Support NeoGAF

[BocoDragon]

Could have been. Didn´t happen. Won´t happen.

Are there examples of male main characters in videogames being vulnerable and then becoming a survivor/warrior?

Luigi is the only thing that comes to mind right now, but that's probably because I've been playing Luigi's Mansion all week :S

Lester the Unlikely!

But seriously, hasnt happened much yet because gaming is filled with superheroes... Nothing seems impossible about making it a male though.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Lester the Unlikely!

But seriously, hasnt happened much yet because gaming is filled with superheroes... Nothing seems impossible about making it a male though.

Even superheroes have origins were they are vulnerable and grow.

But in videogames tends to happen less because power fantasy and the need to give the player inmediate satisfaction.

 

[truestatic]

No, we can have a female action hero, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the treatment of a female action hero versus a male action hero is highly unequal. And yes, action heroes frequently get beat up, but the reason they are getting beat up is contextual. Male action heroes get beat up because they're proving that they're badasses, they can take it. Female action heroes get beat up because, it supposedly builds her character. The treatment of these situations is very different.

So just to be sure, this is in relation to story based, persistent injuries inflicted upon the character, like the time she falls upon the piece of rebar, rather than horrifically graphic fatalities, yeah? Are the fatalities kosher? Because I don't think you can argue that those are there to make the victim look 'badass.' It's hard to look badass as you get impaled through the head by a log, cut in two by a chainsaw, or ripped apart by Xenomorphs, male or female.

 

[BocoDragon]

Even superheroes have origins were they are vulnerable and grow.

But in videogames tends to happen less because power fantasy and the need to give the player inmediate satisfaction.

That's true.

 

[WanderingWind]

Even superheroes have origins were they are vulnerable and grow.

But in videogames tends to happen less because power fantasy and the need to give the player inmediate satisfaction.

I'd say roughly 90 percent of every RPG adheres to the characters starting weak and growing into the god like individuals we all love to hate. Same with adventure games - going back to the PC point and click golden days, SNES (Out of This World) and even modern action games like Far Cry. And let's not forget that when we first met Lara Croft she was a backflipping, dual gun wielding, tiger killing badass.

The issue really is that in order to make a semi-believable action game, you need to have a protagonist that has a reasonable expectation for being able to do incredibly violent things. They're finding new ways to do that (Hey, look, magical tattoos!) and as we explore more of the space outside of space/realistic marine action, we'll see more expansion in this area.

 

[Omnistalgic]

I approve of this thread...

Well done Lime...

Well done...

Soft...paused applaus with a steady head nod...

 

[Cyrano]

You're really reaching here.

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dI6PfLns4Q

So just to be sure, this is in relation to story based, persistent injuries inflicted upon the character, like the time she falls upon the piece of rebar, rather than horrifically graphic fatalities, yeah? Are the fatalities kosher? Because I don't think you can argue that those are there to make the victim look 'badass.' It's hard to look badass as you get impaled through the head by a log, cut in two by a chainsaw, or ripped apart by Xenomorphs, male or female.

No, the fatalities aren't kosher, but then none of the other videogames in these genres seem to have much problem killing people with mustard gas either (much less games like Homefront, where you mash X to hide under a pile of burnt bodies). I'm not saying that such a thing is "ok" just that it's common in these types of games.

 

[Riposte]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dI6PfLns4Q

Maybe you weren't reaching before, but now... well, this just isn't how you make this argument. You would be better off looking at cutscenes/set pieces.

 

[WanderingWind]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dI6PfLns4Q

Play the games before making judgments on them? And yeah, the fact that people are making this big deal about it (IE you) NOW, when this has been happening in games for...well, ever is the problem. Why do you see Nathan Drake getting shot and having to climb up a mountain before bleeding out as "badass" but see Lara doing exactly the same (change shot with impaled) as a sign of sexism? What does that say about you?

 

[mullet2000]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dI6PfLns4Q

...what? All that means is that people have been writing articles about Lara getting beat up over Drake getting beat up. Because people don't really react to men getting beat up in media the same way that people react to that happening to women. In what way does that imply that "Nathan Drake is not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?"

And a fan made music video is a valid point to bring up about the subject?

 

[cutmeamango]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though

I bolded the awful parts.

 

[polyh3dron]

Cyrano, all you're pointing out is that people online find Lara's vulnerability to be something to be more up in arms about than Nathan Drake's vulnerability which is a sexist attitude in itself. Basically, you jumped the shark.

P.S. I just googled "Nathan Drake" vulnerable and found this, that is if you value such Google results so highly in this argument:

http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/20/nathan-drake-is-a-spectacular-failure/

That, in a nutshell, explains why I love Nathan Drake as a character. Beyond the smartass attitude, the pulp-hero exploits, the repartee with his friends, or his humanistic side (excepting the millions he's killed in pursuit of treasure, of course), I delight in his weakness. I savor his vulnerability. I relish his mistakes.

 

[BobbyRobby]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

that is because of people like you complaining. when male characters get abused, it isn't a controversy.

 

[truestatic]

So, I did a Google search for "Nathan Drake beat up" and couldn't find an actual article that shows or otherwise explains how he's actively abused.

I did a Google search for Lara Croft beaten up and the Top 4 results are about her being abused.

Am I missing something or is Nathan Drake not the abused action hero everyone here is claiming him to be?

I mean, are there some relevant links/articles/criticism that explain what I'm missing here? Because there's lots of criticism on how Lara's treated in the newest iteration of Tomb Raider.

I did find a music video of a Nathan Drake remix about how he wants women to sleep with him though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dI6PfLns4Q

I could possibly chalk that up to showing women suffering abuse is a trigger, where as showing men suffer abuse is ho-hum. No one gives a fuck how you treat your male character. But I've not actually played Uncharted so I can't say for sure.

No, the fatalities aren't kosher, but then none of the other videogames in these genres seem to have much problem killing people with mustard gas either (much less games like Homefront, where you mash X to hide under a pile of burnt bodies). I'm not saying that such a thing is "ok" just that it's common in these types of games.

But they're problematic on a "don't treat human characters like this" level and not a "this is sexist" level?

 

[Cyrano]

Cyrano, all you're pointing out is that people online find Lara's vulnerability to be something to be more up in arms about than Nathan Drake's vulnerability which is a sexist attitude in itself. Basically, you jumped the shark.

No, I'm asking that if there's a problem with Nathan's treatment, where is it? Because if there is a problem, nobody seems to be saying anything about it. Most people tend to say something if there is a problem, unless they're told to not talk about it. Which I'm pretty sure is what's occurring here.

I could possibly chalk that up to showing women suffering abuse is a trigger, where as showing men suffer abuse is ho-hum. No one gives a fuck how you treat your male character. But I've not actually played Uncharted so I can't say for sure.

Which is admitting that there is bias, yes? Not only that, but that treatment is unequal? I would encourage people to talk about men's plight, if it is in fact an issue, but no one seems to think this. Or at least they aren't saying anything about it.

 

[7Th]

Are there examples of male main characters in videogames being vulnerable and then becoming a survivor/warrior?

There are a lot in Japanese games and JRPGs.

 

[Grand Funk Carwash]

Even superheroes have origins were they are vulnerable and grow.

But in videogames tends to happen less because power fantasy and the need to give the player inmediate satisfaction.

People need to stop treating origin stories as par for the course. Rarely will books/movies/tv start a character at the very beginning of their 'arc'. You are generally introduced to a character after they've been established as whatever they are - Dexter for example is introduced to the reader/viewer as a serial killer who has been killing for a long time.

An origin story really only occurs as a way to reboot/reinvigorate an existing series or character. There just aren't that many video game reboots of character focused games so its rare to be exposed to the 'vulnerable' version of a character.

 

[Riposte]

No, I'm asking that if there's a problem with Nathan's treatment, where is it? Because if there is a problem, nobody seems to be saying anything about it. Most people tend to say something if there is a problem, unless they're told to not talk about it. Which I'm pretty sure is what's occurring here.

I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore. So I'm just going to sit back and see what happens.

 

[polyh3dron]

No, I'm asking that if there's a problem with Nathan's treatment, where is it? Because if there is a problem, nobody seems to be saying anything about it. Most people tend to say something if there is a problem, unless they're told to not talk about it. Which I'm pretty sure is what's occurring here.

Which is admitting that there is bias, yes? Not only that, but that treatment is unequal? I would encourage people to talk about men's plight, if it is in fact an issue, but no one seems to think this. Or at least they aren't saying anything about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/sep/26/uncharted-3-interview

Well, you know, when men are young, it seems important to express that bravado – there's an expectation on men to project confidence. Maybe there's an expectation on everyone to project confidence. It's nice you've picked up on that – Nathan is different in that regard. He has that combination of cocksureness and willingness to take risks – he's often seized by what Neal Stephenson in the Baroque Cycle calls 'the imp of the perverse'.

But the game wouldn't work if that was all he offered – it is offset by his vulnerability. There's that moment in Uncharted 2 where he suddenly meets his current crush Chloe at the same time as his former girlfriend Elena. The fact that he doesn't quite know where to put himself during this meeting is very disarming; it helps the audience connect with every character in the scene. It's a big part of the emotional magic and it's a great testament to the skill of Amy Hennig our creative director and writer, that she can draw these moments together.

 

[truestatic]

No, I'm asking that if there's a problem with Nathan's treatment, where is it? Because if there is a problem, nobody seems to be saying anything about it. Most people tend to say something if there is a problem, unless they're told to not talk about it. Which I'm pretty sure is what's occurring here.

I don't know that anyone except you is holding up that treatment as a problem though. Like I said, it's sort of a trope of the genre. It's a bit of a tautology, but the reason no one cares when a male protagonist gets beat to hell is because no one cares when a male protagonist gets beat to hell. It's not a common trigger. We're uncomfortable showing or seeing a woman put in the same situation though, because it too closely mirrors a hot button social issue. Anyways I feel like we're getting a little tangential again. Woops. :\

 

[partyphone]

I've never thought of Zelda as an 'object', or Peach, or Bayonetta, or any of the myriad of other female characters I have interacted with in video games over the years. Personally in my life, I've always tried to treat people decently, in spite of how I was personally treated, and I'd like to think I've done a pretty good job of it.

Argument from personal experience. It's nice that you see things that way but it's naive.

Video games themselves were the things that so many retreated to who found real life difficult. Others, simply because they liked playing them. I'm not going to attempt to catalogue every reason, but please understand, I'm not trying to marginalize whatever your reason was. I simply don't know it, that's all . Now, I don't know the precise demographics, but judging from the output, many more males than females turned to video games, for reasons that I have my own private theories of, and am willing to share, keeping in mind that I'm not a psychologist or sociologist.

Maybe look up the demographics because you form any theories. It seems much more you came to a conclusion first and are trying to rationalize it.

The tone of the whole 'sexism in video games' thing I feel is hostile, at least towards me, a white male. I feel as if I should somehow have to apologize for an industry I have not entered yet, have had no part in crafting the atmosphere surrounding it, and that on some level, I need to apologize for having been born with man parts.

Tone arguments are boring. You don't actually have any good counterpoints so you stoop to complaining about tone. Also, your perception here is weird. Most feminists aren't like this. Anita Sarkeesian, for example, goes out of her way to make it clear that it's okay to enjoy the games she's criticizing.

Anyone wanting to go after how women have been portrayed in video games need to go after how men have been portrayed, as well.

Need to? Why do they need to?

Relying on tropes where both male and female characters are concerned is a way to easily communicate things about them, be that for good, or for ill. I don't buy a lot of media with female leads simply because in my mind, I don't look at the gender of the character. A lot of the female characters I have encountered seem to be dominated by that femininity. Not that its a bad thing, but to my way of thinking, gender should simply be an aspect of storytelling that informs the character, but by no means defines who they are. Just as in no way do I think all black people like fried chicken.

This is exactly the problem with sexism. It assumes gender roles. Thanks for pointing it out!

The most concerning thing to me is that no matter how well intentioned and needed the message is, I feel that its screwing up its one shot, simply because of how they chose to approach it. Dane Cook could be the most brilliant comedian right now, but because of the few times I listened to him, his content was offensive to me, I stopped.

More tone whining. *yawn*

Even more important, I feel that this focus ignores the biggest problem the gaming industry has: it mistreats everybody!

So what? You're saying that if you want to criticize one problematic aspect of gaming you have to criticize all of them? That doesn't seem very practical or useful.

There are other factors as well going on. This could probably be a paper, but the one that comes to mind first is the traditional audience. I hold with a poster earlier, that didn't attach a moral judgment to it, simply that it was inconvenient. Like the portrayal of most men in a Lifetime movie. Its not that I think that the people at Lifetime hate men, or that I think many of the people in gaming hate women. It's simply dictated by economics and the audience that each has traditionally had. No moral judgment to attach.

That's exactly the problem. Just because it's the norm doesn't mean it's okay. You don't get to hand waive sexism and claim it's morally neutral simply because it's economically viable.

Another is the politically correct atmosphere that I have come to despise. The best thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is that I, as a man, have to be careful while being around a kid. Even if I see a kid alone, just kicking a ball in a park, and all I want to do is just play a game of catch with him, I can't do that. Because a man being alone with a kid means all sorts of bad things. The reason I would want to play a game of catch with that kid is the best reason I can think of. Because I was that kid no one wanted to play with. I went to video games to have a refuge from all of that mess, only to find that it has now followed me there. And I don't like it!

I'm not sure how panic over child predators is politically correct? Regardless of your example your argument is silly. How dare we expect you treat other people with respect!

The most blatant example that offended me was the pilot(?) in Mass Effect 3 was gay. I was not offended by the gay part, but I was offended by the lazy writing. They literally shoehorned in a character who would have otherwise been an extra and to make him memorable, put a 'gay' sticker on him. Now, other people might say that's progress, and it deserves to be rewarded. Me, I think that lazy writing like that needs to be called out, and punished by having me not buy their game.

What? I don't even know where to begin, honestly. ME3 was a poorly written game all around and I've grown to hate it. But I don't think that character was a problem at all.

I could go on, and on, but while the content of the message regarding 'sexism' is good, the tone that many people seem to use when communicating it seems hostile, at least, in regards to me. That bothers me, and makes me want to go 'I went into video games to get away from all of the mistreatment, and now, simply because I have enjoyed video games for a while, and was born a man, that I am somehow racist, misogynistic, and discriminatory! FUCK YOU!'. I am not trying to speak for anyone else, I am simply saying how the entire discussion around this issue has come of, at least, to me, and the overall feeling I have gotten from it, at least, where I am concerned.

hoory for tone trolls, I guess. ugh.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

People need to stop treating origin stories as par for the course. Rarely will books/movies/tv start a character at the very beginning of their 'arc'. You are generally introduced to a character after they've been established as whatever they are - Dexter for example is introduced to the reader/viewer as a serial killer who has been killing for a long time.

They are not par of the course, but is as uncommon as you think, at least in certain periods.

 

[inm8num2]

I don't know what's going on in this thread anymore. So I'm just going to sit back and see what happens.

I can never keep up. GAF train is too fast for me.

 

[truestatic]

Which is admitting that there is bias, yes? Not only that, but that treatment is unequal? I would encourage people to talk about men's plight, if it is in fact an issue, but no one seems to think this. Or at least they aren't saying anything about it.

There are many that would disagree with you very vehemently. I don't really know where to stand on that issue. Suffice to say that it seems accepted wisdom at this point that fair treatment is not always equal treatment, and context must be respected. Hit too close to home on a social issue affecting a particular group and you'll get a strong outcry. Treat an unaffected group the same way and no one will even notice.

 

[Cyrano]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2011/sep/26/uncharted-3-interview

So his vulnerability is expressed by him having to choose between two women?

HRMMM...

I don't know that anyone except you is holding up that treatment as a problem though. Like I said, it's sort of a trope of the genre. It's a bit of a tautology, but the reason no one cares when a male protagonist gets beat to hell is because no one cares when a male protagonist gets beat to hell. It's not a common trigger. We're uncomfortable showing or seeing a woman put in the same situation though, because it too closely mirrors a hot button social issue. Anyways I feel like we're getting a little tangential again. Woops. :\

Except the situation isn't the same, because these characters aren't being treated the same way. Lara is being treated as helpless, Nathan is being treated as heroic.

 

[Jenga]

So his vulnerability is expressed by him having to choose between two women?.

the alpha male dilemma

 

[Shinta]

Most comic book and game characters start weak and get stronger. Darth Vader and Conan the Barbarian starting as slaves, and enduring hardship. Batman is the quintessential example, with his parents killed at a young age and his lack of super powers. Riddick going to prison where he surgically alters his eyes to see in the dark so he can escape. Even Rambo in First Blood being a tortured veteran with PTSD, or John McClain in Die Hard suffering the entire movie and walking on broken glass barefoot. The list is almost impossibly long.

And Lara is really not helpless at all. She's so brutal in fact, that some people were pissed that she was so strong.

 

[WanderingWind]

Except the situation isn't the same, because these characters aren't being treated the same way. Lara is being treated as helpless, Nathan is being treated as heroic.

That is entirely a product of your own bias and says way more about you than either game.

 

[truestatic]

So his vulnerability is expressed by him having to choose between two women?

HRMMM...


Except the situation isn't the same, because these characters aren't being treated the same way. Lara is being treated as helpless, Nathan is being treated as heroic.

We might be able to attribute that to this being an origin story? I don't think it would feel out of place for a prequel Uncharted to treat Drake's early development in a similar way. I also wouldn't be surprised if further games in this Tomb Raider arc divorce Lara of her vulnerability, at least a little bit. My understanding is that had really already happened by the end of this game anyways - "Die you bastards!" "I'm coming for you all!"

 

[Shinta]

We might be able to attribute that to this being an origin story? I don't think it would feel out of place for a prequel Uncharted to treat Drake's early development in a similar way. I also wouldn't be surprised if further games in this Tomb Raider arc divorce Lara of her vulnerability, at least a little bit. My understanding is that had really already happened by the end of this game anyways - "Die you bastards!" "I'm coming for you all!"

It happened after like, 45 minutes.

 

[Dead Man]

So his vulnerability is expressed by him having to choose between two women?

HRMMM...


Except the situation isn't the same, because these characters aren't being treated the same way. Lara is being treated as helpless, Nathan is being treated as heroic.

Not to make a full defence of the passage, it is a bit self congratulating, but vulnerability is in the response to the situation, not the situation.

 

[Cyrano]

That is entirely a product of your own bias and says way more about you than either game.

This is an easy way to escape having the conversation, but I can't claim with absolute certainty that I'm right and you're wrong. Just that there are a lot of people who will back me up on the argument about Lara's treatment, and not so much on Nathan Drake (or most other male characters/male action heroes).

White male privilege is a pretty deep problem in our society, with hundreds if not thousands of years of embedded history, and it's inevitably hard to escape that. Having the conversation is the first step though.

Tim Wise again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5OkHysPNog

Zinn again:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html

 

[inm8num2]

Most comic book and game characters start weak and get stronger. Darth Vader and Conan the Barbarian starting as slaves, and enduring hardship.

The writing of George Lucas should never be referenced in any sort of discussion.

Batman is the quintessential example, with his parents killed at a young age and his lack of super powers.

Batman doesn't have super powers (in the conventional sense of super powers being supernatural or beyond human abilities).

Riddick going to prison where he surgically alters his eyes to see in the dark so he can escape. Even Rambo in First Blood being a tortured veteran with PTSD, or John McClain in Die Hard suffering the entire movie and walking on broken glass barefoot. The list is almost impossibly long.

Well, I'd say many of these characters start with huge flaws or possibly even in antagonistic ways, only to grow and redeem themselves.

I'm actually not sure which side of the argument this post is on, but I just felt like responding.

 

[AlexBasch]

Not sure if this counts, but what about Jim from 28 Days Later? (Spoilers ahead)

Spoiler

He's a normal, usual young man that crashes on his bike only to wake up in the middle of a zombie crisis and manages to survive long enough to help out Selena and the other girl, by effectively taking out the soldiers with traps and gouging the eyes of another one like a pro.

I know there's a damsel-in-distress thing in here that might invalidate my point but still.

 

[WanderingWind]

This is an easy way to escape having the conversation, but I can't claim with absolute certainty that I'm right and you're wrong. Just that there are a lot of people who will back me up on the argument about Lara's treatment, and not so much on Nathan Drake (or most other male characters/male action heroes).

It's not an easy way to escape the conversation, it's just not the conversation you're comfortable having with yourself. Projection is an ugly thing.

 

[polyh3dron]

So his vulnerability is expressed by him having to choose between two women?

HRMMM....

Yeah you're really focusing on the important part there aren't you.

 

[Grand Funk Carwash]

They are not par of the course, but is as uncommon as you think, at least in certain periods.

I think the point still stands - You really only tend to go back to the beginning of a character once the current has been established. An origin story is most effective and interesting when you are informed of where you are headed with a character.

Video games rarely go backwards - they get fixated on moving the story forward so its sequel, sequel, sequel, alternate reality, sequel. Reboots are becoming more common and with them writers have the opportunity to go back to the start and as a result we start seeing the vulnerable version of characters that were only ever known as badasses.

Dismissing it as 'male characters are never shown as vulnerable' is wrong as there are few opportunities to actually go backwards and show this vulnerability - you start with a badass and build on it. Tomb Raider in a way is only interesting because we know what Lara becomes - who would want to play a game where you are forced to be abused for half of it?

 

[Cyrano]

It's not an easy way to escape the conversation, it's just not the conversation you're comfortable having with yourself. Projection is an ugly thing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-I-dont-need-reminding-that-shes-a-woman.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2013/03/youll-want-to-protect-new-lara-croft.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/tomb-raider-lara-croft-rape-attempt

Yes. All this projecting I'm doing.

Here's one from a peer-reviewed book that's pretty famous in academia too. http://books.google.com/books?id=UM...X&ei=rOBgUZPcOcmSrgGlkYCwDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBDge

Yeah you're really focusing on the important part there aren't you.

What is the important part? That he's vulnerable because two women he liked are around him at the same time?

 

[WanderingWind]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wo...-I-dont-need-reminding-that-shes-a-woman.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2013/03/youll-want-to-protect-new-lara-croft.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/tomb-raider-lara-croft-rape-attempt

Yes. All this projecting I'm doing.

Here's one from a peer-reviewed book that's pretty famous in academia too. http://books.google.com/books?id=UM...X&ei=rOBgUZPcOcmSrgGlkYCwDQ&ved=0CFcQ6AEwBDge


What is the important part? That he's vulnerable because two women he liked are around him at the same time?

You do not understand what "projection" means.

 

[Dead Man]

What is the important part? That he's vulnerable because two women he liked are around him at the same time?

Not to make a full defence of the passage, it is a bit self congratulating, but vulnerability is in the response to the situation, not the situation.

.

 

[Cyrano]

You do not understand what "projection" means.

Uh... ok? I'm aware what you mean, that you think I'm pushing my views onto the characters, but I'm not the only one who sees what's occurring as a problem. Thus I can only take your complaints with a grain of salt until you can provide some degree of evidence that supports your claims, rather than being dismissive and stating "I don't understand," which assumes that you do, but since you do, you supposedly don't have to defend nor explain yourself. Which seems problematic, if you actually intend to have a discussion and aren't just condemning another person.

edit: Dead Man, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you explain a bit?

Anyway, some interesting writing that tries to swing from both sides: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/cathlena/ENC1131/laracroft.pdf

Provides some interesting commentary on ways of seeing.

 

[Oersted]

Yeah you're really focusing on the important part there aren't you.

Feel free to tell us where the important part for you is.

 

[WanderingWind]

Uh... ok? I'm aware what you mean, that you think I'm pushing my views onto the characters, but I'm not the only one who sees what's occurring as a problem. Thus I can only take your complaints with a grain of salt until you can provide some degree of evidence that supports your claims, rather than being dismissive and stating "I don't understand," which assumes that you do, but since you do, you supposedly don't have to defend nor explain yourself. Which seems problematic, if you actually intend to have a discussion and not just condemn another person.

No offense, but you're not following along. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but you're jumping in your logic and arguments so much that I doubt you even know what your saying any longer. The fact that you're linking to wholly irrelevant articles as some sort of defense of your personal insecurities is proof of that. Your insecurities create vulnerability and weakness in the female character, but heroism and "baddassery" in the male character. How you continue to not see this as a problem is as bewildering as your consistent jumping around and asking for proof in game states when we're talking about your personal outlooks.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

lol. Wow. That is awesome.

 

[Cyrano]

No offense, but you're not following along. I'm not trying to be dismissive, but you're jumping in your logic and arguments so much that I doubt you even know what your saying any longer. The fact that you're linking to wholly irrelevant articles as some sort of defense of your personal insecurities is proof of that. Your insecurities create vulnerability and weakness in the female character, but heroism and "baddassery" in the male character. How you continue to not see this as a problem is as bewildering as your consistent jumping around and asking for proof in game states when we're talking about your personal outlooks.

What do my personal insecurities have to do with the arguments? Certainly I cannot escape myself and my feelings from a conversation, no one can do that! At the same time however, focusing on my feelings and not my arguments is an ad hominem attack. I'm not arguing about my feelings, I'm attempting to argue in conjunction with others and their thoughts. That's the basis of an argument, to take a side and to defend it. I use those articles to show that I am not the only one who feels this way, and you are denying these articles as irrelevant because "my insecurities" are getting in the way.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You're_being_emotional

 

[WanderingWind]

What do my personal insecurities have to do with the arguments? Certainly I cannot escape myself and my feelings from a conversation, no one can do that! At the same time however, focusing on my feelings and not my arguments is an ad hominem attack. I'm not arguing about my feelings, I'm attempting to argue in conjunction with others and their thoughts. That's the basis of an argument, to take a side and to defend it. I use those articles to show that I am not the only one who feels this way, and you are denying these articles as irrelevant because "my insecurities" are getting in the way.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You're_being_emotional

They're irrelevant because they have nothing to do with how you're viewing things. Nothing. Until you can answer why you view physical harm to a male character as badass and heroic, but the same exact treatment as creating weakness in a female character, I don't think there is much more to talk about. This is why your personal point of view - hindered as it is by this heavy bias toward the male character - is a point of discussion and not an ad hominem. I'm not going to get into yet another tiresome debate about what logical fallacies, either.

 

[TheChaos]

The most blatant example that offended me was the pilot(?) in Mass Effect 3 was gay. I was not offended by the gay part, but I was offended by the lazy writing. They literally shoehorned in a character who would have otherwise been an extra and to make him memorable, put a 'gay' sticker on him. Now, other people might say that's progress, and it deserves to be rewarded. Me, I think that lazy writing like that needs to be called out, and punished by having me not buy their game.

Cortez actually had a role in the story. Since you no longer had the Mako, you needed a shuttle pilot and Cortez needed to be there to fly you into the drop zone. He also had a pretty significant role in the Leviathan DLC too. He served a purpose outside of being the "gay guy". If you want to rag on a character from that game being useless, pick Jessica Chobot or generic Space Marine #354238479 James Vega.

 

[Cyrano]

They're irrelevant because they have nothing to do with how you're viewing things. Nothing. Until you can answer why you view physical harm to a male character as badass and heroic, but the same exact treatment as creating weakness in a female character, I don't think there is much more to talk about. This is why your personal point of view - hindered as it is by this heavy bias toward the male character - is a point of discussion and not an ad hominem. I'm not going to get into yet another tiresome debate about what logical fallacies, either.

If they were treated the same way we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are acting as if Lara and Nathan exist in some kind of magical void where their treatment has no context. This is the same as the line in the sand discussion earlier. There is no such thing as absolute similarity, and you arguing from that point of view. Similar does not mean same. Lara and Nathan drake do not go through the same experience, they are treated differently (and thus one is treated heroically, the other objectified).

 

[truestatic]

Cortez actually had a role in the story. Since you no longer had the Mako, you needed a shuttle pilot and Cortez needed to be there to fly you into the drop zone. He also had a pretty significant role in the Leviathan DLC too. He served a purpose outside of being the "gay guy". If you want to rag on a character from that game, pick Jessica Chobot or generic Space Marine #354238479 James Vega.

You had no Mako in ME2, either, but you didn't need a character in ME2 to taxi you to and from the battlefield in the Kodiak. Also, James Vega's purpose was to be the stand in for the new player who knew nothing about the conflict, universe, or characters. Shepard frequently had to break things down for James, which had the effect of bringing a new player up to speed.

Not to say that I agree that Cortez didn't belong there. Not at all. I actually liked Cortez. I just don't know that "Who's going to fly the Kodiak?" is the perfect justification for his presence.

 

[Visceir]

If they were treated the same way we wouldn't be having this conversation. You are acting as if Lara and Nathan exist in some kind of magical void where their treatment has no context. This is the same as the line in the sand discussion earlier. There is no such thing as absolute similarity, and you arguing from that point of view. Similar does not mean same. Lara and Nathan drake do not go through the same experience, they are treated differently (and thus one is treated heroically, the other treated objectively).

Perhaps point out how or why you think they are being treated differently and what's so unfair about it without linking to 5 more articles that are 10 pages long?