• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Tropes versus Women in Video Games

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have a clear double standard here.

"have sex with it" and "kill it for pleasure" are as different as "because they're not my race" and "because they're not my religion." You can obviously talk about racism and religious prejudices in the larger context of lacking empathy for others, but focusing on one is certainly not immoral or disingenuous.

Xenophobia is not a direct result of lacking empathy. It is a different matter.
 
I can assure you, I did not whine once. You may have a point with A) though.

Ya think? If you look at this as a Venn diagram, objectification is one circle that intersects the circle of issues relating to female representation in media, which also includes stereotypes, double standards, etc. She wants to cover all of those issues as they relate to feminism, but you're still harping on her about objectification as if it's the only topic of the series.
 
I... think you misunderstand my point. What I offering was quick and easy motivations for the ultimate problem: mistreatment of a human being. Based on your lumping of all forms of objectification under the same umbrella that makes it an all-encompassing issue regardless of a specific type, I was illustrating that you can apply that to other issues that people would suggest are indeed very problematic.

Hence, racism was one example. Lets ignore causes for the moment and just focus on its effect: it's the mistreatment of another human being. Now, let's focus on that problem. Humans treat each other poorly all the time. Often, it might have absolutely nothing to do with race. Ergo, by what you're arguing, it seems to me that the problem is that human beings are capable of mistreating one another. Should we surmise that that is the ultimately the problem and dismiss any claims that racism is worth focusing on since it's apparently just a subset of a much larger problem?

This discussion leads to nowhere. You can't just simply overrule my line of thinking and say "let's just focus on the effect". Because I was clearly not interested in the result of objectification (or racism or, lack of empathy) for that matter. I am interested in the structure of objectification itself. Objectification occurs in many instances, the result can differ, but the idea behind is always the same and it is not a gender specific problem. That's my line of thought. Feel free to disagree.

Racism is a problem of racism. Not a problem of lack of empathy or "people treating each other badly". Racism can manifest in many forms. Anger, violence, prejudices, fear, etc. Please let me introduce a more apt comparison: If you had said racism against blacks is different than racism against asians, I would disagree and say that there are the same structures and mechanisms and work, only the outcome might differ (one eats watermelon, the other can't drive). The function (however bad it might be) of racism stays the same.


You cannot be serious.

I am.
 
This discussion leads to nowhere. You can't just simply overrule my line of thinking and say "let's just focus on the effect". Because I was clearly not interested in the result of objectification (or racism or, lack of empathy) for that matter. I am interested in the structure of objectification itself. Objectification occurs in many instances, the result can differ, but the idea behind is always the same and it is not a gender specific problem. That's my line of thought. Feel free to disagree.

Racism is a problem of racism. Not a problem of lack of empathy or "people treating each other badly". Racism can manifest in many forms. Anger, violence, prejudices, fear, etc. Please let me introduce a more apt comparison: If you had said racism against blacks is different than racism against asians, I would disagree and say that there are the same structures and mechanisms and work, only the outcome might differ (one eats watermelon, the other can't drive). The function (however bad it might be) of racism stays the same.

I'm having a difficult time in trying to ascertain what the disconnect is, here.
 
Ya think? If you look at this as a Venn diagram, objectification is one circle that intersects the circle of issues relating to female representation in media, which also includes stereotypes, double standards, etc. She wants to cover all of those issues as they relate to feminism, but you're still harping on her about objectification as if it's the only topic of the series.

Yes, and I already acknowledged that I might have taken it to far with the objectification and did not view the issue as "How females are represented in media". However, the discussion now is beyond the topic of Anitas intentions and thus I keep it going. I find it very interesting and stimulating.
 
There's sadly a lot who fall under the "feminazi" stereotype, but they're not the majority, nor the ideal.
Feminazi huh? I guess that's the supposed cool version of the feminist.

And when I read posts like "Who cares, it's just a videogame", I wonder if those people picture us in fetal position crying about the representation of women in gaming, rather than boringly posting in a forum while thinking "man, i wish this hobby i have wasn't as stupid".
Hm, I never actually gave it much thought on how I saw feminist , but then again I used to only ever use "Who cares, it's just a videogame" against violence in video games when parents started cracking down on MK games.
 
Hm, I never actually gave it much thought on how I saw feminist , but then again I used to only ever use "Who cares, it's just a videogame" against violence in video games when parents started cracking down on MK games.
It is as silly an argument in defense of letting kids play MK* as it in defense of sexist tropes.

*The correct defense is "Good parenting teaches kids to know when violence is fantasy violence and not appropriate to recreate"**, for future reference

**The same defense cannot be applied to sexist, racist or other-ist tropes.

100% agree. That's why singling out objectified women is wrong.
What?

If I write an essay or thesis on the recurring use of nature as a majestic force in British Romanticism art and literature, I don't then expect someone to say "Singling out nature was wrong and you should have given equal credence to 'the will of man vs aristocracy', 'sexual liberation', 'terror in gothicism' and 'science vs religion' to stop it being so one sided".

Her chosen topic is sexist female tropes in videogames and how they affect gaming culture and the people within. She does not need to spend any focus on sexist male tropes to make it a valid pursuit, academic or journalistic.

You are, frankly, frightening in the mental hoops you jump through and the dogma you argue in an effort to discredit a work like this, a work you are yet to even see and analyse.
 
Feminazi huh? I guess that's the supposed cool version of the feminist.
That word is a horrible portmanteau popularized by Rush Limbaugh and adopted by neocons in order to discredit the entire femininst movement's popular vanguard as a bunch of hysterical* shrews. It's a very mean, dismissive term, and I liken it to the same passive aggressive ideals behind asking the NAACP for white history month. I clinch my hands and jaw the second I hear it out of someone's mouth.

*19th Century usage
 
That word is a horrible portmanteau popularized by Rush Limbaugh and adopted by neocons in order to discredit the entire femininst movement's popular vanguard as a bunch of hysterical* shrews. It's a very mean, dismissive term, and I liken it to the same passive aggressive ideals behind asking the NAACP for white history month. I clinch my hands and jaw the second I hear it out of someone's mouth.

Random question, has Rush ever been right on any issue?

I actually think that "Rush thinks this" might count as a valid reason not to believe/support or say something.
 
In short, you don't have to agree, but this is my point of view: It is immoral and disingenuous because it marginalizes the issue for others and hijacks the issue for an specific agenda instead of taking it at face value. I think that objectification in games is an important issue which is not gender specific and should be approached as such.

It's not a gender specific issue even though it impacts one gender of character to a far greater extent than the other gender?

For example, let's think about the following theoretical situation:

There are lots of characters in games, with all different kinds of hair colors. Some characters are geniuses, some characters are smart, some characters have average intelligence, some characters are a little slow, and some characters are extremely stupid. On an industry wide basis, blonde characters tend to be spread evenly among these options, black-haired characters tend to be spread evenly among these options, brown-haired characters tend to be spread evenly among these options, but red-haired characters are almost exclusively portrayed as extremely stupid.

Is it then unfair for a red-haired person to complain that red-haired characters are exclusively portrayed as being extremely stupid, instead of complaining that "there are too many extremely stupid characters in games?"
 
Random question, has Rush ever been right on any issue?

I actually think that "Rush thinks this" might count as a valid reason not to believe/support or say something.

If he was "right" about everything, I don't think people with ideological differences would like him anymore or less, because after all, it's a different ideology.
 
Random question, has Rush ever been right on any issue?

I actually think that "Rush thinks this" might count as a valid reason not to believe/support or say something.

He's been on the side I agree with more than a few times, but never as far as I know on social issues. I think its a "hypocrites are right for the wrong reasons" sort of thing.
 
Your first question is not easy to answer if kept on an abstract level. Let me be specific about the problem at hand. If the person has an issue with objectification, s/he should include all kinds of objectifications present in the source material she is going to analyze. That includes homosexual, trangender and every other person portrayed.

If the analyst has a problem with objectifications of women and women only, that is indeed a sexist approach. And one that I consider immoral, as it implicitly diminishes the problems posed with male objectification (or tansgender or whatever construct you like).

Violence is problematic. Developers create characters with the sole and specific purpose of being killed. This is the ultimate form of objectification, since it disregards any value a person could have. Including his/her life.

As for your second question. Asking for a better written and diverse range of females is not sexist. Looking at a problem through a female only perspective is. Objectification happens to everybody and no female or any other group should ex- or implicitly claim it is a problem exclusive to them.

Once again, your issue is there is violence in video games?
 
12nrjtk.jpg


1340jwk.jpg


14wmj6d.jpg


1557kxf.jpg


I can see that they were trying to be funny but...

wow...
 
well, maybe women don't like the cinematic crap games offer and they prefer to just play the game ;)

but seriously: as more women get into gaming more will look for deeper games and more narratives will get made that also appeal to them. I'm optimistic like that.

That's a big maybe. "Hardcore gamer" is a very male thing. The top(like top 1000) competitive gamers in all genres are almost entirely male, where exceptions which exist instantly become noteworthy. In the case of fighting games, transgendered and homosexual males seem to have more of a presence (one of the indisputable top US players in the current SF games is gay, and quite proud at that).

From what I've observed the opposite is true. Women like the cinematic crap(e.g. girlfriends watching boyfriends play games), but not so much the mechanics. Naturally movies are the cinematic crap and do not sacrifice immersion in that area for mechanics. It would seem only games with very simple, but novel mechanics appeal to women on a larger scale. Is any of this really a surprise when women are also being pushed away from STEM fields?
 
I don't think it's about 'cinematic crap' as much as charm and characterization. As far as I can tell, Team Fortress 2 has more female fans than the average FPS, and Valve are known for going out of their way to inject lots of actual charisma into their games (which extends beyond pure gameplay mechanics). TF2's classes are actual CHARACTERS and have more character than the casts of other, more story-centric games. And hell, look at The Sims.
 
I don't think it's about 'cinematic crap' as much as charm and characterization. As far as I can tell, Team Fortress 2 has more female fans than the average FPS, and Valve are known for going out of their way to inject lots of actual charisma into their games (which extends beyond pure gameplay mechanics). TF2's classes are actual CHARACTERS and have more character than the casts of other, more story-centric games. And hell, look at The Sims.

Ok, we need to get something straight. TF2's classes are stereotypes--Russian heavy, German doc, etc. That they're funny, fun to play as, and as you say charismatic does not make them rounded characters. They have no dimensionality--everything you see is what you get.
 
Games? I'm not sure of the source of the image as it's not on Feminist Frequency, but the Kickstarter page has an update I can't view that was posted on the 22nd and the image has to be recent due to Diablo III being in there. I'm going to assume these are the games she bought, probably mixed in with games she already owned.

G4dLv.jpg
 
Ok, we need to get something straight. TF2's classes are stereotypes--Russian heavy, German doc, etc. That they're funny, fun to play as, and as you say charismatic does not make them rounded characters. They have no dimensionality--everything you see is what you get.

I would argue that the TF2 characters are actually very developed.
 
Games? I'm not sure of the source of the image as it's not on Feminist Frequency, but the Kickstarter page has an update I can't view that was posted on the 22nd and the image has to be recent due to Diablo III being in there. I'm going to assume these are the games she bought.

G4dLv.jpg

Nice new house she bought too, with all that extra money.

Kidding aside, some good picks there.
 

Are those all the games she bought?

I mean the kickstarter said "throughout the history of the gaming industry.". So shouldn't she also have bought games from previous generations, even NES games? If that's all, I really wonder where all the monies went. My guess is those games are maybe around 1000-2000$ in total. Most of them are pretty old, but not old enough to be pricey. And why are there no PC games for example PC adventures.

And she seems to really love 360. Hopefully she has bought Xenoblade Chronicles, but it looks like she only bought maybe 5 Wii games in total or considered the whole possibly non-visible stack of Wii games to be not important at all.

Some of those games don't even have any characters, let alone female ones. Research, huh?

and that.
Maybe she sees a pink-colored car as being female, idk.
 
Are those all the games she bought?

I mean the kickstarter said "throughout the history of the gaming industry.". So shouldn't she also have bought games from previous generations, even NES games?

And she seems to really love 360. Hopefully she has bought Xenoblade Chronicles, but it looks like she only bought maybe 5 Wii games in total or considered the whole non-visible stack of Wii games to not be important at all.

We also have to assume that she's at least played some of these games before, otherwise she wouldn't have decided to focus on video games in the first place. Then again there are well over 100 in that image and I can't read her Kickstarter updates so I'm guessing she already owned (rented?) at least a few of them. Like Bayonetta.
 
Games? I'm not sure of the source of the image as it's not on Feminist Frequency, but the Kickstarter page has an update I can't view that was posted on the 22nd and the image has to be recent due to Diablo III being in there. I'm going to assume these are the games she bought, probably mixed in with games she already owned.

G4dLv.jpg

You're not a really gamer unless you sort you games both alphabetically AND by series, what an amateur.

Also I'm pretty sure that's just her collection. Not games for the series.
 
You're not a really gamer unless you sort you games both alphabetically AND by series, what an amateur.

Also I'm pretty sure that's just her collection. Not games for the series.

As I said I'm not sure where the image came from and I may be completely wrong. I apologize if that's the case. I reverse searched it on google and tineye and couldn't find any results. It was at the start of a thread on /v/ so I just pulled it and posted it here instead of participating in the thread so I can at least attempt to have a meaningful discussion about it.
 
As I said I'm not sure where the image came from and I may be completely wrong. I apologize if that's the case.

It was fine to post it. I was just responding to the research replies. I mean it could be research but many of those games wouldn't make any sense.
 
No PC games, no pre-7th gen games, if this is all she's gonna use it will defninitely create much more hate/criticism towards her.

Diablo and starcraft for pc games that ARE VISIBLE ... there is a second pile of games (see wii games) behind the one with 360/ps3
 
Diablo and starcraft for pc games that ARE VISIBLE ... there is a second pile of games (see wii games) behind the one with 360/ps3
Okay 2[and only Bliz titles] out of thousands of PC games with a ratio of 1:100 to the console games. Satisfied now? Is there a reason to hide PC games? I will wait for an answer.
 
Okay 2[and only Bliz titles] out of thousands of PC games with a ratio of 1:100 to the console games. Satisfied now? Is there a reason to hide PC games? I will wait for an answer.

Most of them are multi-platform games.

Besides we don't know if those are the games for the video series.
 
Most of them are multi-platform games.

Besides we don't know if those are the games for the video series.
Est. delivery: Aug 2012 and Est. delivery: Dec 2012.
It would be a big joke to say that she has time to play games for fun and not for the project in the short time that's left. There is no reason to post an "new" pic with so many games, if they aren't meant for her video series.
 
Okay 2[and only Bliz titles] out of thousands of PC games with a ratio of 1:100 to the console games. Satisfied now? Is there a reason to hide PC games? I will wait for an answer.

Is there something inherent to the PC platform that'll change how the women are portrayed from these games? Am I missing something here?
 
Is there something inherent to the PC platform that'll change how the women are portrayed from these games? Am I missing something here?
The variety of games and genres, especially adventure games as mentioned before or many non-mainstream games[not that we could see a package for those...] that aren't available on the consoles.

She should buy/import some japanese PSP games or asian MMO's in general. That will be enough to maximize her point.
 
The variety of games and genres, especially adventure games as mentioned before or many non-mainstream games that aren't available on the consoles.

So it's not a question of platform choice, but variety. Got it. I thought you were pissed off the precious copy of Blur (which I CANT WAIT to hear about...seriously?) was not the PC version, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom