• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tropes Vs. Women Episode 2 - Damsels In Distress Part [spoiler warning]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reducing the increase of shocking violence is recent years as just violence agaisnt women in games is so stupid I can't believe she really thinks so.

To stifle the voice of the male-o-centric maleocracy.

Aren't ratings and comments disabled for all her videos?

Not always when she was trying to fish the troll attention for her own interests.
 

Zukuu

Banned
Someone a yay or nay if I should bother looking that episode? Not a fan of the first one. Too subjective, too limited in the point of view. Anything changed?
 

Takuya

Banned
She just said another thing which sorta left me in awe.



Nope. Character vulnerability, male, female, whatever, is used as a way to trigger a emotional reaction. People have cried over what happens to male characters, people have cried over what happens to male characters, I almost cried due to what happened to a shadow boy and a robot in Nier.

Yea I quoted that line earlier. Pretty sexist of her.
 

Riposte

Member
She isn't really explaining why the violence is bad because it is women. Violence is violence to me. It doesn't suddenly have a different meaning to me just because a woman is being the victim.

She talked about the violence that occurs against women in real life, but then she goes out of her way to say that videogames probably don't really have a huge effect on it.
 

Pau

Member
Not really. ICO was about leading a defenseless female, SotC had a male composer because Ueda felt that one was needed to appeal to men (thanks to Aeana for pointing that out), and The Last Guardian switched protagonist gender because he didn't find a physically strong female character believable, as well as the implication that he felt a female character needed to wear a skirt (at least in his game).
Yeah, just because Ueda makes amazing games doesn't mean he's immune to criticism due to some rather shitty ideas about gender.

You think she wants a reasonable discussion?
Youtube is not the place for a reasonable discussion. She has found however that it is the place to receive fun rape threats. Are people really calling her out on not wanting to shift through stuff like that?
 

Shinta

Banned
What exactly is wrong with two people in love thinking they "belong" to each other? How many people both say "That's my girl" or a girl might say "See that guy at the bar? Yep, that my man". It's common for both genders and nothing about it is sexist. I think my girlfriend is mine and she thinks I'm hers.

That's common sense, and I agree with you.

But if you search for anything to represent sexism, then people can twist the most basic aspect of being in a relationship into objectification.

In reality, there's nothing wrong with it.

She talked about the violence that occurs against women in real life, but then she goes out of her way to say that videogames probably don't really have a huge effect on it.

Yeah, which is basically just undermining her entire point.

It also kind of blows my mind that she would reference violence against women in real life like that, and then be upset with fictional stories about people who want to stop it or save women from that. It's a pretty basic hero storyline. Most everyone fantasizes about being able to help people and do the right thing at some point. That's really all it is.
 

Mesoian

Member
She's a feminist, with a very specific point of view and motive. Even if she is not aware, she is picking things that illustrate her views, not every view. As such, this is ineffective at trying to "examine and realize what we're taking in". For that to happen, discussion is required. Multiple viewpoints. But her very particular view is worthless without the opposite.

Well yeah, the discussion happens now, not during the video.

Please. Discuss.

You think she wants a reasonable discussion?

You think you can get a reasonable discussion on youtube?
 

Veelk

Banned
What exactly is wrong with two people in love thinking they "belong" to each other? How many people both say "That's my girl" or a girl might say "See that guy at the bar? Yep, that my man". It's common for both genders and nothing about it is sexist. I think my girlfriend is mine and she thinks I'm hers.

Nothing to me. Sexism is wrong because it discriminates based on gender. What you're talking seems to treat both genders equally, though I'd obviously have to examine it further to be sure.

Look, I'm not defending the game or attacking it. I'm just pointing out that for the purposes of argument, Anita isn't wrong to insinuate that Jenny was Jackies, which is what some people have argued agaist on the basis that it is well written, which is incorrect. That's all.

You do realize the games were based (loosely) off a comic series right? It's hard to cover that much material with the VERY limited budged the studio got for the games.

There are plenty of other ways to do it that wouldn't require any more budget than what it has.
 
Yeah, just because Ueda makes amazing games doesn't mean he's immune to criticism due to some rather shitty ideas about gender.

You can criticize the comments that he's made, but that doesn't change that there's no romance in ICO despite her putting it in a section where she talks about that. Like I said, it's never even implied that there's some sort of romance between Ico and Yorda.
 
Yeah, just because Ueda makes amazing games doesn't mean he's immune to criticism due to some rather shitty ideas about gender.

Agree, but at the same time you should separate some of that ideas from the work... specially because is a collective one.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Good grief, I am all for these videos and the examinations of said Tropes. but trotting out endless examples and blatantly spoiling games?

Kinda sucky.

It's kind of padding when one or two examples could have sufficed with an appendix somewhere else. Can't really bring myself to watch the remaining 15 or so minutes now :(
 

Kayhan

Member
Why do you think? If it's this bad on GAF, which is usually pretty progressive, it'd be 100x worse with the full force of Youtube troglodytes.

A lot of negative ratings can mean two things:

1) People are troglodytes.

2) People actually think she is wrong and makes not so good videos.
 
All I got from this is that Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 is more censored than I thought.

Also, did she essentially say at the end that one's "patriarchal duty to protect their lover and children" is negative? Fucking really?
I just can't connect with that.
 

Ninjimbo

Member
Inflammatory language aside, the video was pretty convincing at showing how hackneyed video game plots can be. Her point about how devs write themselves into walls by choosing to emphasizing their violent game mechanics is spot-on. It's kind of why those scenes where the you have to off your significant other lack any significant emotional impact -- sorry Snake Eater.
 

NaviLink

Member
Watched the video in full. Better construction than the first one, but in the end it just amounts to a bunch of examples without context. That's the consequence of the whole "tropes vs women" angle she's chosen. There's no back and forth, no multiple points of views, no try to put any of this into context. She has a point of view and picks examples that serve it. That's not an analysis.

I'm surprised she's still fixed on Ico while Shadow of the Colossus would better serve her (flawed, imho) argument.
 
Holy shit, does she not know that Dante's Inferno is based on a centuries-old poem?
KuGsj.gif
 

Mesoian

Member
Inflammatory language aside, the video was pretty convincing at showing how hackneyed video game plots can be. Her point about how devs write themselves into walls by choosing to emphasizing their violent game mechanics is spot-on. It's kind of why those scenes where the you have to off your significant other lack any significant emotional impact -- sorry Snake Eater.

Indeed. It made me kind of chuckle when I began to think about how many game plots can be summed up to: "WHO KILLED ME WIFE! OH NO! I KILLED MY WIFE! HOW CAN THIS BEEEEEE?!?"
 

KTallguy

Banned
Good grief, I am all for these videos and the examinations of said Tropes. but trotting out endless examples and blatantly spoiling games?

Kinda sucky.

I think that in order to facilitate discussion of things that exist in videogames, you'll need to *gasp*, give examples from videogames after you've played them in their entirety.

Can you write a good analysis of a novel without spoiling the main plot points?

Edit: Yeah Snake Eater IS the same, although I'd like to think the context makes it better! But yeah it doesn't...
 

DocSeuss

Member
Like I said, last time, Sarkeesian's methodology leaves much to be desired. In fact, her poor approach frustrates me so much, that I thought to myself "I can do a better discussion on sexism than this."

How'd I do? This good grounds to start a discussion on sexism?

Here I am, sitting at my computer, reading the latest video game article about sexism, and I find myself getting bothered, not because people are denying it, or that people are bringing it to light, but because, well... I think people are going about it the wrong way. I think if we want to eradicate sexism, we've got to change the way we fight it.

The fight against sexism is a noble pursuit, and, like all noble pursuits, it's one that causes rational people to say stupid things, accusations to fly, and feelings to get hurt. It's an emotionally charged topic, and rightfully so.

Sexism must be stopped.

One of the issues that crops up in conversations about sexism is just what it is. The word is often thrown around frequently—if you disagree with a claim by (or, even worse, agree with and be misinterpreted by) someone arguing against sexism, and you could suddenly be labeled sexist. It's too often used as an attack word, a word of censure, a word for silencing. It's a word that says "you can't talk anymore, because you're not on the moral high ground." In an emotionally-charged discussion, its use is all too common.

That's not to say its use can't be valid. Sexism is, after all, a real thing. In simple terms, sexism is the hideous unpersoning of another human being. It's a point of view that says "you don't matter as much as that other person," and it does so often through the objectification of another person. Sexual objectification is one of the first kinds of sexism that leaps to mind, but there are others as well.

Following that train of logic, the sexist perspective says "as an object, this person has no agency." In other words, an object can't, or shouldn't, be making decisions for itself. It's not free to choose. It is, by its very nature, compelled to do things, but it has no real choice in the matter. "Men are sexist because they can't understand what it's like to be a woman," for instance, is a point of view that embraces the faulty idea that sexism is a one-way street. Another example would be "she can't take care of her self, because she needs a man to look out for her," which explicitly states that the woman in question is somehow worth less than the man—she's an object to be taken care of.

What this perspective, of people being objects without agency, leads to is unwarranted and undesired behavior. Whether this is a seemingly positive trait, such as endlessly doting on someone (essentially rendering someone helpless through a lack of independence), or a negative, such as a false accusation of rape made in the knowledge that most people will bend over backwards to see the accused put through hell, the outcome is that the victim of sexism is being mistreated, belittled, hurt, abused... at worst, lives can be ruined—you have only to look at pictures of the Muslim women who've had acid thrown on their faces as proof of that.

The consequences of sexism are immensely horrific, and as such, it is the duty of anyone who considers themselves a good human being to do what they can to prevent it. Those who knowingly choose to perpetuate it are monsters.

Unfortunately, overcoming sexism isn't easy.

You see, most rational people will deny that they're sexist. Most of us like to believe that we're good people, that we'red never mistreat anyone, and as such, when accused of sexism, we recoil, building up a wall between ourselves and the accuser. It's like being accused of a crime—the urge to protect ourselves from false accusation is overwhelming. How would you react if accused of, say, theft or murder? More than likely, you'd protest, get frustrated or angry, and any attempt at a rational conversation would fail before it even begins.

As an example, let's talk about the use of the word "bitch." I used it once, casually, to mean "complaining." Everyone in my social circle, regardless of gender, uses it to mean this. In that particular instance, I was in a conversation with a few women who happened to be feminists. While the conversation had been rational up until that point, I can't even begin to express the amount of vile that they began attacking me with. Even with our conversation ended, they, and their friends, continued to harrass me, the misogynist dick whose use of common parlance had offended them so.

Suffice it to say, their argument failed the instant they began accusing me of being a bad person.

I'd like to say that passing this hurdle is as simple as refraining from throwing the word "sexist" around at the drop of the hat, but that's not always true. If you've never been a victim of sexism, then you might not understand the immense emotional pain that can stem from such a violation. It's enough to change you as a person, and not always for the better.

Like I said above, any conversation involving sexism can quickly turn to ad hominem attacks. Deny you're sexist? Yup, sexist. Disagree with someone? Definitely a concern troll. Even simply asking people to chill out can result in accusations of sexism. An unfortunate truth of those fighting against sexism is that all too often, we use it more liberally than we should, and a lot of people who don't deserve it get blamed.

In other words, we need to bring a level of understanding to any discussion involving sexism. Many people are involved in these conversations, and nearly all are well-meaning. On one side, you have people who simply see themselves as being unfairly accused. On the other, you have people, both victims and their friends and allies, who see the others as perpetuating their hurt.

It's a very complex, challenging, and painful topic to explore.

Switching gears for a moment, let's talk about fandom. Have you ever wondered why people get so emotionally involved in video games? Do you see fights on the internet and wonder why they're so aggressive? While there are numerous reasons for this, such as anonymity on the internet, a big element is that video games are interactive—that is, they require participation on the part of the audience.

I'm not a psychologist, but I'll try to explain this next bit as it was explained to me: essentially, when someone participates in something, whether through time, action, money, or some other resource, it becomes a part of their identity, a part of themselves. As such, they become more likely to defend it, doubly so if they really like it. Look at rabid sports fans, for instance—they spend time and money supporting their team, so when someone disses that team, they feel that they've been personally insulted, as they get upset.

Video games, as an art form that players derive enjoyment from through participation, is an incredibly potent form of this. As such, when someone says "hey, this video game you like is sexist," people display a tendency to get really upset. Remember, most people feel they're rational, so an accusation of sexism is one they're going to reject almost instantly.

If you're going to try to debate sexism, there are numerous ways to do it that don't involve making people feel bad about themselves. Though it seems innocuous, one of the best ways of highlighting sexist behavior and calling it out is through webcomics. I can't even begin to tell you how many gaming webcomics I've seen that visually illustrate the absurdity of poor armor design.

What's great about this is that they bring sexism to light as an undeniable example, but they don't cause immediate offense, much less come across as insulting to any players. That, right there, means that people are more willing to listen to claims of sexism.

On the flip side of this is, say, going through a list of tropes and saying "hey, so that's bad." As an example, we've got the Damsel in Distress trope, which is one of the most common plot devices of all time. It's gotten a lot of coverage lately, and, in some ways, rightfully so, since it presents a damsel as an object who has been imprisoned and must be rescued.

But here's the thing: it's not inherently sexist.

Woah, wait, what?

Okay, let me back up and explain some basic Storytelling 101. Most people just think stories are a series of events that is relayed to an audience, but this, while being definitionally accurate, is not entirely correct. Storytelling, you see, is an art form. If you've ever wondered why humans create art, the answer is simple: art is the means by which we explore the fundamental questions of our existence. To borrow the cliche, art is what separate us from animals. Sure, gorillas and elephants might paint, as a child scribbles on paper, but this is merely drawing, not art. Art is how we contemplate who and what we are, why we're here, what we're going to do with ourselves, and what anything means.

In other words, storytelling is a way in which we explore our humanity.

Sexism is anti-human. It denies the humanity of one gender or the other and turns them into an object. Any story that resorts to sexism, then, is a bad story, because it fails to live up to the lofty goals of art. It's shlock, it's crap, dreck, it's shit, it's nothing.

So let's look at a game with the damsel in distress trope, and try to determine whether or not it explores human existence or not, shall we?

To summarize its premise: you, a long-dead science experiment, are returned to life by a girl you were genetically bonded to before your demise. She asks you to save her because her mother is trying to turn her into a superhuman, in the hopes that she will rule the world.

Yeah, "save the girl" wrapped in a sci-fi plot.

Thing is, through every character you encounter, every decision you make, every person you talk to, it becomes clear that this isn't just some weird science fiction game. It's a game about being a family. In your case, you're the divorced father. Your sojourn to rescue Eleanor isn't simply a grail quest—she's not an object—it's a quest to be a father. Through the game, the decisions you make impact Eleanor's view of the world, leading to a multitude of endings. Bioshock 2 is a game about how parents impact their children more than anything else.

Yes, she's a damsel in distress, but that's a real-life situation that happens: sometimes, fathers must protect their daughters. That's what good fathers do. Bioshock 2 is a game about putting you in those shoes. There's actually a lot more to it, and unless you consciously agree to embrace the role of Subject Delta and truly become him, it's unlikely that you'll enjoy (or even understand) the game, but at its core, it's a game about human relationships, rather than sexism.

So it's not as easy as simply looking at tropes and going "that's sexist!" While it might be pretty easy to, say, look at an outfit and proclaim sexism, it's a lot harder to do it with stories. You have to have both a rock-solid understanding of storytelling (which inevitably means an equal measure of understanding in regards to people and how they act) and the ability to devote your full attention to the story.

If you can't do that, you run the risk of making faulty criticisms, which only serve to upset rational people who do not believe themselves to be sexist.

I think we've been fighting sexism with too little understanding. If we're going to do this right, we need to change tactics. To combat sexism after we've educated ourselves as best we can, we need to first define it, so that everyone involved is on the same page. Then, we need to explain what it does to people, to show how bad it can be. After that, we need to show examples, explaining with clarity and intelligence why they are examples, proving that sexism exists.

The goal here should not be to attack people we perceive as sexists, but convince them to join us. Again, many of them are rational people engaging in behavior they understand to be acceptable. They're unaware of the harm their actions bring.

We must educate, not assault.

If we try anything else, if we say "that's sexist and you're sexist for liking it," if we throw accusations and try to hurt people, if we fail to prove our point, then we'll never get anywhere.

In other words, being right and getting the message out there isn't enough. In some cases, it can actually do significantly more harm than good, convincing people that those fighting sexism are discourteous and not worth listening to. In order to combat sexism, we must ensure that there are no holes in our insights. We must not attack others. We must convince people that they want to be on our side, because it's the right thing to do.

Let's fight sexism, but, please, let's fight it with intelligence and compassion.
 

McBradders

NeoGAF: my new HOME
Well, we've moved from games old enough that everyone called her out for cherrypicking historical stuff and ignoring all the advances in stories since then to games new enough that everyone's flipping out about spoilers.

So there's that.

Progress, but at what cost?
 

Surface of Me

I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
I don't know, I never played, but that's not a defense, since it doesn't have to be that way. They can give other characters a history, their own personal motivation for doing things, etc that is totally unrelated to the main character and his place in the story.

Nothing to me. Sexism is wrong because it discriminates based on gender. What you're talking seems to treat both genders equally, though I'd obviously have to examine it further to be sure.

Look, I'm not defending the game or attacking it. I'm just pointing out that for the purposes of argument, Anita isn't wrong to insinuate that Jenny was Jackies, which is what some people have argued agaist on the basis that it is well written, which is incorrect. That's all.

So which is it? If sexism discriminates based on gender, but all the characters in a game might be second tier compared to the main character, why isn't that a defenses when it isn't only the women being made into 1-dimensional characters?
 

GetemMa

Member
I would love to see people who actually create things like books, films, and videogames, attempt to develop a project through the feminist frequency filter.

The roles in which women could play would be so incredibly limited that they would either have to be the flawless primary subject or almost a non factor. Anywhere in between seems to be fraught with danger of falling into one of the pits dug by the facile arguments she makes.

Damsel = bad (submissive / lack of agency)

Sexually Attractive = bad (just giving in to the horny teenagers)

Uses physicality to defeat opponents = bad (just emulating violent men, nothing feminine about it)

Sidekick = bad (just serving the heroic male like always)

Antagonist = bad (woman can not be shown to be manipulative, vain or selfish)

So really all we are left with is a game about a female protagonist, who is plain as to not give off any sexual energy, doesn't use violence to defeat her opponents, never needs help from a member of the opposite sex as to avoid being the damsel, never appears to be weak willed, and uses her mind and specific feminine qualities to win the day.

Sounds like a terrific game. I can't believe no one has made it.
 
I liked her first video quite a bit, but this one kinda lost me. Equating real life violence against women with whats protrayed in gaming is a real stretch and does a disservice to the real problem. If her point was to say men should be equally represented in these helpless or brutalized depictions I'd be there with her, but as even she points out we don't act like monkey see monkey do with our entertainment. This video feels more like something sensational with low hanging violent fruit to shock the audience, unless I'm missing something deeper.

My only real take away is I'd like to see more brothers, sons, fathers, etc depicted as the victim to break things up and probably ease up on the revenge stories.
 

Mesoian

Member
Holy shit, does she not know that Dante's Inferno is based on a centuries-old poem?
KuGsj.gif

Dante's Inferno has about as much to do with the Alighieri poem as Baz Luhrman's "Romeo + Juliet" has with the original Shakespeare work.

I would love to see people who actually create things like books, films, and videogames, attempt to develop a project through the feminist frequency filter. The roles in which women could play would be so incredibly limited that they would either have to be the flawless primary subject or almost a non factor. Anywhere in between seems to be fraught with danger of falling into one of the pits dug by the facile arguments she makes.

Damsel = bad (submissive / lack of agency)

Sexually Attractive = bad (just giving in to the horny teenagers)

Uses physicality to defeat opponents = bad (just emulating violent men, nothing feminine about it)

Sidekick = bad (just serving the heroic male like always)

Antagonist = bad (woman can not be shown to be manipulative, vain or selfish)

So really all we are left with is a game about a female protagonist, who is plain as to not give off any sexual energy, doesn't use violence to defeat her opponents, never needs help from a member of the opposite sex as to avoid being the damsel, never appears to be weak willed, and uses her mind and specific feminine qualities to win the day.

Sounds like a terrific game. I can't believe no one has made it.

Sounds like Fable to me.
 
To the people defending Jenny from Darkness:

I checked her wiki page and frankly there isn't much about her (Specifically, up until she was killed, not in Darkness 2 and afterwards). She was Jackies friend and defended him from some bullies and later realized that she was in love with him, from what it says. It doesn't say much about her likes and interest, what her life was, why she was even in love with him, much about her life in general.

And then she was killed, not for anything SHE did, but because she was associated with Jackie.

It doesn't seem to me that Anita is wrong in describing Jenny as "Jackie's" for the purpose of the narrative, since outside the relationship with him, whatever she did or who she was was irrelevant.

Oh you didn played the game I see. Her character is not developed because she dosn't appear too much in the game as well, any other character that wasn't Jackie. What matters is the relationship both characters had. Since the major part of the narrative is done in Jackie's view and monologues we can see what she mean to him and in no way the character visualizes her as a Jackie possesion neither is the writer intention.

Like the major part of her wisely chosen examples, she disregards any context. The original Darkness had a very weak characterization for all the characters. You can call that bad writting or whatever but in any case means that Jenny is merely a possesion of Jacky.
 

Veelk

Banned
I still can't believe people are giving her shit for closing down discussion on youtube. I would love to see a single instance where a massively popular video (say 500,000 view or more) has a civilized, articulate, and intelligent discussion in it's comments.
 
Well, we've moved from games old enough that everyone called her out for cherrypicking historical stuff and ignoring all the advances in stories since then to games new enough that everyone's flipping out about spoilers.

So there's that.

Of course, meanwhile she ignores the contexts of that games, many with themes more complicated than you avarage NES game.
 

Rebochan

Member
Holy shit, does she not know that Dante's Inferno is based on a centuries-old poem?
KuGsj.gif

...in the way that Alexander Dumas' The Three Musketeers existing means that Paul W.S. Anderson's The Three Musketeers film is immune to criticism?

EDIT: GAH! Mesoian beat me to it :(
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, but for a lot of games the story is backseated greatly to the gameplay. They simply need something to set up the action, and that's generally easy to do with "The princess has been kidnapped!". Stories don't matter that much in the majority of video games, but this series is pretending they do.
I don't even think that's what she's saying with this series at all. It's more to shine a light on just how frequently they use a woman as a McGuffin to move the action along in a game. With the other videos in the series I assume she'll explore different dimensions about the role of women in videogames. In this specific trope that she's covering, the women are essentially an object. It doesn't have to be a woman. It could be a really shiny box that got stolen and you need to get it back, or it could just be that aliens have invaded and you need to kill them all, or whatever. There's an almost infinite number of potential stories, but time and time again they use this overused trope.

She's stressed in both videos (and honestly if you've spent any time on the internet reading media critiques from a feminist perspective, it's constantly repeated) that you can acknowledge something in the media has problematic elements and still enjoy it. She's not saying to not like these games, she's putting these videos out to call attention to the fact that this is happening. The Mario games are some of my favorite games ever. They all use this trope. I think it's pretty shitty to reduce the role of women to that of an object, and it'd be fun to have a different story. I can acknowledge both sides of this coin.

The idea is that if you watch the videos you'll maybe see just how frequently it happens and start questioning the stuff around you. Videogames don't exist in a vacuum. We live in a society that frequently belittles women and treats them with hardly a bit of dignity or respect. Is this because of Super Mario Bros.? No. But games (like other media) is a reflection of our society, and by perpetuating these tropes what we do is normalize that treatment.
 

Riposte

Member
I think that in order to facilitate discussion of things that exist in videogames, you'll need to *gasp*, give examples from videogames after you've played them in their entirety.

Can you write a good analysis of a novel without spoiling the main plot points?

Edit: Yeah Snake Eater IS the same, although I'd like to think the context makes it better! But yeah it doesn't...

Some of the spoilers were very unnecessary. Like, for Lords of Shadow there are multiple versions of the scene she showed and she picked the one that is revealed at the end of the game.

Also no Snake Eater doesn't fit in with the whole kill the damsel thing she talks about.
 

Takuya

Banned
I still can't believe people are giving her shit for closing down discussion on youtube. I would love to see a single instance where a massively popular video (say 500,000 view or more) has a civilized, articulate, and intelligent discussion in it's comments.
It doesn't matter, she can easily ignore it. She just doesn't want the world to see all the negativity.
 
Too many of the games she chooses to focus on aren't popular or influential at all. Nobody really cares about that new Alone in the Dark game, that modernized Bionic Commando or Grabbed by the Ghoulies (how many hardcore post-Nintendo Rare fans are there? None) and people only care about DNF to make fun of it. I'm pretty sure Prey and the 3D Castlevanias aren't what you would call big hits either. That and she talked about how games try to look edgy and deep and mature while showing an image of Shadows of the Damned, which sounds like Dick Jokes: The Game.
 
The problem I had with this episode, and honestly the series thus far, is that what she's attacking are generally not videogame tropes. She's attacking tropes in general, that exist in just about every story-telling medium. She admits herself that we don't have a "monkey see, monkey do" response to this media, and rather correctly that they more often just tend to influence opinions on the depictions themselves. So one could argue that these things are not actually harmful and, if they were harmful, ought to be addressed closer to the root or at least the most popular stages for their exhibition i.e. movies and TV.

I disagreed with certain examples and ideas, but for the most part she made persuasive arguments in defining the tropes. But my reaction was, "So?"

Some stories are male power fantasies.

Let's accept that as part of life. Maybe even most stories are male power fantasies. But the onus is on the writers to change the stories, not on the consumers to... do nothing since they have no control over the stories. There are also female power fantasies out there and I would be okay with there being more. Because a medium has the potential of artistic value doesn't mean every product must be a piece of art.

Instead of focusing so much energy on complaining about non-harmful tropes, I think she would be much better utilized making educational material for would-be creators to 1) inform them of such tropes, which is something a writer should learn about anyway and 2) invent ways to subvert the tropes or create new stories entirely in an effort to evolve the art of storytelling.

My biggest problem with the video were the goddamn Pandora's Tower spoilers but oh well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom