After watching this all I could think was "well duh."
Videogames were initially designed to appeal to young, immature boys, and I don't intend to use the word "immature" as necessarily a horrible thing. I mean that the NES was designed as a children's toy. Zelda, Mario, DK, all designed to appeal to kids under the age of 12 and mostly appeal to boys who could only understand simplistic themes. Hence tropes.
What I find to be really absurd about all of this is the notion that Shigeru Miyamoto had any sort of influence on how men, such as myself, view women because I played his videogames throughout my entire life. She must think this or she wouldn't have mentioned his name and his work so much. These tropes influence people in the wrong ways right? Okay, but how much? It must be minuscule compared to other real life factors.
My mother and my two sisters dominant that area of influence on my life. They were my examples of women. Some men have bad examples women in their life and if they end up being disrespectful to women and are generally misogynist, look to that area of their life, not their videogames.
Princess Peach? Zelda? the panty girl in Double Dragon....I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh. I have vivid memories of laughing at that when I was kid because even at a tender age I knew it was a silly little bit of gratuitous perversion. So what?
This is why I find this level of media criticism to be such woefully self important tripe. It is basically the same as the nimrods who attribute real life gun violence to videogames gun violence.
But don't you see, all life is political, and all politics is moral, and all morality is Manichean. Therefore even the smallest aspects of your life have great symbolic meaning, which is why they need to be controlled on your behalf.
This discussion has been disappointing. The video defines DiD, gives a handful of examples (I know a handful more are comping in part 2), and makes the claim that this is mostly bad. But it doesn't attempt to explain why it is bad with any sort of depth (scientific research, social studies, interviews with experts). The video doesn't attempt to explain why this trope is utilized (lazy and simplistic story telling? Sexist game industry? Economic reasons?). The video flat out ignores counter examples of the DiD even in the few series it talked about in depth. Why don't handhelds count?
Finally, so far, the video has not provided any sort of "good" way to portray the rescue of a throwaway character. Is Donkey Kong Country 2 good because it is a female rescuing a helpless male or is this still lazy story telling? What about all the men rescuing men? It seems to me like cheap story writing is the problem here. The developers need to give the player the simplest possible motivation to start experiencing the game play so they throw in a throwaway plot device. But, I am by no means an expert and desire more information. Th video comes way short of giving information so I was hopeful that Gaf would present it. Several other people have brought up the points from above much more eloquently than me. And, almost none of these posts have led to any engaging conversation or rebuttals. There is a lot of "Gaf is terrible" and "Gaf is as bad as youtube" but very few people who have similar beliefs to Anita on this topic are trying to engage in conversation. Maybe Anita is not the person to lead this topic, as has been suggested. And maybe Gaf is not a place to discuss it with any depth. If so, where then can I go?
So if you watched a video about racial stereotypes in 1920s cinema and they didn't have an in-depth explanation of how the negative stereotype affected the race involved, you would think it was poorly done and question it's motive?
I would've preferred that she laid out facts and left things more open to interpretation and/or dealt with some counterarguments and different opinions rather than just trying to spew ultimate truth for 25 minutes straight. I mean, this really doesn't seem like anything more than the the sort of paper you would see in an undergraduate sociology class, made into video form.
Her argument would've been much stronger if she didn't cherry pick the majority of her argument from 2 series, all while neglecting both the historical form of videogame sequels and invalidating related and successful spin-offs. She lambasts Mario and Zelda for being about saving princesses, when the reality is that they're games about saving princesses. Games, especially ones that stem from the 80's and earlier, don't follow the film form of sequels as plot continuation. Game sequels back then were simply the same basic principles and story improved and/or fleshed out. A mechanically improved retread. And once those beloved series come into the 90's? You can't change them. That's called the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" principle.
Additionally, she should've taken the opportunity to move the piece away from the green screen and into the real world. It would've been hugely beneficial if we could've seen someone other than her provide some insight, such as a professional in the industry or an established feminist academic who's knowledgeable about videogames. It's not like she's lacking the resources to do so. As it is, it feels like she's "telling", not "proving" or "making clear". It feels, like I said earlier, like an undergrad-level paper put into video form. It should be so much more.
After watching this all I could think was "well duh."
Videogames were initially designed to appeal to young, immature boys, and I don't intend to use the word "immature" as necessarily a horrible thing. I mean that the NES was designed as a children's toy. Zelda, Mario, DK, all designed to appeal to kids under the age of 12 and mostly appeal to boys who could only understand simplistic themes. Hence tropes.
What I find to be really absurd about all of this is the notion that Shigeru Miyamoto had any sort of influence on how men, such as myself, view women because I played his videogames throughout my entire life. She must think this or she wouldn't have mentioned his name and his work so much. These tropes influence people in the wrong ways right? Okay, but how much? It must be minuscule compared to other real life factors.
My mother and my two sisters dominant that area of influence on my life. They were my examples of women. Some men have bad examples women in their life and if they end up being disrespectful to women and are generally misogynist, look to that area of their life, not their videogames.
Princess Peach? Zelda? the panty girl in Double Dragon....I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh. I have vivid memories of laughing at that when I was kid because even at a tender age I knew it was a silly little bit of gratuitous perversion. So what?
This is why I find this level of media criticism to be such woefully self important tripe. It is basically the same as the nimrods who attribute real life gun violence to videogames gun violence.
So are you dismissing this purely on the basis of the medium, i.e., sexism isn't relevant in video games because it's a video game? What about movies? Books? Or any other media? Do you think those are not influential on society, as well?
Didn't back the campaign, but enjoyed this video quite a bit. Most of the time I don't even react to said trope in video games (Sonic CD comes to mind) but I rarely pay attention to plots to begin with. Still, maybe I would pay more attention if it wasn't all (that is, most of it) recycled sexist garbage.
It ceases to be cultural relativism when Nintendo & others regularly market the games for sale outside of Japan. It's not like we're importing Zelda games from Japan. If they want massive, international appeal, they a going to be held to higher standards.
Well I don't think it is to be dismissed that quickly, she clearly has no intention in exploring how gender works in different cultures and how that comes across in games.
This speaks volumes about your misogyny and lack of imagination. I'd ask you to explain why you think Link wouldn't be present in a story that's explicitly about three characters reappearing through time...but who would actually want to hear anymore of this?
I do apologize for this I was speaking out of emotion without thinking things through, but I do believe that the very poorly thought out solutions she proposes can cause a problem with the medium if equal representation becomes forced and becoming "PC" starts being the main goal when developing a game. You can't just ask developers to force a strong female, what does peach become if she suddenly fends for herself perfectly? It would be an interesting evolution but no quick fix is available.
You mean, ostracized from society because of the same feminist ideology you're saying has no purpose? You just gave it a purpose! And to say that instilling sexist ideas in people from childhood has no longterm effect has to be willful ignorance.
No what I meant is everyone has to develop their own thoughts and come on every kid ever in the history of the playground has at some point thought girls are gross or boys are stronger. It isn't right but it certainly shouldn't be considered the norm for how those same people will operate later in their lives.
She has no obligation to air out every perspective, no matter the money, and I'm pretty sure the perspective of this project was largely understood by anyone who donated to it.
She has an obligation to her cause and backers to put forth the best research she can muster up. At least if she hopes to correct this definitive problem in games.
Oh my nonexistent god, this thread. Someone needs to put together a list of answers to all the most frequent ill-considered objections in here and post it on every page.
Her argument would've been much stronger if she didn't cherry pick the majority of her argument from 2 series, all while neglecting both the historical form of videogame sequels and invalidating related and successful spin-offs. She lambasts Mario and Zelda for being about saving princesses, when the reality is that they're games about saving princesses. Games, especially ones that stem from the 80's and earlier, don't follow the film form of sequels as plot continuation. Game sequels back then were simply the same basic principles and story improved and/or fleshed out. A mechanically improved retread. And once those beloved series come into the 90's? You can't change them. That's called "brand suicide".
No what I meant is everyone has to develop their own thoughts and come on every kid ever in the history of the playground has at some point thought girls are gross or boys are stronger. It isn't right but it certainly shouldn't be considered the norm for how those same people will operate later in their lives.
This discussion has been disappointing. The video defines DiD, gives a handful of examples (I know a handful more are comping in part 2), and makes the claim that this is mostly bad. But it doesn't attempt to explain why it is bad with any sort of depth (scientific research, social studies, interviews with experts). The video doesn't attempt to explain why this trope is utilized (lazy and simplistic story telling? Sexist game industry? Economic reasons?). The video flat out ignores counter examples of the DiD even in the few series it talked about in depth. Why don't handhelds count?
Finally, so far, the video has not provided any sort of "good" way to portray the rescue of a throwaway character. Is Donkey Kong Country 2 good because it is a female rescuing a helpless male or is this still lazy story telling? What about all the men rescuing men? It seems to me like cheap story writing is the problem here. The developers need to give the player the simplest possible motivation to start experiencing the game play so they throw in a throwaway plot device. But, I am by no means an expert and desire more information. Th video comes way short of giving information so I was hopeful that Gaf would present it. Several other people have brought up the points from above much more eloquently than me. And, almost none of these posts have led to any engaging conversation or rebuttals. There is a lot of "Gaf is terrible" and "Gaf is as bad as youtube" but very few people who have similar beliefs to Anita on this topic are trying to engage in conversation. Maybe Anita is not the person to lead this topic, as has been suggested. And maybe Gaf is not a place to discuss it with any depth. If so, where then can I go?
Well, that is a big part of the problem, but as is, she decided to focus on one particular example of bad writing that she thinks is overused and detrimental. To the point of having a female character saving a male character, or a male character saving a male character, the fact that these examples exist don't undermine how "helpless female gets kidnapped and guy has to save her" is much, much more common. And I don't think the former examples are really better, except that the change of pace could arguably be considered better than having yet another game where the guy has to save the girl.
And it can be argued that this particular device is accessible, but so are a myriad of other plot devices. "How else can I set up a pedestrian move from point a to point b plot?" just strikes me as a lazy question.
Concerning why it's bad, I think a lot of that is kind up for individuals to decide. In it's simplest form, it can be argued -- though clearly not definitively -- that it is exclusionary towards women. Many argue that developers make games as dictated by capitalism, and that young men are the dominant market. And that's kind of fair. But does it have to be that way? I grew up in the 80s, and I played video games. Why weren't more girls my age playing video games? Why aren't girls born in the 80s -- during the big home video games boom -- growing up to be a big demographic now, with publishers wanting to cater toward the big 18 - 28 female demographic?
Maybe it's just because boys were inherently more interested in games than girls. If that's what one wants to believe, then so be it. The jury's still out either way in terms of nature versus nurture. However, you watch a video like this that shows a myriad of examples of the kinds of titles that we grew up with, and that does shed some potential light on the situation. And the existence of exceptions to the rule hardly invalidate that. "Well, if girls wanted a game where the girl saves the day, look at Donkey Kong Country 2!"
Anyway, an interesting point from another forum (probably already been mentioned, but oh well): here is the punchline of the video:
Anita said:
But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures. [Not all games like this are bad] But it's undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in our lives and the damsel in distress trope, as a recurring trend, does help to normalise extremely toxic, patronising, and paternalistic attitudes about women.
It's the "people can't distinguish between media and reality" argument again. Anyone got any proof that this argument has any merit in any form? I recall that the traditional reaction to such an argument (e.g. in cases where it's used against violence in video games) is to dismiss it immediately and mock the person making that argument.
Could be! Though I think the common complaint there is when a company makes a killing on a product then claims that they're struggling and / or continues bad business practices in other areas.
This whole kickstarter thing seems more like: a continued failure to understand the nature of a kickstarter/crowdfunding. It comes of like those who accuse people of seeing kickstarter as a storefront. When a project receives extra donations, it is as if the same mentality interprets this as a store overcharging for their products.
Which is not what is happening here at all. The reality of the situation seems even more clear when you consider that many of the donations for Tropes vs. Women were made purely out of principle, to spite those who were attacking the author because they just didn't like her. Or out of genuine misogyny.
At the end of the day it has zero bearing on the final product as delivered, if the product is made to its original specifications. At most, one might express disappointment that the extra funding wasn't used to increase the scope - if a rational suggestion on how that could be accomplished is put forward. That's still a world away from the unsettling, obsessive fixation we're seeing here though.
I watched some of her previous videos and just got around to this new one. It's probably been mentioned to death already, but this video series is not a well researched look proving that sexism against women exists in video games. It begins on the assumption that it already exists and shows examples of it. There's no operational definition of what sexism is, it's just assumed that the audience knows what it is and that it is bad. There is no measurement of sexism in a given media. And there is no random selection of titles.
So, like I thought, this is Confirmation Bias: The Series where Sarkeesian uses spurious connections to show that women, when taken hostage, are weak so that men can be strong. These are the kinds of things I did when I started out in college before I learned to really embrace the scientific method and stop looking for what I wanted to see.
Still, I think there is some merit in this editorial series*. I look forward to seeing the rest of them, though with diminished expectations, and I hope that people who make and, more importantly, publish games take a look at it and reflect on their future plans. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single game series with a well written female lead. There aren't many well written male leads, but I really struggle to think of a well written female lead.
*My expectations for anything other than editorial content is entirely my fault.
If one of her video says that Tetris represents phallic imagery to the degradation of women disregard my optimism.
After watching this all I could think was "well duh."
Videogames were initially designed to appeal to young, immature boys, and I don't intend to use the word "immature" as necessarily a horrible thing. I mean that the NES was designed as a children's toy. Zelda, Mario, DK, all designed to appeal to kids under the age of 12 and mostly appeal to boys who could only understand simplistic themes. Hence tropes.
What I find to be really absurd about all of this is the notion that Shigeru Miyamoto had any sort of influence on how men, such as myself, view women because I played his videogames throughout my entire life. She must think this or she wouldn't have mentioned his name and his work so much. These tropes influence people in the wrong ways right? Okay, but how much? It must be minuscule compared to other real life factors.
My mother and my two sisters dominant that area of influence on my life. They were my examples of women. Some men have bad examples women in their life and if they end up being disrespectful to women and are generally misogynist, look to that area of their life, not their videogames.
Princess Peach? Zelda? the panty girl in Double Dragon....I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh. I have vivid memories of laughing at that when I was kid because even at a tender age I knew it was a silly little bit of gratuitous perversion. So what?
This is why I find this level of media criticism to be such woefully self important tripe. It is basically the same as the nimrods who attribute real life gun violence to videogames gun violence.
All my criticism and that's the one thing you come at me for? I was exaggerating. I probably should've made it clearer. At the same time, you don't fix what ain't broken, and Mario and Zelda have always been the quintessential princess-saving games. Using them, as popular as they are, for almost her entire argument as opposed to a broader and more encompassing view made her argument weaker.
she's not doing this to offer solutions. she's doing this to bring an uncomfortable discussion to the fore, where you guilty, defensive shitheels have to confront it. and, maybe, just maybe, the more sage and enlightened among us will take the fruits of this discussion back to our day jobs as developers and critics in the game industry, look at the sexist shit we'd been creating or justifying, and cover up the tits and write the text that has fuck all to do with male desires and fantasies. or not. but not for want of anita trying.
You propose 'cover up the tits' as a possible solution and then wonder why I'm getting defensive?!
Well, I'm not getting defensive, but I'm worried for the future of gratuitous boobs. I even paid 69p in True Skate to be able to plaster the bottom of my skateboard with boobs
Haven't read through the entire thread but i am wondering if i am the only one who has major problems with her disabling comments, ratings and statistics? I feel like its a child move of "insert opinion here" and then proceed to put your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALA
Have no interest in listening to anything from someone who is afraid of opinions.
The YT comment section: Home to gross casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and you're seriously wondering why she's disabled it for her videos. As if anything thought provoking could ever come out of there. I think I'll stick with GAF for these discussions.
Pandering sells no matter the gender it caters to. Go ask J-Gaf how big is Kuroko no Basket in Japan and what kind of merchandise it sells. I don't think that many people look for screaming damsels flashing their tits in their videogames, but the people who do won't deal with it if you change direction, and a developer has to gauge which one weighs the most when dropping these lecherous people in hope of gaining more female gamers. It's an issue of business, real life vs fiction and political correctness.
Anyway, an interesting point from another forum (probably already been mentioned, but oh well): here is the punchline of the video:
It's the "people can't distinguish between media and reality" argument again. Anyone got any proof that this argument has any merit in any form? I recall that the traditional reaction to such an argument (e.g. in cases where it's used against violence in video games) is to dismiss it immediately and mock the person making that argument.
You propose 'cover up the tits' as a possible solution and then wonder why I'm getting defensive?!
Well, I'm not getting defensive, but I'm worried for the future of gratuitous boobs. I even paid 69p in True Skate to be able to plaster the bottom of my skateboard with boobs
So are you dismissing this purely on the basis of the medium, i.e., sexism isn't relevant in video games because it's a video game? What about movies? Books? Or any other media? Do you think those are not influential on society, as well?
No, not totally dismissing it. Just taking it down to its appropriate peg. Here is where I rank influence on peoples lives and specifically on their treatment of women.
1. Mother / Father relationship
2. Sisters
3. Aunts
4. Teachers
5. Neighbors
..
....
98. Movies
99. Music
100. Videogames
101. Books
All of these media critics who sit around and pick apart other peoples creations pretending like they are being profound and are actually changing something are borderline delusional. Videogames and the rest of media are not that important in a persons development as a human when stacked up against the people around them throughout their lives. Dad treats mom like crap, kid treats wife like crap. Girls sees mom put up with dads crap, girl puts up with boys crap and so goes the circle of life. This so outweighs something like a videogame that it is disrespectful to the subject matter to bring them up in the same conversation.
So basically, what I am saying is that fixing sexism and misogyny through media criticism is like trying to stop homelessness by giving a bum a dollar. The sentiment is fine but you aren't changing anything because the root of the problem has gone untouched.
On the topic of Zelda: I always found it ironic that the "horrible" 80s Zelda cartoon which was produced outside of Japan, took away Zelda's princess dress, made her a thief/archer, and put her in the field as a fellow adventurer.
She was still the ruler of the land and needed Link's help. So if translated into an actual Zelda game, the "theme" of the series wouldn't be changed. Link, boy adventurer, rocks up and must "save Hyrule for princess Zelda".
Anyway, an interesting point from another forum (probably already been mentioned, but oh well): here is the punchline of the video:
It's the "people can't distinguish between media and reality" argument again. Anyone got any proof that this argument has any merit in any form? I recall that the traditional reaction to such an argument (e.g. in cases where it's used against violence in video games) is to dismiss it immediately and mock the person making that argument.
The argument isn't "people can't distinguish between media and reality", it's that media influences our attitudes and cultural norms. Violence in media doesn't make us violent, and sexism in media doesn't make us sexist. But surely it has some effect, more negative than positive.
Nintendo are a good example of the 'Damsel in Distress', but they were telling stories back when the brief synopsis in a manual, and 10 seconds in the intro with crude representations of people were all you had.
Giving a protaganist motivation by the kidnapping on his girlfriend/wife/princess is just another trope. Not one exclusive to gaming. As I've said before, stereotypes always have a foot firmly placed in truth. They are used because they make the leap of faith into a narrative more confortable. Would Mario brave the perilous journey he does for a lucky wrench? For his hat? For his princess ... yeah, I can buy that. Heck, Luigi faces his fears to save his brother, who is 'Luigi's Mansions' damsel.
These games have a hand in tradition. Less of the Zelda games, for instance, have you rescue Princess Zelda, (Skyward Sword spoilers)
such as Skyward Sword where you always seem to be too late, and Zelda is resuced by another female
. As new games develop this trope becomes less and less prevalent; modern series' like Uncharted & Assassin's Creed feature strong characters like Elena & Maria Thorpe, repsectively.
It's the "people can't distinguish between media and reality" argument again. Anyone got any proof that this argument has any merit in any form? I recall that the traditional reaction to such an argument (e.g. in cases where it's used against violence in video games) is to dismiss it immediately and mock the person making that argument.
The argument is more, if the video games we play all have Damsels in Distress, and the movies all have Damsels in Distress, and the books all have Damsels in Distress, and the television shows all have Damsels in Distress, eventually people might stop questioning it and just accept it as normative. "If every form of media I consume tells me that women are damsels in need to rescuing, I guess it must be true."
The most significant thing I've learned from Anita Sarkeesian's videos is that a lot of people on GAF, and by extension a lot of gamers, find the open discussion of women's issues to be very threatening.
The argument isn't "people can't distinguish between media and reality", it's that media influences our attitudes and cultural norms. Violence in media doesn't make us violent, and sexism in media doesn't make us sexist. But surely it has some effect, more negative than positive.
The most significant thing I've learned from Anita Sarkeesian's videos is that a lot of people on GAF, and by extension a lot of gamers, find the open discussion of women's issues to be very threatening.
No, not totally dismissing it. Just taking it down to its appropriate peg. Here is where I rank influence on peoples lives and specifically on their treatment of women.
1. Mother / Father relationship
2. Sisters
3. Aunts
4. Teachers
5. Neighbors
..
....
98. Movies
99. Music
100. Videogames
101. Books
All of these media critics who sit around and pick apart other peoples creations pretending like they are being profound and are actually changing something are borderline delusional. Videogames and the rest of media are not that important in a persons development as a human when stacked up against the people around them throughout their lives. Dad treats mom like crap, kid treats wife like crap. Girls sees mom put up with dads crap, girl puts up with boys crap and so goes the circle of life. This so outweighs something like a videogame that it is disrespectful to the subject matter to bring them up in the same conversation.
So rather than look at how each individual is shaped by the life they live, the medium they consume, and the male-female relationships they've observed, you've just made an arbitrary list that puts all fictional content at the bottom?
Here, let's boil this down. True/false: Video games are a legitimate subject of the same sort of criticism that is given to books and movies.
The YT comment section: Home to gross casual racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. and you're seriously wondering why she's disabled it for her videos. As if anything thought provoking could ever come out of there. I think I'll stick with GAF for these discussions.
She also cherry picks the comments she allows to be posted on her personal page. Protecting herself from mean old internet bullies is all fine and whatever, but combined with the way she handles interaction in all of her online venues makes it seem like she's not open to critical feedback on her research unless it agrees with her.
Then again, it's been pointed out to me ITT that she's not trying to present herself as a serious researcher doing serious research, so whatever.
On the topic of Zelda: I always found it ironic that the "horrible" 80s Zelda cartoon which was produced outside of Japan, took away Zelda's princess dress, made her a thief/archer, and put her in the field as a fellow adventurer.
She was still the ruler of the land and needed Link's help. So if translated into an actual Zelda game, the "theme" of the series wouldn't be changed. Link, boy adventurer, rocks up and must "save Hyrule for princess Zelda".
Nintendo are a good example of the 'Damsel in Distress', but they were telling stories back when the brief synopsis in a manual, and 10 seconds in the intro with crude representations of people were all you had.
Giving a protaganist motivation by the kidnapping on his girlfriend/wife/princess is just another trope. Not one exclusive to gaming. As I've said before, stereotypes always have a foot firmly placed in truth. They are used because they make the leap of faith into a narrative more confortable. Would Mario brave the perilous journey he does for a lucky wrench? For his hat? For his princess ... yeah, I can buy that. Heck, Luigi faces his fears to save his brother, who is 'Luigi's Mansions' damsel.
These games have a hand in tradition. Less of the Zelda games, for instance, have you rescue Princess Zelda, (Skyward Sword spoilers)
such as Skyward Sword where you always seem to be too late, and Zelda is resuced by another female
. As new games develop this trope becomes less and less prevalent; modern series' like Uncharted & Assassin's Creed feature strong character like Elena & Maria Thorpe, repsectively.
Rescuing Peach doesn't need to be Mario's motive for jumping on turtles' heads. I think she made a really good point about how Peach was playable in Mario 2 and reverted back to her status of damsel in distress in every other mainline entry. There's no reason why she shouldn't be a playable character in New Super Mario Bros.
The most significant thing I've learned from Anita Sarkeesian's videos is that a lot of people on GAF, and by extension a lot of gamers, find the open discussion of women's issues to be very threatening.
Not so much. But when you go by the Youtube handle 'feministfrequency', you'll have to forgive me for thinking that a person could, perhaps, have an agenda.
Mario games don't have to be about saving the princess. You could write her out and put Luigi in her place an no one would care. All that's required in a Mario story is that there's little to no dialogue and it explains why Mario is chasing Bowser through a 2D/3D world in a short sentence. If it's more than that it does actually start to hurt the franchise.
Nintendo are a good example of the 'Damsel in Distress', but they were telling stories back when the brief synopsis in a manual, and 10 seconds in the intro with crude representations of people were all you had.
Giving a protaganist motivation by the kidnapping on his girlfriend/wife/princess is just another trope. Not one exclusive to gaming. As I've said before, stereotypes always have a foot firmly placed in truth. They are used because they make the leap of faith into a narrative more confortable. Would Mario brave the perilous journey he does for a lucky wrench? For his hat? For his princess ... yeah, I can buy that. Heck, Luigi faces his fears to save his brother, who is 'Luigi's Mansions' damsel.
These games have a hand in tradition. Less of the Zelda games, for instance, have you rescue Princess Zelda, (Skyward Sword spoilers)
such as Skyward Sword where you always seem to be too late, and Zelda is resuced by another female
. As new games develop this trope becomes less and less prevalent; modern series' like Uncharted & Assassin's Creed feature strong character like Elena & Maria Thorpe, repsectively.
The nature of Zelda in Skyward Sword is a very important thing to point out. Also, it's worth noting that in professional media, it seems most reviewers of the game did highlight that the storytelling and characterizations were more evolved over previous Zelda games.
Really, the prime offender for Nintendo in this area, is just Mario. Even Zelda has evolved gradually and steadily and it's disingenuous to claim Zelda is "the same old shit". Mario is pretty much the one stuck in the trope groundhog day snare.
The argument is more, if the video games we play all have Damsels in Distress, and the movies all have Damsels in Distress, and the books all have Damsels in Distress, and the television shows all have Damsels in Distress, eventually people might stop questioning it and just accept it as normative. "If every form of media I consume tells me that women are damsels in need to rescuing, I guess it must be true."
First of all, they don't, not even remotely; so that scenario might exist, but it doesn't. Secondly, media seen or heard still has to contend with personally experienced reality. Media that is engineered to look a certain way quickly gets glossed over and ignored. You can show thousands of stock diversity photos for college brochures to advertisements to company seminars, but people quickly treat it as noise, and it makes sense that they'd do so. If anything, many people will treat it with contempt, until they personally experience otherwise.
No, not totally dismissing it. Just taking it down to its appropriate peg. Here is where I rank influence on peoples lives and specifically on their treatment of women.
1. Mother / Father relationship
2. Sisters
3. Aunts
4. Teachers
5. Neighbors
..
....
98. Movies
99. Music
100. Videogames
101. Books
All of these media critics who sit around and pick apart other peoples creations pretending like they are being profound and are actually changing something are borderline delusional. Videogames and the rest of media are not that important in a persons development as a human when stacked up against the people around them throughout their lives. Dad treats mom like crap, kid treats wife like crap. Girls sees mom put up with dads crap, girl puts up with boys crap and so goes the circle of life. This so outweighs something like a videogame that it is disrespectful to the subject matter to bring them up in the same conversation.
Not surprised you blamed the man in your examples. When people say "political correctness", this is the type of thing they're referring to. I would say a man may be more likely to become a misogynist if he has a bad mother.
But don't you see, all life is political, and all politics is moral, and all morality is Manichean. Therefore even the smallest aspects of your life have great symbolic meaning, which is why they need to be controlled on your behalf.
Yup, pretty much my issue with these type of things. That being said: I ought to watch this, anyway, I am genuinely interested and intrigued on her findings.
There must surely be a feminist conspiracy pushing for keeping men away from psycology, nursing and teaching careers as well, I guess, looking at the gender imbalance. I argue that these giants are actually windmills.
This and the evolutionary psychology is pretty much the biggest crap. With this kind of logic we would never evolved. We are talking here about end of the 20st century, beginning of the 21st century. About a medium which wishes to be seen as art. But as soon as criticism comes:
It always has been that way. It works that way.
You have not provided any other counter-argument outside self righteousness, and proving then again that political correction is the PETA of intellectual discourse: counterproductive, focusing on non issues, and mostly a venue for people to feel good with theirselves other than solving real world problems.
All my criticism and that's the one thing you come at me for? I was exaggerating. I probably should've made it clearer. At the same time, you don't fix what ain't broken, and Mario and Zelda have always been the quintessential princess-saving games. Using them, as popular as they are, for almost her entire argument as opposed to a broader and more encompassing view made her argument weaker.
I focused on that because that's the basis of your argument: they're games "about" saving princesses. No one is attracted to Mario or Zelda because they can't wait to play the latest princess-saving game.
I think this is true, but also that it's a cycle that can perpetuate and reinforce both beneficial and detrimental ideology. And I think it can be argued that in terms of the latter, this material -- though reflective of society at some point in the recent past -- will influence new generations that haven't yet formed their own preconceptions of how the world works.
Yup. I don't see how it's even possible to criticize the work she is trying to do. It's disgusting how adamantly people here are trying to poke holes in every point she makes while missing the bigger picture entirely.
Nintendo are a good example of the 'Damsel in Distress', but they were telling stories back when the brief synopsis in a manual, and 10 seconds in the intro with crude representations of people were all you had.
Then make the motivation that they stole your wallet. Our your food. Or your watch. The excuse of "oh it's just poor writing" doesn't fly. You can write a shitty story about all your money getting stolen too.
The fact that it was always, constantly a woman is pretty troubling.
