. You're expecting them to be nice?

I think including it in the damsels examples is a little unfair. Arkham City actually worked pretty well. Batman saves people, it's what he does, whether thats

Spoiler

Talia, Vicki Vale, and Stacy Bake, and Catwoman (debatable, as she frees herself)

or

Spoiler

Jack Ryder, Quincy Sharp, Zsasz's victims, or the Riddler's, or that two face thug who was hanging over the pit of molten metal.

He saves more men than women in that game.

This post has been edited by the broken: 10 March 2013 - 05:06 PM

[amphibian]

Assail, on 10 March 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

So you mean to tell me.... these people are spending countless hours trying to prove that an age old story arc/plot device in video games is disempowering women?

This is definitely one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever witnessed.

Why is it a waste of time?

[Assail]

HoosierDaddy, on 10 March 2013 - 12:26 PM, said:

Evidently I pushed the ball past the post.

Apologies for having done so.

I'm always okay with people being frank with me Hoosier. I still have much love to you. With that being said, I should have elaborated on why I thought it was a waste of time and offered something constructive to my post. I do want to know what you said though lol.

amphibian, on 10 March 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Assail, on 10 March 2013 - 11:04 AM, said:

So you mean to tell me.... these people are spending countless hours trying to prove that an age old story arc/plot device in video games is disempowering women?

This is definitely one of the biggest wastes of time I have ever witnessed.

Why is it a waste of time?

I just fail to see the value in obviously spending countless hours going through and ranting about how a storyline that has often defined many cultures mythos is "taking power away from women". 1) It is a work of fiction, 2) If you're letting a work of fiction take away from personal value of yourself, your issues probably don't lie with the people making these games, and you should go pursue these with a psychologist/psychiatrist 3) I don't think any man here, or any man in the world who is of sound mind feels empowered by having a male protagonist rescuing a damsel in distress, just as a woman most likely doesn't feel disempowered because a female character is not playable, in skimpy clothes and in need of a rescue.

Not to mention the plethora of female protagonists out there.... Beyond: Two Souls, Remember Me, Tomb Raider, Assassin's Creed III: Liberation, Resident Evil, Metroid Prime etc.

Seems like a silly argument to me in a world where, if anything, the empowerment of women is more prolific than it ever was.

As for her entire argument and all that it hinges upon (Women being objectified, thus are an object of mens desire, goal of acquisition, something to be had), it's a video game. Everything is objectified. The powering up of a character, choosing male/female companions to accompany you through the game. They're not being picked because you like the pixels they're made out of... it's mostly because of the assets they bring to the table. Having a scantily clad woman is just a device, much like a mystical magical object that you must attain, and it's simply a plot device in order for you to have goals. This isn't demeaning, it's just a tool.

My real question would be, is if it was a woman kicking ass and being the most badass protagonist that she can be (Oh wait, Tomb Raider games..), would this issue be an issue? Apparently so. Which is just another reason why it seems silly to me.

Have some more stuff to say, no time to expand, I'll be back later to do so though

[Illuyankas]

Let's see:

Yeah, why should a story told to you as a child where the person corresponding to you either has a woman as a literal object to be fought for, won and owned, or is said object and doesn't exist outside of the wants of the guy, be harmful? I know I'd sure be happier if every piece of fiction I ever learned or was shown depicted me as a trophy.

The problem isn't just with yourself (also fuck you for saying everyone with an issue about these things is mentally ill), it's with how people - usually 50% of people - value you. It exists outside of video games but these are a facet of an existing problem.

Are you fucking kidding? Why do you think John McClane exists? People identify with the characters in media they consume, which is why people enjoy works of fiction where the main character is a hero! It's why unvoiced characters exist so the player can project themselves on them, Gordon Freeman/almost every FPS style. In games it's your input that has accomplished the goal! And that's the issue here, cause women are usually the goal and not the character with agency, that being the key word here. And yeah, a woman would probably feel pretty shitty where the nearest entity in a game to her exists to titilate and do nothing of her own volition.

Yep, that sure is a lot. Try making a list of games with male protagonists instead. Then compare the number you find! It should be a very slanted ratio towards one of the two, I'm sure you can guess which.

More prolific =/= close to even vaguely equal. Also: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't even know what to say about you here. Expand on this when you return, I want to see you salvage it.

The answer to your real question is yes it still is an issue cause the main thing people give a shit about in Tomb Raider isn't how cool Lara Croft is, it's that she's got tits. Valued because of her appeal to dudes. You seem to think that because a minute amount of progress is being made that the problem is over, when it really isn't.

[Primateus]

You make some interesting points, Assail, but seriously, don't pretend that a scantily clad big boobied video game character is anything other than pandering to hormone driven teenage boys.

[the broken]

Quote

don't pretend that a scantily clad big boobied video game character is anything other than pandering to hormone driven teenage boys.]

Isn't that reducing her value solely to her appearance? Which if I remember right, isn't encouraged by feminist thought generally. And the later games gave her a breast reduction anyway. Lara has always had her own goals and idea, and has always been capable and resourceful, positive traits independentof her appearance.

Honestly, though, I think these videos might just be the impetus the industry needs to produce more reasonable women in gaming
This could well result in accelerating the process. But here's something I think those videos will probably not address about the equality in video games.


Those faceless mooks you're carving a path through? They're virtually all men. When enemies are humanoid, they will be men. Far Cry, Dishonoured, averted in MGS 4 but not in any of the others. Female villains will have a name and a face, more than likely, and maybe a sympathetic backstory. Arkham City? Three women prisoners, Poison Ivy, Catwoman, Harley Quinn, only one of whom you get to fight, and no random females working for any of the gang bosses. Tomb Raider? Odds are good that the people Lara Croft is killing to get to her goal will be men. Because men's lives are not considered as valuable as women's. Any thoughts on that?

[worry]

the broken, on 10 March 2013 - 01:35 PM, said:

worrywort, on 10 March 2013 - 03:38 AM, said:

For instance, I was pretty disturbed by the constant misogynist talk -- admittedly from mostly villains -- in Arkham City. It was a bombardment that uglied an excellent game. And I couldn't help but connect the notion that it didn't sound so different from the talk of plenty of gamers, even if the game put it in villains' mouths. I also kind of think there are plenty of male gamers who, while ambivalent about the tropes like this, will generally side with buying a good game despite its problems. It doesn't mean they wouldn't like to see changes.

These people work for the Joker. You're expecting them to be nice?

I think I addressed the fact that it was disturbing (and pretty constant) regardless of the fact that it was villains saying these things, and in reference to Catwoman the insults were almost always gendered. I do agree my example strayed from the Damsels in Distress trope, but it was in specific response to D'rek's assertion (paraphrased) that of course companies are going to tailor games to their customer base and there's nothing wrong with that. I was saying that even good and great games can be problematic, and that good and great people (men and women alike) still tend to buy those games when the good outweighs the bad, so sales aren't necessarily a good indicator of people's opinions on these problematic issues.

[worry]

Primateus, on 10 March 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

You make some interesting points, Assail, but seriously, don't pretend that a scantily clad big boobied video game character is anything other than pandering to hormone driven teenage boys.

I'm not sure most of his points are interesting, at least in terms of being considered weighty challenges to this video series. "It's just fiction" is never a good argument. And the "Why waste time doing this?" argument is boilerplate anti-intellectualism, frankly. It's like saying, "Why does sociology exist?" The notion that women have it better now than ever in history is tunnel-visioned and highly debatable, but even if we grant that it's true in general, it's also pretty patronizing...how is it his place to decide "better" = "good enough"? Illy covered his three numbered points in that top paragraph.

When it comes to naming various games that don't have Damsels in Distress storylines, it is fun and encouraging and I don't think out of line at all (though again, vid 2 hasn't come out yet), but on the other hand, it's not exactly a counterargument. Exploring the trope of Damsels in Distress isn't the same thing as saying all games use the trope, any more than exploring the history of hot dogs is the same as saying all food is hot dogs.

@the broken: That's a good point about the faceless mooks generally being all men. I do think the more modern waves of feminism -- which Sarkeesian seems to be in tune with, since she's associated with Bitch Magazine -- could address this, since they're more in tune with how patriarchy hurts both men and women (as opposed to the earliest waves of feminism, which were naturally more narrowly focused). I agree it'll be interesting to see if it comes up. I'd say it's at least partially rooted in the (assumed default) male audience, all other problems aside, not wanting the (male) hero character to beat up women. Just like at least some of the Damsels In Distress trope is rooted in tapping the (assumed default) male audience's impulse to rescue someone in danger.

As far as the sexy female characters in Mass Effect, like I said, I haven't played it...but women enjoy sex too, so if it's a well-rounded character with sexuality I don't think there'd be a problem with it. The modern argument against objectification isn't based in sex-negativity, though there might be something to be said about balance industry-wide.

[Primateus]

Actually, I was just saying that to be polite, the point I was making was that oversexualized scantily clad women in games is pandering. Sure, sex sells, but it's still pandering.

Damsel in distress is just a plot device? Doesn't make it any less sexist.

With regards to women being more worth than men? Yes, they are! At least that's how they've been portrayed. The hero will murder his (let's face it, the hero is usually a man) way through scores upon scores of men to rescue the woman.

[King Lear]

Apparently negative/harmful portrayals of men will be discussed in the series (according to a backer who followed the updates on the series over the last year.)

What I find interesting is how often this discussion piggybacks on discussions about harmful portrayals of women in media, and how seldom it's a standalone subject with the intention of exploring how these portrayals harm men and what can be done to reverse or minimise that harm (and more specifically, an exploration which doesn't require the demonisation of feminism to do it).

[worry]

Yah, that is interesting. What leapt to my mind immediately is any popular analysis along these lines gets instantly hijacked by "Men's Rights" types, who are the reactionary masculine equivalent to the people who ask "Why isn't there a White History Month?" So maybe they just try to wriggle their arguments into everybody else's, center-of-attention style. But maybe that's just surface thinking. Maybe partriarchal notions of masculinity have just squashed self-reflection and self-analysis so long that it's taking longer for men to come out of their shell on these kinds of issues. Maybe it's the blind spots of privilege (I know even modern feminism has internal struggles with racial and socio-economic myopia or outright tokenism). Maybe as various underprivileged communities' concerns overlap more and more under what can generally be called "universal human rights", men's issues just became subsumed without ever having to crystallize as much as the others. Maybe there even is a little resentment and resistance in academic circles to these issues. Or maybe these things do exist but are ignored in favor of the more sensational Men's Rights guys mentioned above.

Maybe I'm going for the world record for post with the most uses of "maybe". Also, for thread with the most uses of "vitriol" and "agency".