Source : the link you posted
"Lets target it to women ! ...wait .. women don't care ... but men love it ! main target : gay males"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Anita Sarkeesians First Tropes vs. Women in Games Video May Come Out Next Month
- Thread starter sTeLioSco
- Start date
Source : the link you posted
"Lets target it to women ! ...wait .. women don't care ... but men love it ! main target : gay males"
Funchameleon
Banned
Fuck, platy, why'd you have to steal that glorious moment from me?
Sorry, but I have a scholarship on gender studies research at my university ... I have answered those questions MANY times before xD
i don't know, edward cullen maybe is more like fanservice but it's still a character modeled for sexual desire to me. even in a book, why not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p-A8GvUehq4#t=1583s
I think this is the source of "Anita says Mirror's Edge is too hard for girls!":
I have no idea if the quote in that image is accurate, but it seems like it's what spawned the belief. She thinks the control scheme is overcomplicated, that if it were simpler the game would be more enjoyed by gamers, and females are of particular interest as she believes the game is a positive experience for females.
It's been ages since I played--is it just that she wants the bumpers mapped to face buttons? Is that it? I don't remember a lot of complexity with the controls, but I think that's what she's getting at?
Assuming this is real, not only do I find it laughable that Mirrors Edge has "unnecessary complex controls" but that it had a "beautifully constructed story". Not only was the story bad but it was completely unnecessary. Mirrors Edge, at it's core, is about challenging platforming. A sequel needs no story and no fucking guns. I also hate this concept of games need to be dumbed down so X market can enjoy them. You're completely devaluing those people and their ability to enjoy something just as well as anyone else could. Games are about playing, and about challenging yourself. Don't suggest others need to suffer with a lesser game because you don't know how to play it, that's fucked up.
Maybe DICE could do an easy mode that does most platforming for you like Assassin's Creed. But then it wouldn't be Mirrors Edge, would it?
Edward Cullen is THE Real Boyfriend
There is even one image that was posted that included "protect from himself" that is basicaly a twilight reference =P
See how none of the images made by girls say anything related to how sexualy awesome they are
Don't do that.
akidnamededdy
Banned
Funchameleon
Banned
Assuming that is real, it's also nothing it all, because she at no point does she so much as imply that women find it inaccessible; just that it could find an expanded audience among people that would otherwise be interested in the play the character if they offered simplified controls. Are we projecting our own stereotypes?
akidnamededdy
Banned
"I can relate to a lot of fellow female gamers who did not get into this game due to its difficult control scheme. For a sequel, a lot more people would be able to access this beautifully constructed story and world if the controls were a lot more simple."
It...seems pretty blatant to me.
Again, assuming that it is real.
And the best written video game character of all time: Kreia.
How do people keep overlooking her? This shit is a travesty.
Riposte
Member
"But males are sexually objectified too" is the wrong way to approach it.
Everything is objectified in videogames and the proponents of direct or indirect videogame censorship are pushing a purposefully myopic view of what that process is. It is simply impossible for a human to exist in videogame form and there is little capability, or in some cases interest (e.g. shopowner in JRPG X or nazi soldier in FPS Y), to making that illusion more believable. Sometimes it would be outright inappropriate and treating human shapes as nothing more than virtual meatbags to dominate or destroy or otherwise deny them the basic rights we would give to a human being (which we are already doing by creating such a human and enslaving them to be in our little game world) is simply more pleasing.
Why pixels/3D models that look like girls tend to look a certain way or don't get title billing is ultimately going to come down to "taste in objectification". Some would like their more niche style of objectification of women to be more popular (though they may think their taste is morally righteous, which differentiates them from the usual "JRPGs should be this" and "Call of Duty should be less popular" type of crowds). The truth is that you can't breakdown the reaction of people who want so cleanly nor can you ignore that the taste of the dominant market has changed to include women doing less girly things. What you get is two variables which will meet depending on individual taste. A strong female character with a big bust will be considered "awesome" by some and "misogynistic" by others. Hence we have something like Bayonetta. Of course, ambivalence is also an option.
Similarly dudes are not so much objectified on a sexual basis (though their body shape is also based on the preferences of the market), but are often pushed to be highly aggressive and even homicidal. (One could videogames themselves, like sports, are designed to stimulate a male archetype of being highly competitive and violent aggressors.) Now I could fall into the trap in trying to compare how "unfair" that is, but it is never a matter of "fair". These objects are designed to please, not be human or examples of humanity (unless of course, that is the design the developers have taken to please its target audience).
That's probably all I will say and I only said it because I can't stand watching people who argue against Anita fumble around with such silly arguments. I've really come to dislike arguing on this topic as the air is so thick with resentment and revenge.
On the other hand she could say "puppies are cute" and the actual spin machine (e.g. Kotaku, etc) would be stunned by such a revelation. Let us not forget her documentary is based on the TV tropes website (jesus christ) and she is Joss Whedon-fangirl and more or less based her thesis paper on that kind of television (jesus christ).
Everything is objectified in videogames and the proponents of direct or indirect videogame censorship are pushing a purposefully myopic view of what that process is. It is simply impossible for a human to exist in videogame form and there is little capability, or in some cases interest (e.g. shopowner in JRPG X or nazi soldier in FPS Y), to making that illusion more believable. Sometimes it would be outright inappropriate and treating human shapes as nothing more than virtual meatbags to dominate or destroy or otherwise deny them the basic rights we would give to a human being (which we are already doing by creating such a human and enslaving them to be in our little game world) is simply more pleasing.
Why pixels/3D models that look like girls tend to look a certain way or don't get title billing is ultimately going to come down to "taste in objectification". Some would like their more niche style of objectification of women to be more popular (though they may think their taste is morally righteous, which differentiates them from the usual "JRPGs should be this" and "Call of Duty should be less popular" type of crowds). The truth is that you can't breakdown the reaction of people who want so cleanly nor can you ignore that the taste of the dominant market has changed to include women doing less girly things. What you get is two variables which will meet depending on individual taste. A strong female character with a big bust will be considered "awesome" by some and "misogynistic" by others. Hence we have something like Bayonetta. Of course, ambivalence is also an option.
Similarly dudes are not so much objectified on a sexual basis (though their body shape is also based on the preferences of the market), but are often pushed to be highly aggressive and even homicidal. (One could videogames themselves, like sports, are designed to stimulate a male archetype of being highly competitive and violent aggressors.) Now I could fall into the trap in trying to compare how "unfair" that is, but it is never a matter of "fair". These objects are designed to please, not be human or examples of humanity (unless of course, that is the design the developers have taken to please its target audience).
That's probably all I will say and I only said it because I can't stand watching people who argue against Anita fumble around with such silly arguments. I've really come to dislike arguing on this topic as the air is so thick with resentment and revenge.
On the other hand she could say "puppies are cute" and the actual spin machine (e.g. Kotaku, etc) would be stunned by such a revelation. Let us not forget her documentary is based on the TV tropes website (jesus christ) and she is Joss Whedon-fangirl and more or less based her thesis paper on that kind of television (jesus christ).
A lot of the influences talked about in these sorts of discussions are subtle. Nobody is going to say "I've played video game X to completion and now I see all women in a different light." The bigger picture involves being surrounded by media and advertising throughout one's entire lifespan that can reinforce gender stereotypes on a subconscious level. I don't consider myself to be a sexist, but I don't doubt for a second that I might have biases that I'm not aware of. People are hardwired to make assumptions and generalizations based on the limited information that they have already internalized.
I think that the well has been poisoned, to a degree, by people who seem eager to tear her and her viewpoints apart before any of the videos have even been released. I don't mind engaging with people who think differently than me, and as I said earlier, I don't even have high expectations for this project. There just seems to be a vocal contingent of detractors who are unlikely to let the project speak for itself (see: people who were trying to tear down that one screenshot of bullet points on a whiteboard, which means almost nothing out of context).
You wouldn't notice it because you've likely seen the same portrayals of women in media for the duration of your life. It's not like there's been a bunch of revolutionary changes in their portrayals in media. Your view is colored by those experiences, whether you realize it or not.
Funchameleon
Banned
There are female (and male) gamers that aren't into difficult games. It does not imply women find it more difficult, it just references a certain audience that would otherwise be interested in Faith as a protagonist. Help me understand the mindset that somehow finds her supposed statement scandalous.
Oh wow. I didn't know this.
Feel free to take a look at my latest post if you want something to tear down
Sorry Funchameleon xD
Lets get into topics.
The "Small rant" is divided in 2 bases : The Bayoneta video that she UNLISTED and the Women in Refrigerator video, wich in any way she says she played or watched ANY of those shows.
She even LITERALY says that she didn't read green lantern
Lets ignore the fact that those videos were made with praticaly zero budget and therefore are not relevant to the kickestated ones.
The EA link is basicaly the 4chan post.
There is no source on what she said or even if she said a word about battlefield 3.
The most you can take is that her talks to those places are about creating powerfull women characters, not that those games don't have any women ... but even this was in a tweets and interviews relating to her company visits in general.
Really ?
...ok just joking xD
edit :
This is the only topic on gaf that I saw a graduation thesis of someone being relevant to the person's work
There is a reason this exists =P
akidnamededdy
Banned
She says "a lot of fellow female gamers who did not get into this game due to its difficult control scheme." She says "a lot more people would be able to access this beautifully constructed story and world if the controls were a lot more simple." She's specifically calling out female gamers as not just a group, but THE group that found the control scheme difficult. I don't see how you can't see that.
AGAIN, though...the veracity of the quote is questionable at best in the first place, so why are we even bothering?
Why should we ignore that? Why can we not look to the quality of her past work as an indicator of the quality of her future work simply because she has money now?
Riposte
Member
I see what you are saying, and I agree, but I'm more capsulizing what I don't like about her rather than dismissing her because she did a thing. So, it is relevant in a sense. Her strict focus on television or "pop culture" in general (which fits in nicely with me thinking she has a very narrow worldview) makes her look really silly.
I just thought of a quick parallel to draw that might make the argument I'm making about subconscious influence make more sense to people that spend a lot of time here.
Some of you might remember last year's "Doritosgate" controversy that, partially, revolved around the degree to which marketing and PR people can influence the people that write about video games. Many of the journalists that participated in the topic claimed that they were confident in their own ability to rise above the subtle influences that surround them on a daily basis. In contrast, Shawn Elliot said that everyone should be aware of their own vulnerabilities and not assume that they were all above it somehow.
So, you're right Minus_Me, I don't know you personally and I'm not going to assume that I know what you think about everything. I would just suggest that nobody is above being influenced by the things that surround them on a daily basis.
Some of you might remember last year's "Doritosgate" controversy that, partially, revolved around the degree to which marketing and PR people can influence the people that write about video games. Many of the journalists that participated in the topic claimed that they were confident in their own ability to rise above the subtle influences that surround them on a daily basis. In contrast, Shawn Elliot said that everyone should be aware of their own vulnerabilities and not assume that they were all above it somehow.
So, you're right Minus_Me, I don't know you personally and I'm not going to assume that I know what you think about everything. I would just suggest that nobody is above being influenced by the things that surround them on a daily basis.
Obviously, that has a lot to do with your values, upbringing etc. I don't think there's sexism in media or videogames. Everything is glorified of course in media (men have no acne, are all broad shouldered, don't have glasses, have 6 packs, deep voices) and women are all below 15% bodyfat with breasts and eventually the handsome and the beauty have sex).
If people are upset about this, then just don't watch movies or buy games. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with celebrating or glorifying sex in media. We humans beings are sexual creatures.
Objectification itself is a complicated matter. Imo, the term is exploited by a lot of internet-based feminist crusaders. Everyone at some point objectifies themselves. Women do when they put on makeup before going to parties or interviews, men do it in their own way. The whole act of modeling and Film/Fashion industry is based on objectification. Now if you're going to say a girl out there who dreams of becoming an popular actress and being plastered on billboards all over the world can't do that because she is objectifying herself, I don't think feminists will get far at all.
Now there is an issue where objectification goes so far it disregards the feelings/emotions of the person. This happens in rapes, abusive husbands, and a lot of social practices in developing countries. But feminists aren't going to find anything by attacking media or video games. There's no battles to be fought here but needless sensationalized drama and bickering. Eventually, these things are to be expected because the industry is growing so large, its going to offend at least one segment or the other. But its good to get a hearty laugh or two out of it I guess.
People are complaining that past work has no research
Past work was made without any budget and in her free time in a non profitable way.
Future work is being made with enoght money for her to do research full time for almost a year.
There is a HUGE diference there
edit :
I was joking ... eating breast milk ice cream makes you more like a penguim or a cow (probably a mix), not a pig
But alcool don't change who we are =P
Her focus on pop culture in general is relevant to a series of videos focusing specialy on videogames ?
I wasn't trying to encapsulate everyone. I was talking about myself. I've always had strong and educated woman around me which helps. My mother is a professor and thought me reasoning skills early on. I don't want make it seem that there is no struggle, but its not my fault people are poorly educated.
polyh3dron
Banned
How much money does it cost to play Bayonetta? Or maybe she isn't too skilled and needs to watch someone else play. Or hell, she could watch a playthrough on YouTube for fuck's sake.
I read Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit... don't cost me nothing, it was fun
Edmund Dantes researches Tolkien literature and mythology.
Do you see a diference ?
polyh3dron
Banned
Anita Sarkeesian didn't even play Bayonetta.
akidnamededdy
Banned
I didn't realize researchers are only held accountable for the quality of their work when it's done for money. If only I knew that during grad school.
Look, maybe you're right. Maybe the thought of her thousands of financial backers will compel her to actually play a game (or watch a Let's Play at least) before she talks about it this time. As I said before, we'll just have to wait and see whenever she gets around to releasing a video.
Recently heard about these two studies:
More Than Half Of Women Are Attracted To... Other Women
Why Straight Women Dig Women
Kinda interesting. Maybe Team Ninja's target audience is bigger than we thought.
More Than Half Of Women Are Attracted To... Other Women
Why Straight Women Dig Women
Kinda interesting. Maybe Team Ninja's target audience is bigger than we thought.
Funchameleon
Banned
Holy shit you are projecting. She doesn't say a lot of female gamers find the game inaccessible, she says she emphasizes with a lot of them that do. She specifically calls out the female side because she's speaking from a feminist perspective about a rare half decent female character. Even if you want to argue that she meant to say "the many female gamers" it's hardly an scandalous statement because it doesn't say anything about female gamers as a whole. There are a lot of male gamers who would find the game inaccessible too (I have read their accounts on this very forum).
She then goes on to talk about a large audience that would have liked the game if the controls were simplified.
Heh, so true. That should save her some time and allow her to be more productive in her research. That's what I'd do.
She was talking mostly about the advertising ... but AGAIN : you can't find the video on her channel.
She knows she made an error =P
How about time ?
Women in Refrigerators was uploaded Uploaded on Apr 6, 2011
"Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch is a Steaming Pile of Sexist Crap" was uploaded on Apr 5, 2011, but the tropes vs women before that was uploaded at Mar 22, 2011
One month of research vs .... how much ? More than 1 year if she started before the kickstarter ? 6 months if she started AFTER the end of the kickstarter ?
So I'm still confused. Are we making the argument that women do not like sex objectification, and this is only a male thing?
Again, I get the argument that statistically speaking, more ads/media is aimed at males, and objectifying women. But are we saying that's because only men like objectification? Because what I'm basically seeing here in the last two pages, is that Women generally don't like male objectification, and don't prefer products to be sold by sex. That this isn't a human issue, but a gender issue.
So do you guys think the argument that "sex sells" and people "like sex" is completely behavioral, and that males either I. can change this behavior that only their gender exhibits (I guess goes the argument) or II. There is something inherent in males, that makes them incapable of thinking/feeling outside of this?
Not trying to be redundant, but would like some clarification. I'm trying to understand the other side/perspective on this.
Again, I get the argument that statistically speaking, more ads/media is aimed at males, and objectifying women. But are we saying that's because only men like objectification? Because what I'm basically seeing here in the last two pages, is that Women generally don't like male objectification, and don't prefer products to be sold by sex. That this isn't a human issue, but a gender issue.
So do you guys think the argument that "sex sells" and people "like sex" is completely behavioral, and that males either I. can change this behavior that only their gender exhibits (I guess goes the argument) or II. There is something inherent in males, that makes them incapable of thinking/feeling outside of this?
Not trying to be redundant, but would like some clarification. I'm trying to understand the other side/perspective on this.
akidnamededdy
Banned
So I'm projecting, and even if I'm not and I'm correct in my assumption her statement isn't a big deal anyway?
I can't be the only one who read that quote and came to the result I did--oh wait, I know I'm not, because I'm not the person who first posted it or any of the numerous other people who commented on it.
You're making an awfully big deal out of trying to explain the meaning behind a quote everybody's already decided is most assuredly fake.
Again...wish I knew this in grad school
All I'm saying is she's made some mistakes in the past (that, yes, she's owned up to (EDIT: or maybe not, according to the post below mine)), so we'll see what happens when her new, well funded, adequately researched videos come out.
Unfortunately not really
http://www.feministfrequency.com/2010/05/bayonetta-innovative-advertising-or-sexual-harassment-training/
Doesn't sound like she's acknowledging that her facts were wrong.
I am making an argument that the "Tropes vs Women in Videogames" videos can only be judged by .... the "Tropes vs Women in Videogames" videos =P
This thread (and every thread about Anita) is "Miyamoto made WiiMusic once, his next game will suck" =P
Going to sleep ... see you people tomorrow night o/
edit :
also, fuck this shit ... lets see the world burn :
(Dishonored spoilers)
http://www.themarysue.com/but-alas-she-is-a-woman-how-dishonored-uses-gender-roles-to-tell-a-story/
Funchameleon
Banned
This happens inevitably in any discussion like this
a) Someone discussing womens' issues cites the rampant objectification of women and the impact it has on women/society
b) Someone comes in and tries to discredit their argument with the fact that men also face objectification
c) It is asserted that women face much more objectification and the fact that men face objectification too hardly diminishes the impact of this or its relation to the original points.
d) Every aspect of male vs female objectification is picked apart and drawn out for the billionth time to the detriment of any real discussion.
Heh. Sometimes I talk too much in circles.
I do appreciate the conversation though. Thanks.
polyh3dron
Banned
Translation: Only the videos can judge the videos, your argument is invalid, I'm out.
Oh look, a ninja edit.
Oh look, a ninja edit.
Funchameleon
Banned
It's pretty important because the fact that it was ever a scandal in the first place, true or not, is due to the projection of negative female stereotypes by her detractors. This is the kind of thing that got Anita many times more money than she asked for.
akidnamededdy
Banned
Sigh.
You realize you're the only one trying to defend that quote, right? Not even Platy's touching it. I find it kind of hard to believe that dozens of people are reading it wrong and you're the only one who "really gets it." Keep spouting off about projection, though, it's really helping.
Again--moot point, the quote is fake, move on.
Seems pretty spot on to my experience with these kind of debates.
I guess I just wonder what people really think though about the role males have in this. I agree especially with b) and c).
My points aren't to say: well, men also face objectification therefore there IS NO problem. Rather, I on a behavior level, have always believed that both genders can be attracted to objectification - hence why ad/media markets focus on selling sex. That it's not intrinsically just a male behavioral problem - that sex only sells for males (not talking about the people that sell sex - that's another aspect/layer). But my belief is that, in a similar scenario - women too, could find sex being sold appealing.
I'm not trying to diminish the issues of sexism in the gaming industry, or saying there is no problem at all. Just to be clear.
Someone could easily come back with an argument and say: well, if what you say is true - then why does sex sell to males overwhelmingly more than females. Why does female objectification happen at a much higher rate? My understanding has always been, that it's because men have generally dominated the fields of media/entertainment. And I believe as things change over time, you will start seeing more equal objectification of both genders (that's my theory at least). That sex just sells.
I only bring all this up, not to say that my view is right. But to see whether someone disagrees with me. Is this simply not true? Is this more of a male issue? A behavioral problem dominate in males. I've just seen some posts/writings, that almost even suggest that this is something inherently wrong with males, on a biology level.
Alright now I'm just rambling.
idlethreats
Member
That second link you posted is basically a crazy person ranting about w/o any facts to back up their claims. "Anita Sarkeesian was hired by EA to lecture DICE about how sexist they are for not including female characters in their story." No proof to back that up, they're just projecting what they think went down at DICE. All we know is that she was invited to talk to them about gender in games, not the content of her talk or why DICE invited her in the first place (i.e. for a specific purpose related to one of their games, for general advice about the representation of women in games, etc.) Ironic that you posted a factually empty link in an attempt to demonstrate that Anita's got her facts wrong.Feel free to take a look at my latest post if you want something to tear down
I believe (hope) you're right about the bolded.
It's difficult to keep track in these threads because of people arriving late, or making too many sarcastic comments, or raising the same arguments over and over. Funchameleon did a good job (if a little snide) at bringing you up to speed.
I think that Anita's "detractors" are getting far too much attention. People coming into the discussion sputtering "b-b-but men!" are not contributing anything. If you want to argue about male stereotyping in video games, or objectification of the male form in general, I'm sure there are places for that.
However, the "defenders" are also perhaps inadvertently fanning the flames in their own way. There is a lot to be critical about Anita's approach and credibility, as some such as Eddy have quite fairly pointed out. There are some good points, with people generally being wary about the whole ordeal without trying to be outright offensive, but these people seem to get shot down just as quickly as any "caveman" argument.
I know I'm guilty of splitting the debate into two camps myself, but we really have to stop making this about her, whether you think these videos will have an impact or not. As Riposte said, it's not about being "fair". It's not a competition. It's a real, serious issue in our society, and one that is being reflected badly in the video game medium we all know and love. We need to bring more maturity to some aspects of this industry by being a little more mature ourselves.
idlethreats
Member
While I agree with a lot of what you've said here, did you read that second link Eddy posted? It's complete hogwash and not something that anyone who wants to have an intelligent and reasoned debate about Anita (and/or sexism in games) should wave about.
SixMachine
Member
I have to admit, just seeing her tweet tropes about a game doesn't do anything justice. I know she says she will explain it in more depth later in her videos but right now I feel like I can see the same results just going to the actual tvtropes site and reading the tropes associated with a game. Plus tropes are rather easy to understand due to the site having various examples.
Being in a trope is not inherently bad because it's just a classification of various things. I could say
has women in a fridge. It's not even truly a negative because it has a relevance to the plot and it important to the characterization of the protagonist.
Being in a trope is not inherently bad because it's just a classification of various things. I could say
Se7en
Similar threads
- Locked