Gender Diversity / Politics in games (was Tropes Vs. Women)

[SeanR]

I'm playing sunset overdrive with a female character in her underwear.

Because the game lets me.

Because it emphasises the mortal danger she's in.

Because I like big butts and I cannot lie.

Am I a gamergater?

[rumblecat]

It didn't sound like she's having fun coming up with examples this time around, that's all. Her not being into games (which has been quite clear in the past) doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb to the audience she's aiming herself at. Sometimes it doesn't, sometimes it does. This is another of the times it did.

I'm sure plenty of people who don't play games (to play games) comment on games, The Bag, so no, Anita isn't the only one. The Sun and The Daily Telegraph are also probably on the list. <--comedy

As for 'to play games', to have fun, essentially. To be able to critic the oversexual nature of Bayonetta and still be able to deem the game fun is something we're all capable of and many devs, critics, reviewers, academics we read do also. Anita could do with commenting on the games she's actually playing sometimes outside the spectrum of just the singular point she's trying to get across each time around, that's all. It can't be fun observing games from a certain perspective all the time. Since you've delved into this hobby, try to have fun with it, too.

The episode itself felt poor to me, nothing new really learned compared to past episodes and no real singular thing that really made me face palm at a game like in past episodes, either. Oh, besides perhaps some of the promotional posters having butts, that was fairly shameless. (and yet was only 2-3 posters, so not large scale buttage across the industry!) but episode quality and 'she's not having fun with these games, is she' are two different discussions, certainly.

The point of the series isn't to show how 'fun' games are. There are plenty of YouTube videos you can watch that will show you how fun games are. I don't think you're nearly as stupid as you to try and make out, so I'm sure you understand that. But in case you really are struggling : these videos aren't reviews of the games in question.

It's not that hard to grasp. Criticising a game doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, but it doesn't mean that a video criticising a certain aspect of the game should therefore run a whole list of disclaimers about what's fun about the game. It's not a review. It's not relevant.

As for your nonsense about how she never plays games for fun... you seem to be under the massive misapprehension that the only games she ever plays are for the Tropes series. How do you know she never plays games for fun? When she posts about games she's enjoyed, do you think she's lying? Or do people really need to be spoon-fed everything and treated like a child- I mean, I always think these videos are dumbed down but apparently not enough.

Again, I don't think you're nearly as stupid as you deliberately try and make out you are, so I know where you're going on that one, and it's the same old tired shit people have been flinging at her for ages, about how she's not a proper gamer and therefore her opinion is irrelevant. But then again, you equated not having pos / neg votes on a YouTube video as censorship so, I dunno...

[robdood]

I don't know, rumblecat, I'm starting think NEG really is as stupid as he seems.

[Broker]

He's either actually that stupid (making the coversation pointless), or he's trolling (making the coversation pointless).

[macosx]

I think it was that already. When you get videos about butt coverings, it's game over.

[Fry Crayola]

No, I meant she's judging how everyone might think about certain things, and putting words in the mouths of the developers, hence my 'don't speak for everyone'. Did every example shown really come from a dev saying 'PAY ATTENTION TO THIS BUTT!', no, I don't think so. Don't speak for every nasty butt-making dev out there.

Repeatedly through the series (and you ought to be aware by now), she's talked about the concept of normalisation. About unthinking repetition of established conventions. So if you do think that not every female character with a prominent, sexy arse was designed specifically for the purpose of male titillation, the cute bums are still there, and Sarkeesian highlights them to get people to think about the sort of message the aggregate of all examples is sending - intentional or otherwise.

[Fry Crayola]

Anita could do with commenting on the games she's actually playing sometimes outside the spectrum of just the singular point she's trying to get across each time around, that's all.

To what end? The quality of a game as a piece of interactive entertainment isn't relevant to a discussion about the ways women are presented within it. What is it you're looking for out of it - justification that she's qualified because she thinks a good game is good? Reassurance that she isn't saying your beloved game is bad because of a few aspects she considers troublesome?

Note that most of the Tropes vs Games videos have opened with a statement that tropes don't mean the overall work is bad, and that it's still possible to enjoy a work while having an issue with the problematic elements within it. That's all the discussion needed, rather than go off point every now and then to say that yes, despite Princess Peach's lack of agency, Super Mario 64 is still excellent.

[Alex W.]

At this point I think NEG is genuinely ignoring anything that's actually said in the videos.

[ZOK]

Along with thousands of others, he just doesn't understand what criticism or analysis is.

[b00dles]

Yeah NEG, seriously, you're missing the entire point by a fucking mile and is now just seeming like it's trolling again.

If someone reviews say...I dunno, Commando from a dialogue perspective, or the characters in it, or even the representation of females in it, that doesn't mean that they didn't enjoy it at the same time. It's a critique of a certain aspect of media and it's entirely valid and has nothing to do with how 'fun' something is.

Or a bit of current events which might make it relevant; the issue of under representation of non-white people at the Oscars this year (and last) no one is saying all the films are shit because there aren't black people in them, just that it's a bit off that no black people got any votes from the oscar panel and that's a bit fucked up. That's it.

Anita isn't saying they aren't fun or ignoring the fun part of the games she's just saying 'look at the poor representation of women and how odd it is that they are sexualised but the guys aren't', it's very simple.

[Sprite Machine]

No, I meant she's judging how everyone might think about certain things, and putting words in the mouths of the developers, hence my 'don't speak for everyone'.

So, when Anita says "this is important", she's putting words in people's mouths, but when you say "this isn't important" or "only gameplay matters", you aren't?

[Dig Dug]

Street Fighter V DLC costumes have been revealed complete with under boob, thongs and butt cheeks.

[Shoes]

Good lord.

[Capwn]

You know how some women are flat chested in life? You rarely (if at all?) see that in AAA games do you? (Please prove me wrong) All well built/average/skinny sized female characters always just happen to have at the very least 'average' sized breasts. I'm not saying breasts make a game bad, just that it's a bit weird innit?

[NEG]

The point of the series isn't to show how 'fun' games are. There are plenty of YouTube videos you can watch that will show you how fun games are. I don't think you're nearly as stupid as you to try and make out, so I'm sure you understand that. But in case you really are struggling : these videos aren't reviews of the games in question.

It's not that hard to grasp. Criticising a game doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed, but it doesn't mean that a video criticising a certain aspect of the game should therefore run a whole list of disclaimers about what's fun about the game. It's not a review. It's not relevant.

As for your nonsense about how she never plays games for fun... you seem to be under the massive misapprehension that the only games she ever plays are for the Tropes series. How do you know she never plays games for fun? When she posts about games she's enjoyed, do you think she's lying? Or do people really need to be spoon-fed everything and treated like a child- I mean, I always think these videos are dumbed down but apparently not enough.

Again, I don't think you're nearly as stupid as you deliberately try and make out you are, so I know where you're going on that one, and it's the same old tired shit people have been flinging at her for ages, about how she's not a proper gamer and therefore her opinion is irrelevant. But then again, you equated not having pos / neg votes on a YouTube video as censorship so, I dunno...

It's odd how bothered people get just because I'd prefer some of this or that in addition to what's already in the videos. It's like demanding more bacon, wasn't meant to be a statement of fuss. I just like bacon, and would enjoy it if it were in the videos too.

I have not called her thoughts irrelevant.

Repeatedly through the series (and you ought to be aware by now), she's talked about the concept of normalisation. About unthinking repetition of established conventions. So if you do think that not every female character with a prominent, sexy arse was designed specifically for the purpose of male titillation, the cute bums are still there, and Sarkeesian highlights them to get people to think about the sort of message the aggregate of all examples is sending - intentional or otherwise.

Yup that's certainly a factor (aka a developer doing it without thinking) but I disliked the idea of being told what I might be thinking when I see butts. As if butts can somehow overtake our thought processes and not care about that character because butt. Just the way it came across to me.

To what end? The quality of a game as a piece of interactive entertainment isn't relevant to a discussion about the ways women are presented within it. What is it you're looking for out of it - justification that she's qualified because she thinks a good game is good? Reassurance that she isn't saying your beloved game is bad because of a few aspects she considers troublesome?

Note that most of the Tropes vs Games videos have opened with a statement that tropes don't mean the overall work is bad, and that it's still possible to enjoy a work while having an issue with the problematic elements within it. That's all the discussion needed, rather than go off point every now and then to say that yes, despite Princess Peach's lack of agency, Super Mario 64 is still excellent.

More interaction isn't a huge ask in my book. It's more a case of me wondering how I'd re-direct the episode to become more entertaining for me. It's not like more thoughts on the games is going to do much, but it's a human factor I enjoy all the same. People that think Anita hates games might have more to relate with if she wasn't pressing singular all the way through perhaps, though. And I understand why she makes the subjects singular - to get across the message as clearly as she can, that just has downsides too, is all.

The way I'd re-direct is say...whenever a new game comes up in the series that hasn't been mentioned at all before, a brief overview with her experiences with the game would be neat. You could say that distracts the message, you could be right, but for me that's more entertaining, because I like hearing thoughts on games, just butt focus didn't do much for me. It's a bit like focusing on cloud designs in games over the years (Out Run has the best blue skies). I never did like singular minded articles either, to be fair. (TOP 10 BEST SAUSAGES)

Yeah NEG, seriously, you're missing the entire point by a fucking mile and is now just seeming like it's trolling again.

If someone reviews say...I dunno, Commando from a dialogue perspective, or the characters in it, or even the representation of females in it, that doesn't mean that they didn't enjoy it at the same time. It's a critique of a certain aspect of media and it's entirely valid and has nothing to do with how 'fun' something is.

Or a bit of current events which might make it relevant; the issue of under representation of non-white people at the Oscars this year (and last) no one is saying all the films are shit because there aren't black people in them, just that it's a bit off that no black people got any votes from the oscar panel and that's a bit fucked up. That's it.

Anita isn't saying they aren't fun or ignoring the fun part of the games she's just saying 'look at the poor representation of women and how odd it is that they are sexualised but the guys aren't', it's very simple.

She's not saying that, correct, but she can come across like she isn't having fun, is all. Is there a problem with not having fun whilst continuing to research and talk about gaming? Not really, the audience will keep watching. But it can't be fun for her, which sucks. I'm thinking about her when I say that, if it wasn't clear.

So, when Anita says "this is important", she's putting words in people's mouths, but when you say "this isn't important" or "only gameplay matters", you aren't?

Gameplay matters first for me. No one can speak for me as to what I think about butts. She just could have worded it better. Aka: 'In general, the implication of having butts in the middle of the screen can imply the player to pay attention to it, which can diminish what the player can think of the female character in other respects'

Instead, her wording was very much 'this is what your thinking, this is whats happening'. Dead certainties does not help anyone understanding any issues concerning butts. It's amazing what a word like 'can', can do.

[Alex W.]

I think you mean that dead certainties might not help certain people understanding some of the issues concerning things like butts, don't you?

[NEG]

There is nearly always grey in any matter, but sure Alex, sure.

[David Kenny]

I think you doth protest too much NEG. She never says "Look at you you dirty animal, you're only playing this game because you want to touch yourself while looking at a curvy butt, you pig" yet that is what you chose to hear. Touched a nerve perhaps?

[Alex W.]

I'm just not sure why you expect her arguments to be couched in equivocation while you contentedly use the specific.

[Zael]

It's odd how bothered people get just because I'd prefer some of this or that in addition to what's already in the videos. It's like demanding more bacon, wasn't meant to be a statement of fuss. I just like bacon, and would enjoy it if it were in the videos too.

I like bacon too. But if I go looking for a rasher sambo when I'm in a bank I expect to get laughed out of the fucking building.

[Shoes]

Can people stop saying 'butts'? It's driving me fucking mad.

[NEG]

I think you doth protest too much NEG. She never says "Look at you you dirty animal, you're only playing this game because you want to touch yourself while looking at a curvy butt, you pig" yet that is what you chose to hear. Touched a nerve perhaps?

Was certainly grumpy whilst watching, and typing my response as I'm watching in real time, pausing, typing, and continuing. I just shouldn't type every word that comes to my head in real time. (but I do still stand by the way it was worded getting me annoyed all the same. I'm fully aware she doesn't mean it in dead certs, but hey, we're here to critic!)

I'm just not sure why you expect her arguments to be couched in equivocation while you contentedly use the specific.

I try not to, but yes, a lot of people do. I'm doing general banter however, where as Tropes videos tries to come off as analytical. Dead certainties on mind sets doesn't help on that kind of thing, either. As those gullible enough really would start assuming 'golly, look at that arse, I never noticed how much attention I'm giving it over everything else!'.

I like bacon too. But if I go looking for a rasher sambo when I'm in a bank I expect to get laughed out of the fucking building.

It's never wrong to have high hopes. Banks? They should have a KFC counter. Petition today!

The things I ask are not that alien in a gaming related video series, though. It's more akin to wanting more features added in this month's edition of GamesMaster.

Can people stop saying 'butts'? It's driving me fucking mad.

Is arse okay? Sexy arses.

[Alex W.]

I try not to, but yes, a lot of people do. I'm doing general banter however, where as Tropes videos tries to come off as analytical. Dead certainties on mind sets doesn't help on that kind of thing, either. As those gullible enough really would start assuming 'golly, look at that arse, I never noticed how much attention I'm giving it over everything else!'.

You're asking her to murder her videos' writing quality in order to accommodate morons?

[SMD]

I'm normalised to the fact neg is a moron

[b00dles]

People doing serious critical videos should be continually having fun throughout the video? Do reviews of theater/ art/ cinema/ books/ anything ever have to be all 'wow this was fun'? In fact no, that's not even the question, they aren't but why do you think these videos should? Why do you even think she isn't even having fun? You're projecting so much on to these videos that isn't even there.

I don't think you even know what you're railing against anymore. You may as well go find some windmills to tilt at.

[Danster]

I don't even bother reading his replies anymore.

[NEG]

You're asking her to murder her videos' writing quality in order to accommodate morons?

We already confirmed a month ago that the show is already arguably idiot proof, in terms of being able to understand what is being said. Sometimes frustratingly so 'morons' understand.

There is always room for improvement.

[b00dles]

They clearly aren't.

[Alex W.]

We already confirmed a month ago that the show is already arguably idiot proof, in terms of being able to understand what is being said. Sometimes frustratingly so 'morons' understand.

There is always room for improvement.

That wouldn't be an improvement, though. It'd gut the comprehensibility of what you describe as an analytical, intelligent series in order to accommodate a completely hypothetical audience of credulous idiots; the last time I checked credulous idiots were more dedicated to picketing her Twitter feed than watching her videos.

[RubberJohnny]

The gaming right is the new religious right

It’s kind of an odd thing to have happened. Once, there was a pretty significant debate over the censorship of video games. Video game activist Jack Thompson crowed that violent games made people shoot up schools, Doom was accused of promoting devil worship and Congress held hearings on the subject. Much of the rhetoric calling for the censor or banning of games was coming from the same voices who protested Marilyn Manson and Dogma. Games were often already heavily censored by the American branch of Nintendo, with the bloodless Super Nintendo port of Mortal Kombat being pretty much the entire debate in microcosm.

However, though there was a lot of talk about official censorship there was never really any serious chance it would happen in America. Video games were declared free speech by the Supreme Court in 2005 in a 7 – 2 decision, and Nintendo had given up their dream of completely family-friendly entertainment by 1994. Mature content became a badge of honor to the gamer community. It was proof that the medium couldn’t be stopped by moralistic thugs determined to protect us from ourselves.

That was the status quo for a long time until the rise of social critiquing of games came about. Journalists like Leigh Alexander and Mattie Brice as well as YouTubers like Anita Sarkeesian began looking at game content, both narrative and mechanical, and examining what that content said about us. It was not, as a lot of gamers like to claim, a call to censor or ban that content. It was just looking at it in a more thoughtful and nuanced way. With games now protected by all the power of the First Amendment, you would think that discussion over them could flourish more freely since they were in no danger of being taken away.

That’s not what happened, though. Organized retaliation against the concept of conversation and dialogue in the form of 4chan ops and GamerGate happened instead. Sarkeesian’s videos were constantly flagged on YouTube in an attempt to take them down and online campaigns to have various journalists discredited or fired became a new way of life for anyone who dared deconstructing games from a social justice perspective. The message was clear: shut up. Stop talking right now.

The gamer right has its moral crusade, now. It wants gaming to be orthodox and traditional and easy to swallow without thinking too much about it. Even something like That Dragon, Cancer, truly a game I assumed everyone could agree was at least a moving idea, cannot be tolerated. Not if feminists think it’s good, and not if there isn’t any power fantasy to fulfill. The religious right fought to keep sex and murder from interactive media, and their ideological successors are fighting to keep thought out of it with the same, unquestioning zealousness.