mullet2000
Member
Wow, it finally happened. Anita produced a video that I can say I overall liked. I found her past videos in this series extremely lacking, often very "cherry-picking" - with Anita blatantly ignoring many aspects of the games she discussed if they didn't fit her argument, and I felt that in the past she was not offering a compelling/fleshed out argument overall.
This time she did a lot better. Not perfect at all though, I still have a fair amount of issues with the video, some big, some small. Some points I was writing as I listened (it's long, sorry):
-The comparison of how women representation in games evolved alongside how old arcade ads were presented is a cool point.
-Overall I think the stupid "you walk by a prostitute and she says something like "mmmmm you like what you see, come on baby you're cute"" thing is stupid an needs to go. There are some situations where it makes sense thematically but 95% of the time it's exactly what Anita is complaining about in this video. Good point.
-The above said, I don't think Binary Domain fits really. I thought going through the slums was decent enough world building in that game, and the interaction with the one (I'm pretty sure it was just one. If it was more it can't be more than like, one other one placed somewhere in the same area) prostitute in the game was pretty harmless and unexploitative. Furthermore she dressed in regular clothing, and isn't really flaunting herself just to titillate the player like the other examples, like Farcry 3 and Deus EX: HR. I don't think Binary Domain fits in here, bad example.
-Something I noticed among her examples is the prostitutes often say something like "mmmm you're so cute that I'll give you a freebie", further proving her point that these things are most often not here for world building, but exclusively to titillate the player.
-She just gave an example where in Hitman Absolution you can "dump a dead body of a prostitute over a railing to distract a police guard." Yeah...okay but you can use literally any dead body in the game to do that too, and the police guard doesn't have any exclusive stupid dialog like "heh heh too bad she'd dead cause she's real bangin'!" or something. Pretty weak example, I think.
-The Sleeping Dogs example was really good. I never got any prostitutes or anything when I played it, but that was a really awkward example in the video. Buy a present, get sex (and a power up, like she said similar to what a can of soda gets you in the game) and then she does another typical "oh she liked it cause it's you, you Sex-God!!!!" thing that I already complained about. Good example.
-Ennhhh, one of the next points though, about many family characters being interchangeable, which is "reenforced by developers copy and pasting them throughout the environment" is pretty weak because that's far from exclusive to women, male NPCs are copy and pasted exactly as much as female ones. I get what she's going for, but weak point in my book.
-Hmmm. I don't know if I like her argument about violence against female NPCs being possible being the same as it being encouraged "for fun." Assuming, of course, that it is not insensitivised in some way. At the end of the day, it's the players choice whether to do that or not. I certainly understand her point...but assuming that none of these actions are designed exclusively against women, these can all be done to any male NPC as well. She states that "while it's not mandatory, these actions are always implicitly encouraged."
- Continued from the point above (it was getting long), that is something that I certainly do not agree with. She says came encourage the player to experiment, and examine what is and is not permitted. While true, I don't think that means you are encouraged to explore blatant pointless violence against any NPCs, female or otherwise, at all though. After the age of like, 12 or something I've never decided or felt at all completed to go on random "women killing sprees" in a game because I choose not to do it. I can't think of a game in last while where I've felt encouraged to, either. Maybe that "dastardly" achievement in Red Dead, I guess. Which is meant to be a joke, but tobe fair I get where she's coming from in that example. Overall, I don't think the ability to do something is the same as encouragement to do something. I don't think a game can necessarily be blamed for player's choices, assuming it does not reward or encourage said actions.
-She claims next that in-game consequences for these violent actions are rarely punished or result in a game over or any other consequence. That's true, but on that note it's also rarely rewarded either. It may seem like an obvious point, but I don't think it's a very strong argument to argue that lack of punishment is a problem when it's not rewarded either.
-She reaffirms her point, saying that a toaster is still a toaster is you don't use it, and a sex object is still a sex object placed in the game if you don't use it. That I agree with! The stupid lines coming out of prostitutes and the reasons they were added to the game are all still issues, regardless of the fact that I don't ever interact with them. Choosing to commit acts of violence against female NPCs, however, I feel is an entirely different story. I don't feel like that's the same thing at all. They will always exist in the game as a sexual object, but you choose to make them a target of your violence.
-The ending point about the visual language of male NPCs and female NPCs being different is good, it's true!
That's about it really. Overall this is a better video than the past ones in the series, some of which I found to be outright bad. I still think some of her arguments are quite weak, but overall the video holds together pretty well.
This time she did a lot better. Not perfect at all though, I still have a fair amount of issues with the video, some big, some small. Some points I was writing as I listened (it's long, sorry):
-The comparison of how women representation in games evolved alongside how old arcade ads were presented is a cool point.
-Overall I think the stupid "you walk by a prostitute and she says something like "mmmmm you like what you see, come on baby you're cute"" thing is stupid an needs to go. There are some situations where it makes sense thematically but 95% of the time it's exactly what Anita is complaining about in this video. Good point.
-The above said, I don't think Binary Domain fits really. I thought going through the slums was decent enough world building in that game, and the interaction with the one (I'm pretty sure it was just one. If it was more it can't be more than like, one other one placed somewhere in the same area) prostitute in the game was pretty harmless and unexploitative. Furthermore she dressed in regular clothing, and isn't really flaunting herself just to titillate the player like the other examples, like Farcry 3 and Deus EX: HR. I don't think Binary Domain fits in here, bad example.
-Something I noticed among her examples is the prostitutes often say something like "mmmm you're so cute that I'll give you a freebie", further proving her point that these things are most often not here for world building, but exclusively to titillate the player.
-She just gave an example where in Hitman Absolution you can "dump a dead body of a prostitute over a railing to distract a police guard." Yeah...okay but you can use literally any dead body in the game to do that too, and the police guard doesn't have any exclusive stupid dialog like "heh heh too bad she'd dead cause she's real bangin'!" or something. Pretty weak example, I think.
-The Sleeping Dogs example was really good. I never got any prostitutes or anything when I played it, but that was a really awkward example in the video. Buy a present, get sex (and a power up, like she said similar to what a can of soda gets you in the game) and then she does another typical "oh she liked it cause it's you, you Sex-God!!!!" thing that I already complained about. Good example.
-Ennhhh, one of the next points though, about many family characters being interchangeable, which is "reenforced by developers copy and pasting them throughout the environment" is pretty weak because that's far from exclusive to women, male NPCs are copy and pasted exactly as much as female ones. I get what she's going for, but weak point in my book.
-Hmmm. I don't know if I like her argument about violence against female NPCs being possible being the same as it being encouraged "for fun." Assuming, of course, that it is not insensitivised in some way. At the end of the day, it's the players choice whether to do that or not. I certainly understand her point...but assuming that none of these actions are designed exclusively against women, these can all be done to any male NPC as well. She states that "while it's not mandatory, these actions are always implicitly encouraged."
- Continued from the point above (it was getting long), that is something that I certainly do not agree with. She says came encourage the player to experiment, and examine what is and is not permitted. While true, I don't think that means you are encouraged to explore blatant pointless violence against any NPCs, female or otherwise, at all though. After the age of like, 12 or something I've never decided or felt at all completed to go on random "women killing sprees" in a game because I choose not to do it. I can't think of a game in last while where I've felt encouraged to, either. Maybe that "dastardly" achievement in Red Dead, I guess. Which is meant to be a joke, but tobe fair I get where she's coming from in that example. Overall, I don't think the ability to do something is the same as encouragement to do something. I don't think a game can necessarily be blamed for player's choices, assuming it does not reward or encourage said actions.
-She claims next that in-game consequences for these violent actions are rarely punished or result in a game over or any other consequence. That's true, but on that note it's also rarely rewarded either. It may seem like an obvious point, but I don't think it's a very strong argument to argue that lack of punishment is a problem when it's not rewarded either.
-She reaffirms her point, saying that a toaster is still a toaster is you don't use it, and a sex object is still a sex object placed in the game if you don't use it. That I agree with! The stupid lines coming out of prostitutes and the reasons they were added to the game are all still issues, regardless of the fact that I don't ever interact with them. Choosing to commit acts of violence against female NPCs, however, I feel is an entirely different story. I don't feel like that's the same thing at all. They will always exist in the game as a sexual object, but you choose to make them a target of your violence.
-The ending point about the visual language of male NPCs and female NPCs being different is good, it's true!
-Being chased by the police in an open world game is never fun
That's about it really. Overall this is a better video than the past ones in the series, some of which I found to be outright bad. I still think some of her arguments are quite weak, but overall the video holds together pretty well.
