I completely disagree, OXYnary. My issue is with the root ideology and philosophy I've specifically called out. I've tried to be very particular about that (my success in getting that specific intention across clearly is obviously up for debate, so I'll definitely grant you that). I only take issue with people who voluntarily carry that school of argument... mostly because that school of argument almost always seems to be the one that's being thrown at me without any provocation.
(Except for "who the hell ate all the Oreos?! Your son can't reach them, go buy more", that one's a real ship-sinker. :poly136:)
To quote from the article you linked to - and it doesn't go into much detail about the particular social politics subcontext I'm referring to...
Because the established discourses of the Enlightenment are more or less arbitrary and unjustified, they can be changed; and because they more or less reflect the interests and values of the powerful, they should be changed. Thus postmodernists regard their theoretical position as uniquely inclusive and democratic, because it allows them to recognize the unjust hegemony of Enlightenment discourses over the equally valid perspectives of nonelite groups. In the 1980s and 90s, academic advocates on behalf of various ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious groups embraced postmodern critiques of contemporary Western society, and postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of the new movement of identity politics.
There you go.
Do a little more digging about the logical constructs that identity politics like feminism, radical queer theory, and similar movements are built on. If we want to talk in terms of tropes, there's a pretty popular essay from the '80s called "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" that rolls out pretty much every postmodernist identity politics trope I've ever personally seen in the wild - privilege, oppression, victimhood, guilt, the whole nine yards. That essay was one of the most vapid, racist, ludicrous things I can think of ever having read.
The issue is that one of the driving purposes of identity politics is to so thoroughly entangle the individual with the ideology that it DOES become a struggle to disentangle rebuttals to the ideological arguments without the defending individual easily re-framing it as a personal attack. From what I have seen personally, that's not an accident, and it's a favorite tactic for discrediting opponents. If you can't attack the argument without attacking the identity, you can't attack the identity without attacking the person. And if you attack the person, well, obviously you're doing it because you dislike them and their identity, and that's proof you're racist / sexist / etc. So in short, argue with them at the peril of your own reputation.
I'm not here to attack every feminist or queer activist or civil rights activist or disabilities activist or any other -ism activist, because you know what? Some of them are doing it right, without building their activism on identity politics or the social postmodernist theories I think are offensive bunk, and they're doing a damn fine job, and they are precious to me. People should be free. People should be equal before the law, and people should be able to take their chance at life and take their best swing at whatever they want to make of it. And some truly inexcusable crap has happened in our country that gets in the way of that, like Jim Crow laws or miscegenation laws or sodomy laws, or, in the case of this thread, laws and regulations that are statutory discrimination against women, and those need to get stomped into the dirt with a vengeance.
But to me, Ms. Sarkeesian is going way overboard, attacking individuals and things they've made based on her very shallow assumptions about their intentions. And she's doing it in an attempt to try and publicly shame them into not making things she doesn't like, and only making things she approves of. And from what I have seen and heard her say and read of her writing, her efforts are driven by an ideology and school of argument I find offensive and objectionable.
And so I can't get along with that.
Look, I don't think we're gonna totally agree here. At least not tonight. I've already gone waaaaay over the boundary I usually try to keep between discussing politics in professional circles. I'm sure I haven't made any friends in this thread, and I wouldn't even be surprised if it somehow comes back to bite me professionally. Not much I can do about it at this point, I suppose. But I stand my ground in believing - and stating - that I think people are inherently decent and well-meaning, and deserve to be free to make what they want to make, including games or stories built with throwaway characters and shallow archetypes, if that's what they want to make. And that those inherently decent, well-meaning people, who aren't misogynistic or racist or homophobic and don't mean those kinds of things maliciously in their work, should be free to make the games or art or stories they want to without being hauled into the internet public square by a bully and berated for not being "sensitive" enough or shamed for not satisfying somebody's politically radical worldview of how insert-identity-group-here should be portrayed.
And the people like Ms. Sarkeesian who do believe in using rotten tomato-throwing on the internet and ridiculous accusations of privilege and discrimination to try and bully or shame people into speaking or writing or creating or behaving only in ways they think are "sufficiently appropriate"? THEY should be ashamed of themselves.
(Now, if somebody makes a Cotton Plantation Manager Tycoon game or a Deuschland Uber Alles game and does genuinely believe in those things and means it - like that jaw-droppingly antisemetic "Under Ashes" intifada game made in Palestine a while back... feed 'em to the wolves)
Really Makkon? Do you realize the entire issue is that even what someone is doing in their privacy is being penalized, right? Not about the 'public product' in question and what the consumer wants?
These are the type of people you vouch for? Really Makkon? Do I need to explain to why blatant blindness of supporting people who consider "4chan = Techies" to be not only wrong, but shows gross example of not doing research, and being condescending all the time?
So that's how we're going to have this conversation?
I quit this thread. I just don't know enough about this issue to be allowed to speak.
[edit] that was actually a really excellent video, but your reaction was still overly dramatic and I didn't appreciate it, it turned me off almost completely from wanting to understand any of this. I'll be friendly if you be friendly.
This person apparently does not know what the word "subtext" means. In grade school I learned that what happens about a story is not normally what the story is about. The Birds and The Bees is not about birds nor bees. It's about fucking.
"Princess Zelda and her many incarnations shouldn't be reduced to a category. Isn't it the actions of a character that should speak for their worth, rather than what happens to them?"
Fantastic. No, literally, the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule kingdoms are fantasy realms, and not reality. They are fictional groups of ideas that form works of art. Being art, they are means of conveying messages, or more precisely, propaganda. As such, we can't just think of either realms, and what goes on in them within the context of their fictional environment. We have to think of them as how those ideas interact with our world, in the here and now. Why is this woman asking me to contrast how I feel about Zelda, to how the fictional character Link feels about the Zelda? Link is a fucking cartoon. He doesn't have an opinion of Zelda, and nor do the people of Mushroom Kingdom, because they do not exist.
The designers of the game, however, had an opinion. It was that we should play as a young man and feel motivated to go on these obtuse journeys to rescue a woman who is obviously not helpless, some 15 times. kiteTails says Zelda is also "brave" and has meaning beyond being a "damsel in distress." Well, no one ever stopped Ganondorf by being brave and giving him sassy backtalk. You had to do it by playing as Link and stabbing shit in half. Zelda could not be more important than Link for supposedly "giving order to Hyrule" because she gets kidnapped in every game, rendering her effectively worthless at her job. She is invisible for almost the entirety of all Zelda games, never changing, and scarcely being discussed. Meanwhile Link is the character you play as, who grows over the course of the game. Link is the subject, Zelda is the object Link pursues to restore order.
It's amazing how this idiot takes a critical observation that female characters are often no more than a symbol of success at the end of a game, and implies that feminists are the ones reducing women to that trope by pointing it out.
"Just because she does not wear a tunic does not mean she is not as important as link." No. If she were not getting kidnapped in every single Zelda story she would be less important than any random NPC. Her purpose is to get kidnapped so that Link can save her. That's it. Sarkeesian does not say that strength is the measure of a character's worth, nor did she say that this trope is simply "unacceptable." What she did say is that it is incredibly prevalent, and perpetuates the harmful idea that women are treated as prizes to be protected from other males. Weird how this kiteTails woman says that only to the critical viewers are these women of less importance. Ain't that the truth.
I could go further in depth and explain why this asinine crap is opposed to what Sarkeesian actually said, but its pointless. What a waste of time.
All I can say is ^^this^^. That's exactly what I was thinking while I watched this critique.
Fantastic. No, literally, the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule kingdoms are fantasy realms, and not reality. They are fictional groups of ideas that form works of art. Being art, they are means of conveying messages, or more precisely, propaganda. As such, we can't just think of either realms, and what goes on in them within the context of their fictional environment. We have to think of them as how those ideas interact with our world, in the here and now. Why is this woman asking me to contrast how I feel about Zelda, to how the fictional character Link feels about the Zelda? Link is a fucking cartoon. He doesn't have an opinion of Zelda, and nor do the people of Mushroom Kingdom, because they do not exist.
The designers of the game, however, had an opinion. It was that we should play as a young man and feel motivated to go on these obtuse journeys to rescue a woman who is obviously not helpless, some 15 times. kiteTails says Zelda is also "brave" and has meaning beyond being a "damsel in distress." Well, no one ever stopped Ganondorf by being brave and giving him sassy backtalk. You had to do it by playing as Link and stabbing shit in half. Zelda could not be more important than Link for supposedly "giving order to Hyrule" because she gets kidnapped in every game, rendering her effectively worthless at her job. She is invisible for almost the entirety of all Zelda games, never changing, and scarcely being discussed. Meanwhile Link is the character you play as, who grows over the course of the game. Link is the subject, Zelda is the object Link pursues to restore order.
you never played many of the zelda games, did you?
Hehe good point Gir ... They basically let go of Zelda as a "damsel in distress" at the time of Zelda3, making you originally think that the game is about rescuing her, while in fact this mini quest is taken care of in about half an hour, after which the real story starts.
When Link's Awakening came out it became pretty obvious that the Zelda games we not about repeating the same story over again, at all. Man, such excellent games.
This person apparently does not know what the word "subtext" means. In grade school I learned that what happens about a story is not normally what the story is about. The Birds and The Bees is not about birds nor bees. It's about fucking.
"Princess Zelda and her many incarnations shouldn't be reduced to a category. Isn't it the actions of a character that should speak for their worth, rather than what happens to them?"
Fantastic. No, literally, the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule kingdoms are fantasy realms, and not reality. They are fictional groups of ideas that form works of art. Being art, they are means of conveying messages, or more precisely, propaganda. As such, we can't just think of either realms, and what goes on in them within the context of their fictional environment. We have to think of them as how those ideas interact with our world, in the here and now. Why is this woman asking me to contrast how I feel about Zelda, to how the fictional character Link feels about the Zelda? Link is a fucking cartoon. He doesn't have an opinion of Zelda, and nor do the people of Mushroom Kingdom, because they do not exist.
The designers of the game, however, had an opinion. It was that we should play as a young man and feel motivated to go on these obtuse journeys to rescue a woman who is obviously not helpless, some 15 times. kiteTails says Zelda is also "brave" and has meaning beyond being a "damsel in distress." Well, no one ever stopped Ganondorf by being brave and giving him sassy backtalk. You had to do it by playing as Link and stabbing shit in half. Zelda could not be more important than Link for supposedly "giving order to Hyrule" because she gets kidnapped in every game, rendering her effectively worthless at her job. She is invisible for almost the entirety of all Zelda games, never changing, and scarcely being discussed. Meanwhile Link is the character you play as, who grows over the course of the game. Link is the subject, Zelda is the object Link pursues to restore order.
It's amazing how this idiot takes a critical observation that female characters are often no more than a symbol of success at the end of a game, and implies that feminists are the ones reducing women to that trope by pointing it out.
"Just because she does not wear a tunic does not mean she is not as important as link." No. If she were not getting kidnapped in every single Zelda story she would be less important than any random NPC. Her purpose is to get kidnapped so that Link can save her. That's it. Sarkeesian does not say that strength is the measure of a character's worth, nor did she say that this trope is simply "unacceptable." What she did say is that it is incredibly prevalent, and perpetuates the harmful idea that women are treated as prizes to be protected from other males. Weird how this kiteTails woman says that only to the critical viewers are these women of less importance. Ain't that the truth.
I could go further in depth and explain why this asinine crap is opposed to what Sarkeesian actually said, but its pointless. What a waste of time.
Agreedo.
I thought the point about how the fictional members of the mushroom kingdom feel about Peach was particularly salient, because it is a non-point. They do not exist. We, the players of the game, do, so our narrative and the importance of characters we are presented with are all that matters.
At the very least I will give her credit for being the first response video that was done completely respectfully and without trying to use dripping derision in their voice non stop to make the points. I disagree with her, but it was at least interesting.
I don't know about that though, I mean, a lot depends on which game your talking about too. In Ocarina of Time, Zelda actually does a lot in terms of helping Link, leading the sages and sealing Ganon. As a child she explains what Link had to do, and through the help of her female guardian also escapes capture from Ganon, then throughout the rest of the game she gives Link useful songs to access temples and the light arrows. And even after her capture, the game never really switched to a "Rescue Zelda" theme. The whole game was about defeating Ganon, which through the help of Zelda, you can accomplish.
In Skyward Sword she does get kidnapped, but as you follow through the story she escapes without your help quite a few times, and always seemed to be ahead of you trying to do her job to save the world. In that game it only seemed close to the end where you really needed to aid her.
In fact, other than maybe the first 2 Zelda games and Minish Cap. I think Zelda has in one way or another done something notable to try and aid her people before the villain has a chance to kidnap her. Like didn't she aid Link by communicating with magic during the A Link to the Past?
And while Peach is very much a damsel in distress, she did play a notable role in practically saving herself in the first Paper Mario.
Let's not forget that there are now Peach games where the roles are also reversed, and that she's a playable character in her own right in most of the spinoff games
While it is true that she saves Mario in that game therefore not making her a damsel in distress. I don't really think a game about Peach having super power mood swings is really the best portrayal of females in videogames either...
I thought the point about how the fictional members of the mushroom kingdom feel about Peach was particularly salient, because it is a non-point. They do not exist. We, the players of the game, do, so our narrative and the importance of characters we are presented with are all that matters.
wait, so the way the characters we're presented with feel about another character we're presented with don't matter because they're not real. but our narrative and the importance of the characters we're presented with are all that matters?
are you serious?
you've just said, in the same paragraph, that because we're presented with a fictional set of characters, how they feel about each other doesn't matter. but the way they're presented IS important. THEY'RE PRESENTED IN A WAY THAT THEY FEEL A CERTAIN WAY TOWARD EACH OTHER.
anyway, aside from all that i have a question:
there are plenty of games which switch the "damsel in distress" trope on its head either partway or even entirely through a game. but wouldn't that make it equally obnoxious in the opposite direction? it's still a trope, just an opposite one.
but does that mean we should remove the idea of rescue entirely from games? wouldn't that then send the message that it's okay to just ignore someone or something that needs help?
What's wrong with a princess like Zelda in a game?
It's better a tomboy version of Lara Croft?
This is a matter of tastes. You can't change the people imposing your stupid ideas.
You may have too much free time posting huge walls of texts. Let me say you, again, don't get brain washed by this woman. This thread is becoming absurd and i would close it.
If you want to see women... watch anime. Let the rage begin, 1... 2... 3!
This person apparently does not know what the word "subtext" means. In grade school I learned that what happens about a story is not normally what the story is about. The Birds and The Bees is not about birds nor bees. It's about fucking.
Yeah except if you didn't know that then it would indeed be about the birds and the bees. By it's own literal nature it wouldn't be about sex until a word irrefutably defining sex it used. The thing about subtext is that it must be read into. Sometimes you don't have to read far and sometimes you do; sometimes multiple people will agree on the message and sometimes they will not, sometimes it will be crafted on purpose via propaganda and sometimes (almost always for video games) it will be the incidental message of a story the creators wanted to tell. Regardless the subtext will be discovered by each individual's own ability to come to a conclusion by their own perception and cannot be provably true until text literally claims it objectively.
"Princess Zelda and her many incarnations shouldn't be reduced to a category. Isn't it the actions of a character that should speak for their worth, rather than what happens to them?"
Fantastic. No, literally, the Mushroom Kingdom and Hyrule kingdoms are fantasy realms, and not reality. They are fictional groups of ideas that form works of art. Being art, they are means of conveying messages, or more precisely, propaganda.
Propaganda has intentional subtext: therefore Nintendo went out of their way to create a story that objectifies the 'damsel in distress' for the sole purpose of encouraging players to treat actual real women the same way. Even if that is the message the trope displays (which has been point/counter-pointed here ad infinitum) I doubt to the highest degree that could be true.
As such, we can't just think of either realms, and what goes on in them within the context of their fictional environment. We have to think of them as how those ideas interact with our world, in the here and now. Why is this woman asking me to contrast how I feel about Zelda, to how the fictional character Link feels about the Zelda? Link is a fucking cartoon. He doesn't have an opinion of Zelda, and nor do the people of Mushroom Kingdom, because they do not exist.
Sorry but you can't cherry pick your avenues of analysis solely on whether the interpretation sends the message you want to hear. You can't have one, you must have all, or else your analysis is flawed and incomplete. In fact your previous preposition that propaganda is evident extends to the ideology that game-players are being manipulated by propaganda to be encouraged to play the game (as does movies, books et. al. use certain methods to elicit feeling and immersion). By that rote you cannot ignore the value of the virtual world the player is asked to interact with.
You say it is important to analyse the subtext by evaluating it's reference to the real world, but ignore the analysis of the text itself? The very text that is contextualised by referring to our perceptions of the real world? Links feelings within the context of his universe are important because real people in the context of this universe have feelings that are important. We cannot value the representations of the characters in fiction without acknowledging that they are built on ideologies that we understand in reality - whether positive or negative.
The designers of the game, however, had an opinion. It was that we should play as a young man and feel motivated to go on these obtuse journeys to rescue a woman who is obviously not helpless, some 15 times. kiteTails says Zelda is also "brave" and has meaning beyond being a "damsel in distress." Well, no one ever stopped Ganondorf by being brave and giving him sassy backtalk.
No nobody has beaten Gannondorf with sassy backtalk. He is only beaten in a battle life and death where each party is willing to murder the other for the sake of their own ideologies. Zelda is smart enough to recognise that as somebody who has been born into a life as a civil leader based on diplomacy, is not the kind of hardened warrior who could kill a monster like Gannondorf; especially evident by the way he was able to storm her castle, defeat her guards and kidnap the leader of an entire nation. Oh and if the developers really wanted to show her as a coward they would show her breaking down into a shambling mess after experiencing such trauma - instead they show her calm, collected, coming up with strategies, escaping under disguise, and fighting alongside another brave individual in the bleakest hour.
You had to do it by playing as Link and stabbing shit in half. Zelda could not be more important than Link for supposedly "giving order to Hyrule" because she gets kidnapped in every game, rendering her effectively worthless at her job.
By that logic JFK was shot purely due to being a terrible president? As in he misses a day and boom that action physically moved the trigger on the gun, rather than the assassin choosing to perform that action themselves. I apologise: I am not implying that JFK was a terrible president as I know almost nothing about US political history. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to correlate somebodies efficacy as a leader to the committing of a grievous crime. Especially since in this context the assailant is definitely not saving Hyrule from Zelda's terrible rule, but a tyrant bent on conquering it with an iron fist.
She is invisible for almost the entirety of all Zelda games, never changing, and scarcely being discussed. Meanwhile Link is the character you play as, who grows over the course of the game. Link is the subject, Zelda is the object Link pursues to restore order.
Link will be ever-present by being the player avatar. Zelda is no less important than the supporting cast of any Zelda game. It is also false that she does not grow. In the Zelda series she: learns how to disguise her identity and perform counter-intelligence alongside her royal network of spies, leads a secret life as a pirate captain until she is forced to awaken into her royal past, come to recognise her misguided actions against an ancient tribe and attempt to right them, and more I'm sure.
It's amazing how this idiot takes a critical observation that female characters are often no more than a symbol of success at the end of a game, and implies that feminists are the ones reducing women to that trope by pointing it out.
Isn't it poor form to claim that somebody who wants to encourage friendly discussion about the topic without slinging blame as an idiot? Pointing out the trope is not the problem: it is the fact that some of those who are and firing it on a double-barrel with blame and shame for its existence.
"Just because she does not wear a tunic does not mean she is not as important as link." No. If she were not getting kidnapped in every single Zelda story she would be less important than any random NPC. Her purpose is to get kidnapped so that Link can save her. That's it.
Then Link (as a man) only exists to risk his life for her survival, and that Gannondorf (as a man) proves that he is a slave to his ambitions for power. Negative tropes abound.
Sarkeesian does not say that strength is the measure of a character's worth, nor did she say that this trope is simply "unacceptable." What she did say is that it is incredibly prevalent, and perpetuates the harmful idea that women are treated as prizes to be protected from other males. Weird how this kiteTails woman says that only to the critical viewers are these women of less importance. Ain't that the truth.
The only thing harmful about the idea is that it is old. Due to the unfortunate biological asymmetry of our species we and so many other species on this planet require women to survive for approximately 9 months longer than any man in order to perpetuate the species. Women are actually more valuable than men, but somehow have been saddled with genetics that make them on average physically weaker than men. The amount of times throughout history that a strong man would have to fight another strong man in order to protect a woman weaker than both of them in order to secure opportunity for legacy will be innumerable. This has been ingrained as a storytelling artefact for such a long time to become instinctive.
Now that we live in a population so numerous and capable of pressing on without the continuous aid of strong men; we can appreciate stories that deviate from the ingrained - that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm simply not going to concede that a concept that has helped us survive for centuries (albeit unequally thanks to biology) is invalid.
I could go further in depth and explain why this asinine crap is opposed to what Sarkeesian actually said, but its pointless. What a waste of time.
Well Sarkeesian doesn't appear to desire just the spread of her opinion, but wishes to inspire change by making creators acutely aware of what she considers negatives. The games she is criticising are not above scrutiny, but neither is the opinion she has the right to employ. It is my opinion that her goals may not be so easily met by:
A) Analysing games made at a time when the perception of women was already known to be less, the prevalence of women in the industry was less and the target market was focused almost solely on men. A time that barely mirrors how games are made today, both technologically and ambitiously.
Analysing games from Japan - a country with a completely different culture and attitudes towards women. If there is anybody who needs to hear her message it is them and it's almost guaranteed that they are the people listening the least.
C) Focusing solely on how the tropes are damaging and bad, barely touching on how to modify them for better, or present tropes that reinforce positives.
And hey don't think that your thoughts are a waste of time. Without them I could not present mine as what I hope add value to the discussion.
Actually some of the most progressive views ive ever seen of women have been in anime.
See Planetes, or Michiko to Hatchin, or any studio ghibli.
And as always Blaizer, so elegantly high and mighty with your succinct style of engrish.
Nuzz, as Acid as always. Do you have any kind of grudge?
Anime is wider than those examples you cited, and progressive? lol. You should watch more ANIME, and not those poor examples.
And sorry if my english is not so good, but i'm not a native speaker, you should know that. Let me know where is my bad grammar in order to learn from my mistakes. If not, i will think you are a mere douchebag , or a cunt being clear.
i could add more examples but google is your friend.
Too many morons criticize these games.
In these games they simply take the best photo sources as references. Women are not only those ugly femi-nazis complaining all the day on the internet, crying as babies, or serving overdoses of hate with their silly comments.
And the 1million question... rants about female characters, but what happen with male characters?
reposting this in this thread from the other swedish one.
This post kinda directly relates more so to our industry than others, there are other boys club industries for sure (who hasnt been to mechanics garage and seen pin up girls all over the walls) but I find most of these points are more about the social aspect of game devs. obvious disclaimer, not singling anyone out or saying this applies to everyone in the game industry. this is simply based off my own meandering experience. I shall dispence this advice now:
The funny thing is, while I was at united front, the studio was about 1/3 women and we all hung out regularily. I never saw any sexist behaviour from anyone and the studio had a super cool vibe. I think a lot of it comes down to the various horriblly socially uncalibrated people in the game industry. I still dont understand how guys can sit and snicker and be all duuurrhrrrrrr tittes over some cg girls or about some woman behind her back, thats pretty fuckin pathetic and ofcourse its going to make anyone feel horribly uncomfortable, well except social retards......which to be honest there are a lot of in this industry.
The thing with UFG I found is they hired people a lot more based on their personailty and how social they were, there is a reason it has a reputation as a party studio. 99% of the time if guys can somehow manage to be FRIENDLY AND COOL anyone both male and female alike is going to feel a lot more comfortable in the environment around them. but hey we are all guilty of saying some stupid shit as our brain scrambles to come up with something to say.
There are some posts in this and the tropes thread that seem like some people have the mindset of jumping to women's defence because its the "nice guy" thing to do. Thats a sneaky little thing ive seen guys do over and over. they figure if they ACT nice, then they will get girls to side with them and like them. Thats pretty weak, instead of just treating everyone with the same respect regardless of sex.
My biggest advice for helping fix this problem in this industry for both men and women : Go out. leave your basements/studios, stop being in front of a computer 24/7, go out and actually interact with members of the opposite sex in real life and learn how to actually treat people as normal human beings. anyways, meandering tangent over.
Yeah except if you didn't know that then it would indeed be about the birds and the bees. By it's own literal nature it wouldn't be about sex until a word irrefutably defining sex it used. The thing about subtext is that it must be read into. Sometimes you don't have to read far and sometimes you do; sometimes multiple people will agree on the message and sometimes they will not, sometimes it will be crafted on purpose via propaganda and sometimes (almost always for video games) it will be the incidental message of a story the creators wanted to tell. Regardless the subtext will be discovered by each individual's own ability to come to a conclusion by their own perception and cannot be provably true until text literally claims it objectively.
Propaganda has intentional subtext: therefore Nintendo went out of their way to create a story that objectifies the 'damsel in distress' for the sole purpose of encouraging players to treat actual real women the same way. Even if that is the message the trope displays (which has been point/counter-pointed here ad infinitum) I doubt to the highest degree that could be true.
Sorry but you can't cherry pick your avenues of analysis solely on whether the interpretation sends the message you want to hear. You can't have one, you must have all, or else your analysis is flawed and incomplete. In fact your previous preposition that propaganda is evident extends to the ideology that game-players are being manipulated by propaganda to be encouraged to play the game (as does movies, books et. al. use certain methods to elicit feeling and immersion). By that rote you cannot ignore the value of the virtual world the player is asked to interact with.
You say it is important to analyse the subtext by evaluating it's reference to the real world, but ignore the analysis of the text itself? The very text that is contextualised by referring to our perceptions of the real world? Links feelings within the context of his universe are important because real people in the context of this universe have feelings that are important. We cannot value the representations of the characters in fiction without acknowledging that they are built on ideologies that we understand in reality - whether positive or negative.
No nobody has beaten Gannondorf with sassy backtalk. He is only beaten in a battle life and death where each party is willing to murder the other for the sake of their own ideologies. Zelda is smart enough to recognise that as somebody who has been born into a life as a civil leader based on diplomacy, is not the kind of hardened warrior who could kill a monster like Gannondorf; especially evident by the way he was able to storm her castle, defeat her guards and kidnap the leader of an entire nation. Oh and if the developers really wanted to show her as a coward they would show her breaking down into a shambling mess after experiencing such trauma - instead they show her calm, collected, coming up with strategies, escaping under disguise, and fighting alongside another brave individual in the bleakest hour.
By that logic JFK was shot purely due to being a terrible president? As in he misses a day and boom that action physically moved the trigger on the gun, rather than the assassin choosing to perform that action themselves. I apologise: I am not implying that JFK was a terrible president as I know almost nothing about US political history. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to correlate somebodies efficacy as a leader to the committing of a grievous crime. Especially since in this context the assailant is definitely not saving Hyrule from Zelda's terrible rule, but a tyrant bent on conquering it with an iron fist.
Link will be ever-present by being the player avatar. Zelda is no less important than the supporting cast of any Zelda game. It is also false that she does not grow. In the Zelda series she: learns how to disguise her identity and perform counter-intelligence alongside her royal network of spies, leads a secret life as a pirate captain until she is forced to awaken into her royal past, come to recognise her misguided actions against an ancient tribe and attempt to right them, and more I'm sure.
Isn't it poor form to claim that somebody who wants to encourage friendly discussion about the topic without slinging blame as an idiot? Pointing out the trope is not the problem: it is the fact that some of those who are and firing it on a double-barrel with blame and shame for its existence.
Then Link (as a man) only exists to risk his life for her survival, and that Gannondorf (as a man) proves that he is a slave to his ambitions for power. Negative tropes abound.
The only thing harmful about the idea is that it is old. Due to the unfortunate biological asymmetry of our species we and so many other species on this planet require women to survive for approximately 9 months longer than any man in order to perpetuate the species. Women are actually more valuable than men, but somehow have been saddled with genetics that make them on average physically weaker than men. The amount of times throughout history that a strong man would have to fight another strong man in order to protect a woman weaker than both of them in order to secure opportunity for legacy will be innumerable. This has been ingrained as a storytelling artefact for such a long time to become instinctive.
Now that we live in a population so numerous and capable of pressing on without the continuous aid of strong men; we can appreciate stories that deviate from the ingrained - that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm simply not going to concede that a concept that has helped us survive for centuries (albeit unequally thanks to biology) is invalid.
Well Sarkeesian doesn't appear to desire just the spread of her opinion, but wishes to inspire change by making creators acutely aware of what she considers negatives. The games she is criticising are not above scrutiny, but neither is the opinion she has the right to employ. It is my opinion that her goals may not be so easily met by:
A) Analysing games made at a time when the perception of women was already known to be less, the prevalence of women in the industry was less and the target market was focused almost solely on men. A time that barely mirrors how games are made today, both technologically and ambitiously.
Analysing games from Japan - a country with a completely different culture and attitudes towards women. If there is anybody who needs to hear her message it is them and it's almost guaranteed that they are the people listening the least.
C) Focusing solely on how the tropes are damaging and bad, barely touching on how to modify them for better, or present tropes that reinforce positives.
And hey don't think that your thoughts are a waste of time. Without them I could not present mine as what I hope add value to the discussion.
I just wanted to point this out and thank you for taking the time to write up such a well reasoned and respectful post.
Does nobody else think it somewhat irreverent to keep picking on examples of games that come from outside of Western society and ergo have differing cultural values and sensitivities anyway?
I also wanted to chime in and say this sort of bullshit is unacceptable. Blaizer, you're adding nothing but negativity to the conversation.
Why do i need to eat all the bullshit and personal attacks?. I replied an acid comment from Muzz in a manner i considered he deserved, so i find my reply right (yes, i'm human). He has no right to to come in the thread just to attack me personally (like he usually do), with that bullshit of "engrish".
One thing is to correct my english saying "you said this wrong", and another is to comment about me with such stupid post and then leave it. And sorry if defending myself i become the devil, but Muzz looks like a douchebag for me.
And it's not the first time that the term douchebag/cunt has been said on this forum. But, wow, this time was Blaizer...
What's up with all this shit of negativity? are you also teasing me or what?. I'm starting to get bored of it, really.
and BTW, guys... spanglish is not the same as engrish... google it.
My bad replying the offense of Muzz, but to consider an idea stupid is not for such a ruckuss.
"Morons and femi-nazis" are adjetives with a context, and i said them without any intention of offense. Man, i'm fed up of all this talk of women in videogames and stereotypes.
Live and let to live. Nobody should say us what kind of games to make.
i'm not in a "nazi mode", criticizing all and trying to impose my ideas, that's the main difference. They get that adjetive for a reason, and you can google it like "nazi-grammar".
Anyways, i don't want to waste more energy arguing in this thread, i have had enough!, it's pointless, a nonsense, so don't expect more replies from me here.
I may be very direct and sincere, but you guys should learn to be less sensitive.
And personally, after reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion (just my harmless personal opinion) that criticism of "equality" and the like has no place in things that "do not exist", ie art of any kind, any offence taken from any works of art, intentional by the creator or not, should be dismissed for what they are; someones opinion/idea told through artistic means. That's our jobs as functional adults, to "deal with it."
The second something is provably detrimental to your progress and success in life (harassment at work, inequality in regards to where you can study, live or travel or a person treating you differently because of your gender, skin colour or sexuality), then we must act, because then we have tangible proof of injustice and not just someone being offended.
I've been on the receiving end of racism most of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop everything I'm doing and point out how Arabs are badly portrayed in movies or games or books or whatever. Until it stands directly in my way of progress, it's not a problem and when it actually does stand in my way, it's against the law (if you live in a first world country) and bringing light to such events helps curb it.
Looking to get yourself offended by others imaginations only makes you look like a aimless whiner and might end up having those who don't know simply ignore you when an actual issue comes up, thinking you're blowing things out of proportion.
Tropes usually suck, not because they're offensive but because they're often lazy. Using them is not a sign of immaturity but lack of creativity or simply setting the bar low. I don't believe the use of them in the past, present or future means they are the harbinger of a horribly unequal society, but rather proof that we're running out of ideas :P
Analysing games from Japan - a country with a completely different culture and attitudes towards women. If there is anybody who needs to hear her message it is them and it's almost guaranteed that they are the people listening the least.
Does nobody else think it somewhat irreverent to keep picking on examples of games that come from outside of Western society and ergo have differing cultural values and sensitivities anyway?
I sure hope we don't exclude eastern games from discussion or we'd have to exclude two of my favorite examples of damsels in distress done right.
ICO is easily the best utilization of this trope. Yes, the girl is completely helpless and requires the aid of the boy to do anything, but the use of this story mechanic (boy saves girl) is engrained and drives the game play. Personally, I felt responsible for her and noticed myself in distress whenever she was overrun by shadow monsters. Through her inaction she becomes a strong emotional catalyst, creating a bond between her and the player. Some might say she's a poor characterization of women, but without her much of what makes ICO special would be lost.
The other example would be Emma Emmerich (EE) in Metal Gear Solid 2 (it has been a while so forgive me for any misrememberings). At one point in the game, after rescuing EE, you must traverse a submerged section of an oil rig. EE's strong fear of water prevents her from continuing and Raiden has to calm her down and get her in the right head space for what she needs to do. Then you actually play as Raiden swimming with EE on your back, trying to find pockets of air for her to catch a breath.
During another point in the game she must overcome her fear of water alone by crossing a long, thin pontoon floating in the ocean connecting two of the oil rig structures. At the same time you're covering her with sniper fire from flying turrets and guards bearing down on her.
Like another video pointed out, just because a character has a moment of weakness does not make them a weak character. It gives them a chance to become a stronger character by overcoming that weakness (as in the case of EE).
I guess I don't really have much to say, just wanted to throw out a couple of positive examples of damsels in distress. Hopefully we'll get more compelling characters in the future both male and female.
I'm sorry blaizer if you fail to see how your post is insulting to everyone in this thread, than i do not feel i can convince you of what you are doing. But nevertheless i will try.
This is a matter of tastes. You can't change the people imposing your stupid ideas.
You may have too much free time posting huge walls of texts. Let me say you, again, don't get brain washed by this woman. This thread is becoming absurd and i would close it.
That's right buddy, you just insulted the opinions of everyone in this thread, you said that everyone who has an opinion in opposition to yours, has stupid ideas.
You are also saying that anybody that even looks to defend Anita is "brainwashed?".
You do realize that if you come in here with your mind made up and are not willing to listen to the arguments against your point of view, then what you are doing is simple preaching, it isn't an argument as an argument requires both parties to carefully consider both sides of the discussion.
Consider this for a moment, all i did was call you out on this and i get called a cunt?
Charming.
"You should watch more ANIME, and not those poor examples."
I'm sorry i missed the memo where broad sweeping generalizations help move the discussion forward.
(also lol, studio Ghibli poor)
Anime is a medium, not a platform for sexism. Yes a lot of anime is fucked up and sexist, but not all of it is.
I'd be a little sad to see it locked. Aside from the fights going on, there are some really good points being made and it's great seeing that many people I admire here and in the industry are not only aware of the issues at hand, but also want to change them in their own projects (if that's in their control).
I'd love to see more of that. Intelligent conversation. The few posts I made here got me some pretty dramatic replies, and I'd like to do without those please. Just asking for some forward thinking and meaningful dialogue is all. I've learned a lot in here.
Not going to deny it, perhaps it was a low blow on my part. I'm just sick of his "this is my opinion and you guys are stupid for not agreeing attitude". The bad English is a cherry on top of the arrogance.
You can find it in a large number of blaizers posts and i find mentally insulting to read.
Anyways i feel i said everything i wanted to say in the start of the thread, so i wont bother jumping back into the discussion.
Yeah, actually. I have. Majora's Mask is the best, LTTP the second, and OOT a distant third, and if you disagree, you're an idiot. ; P
I wish I wasn't so bad at internet smileys. I don't want to be an idiot.
Some may have had a completely different experience but this i my theory why Majora's Mask tends to be at the top (the fact that Zelda is completely removed from it goal-wise is irrelevant.)
MM is also my favourite Zelda, but I'm pretty sure that most people played OOT first and that this contributes to its value exponentially almost necessarily so. MM is built upon OOTs ground-breaking gameplay structure and introduction of systems that now typify the Zelda experience including z-targeting, aiming bows, quick inventory management, and horse riding. All of these elements were easily put in place for MM and players could have less trouble getting grips with the new 3-day timer, Bomber side-quests and mask-related transformation. Not only that but MM makes subtle and not so subtle references to OOT and it's colourful characters.
For people who played OOT, MM was an exciting new twist on proven gameplay, with an imaginative story and setting. References to parts of OOT, especially its characters really helped to bring players into the world (like that part in Wind Waker where we descend to Hyrule and discover that the universe of Zelda is so much larger than we thought.) I would hazard a guess that MM would have come across as difficult and obtuse had it been the flagship N64 Zelda. This is simply what I beleive, but if I'm to relate this to the tropes discussion: I'm saying that truly imaginative exploration of divergent ideas; ones that avoid trope and cliche; rest on the foundations of ideas that are common and easily understood.
Seriously, though, which Zelda game do you play in where she has her own adventure, and character development? The fact that some games are called Zelda but don't feature her at all bolsters the point. She doesn't actually mean anything besides "oh, I guess I have to go on another convoluted adventure today.
The CD-I Zelda games made her a player character, but the less said about them the better. If there is anything we should be able to agree on it is that the Zelda games are designed to follow a formula; the legend itself focusing mostly on Link, Zelda, and Ganon performing the exact same ritual of abatement each time. While a game where Zelda is the main hero would be interesting and refreshing, I don't know why we should blame them for not doing it - they have no obligation to not rehash.
Also, the fact that SSBM sold more than Mario Sunshine is the worst point ever. Sunshine was a borderline crap game, while Melee was amazing, and featured dozens of characters with 0 character development, or story.
It does matter. It would matter if a game made by the KKK where you shoot black people (there is one) sold more than Mario Sunshine. The amount of sales of a game is not just reflective of its quality of gameplay and its contents which can be subjective (you dislike Mario Sunshine) and objective (It's undeniable that Mario Sunshine compares well to similar games with good game design.) The sales reflect the quality of BOTH. A good playing game sells. A game with a decent story, characters, or choices for play sells. Ones with both sell even more. Melee is a good game that is fantastic to play and it contains a fair representation of characters to play who all feel useful and powerful in the context of the environment.
Lastly as games are interactive it is unfair to judge the value of its agency and personality on the written word of plot and character development. People can feel a connection to characters like Zelda and Peach in Melee simply by playing as them. They don't need the long trials and adventures that Link and Mario have to be important or interesting or empathic and the sales reflect that. In fact if anything, these sales prove your point: that giving these ladies more prominence and value in these games couldn't hurt.
Everyone's a critic.....I notice she still insists on turning off comments for her videos, frightened of a little critisim herself, huh?...
Everyone knows the role of women in games isn't very "balanced" but rather than wine on about it she should take the shit tons of money she got on kickstarter and make a game she would be happy with. If its a good game i'll buy it regardless of the gender of the characters and their roles.
I notice she still insists on turning off comments for her videos, frightened of a little critisim herself, huh?...
Can you imagine what the comment section would look like on these videos? These videos and this topic in general are a siren's song for trolls, knuckle draggers and shit stirrers. It's best to hold discussions elsewhere on the internet and let the videos stand on their own.
Can you imagine what the comment section would look like on these videos? These videos and this topic in general are a siren's song for trolls, knuckle draggers and shit stirrers. It's best to hold discussions elsewhere on the internet and let the videos stand on their own.
The trolls etc arent going to make any valid points anywhere online; true. But you cant have discussions like that and then basicly disable everybody elses opinions symbolically it pretty bad.
The suggestion that she should have used the extra funds to develop a game utilising or circumventing the tropes that she's discussing. While these videos generate a lot of discussion, like most internet arguments they tend to just go around and around and around in circles. A game, or even a series of little vignettes to go along with each video could, I think, do a lot more good than just the discussion itself
The trolls etc arent going to make any valid points anywhere online; true. But you cant have discussions like that and then basicly disable everybody elses opinions symbolically it pretty bad.
The flipside of that is you allow comments, they are filled with trolls and useless flame fights, and the message is lost.
Replies
(Except for "who the hell ate all the Oreos?! Your son can't reach them, go buy more", that one's a real ship-sinker. :poly136:)
To quote from the article you linked to - and it doesn't go into much detail about the particular social politics subcontext I'm referring to...
There you go.
Do a little more digging about the logical constructs that identity politics like feminism, radical queer theory, and similar movements are built on. If we want to talk in terms of tropes, there's a pretty popular essay from the '80s called "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" that rolls out pretty much every postmodernist identity politics trope I've ever personally seen in the wild - privilege, oppression, victimhood, guilt, the whole nine yards. That essay was one of the most vapid, racist, ludicrous things I can think of ever having read.
The issue is that one of the driving purposes of identity politics is to so thoroughly entangle the individual with the ideology that it DOES become a struggle to disentangle rebuttals to the ideological arguments without the defending individual easily re-framing it as a personal attack. From what I have seen personally, that's not an accident, and it's a favorite tactic for discrediting opponents. If you can't attack the argument without attacking the identity, you can't attack the identity without attacking the person. And if you attack the person, well, obviously you're doing it because you dislike them and their identity, and that's proof you're racist / sexist / etc. So in short, argue with them at the peril of your own reputation.
I'm not here to attack every feminist or queer activist or civil rights activist or disabilities activist or any other -ism activist, because you know what? Some of them are doing it right, without building their activism on identity politics or the social postmodernist theories I think are offensive bunk, and they're doing a damn fine job, and they are precious to me. People should be free. People should be equal before the law, and people should be able to take their chance at life and take their best swing at whatever they want to make of it. And some truly inexcusable crap has happened in our country that gets in the way of that, like Jim Crow laws or miscegenation laws or sodomy laws, or, in the case of this thread, laws and regulations that are statutory discrimination against women, and those need to get stomped into the dirt with a vengeance.
But to me, Ms. Sarkeesian is going way overboard, attacking individuals and things they've made based on her very shallow assumptions about their intentions. And she's doing it in an attempt to try and publicly shame them into not making things she doesn't like, and only making things she approves of. And from what I have seen and heard her say and read of her writing, her efforts are driven by an ideology and school of argument I find offensive and objectionable.
And so I can't get along with that.
Look, I don't think we're gonna totally agree here. At least not tonight. I've already gone waaaaay over the boundary I usually try to keep between discussing politics in professional circles. I'm sure I haven't made any friends in this thread, and I wouldn't even be surprised if it somehow comes back to bite me professionally. Not much I can do about it at this point, I suppose. But I stand my ground in believing - and stating - that I think people are inherently decent and well-meaning, and deserve to be free to make what they want to make, including games or stories built with throwaway characters and shallow archetypes, if that's what they want to make. And that those inherently decent, well-meaning people, who aren't misogynistic or racist or homophobic and don't mean those kinds of things maliciously in their work, should be free to make the games or art or stories they want to without being hauled into the internet public square by a bully and berated for not being "sensitive" enough or shamed for not satisfying somebody's politically radical worldview of how insert-identity-group-here should be portrayed.
And the people like Ms. Sarkeesian who do believe in using rotten tomato-throwing on the internet and ridiculous accusations of privilege and discrimination to try and bully or shame people into speaking or writing or creating or behaving only in ways they think are "sufficiently appropriate"? THEY should be ashamed of themselves.
(Now, if somebody makes a Cotton Plantation Manager Tycoon game or a Deuschland Uber Alles game and does genuinely believe in those things and means it - like that jaw-droppingly antisemetic "Under Ashes" intifada game made in Palestine a while back... feed 'em to the wolves)
So that's how we're going to have this conversation?
I quit this thread. I just don't know enough about this issue to be allowed to speak.
[edit] that was actually a really excellent video, but your reaction was still overly dramatic and I didn't appreciate it, it turned me off almost completely from wanting to understand any of this. I'll be friendly if you be friendly.
[ame="
All I can say is ^^this^^. That's exactly what I was thinking while I watched this critique.
you never played many of the zelda games, did you?
When Link's Awakening came out it became pretty obvious that the Zelda games we not about repeating the same story over again, at all. Man, such excellent games.
Agreedo.
I thought the point about how the fictional members of the mushroom kingdom feel about Peach was particularly salient, because it is a non-point. They do not exist. We, the players of the game, do, so our narrative and the importance of characters we are presented with are all that matters.
At the very least I will give her credit for being the first response video that was done completely respectfully and without trying to use dripping derision in their voice non stop to make the points. I disagree with her, but it was at least interesting.
In Skyward Sword she does get kidnapped, but as you follow through the story she escapes without your help quite a few times, and always seemed to be ahead of you trying to do her job to save the world. In that game it only seemed close to the end where you really needed to aid her.
In fact, other than maybe the first 2 Zelda games and Minish Cap. I think Zelda has in one way or another done something notable to try and aid her people before the villain has a chance to kidnap her. Like didn't she aid Link by communicating with magic during the A Link to the Past?
And while Peach is very much a damsel in distress, she did play a notable role in practically saving herself in the first Paper Mario.
e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Princess_Peach
wait, so the way the characters we're presented with feel about another character we're presented with don't matter because they're not real. but our narrative and the importance of the characters we're presented with are all that matters?
are you serious?
you've just said, in the same paragraph, that because we're presented with a fictional set of characters, how they feel about each other doesn't matter. but the way they're presented IS important. THEY'RE PRESENTED IN A WAY THAT THEY FEEL A CERTAIN WAY TOWARD EACH OTHER.
anyway, aside from all that i have a question:
there are plenty of games which switch the "damsel in distress" trope on its head either partway or even entirely through a game. but wouldn't that make it equally obnoxious in the opposite direction? it's still a trope, just an opposite one.
but does that mean we should remove the idea of rescue entirely from games? wouldn't that then send the message that it's okay to just ignore someone or something that needs help?
That's kind of always been her character however.
It's better a tomboy version of Lara Croft?
This is a matter of tastes. You can't change the people imposing your stupid ideas.
You may have too much free time posting huge walls of texts. Let me say you, again, don't get brain washed by this woman. This thread is becoming absurd and i would close it.
If you want to see women... watch anime. Let the rage begin, 1... 2... 3!
See Planetes, or Michiko to Hatchin, or any studio ghibli.
And as always Blaizer, so elegantly high and mighty with your succinct style of engrish.
Yeah except if you didn't know that then it would indeed be about the birds and the bees. By it's own literal nature it wouldn't be about sex until a word irrefutably defining sex it used. The thing about subtext is that it must be read into. Sometimes you don't have to read far and sometimes you do; sometimes multiple people will agree on the message and sometimes they will not, sometimes it will be crafted on purpose via propaganda and sometimes (almost always for video games) it will be the incidental message of a story the creators wanted to tell. Regardless the subtext will be discovered by each individual's own ability to come to a conclusion by their own perception and cannot be provably true until text literally claims it objectively.
Check this out:
[ame="
Propaganda has intentional subtext: therefore Nintendo went out of their way to create a story that objectifies the 'damsel in distress' for the sole purpose of encouraging players to treat actual real women the same way. Even if that is the message the trope displays (which has been point/counter-pointed here ad infinitum) I doubt to the highest degree that could be true.
Sorry but you can't cherry pick your avenues of analysis solely on whether the interpretation sends the message you want to hear. You can't have one, you must have all, or else your analysis is flawed and incomplete. In fact your previous preposition that propaganda is evident extends to the ideology that game-players are being manipulated by propaganda to be encouraged to play the game (as does movies, books et. al. use certain methods to elicit feeling and immersion). By that rote you cannot ignore the value of the virtual world the player is asked to interact with.
You say it is important to analyse the subtext by evaluating it's reference to the real world, but ignore the analysis of the text itself? The very text that is contextualised by referring to our perceptions of the real world? Links feelings within the context of his universe are important because real people in the context of this universe have feelings that are important. We cannot value the representations of the characters in fiction without acknowledging that they are built on ideologies that we understand in reality - whether positive or negative.
No nobody has beaten Gannondorf with sassy backtalk. He is only beaten in a battle life and death where each party is willing to murder the other for the sake of their own ideologies. Zelda is smart enough to recognise that as somebody who has been born into a life as a civil leader based on diplomacy, is not the kind of hardened warrior who could kill a monster like Gannondorf; especially evident by the way he was able to storm her castle, defeat her guards and kidnap the leader of an entire nation. Oh and if the developers really wanted to show her as a coward they would show her breaking down into a shambling mess after experiencing such trauma - instead they show her calm, collected, coming up with strategies, escaping under disguise, and fighting alongside another brave individual in the bleakest hour.
By that logic JFK was shot purely due to being a terrible president? As in he misses a day and boom that action physically moved the trigger on the gun, rather than the assassin choosing to perform that action themselves. I apologise: I am not implying that JFK was a terrible president as I know almost nothing about US political history. I'm simply pointing out how absurd it is to correlate somebodies efficacy as a leader to the committing of a grievous crime. Especially since in this context the assailant is definitely not saving Hyrule from Zelda's terrible rule, but a tyrant bent on conquering it with an iron fist.
Link will be ever-present by being the player avatar. Zelda is no less important than the supporting cast of any Zelda game. It is also false that she does not grow. In the Zelda series she: learns how to disguise her identity and perform counter-intelligence alongside her royal network of spies, leads a secret life as a pirate captain until she is forced to awaken into her royal past, come to recognise her misguided actions against an ancient tribe and attempt to right them, and more I'm sure.
Isn't it poor form to claim that somebody who wants to encourage friendly discussion about the topic without slinging blame as an idiot? Pointing out the trope is not the problem: it is the fact that some of those who are and firing it on a double-barrel with blame and shame for its existence.
Then Link (as a man) only exists to risk his life for her survival, and that Gannondorf (as a man) proves that he is a slave to his ambitions for power. Negative tropes abound.
The only thing harmful about the idea is that it is old. Due to the unfortunate biological asymmetry of our species we and so many other species on this planet require women to survive for approximately 9 months longer than any man in order to perpetuate the species. Women are actually more valuable than men, but somehow have been saddled with genetics that make them on average physically weaker than men. The amount of times throughout history that a strong man would have to fight another strong man in order to protect a woman weaker than both of them in order to secure opportunity for legacy will be innumerable. This has been ingrained as a storytelling artefact for such a long time to become instinctive.
Now that we live in a population so numerous and capable of pressing on without the continuous aid of strong men; we can appreciate stories that deviate from the ingrained - that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. I'm simply not going to concede that a concept that has helped us survive for centuries (albeit unequally thanks to biology) is invalid.
Well Sarkeesian doesn't appear to desire just the spread of her opinion, but wishes to inspire change by making creators acutely aware of what she considers negatives. The games she is criticising are not above scrutiny, but neither is the opinion she has the right to employ. It is my opinion that her goals may not be so easily met by:
A) Analysing games made at a time when the perception of women was already known to be less, the prevalence of women in the industry was less and the target market was focused almost solely on men. A time that barely mirrors how games are made today, both technologically and ambitiously.
C) Focusing solely on how the tropes are damaging and bad, barely touching on how to modify them for better, or present tropes that reinforce positives.
And hey don't think that your thoughts are a waste of time. Without them I could not present mine as what I hope add value to the discussion.
Nuzz, as Acid as always. Do you have any kind of grudge?
Anime is wider than those examples you cited, and progressive? lol. You should watch more ANIME, and not those poor examples.
And sorry if my english is not so good, but i'm not a native speaker, you should know that. Let me know where is my bad grammar in order to learn from my mistakes. If not, i will think you are a mere douchebag
Go and watch this:
[ame="
this:
[ame="
and this:
[ame="
i could add more examples but google is your friend.
Too many morons criticize these games.
In these games they simply take the best photo sources as references. Women are not only those ugly femi-nazis complaining all the day on the internet, crying as babies, or serving overdoses of hate with their silly comments.
And the 1million question... rants about female characters, but what happen with male characters?
edit: god, pardon me because i'm a man.
This post kinda directly relates more so to our industry than others, there are other boys club industries for sure (who hasnt been to mechanics garage and seen pin up girls all over the walls) but I find most of these points are more about the social aspect of game devs. obvious disclaimer, not singling anyone out or saying this applies to everyone in the game industry. this is simply based off my own meandering experience. I shall dispence this advice now:
The funny thing is, while I was at united front, the studio was about 1/3 women and we all hung out regularily. I never saw any sexist behaviour from anyone and the studio had a super cool vibe. I think a lot of it comes down to the various horriblly socially uncalibrated people in the game industry. I still dont understand how guys can sit and snicker and be all duuurrhrrrrrr tittes over some cg girls or about some woman behind her back, thats pretty fuckin pathetic and ofcourse its going to make anyone feel horribly uncomfortable, well except social retards......which to be honest there are a lot of in this industry.
The thing with UFG I found is they hired people a lot more based on their personailty and how social they were, there is a reason it has a reputation as a party studio. 99% of the time if guys can somehow manage to be FRIENDLY AND COOL anyone both male and female alike is going to feel a lot more comfortable in the environment around them. but hey we are all guilty of saying some stupid shit as our brain scrambles to come up with something to say.
There are some posts in this and the tropes thread that seem like some people have the mindset of jumping to women's defence because its the "nice guy" thing to do. Thats a sneaky little thing ive seen guys do over and over. they figure if they ACT nice, then they will get girls to side with them and like them. Thats pretty weak, instead of just treating everyone with the same respect regardless of sex.
My biggest advice for helping fix this problem in this industry for both men and women : Go out. leave your basements/studios, stop being in front of a computer 24/7, go out and actually interact with members of the opposite sex in real life and learn how to actually treat people as normal human beings. anyways, meandering tangent over.
I just wanted to point this out and thank you for taking the time to write up such a well reasoned and respectful post.
I also wanted to chime in and say this sort of bullshit is unacceptable. Blaizer, you're adding nothing but negativity to the conversation.
People quoting him gets around my post filter
Why do i need to eat all the bullshit and personal attacks?. I replied an acid comment from Muzz in a manner i considered he deserved, so i find my reply right (yes, i'm human). He has no right to to come in the thread just to attack me personally (like he usually do), with that bullshit of "engrish".
One thing is to correct my english saying "you said this wrong", and another is to comment about me with such stupid post and then leave it. And sorry if defending myself i become the devil, but Muzz looks like a douchebag for me.
And it's not the first time that the term douchebag/cunt has been said on this forum. But, wow, this time was Blaizer...
What's up with all this shit of negativity? are you also teasing me or what?. I'm starting to get bored of it, really.
and BTW, guys... spanglish is not the same as engrish... google it.
"Morons and femi-nazis" are adjetives with a context, and i said them without any intention of offense. Man, i'm fed up of all this talk of women in videogames and stereotypes.
Live and let to live. Nobody should say us what kind of games to make.
Anyways, i don't want to waste more energy arguing in this thread, i have had enough!, it's pointless, a nonsense, so don't expect more replies from me here.
I may be very direct and sincere, but you guys should learn to be less sensitive.
instead, merge everything related to this subject, (like the swedish one)
so i know which thread to avoid on GD.
And personally, after reading through this thread I've come to the conclusion (just my harmless personal opinion) that criticism of "equality" and the like has no place in things that "do not exist", ie art of any kind, any offence taken from any works of art, intentional by the creator or not, should be dismissed for what they are; someones opinion/idea told through artistic means. That's our jobs as functional adults, to "deal with it."
The second something is provably detrimental to your progress and success in life (harassment at work, inequality in regards to where you can study, live or travel or a person treating you differently because of your gender, skin colour or sexuality), then we must act, because then we have tangible proof of injustice and not just someone being offended.
I've been on the receiving end of racism most of my life, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop everything I'm doing and point out how Arabs are badly portrayed in movies or games or books or whatever. Until it stands directly in my way of progress, it's not a problem and when it actually does stand in my way, it's against the law (if you live in a first world country) and bringing light to such events helps curb it.
Looking to get yourself offended by others imaginations only makes you look like a aimless whiner and might end up having those who don't know simply ignore you when an actual issue comes up, thinking you're blowing things out of proportion.
Tropes usually suck, not because they're offensive but because they're often lazy. Using them is not a sign of immaturity but lack of creativity or simply setting the bar low. I don't believe the use of them in the past, present or future means they are the harbinger of a horribly unequal society, but rather proof that we're running out of ideas :P
Peace and love
I sure hope we don't exclude eastern games from discussion or we'd have to exclude two of my favorite examples of damsels in distress done right.
ICO is easily the best utilization of this trope. Yes, the girl is completely helpless and requires the aid of the boy to do anything, but the use of this story mechanic (boy saves girl) is engrained and drives the game play. Personally, I felt responsible for her and noticed myself in distress whenever she was overrun by shadow monsters. Through her inaction she becomes a strong emotional catalyst, creating a bond between her and the player. Some might say she's a poor characterization of women, but without her much of what makes ICO special would be lost.
The other example would be Emma Emmerich (EE) in Metal Gear Solid 2 (it has been a while so forgive me for any misrememberings). At one point in the game, after rescuing EE, you must traverse a submerged section of an oil rig. EE's strong fear of water prevents her from continuing and Raiden has to calm her down and get her in the right head space for what she needs to do. Then you actually play as Raiden swimming with EE on your back, trying to find pockets of air for her to catch a breath.
During another point in the game she must overcome her fear of water alone by crossing a long, thin pontoon floating in the ocean connecting two of the oil rig structures. At the same time you're covering her with sniper fire from flying turrets and guards bearing down on her.
Like another video pointed out, just because a character has a moment of weakness does not make them a weak character. It gives them a chance to become a stronger character by overcoming that weakness (as in the case of EE).
I guess I don't really have much to say, just wanted to throw out a couple of positive examples of damsels in distress. Hopefully we'll get more compelling characters in the future both male and female.
That's right buddy, you just insulted the opinions of everyone in this thread, you said that everyone who has an opinion in opposition to yours, has stupid ideas.
You are also saying that anybody that even looks to defend Anita is "brainwashed?".
You do realize that if you come in here with your mind made up and are not willing to listen to the arguments against your point of view, then what you are doing is simple preaching, it isn't an argument as an argument requires both parties to carefully consider both sides of the discussion.
Consider this for a moment, all i did was call you out on this and i get called a cunt?
Charming.
I'm sorry i missed the memo where broad sweeping generalizations help move the discussion forward.
(also lol, studio Ghibli poor)
Anime is a medium, not a platform for sexism. Yes a lot of anime is fucked up and sexist, but not all of it is.
I'd love to see more of that. Intelligent conversation. The few posts I made here got me some pretty dramatic replies, and I'd like to do without those please. Just asking for some forward thinking and meaningful dialogue is all. I've learned a lot in here.
You can find it in a large number of blaizers posts and i find mentally insulting to read.
Anyways i feel i said everything i wanted to say in the start of the thread, so i wont bother jumping back into the discussion.
I wish I wasn't so bad at internet smileys. I don't want to be an idiot.
Some may have had a completely different experience but this i my theory why Majora's Mask tends to be at the top (the fact that Zelda is completely removed from it goal-wise is irrelevant.)
MM is also my favourite Zelda, but I'm pretty sure that most people played OOT first and that this contributes to its value exponentially almost necessarily so. MM is built upon OOTs ground-breaking gameplay structure and introduction of systems that now typify the Zelda experience including z-targeting, aiming bows, quick inventory management, and horse riding. All of these elements were easily put in place for MM and players could have less trouble getting grips with the new 3-day timer, Bomber side-quests and mask-related transformation. Not only that but MM makes subtle and not so subtle references to OOT and it's colourful characters.
For people who played OOT, MM was an exciting new twist on proven gameplay, with an imaginative story and setting. References to parts of OOT, especially its characters really helped to bring players into the world (like that part in Wind Waker where we descend to Hyrule and discover that the universe of Zelda is so much larger than we thought.) I would hazard a guess that MM would have come across as difficult and obtuse had it been the flagship N64 Zelda. This is simply what I beleive, but if I'm to relate this to the tropes discussion: I'm saying that truly imaginative exploration of divergent ideas; ones that avoid trope and cliche; rest on the foundations of ideas that are common and easily understood.
The CD-I Zelda games made her a player character, but the less said about them the better. If there is anything we should be able to agree on it is that the Zelda games are designed to follow a formula; the legend itself focusing mostly on Link, Zelda, and Ganon performing the exact same ritual of abatement each time. While a game where Zelda is the main hero would be interesting and refreshing, I don't know why we should blame them for not doing it - they have no obligation to not rehash.
It does matter. It would matter if a game made by the KKK where you shoot black people (there is one) sold more than Mario Sunshine. The amount of sales of a game is not just reflective of its quality of gameplay and its contents which can be subjective (you dislike Mario Sunshine) and objective (It's undeniable that Mario Sunshine compares well to similar games with good game design.) The sales reflect the quality of BOTH. A good playing game sells. A game with a decent story, characters, or choices for play sells. Ones with both sell even more. Melee is a good game that is fantastic to play and it contains a fair representation of characters to play who all feel useful and powerful in the context of the environment.
Lastly as games are interactive it is unfair to judge the value of its agency and personality on the written word of plot and character development. People can feel a connection to characters like Zelda and Peach in Melee simply by playing as them. They don't need the long trials and adventures that Link and Mario have to be important or interesting or empathic and the sales reflect that. In fact if anything, these sales prove your point: that giving these ladies more prominence and value in these games couldn't hurt.
[ame="
Everyone knows the role of women in games isn't very "balanced" but rather than wine on about it she should take the shit tons of money she got on kickstarter and make a game she would be happy with. If its a good game i'll buy it regardless of the gender of the characters and their roles.
The trolls etc arent going to make any valid points anywhere online; true. But you cant have discussions like that and then basicly disable everybody elses opinions symbolically it pretty bad.
(watch the video and this will make sense)