GRRR FEMINISM and stuff - New Video Released. Fade mad.

jiggles wrote:I thought the video was pretty good. She did well to keep it cool on the agenda and just let the examples speak for themselves. Couldn't argue with anything she said. I didn't expect it to break some kind of new ground or anything (because it's obvious how deep gaming's in to this kind of gooseberry fool already), but it was easily digestible and made me think, so fair play.

The hate she's been getting for this is incredible.

I agree with all of this. I thought it was a good video.

Delusibeta wrote:Interesting point from another forum: here is the punchline of the video.

Anita wrote: But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures. [Not all games like this are bad] But it's undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in our lives and the damsel in distress trope, as a recurring trend, does help to normalise extremely toxic, patronising, and paternalistic attit
udes about women.

It's the "people can't distinguish media from reality" fallacy again.

Not really - it's undeniable that reinforced attitudes and stereotypes have an impact on consensual thinking, especially among ignorant people.

I think it's interesting - although it wasn't really hammered home in the video - that in almost every single case, the 'Damsel' routine was only there to provide a narrative to the game, and very rarely critical to the gameplay itself, which suggests that - certainly in the 80s and 90s - it was critical to provide a story as a backdrop to a game, no matter how cliched that story might be. 99% of those platformers didn't need any story whatsoever, or could have run on a story of simply hero vs villain with no female character at all.

Some people have mentioned Metroid as a counter to her arguments, but don't you think it's interesting that for the original Metroid, her gender was kept as a secret until the player had actually completed the game, and then used for shock value? Based on that, I don't really think Metroid is a great example - and I've got to be honest, I never considered the notion that Miyamoto might be just a tad old fashioned until now.

Dan. wrote:I've got to be honest, I never considered the notion that Miyamoto might be just a tad old fashioned until now.

Well, why would you? Are we all expected to navel gaze every time we complete a game to see if we're suitably ashamed of it's portrayal of women? The amount being read into some things is strange. I'm still somewhat surprised no-one has shown up to shout "it's just a strawberry floating game".

rudderless wrote:This thread may well represent a new low for this place. Yeesh.

That's a bit much.
In terms of games, women are getting stronger and stronger - there's plenty of capable and admirable female characters in games nowadays, especially recently.

Ginga wrote:I'm still somewhat surprised no-one has shown up to shout "it's just a strawberry floating game".

"It's just a strawberry floating game", says a man who has logged into an online gaming forum most days over the past five years to discuss games and gaming with other people who enjoy discussing games and gaming.

Be sure to head along to (for example) the Spec Ops thread to tell everyone there to stop discussing the story and characterisation because, well, it's just a game. And then log off.

melatonin wrote:

Ginga wrote:I'm still somewhat surprised no-one has shown up to shout "it's just a strawberry floating game".

"It's just a strawberry floating game", says a man who has logged into an online gaming forum most days over the past five years to discuss games and gaming with other people who enjoy discussing games and gaming.

Be sure to head along to (for example) the Spec Ops thread to tell everyone there to stop discussing the story and characterisation because, well, it's just a game. And then log off.

There's story and characterisation in Spec Ops?

Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr yes?

I think it's more thematic in terms of what it's trying to do. It's got a lot to it.

Ginga wrote:

melatonin wrote:

Ginga wrote:I'm still somewhat surprised no-one has shown up to shout "it's just a strawberry floating game".

"It's just a strawberry floating game", says a man who has logged into an online gaming forum most days over the past five years to discuss games and gaming with other people who enjoy discussing games and gaming.

Be sure to head along to (for example) the Spec Ops thread to tell everyone there to stop discussing the story and characterisation because, well, it's just a game. And then log off.

There's story and characterisation in Spec Ops?

Dan. wrote:

jiggles wrote:I thought the video was pretty good. She did well to keep it cool on the agenda and just let the examples speak for themselves. Couldn't argue with anything she said. I didn't expect it to break some kind of new ground or anything (because it's obvious how deep gaming's in to this kind of gooseberry fool already), but it was easily digestible and made me think, so fair play.

The hate she's been getting for this is incredible.

I agree with all of this. I thought it was a good video.

Delusibeta wrote:Interesting point from another forum: here is the punchline of the video.

Anita wrote: But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures. [Not all games like this are bad] But it's undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in our lives and the damsel in distress trope, as a recurring trend, does help to normalise extremely toxic, patronising, and paternalistic attit
udes about women.

It's the "people can't distinguish media from reality" fallacy again.

Not really - it's undeniable that reinforced attitudes and stereotypes have an impact on consensual thinking, especially among ignorant people.

I think it's interesting - although it wasn't really hammered home in the video - that in almost every single case, the 'Damsel' routine was only there to provide a narrative to the game, and very rarely critical to the gameplay itself, which suggests that - certainly in the 80s and 90s - it was critical to provide a story as a backdrop to a game, no matter how cliched that story might be. 99% of those platformers didn't need any story whatsoever, or could have run on a story of simply hero vs villain with no female character at all.

Some people have mentioned Metroid as a counter to her arguments, but don't you think it's interesting that for the original Metroid, her gender was kept as a secret until the player had actually completed the game, and then used for shock value? Based on that, I don't really think Metroid is a great example - and I've got to be honest, I never considered the notion that Miyamoto might be just a tad old fashioned until now.

it can be argued quite successfully that the use of tropes in early games was just about the only way to tell a story AT ALL during the period.

Pac man and Donkey Kong are critical early examples of the evolution of storytelling in games.

Ginga wrote:

melatonin wrote:

Ginga wrote:I'm still somewhat surprised no-one has shown up to shout "it's just a strawberry floating game".

"It's just a strawberry floating game", says a man who has logged into an online gaming forum most days over the past five years to discuss games and gaming with other people who enjoy discussing games and gaming.

Be sure to head along to (for example) the Spec Ops thread to tell everyone there to stop discussing the story and characterisation because, well, it's just a game. And then log off.

There's story and characterisation in Spec Ops?

Edgy.

I enjoyed the video, and she does make some good points, but I do have this nagging feeling in the back of my head... She got paid $150k.. for this?

It's a real shame to see YouTube comments disabled though. Some people.

Of course, it's not just sexism (or sexual sterotyping) that's a problem in games, where are the black characters? The Asian characters? (Even the Prince of Persia is a white man!) Where are the gay characters?

Videogames have got a long way to go.

Most of us here are straight white males aged 18-30, so it completely passes us by that there's a real lack of diversity in the characters we play as.

Shadow wrote:It's a real shame to see YouTube comments disabled though. Some people.

Of course, it's not just sexism (or sexual sterotyping) that's a problem in games, where are the black characters? The Asian characters? (Even the Prince of Persia is a white man!) Where are the gay characters?

Videogames have got a long way to go.

Most of us here are straight white males aged 18-30, so it completely passes us by that there's a real lack of diversity in the characters we play as.

Skip to 7:30 if you're impatient.

Her Lego video is spot on too, and actually a little sad.

To be honest, I play so many games as a white male aged 25-35 that any game in which I get to play as someone outside that category I find it refreshing. Sometimes I go from one game to another and barely feel as if I'm playing as a different character at all. This also exacerbates the problem of stale, boring protagonists as they all seem to be trying to fit themselves into the same mold.

It doesn't matter if your protagonist is a man/woman/robot/dog, or whatever. They will only suck as protagonist if they are badly written.

TheTurnipKing wrote:The problem is that a "feminst fantasy" makes for a really poor story.

Turnip, you get that this is a comic about feeling safe enough to walk outside by yourself at midnight without being attacked/raped, right? Because for a second it looked like you were using it as an example of how feminists (?) want to remove... storytelling (??) from stories (????????)

I need to know that you know this.

I suppose my biggest beef with Anita is that she's a troll in the classical sense. She is very, very good at getting a negative reaction and then profiting from it. Her recent popularity can basically be explained by Rule 19 of the internet: the more you hate something, the stronger it gets. So, she projects herself has a crusader being terrorised by an angry mob (see also her TED video), when in reality she's just A. N. Other person with a webcam.

melatonin wrote:in b4 Lotus moans about the fact that International Women's Day exists.

Nope, doesn't bother me at all.

Just watched the first video. Some thoughts.

1) Why did she need $6,000 - nevermind $150,000+ - to do this? Surely if she was that bothered she could have done it for nothing like most other people would have.

2) "The game of patriarchy"

3) "The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male power fantasies in order to sell more games to young straight boys and men." So that's the reason these games sold? Because they tapped into a fantasy she's assuming these people had? Couldn't be because they were good games..?

4) When she starts comparing male protagonists being captured and then escaping themselves, and then the damsel having to be rescued....well, they're not like-for-like are they. Of course if you're playing as the character, you're going to be the one doing the escaping, whether you're male or female. Wouldn't make for a fun game, would it, if you had to spend the whole time waiting for someone to come and rescue you. You're the main character, you're controlling things, you're obviously going to find a way out yourself. Comparing that to an NPC - whether they're a damsel in distress or not - seems like a moot point.

As for the Lego videos, not really buying that point either. So it's a toy that's largely been designed for boys and marketed for boys, in the same way as any toys out there that were designed for girls and marketed for girls. Girls were, of course, free to play with Lego if they wanted. Then, in an effort to expand the range to appeal more to girls, they brought out a range in colours and themes typically associated with girls. This probably did increase Lego's appeal to at least some girls, and even if they didn't like it, they could still get the original Lego instead. Can't see what the outrage is about. Is it because they contain stereotypical feminine things? Well if the girls don't like it, play with the other Lego, and if they do like it, the toy's doing its job. Is it because the whole Lego range isn't gender neutral? Why should it be? There are plenty of toy ranges aimed solely are girls - what's special about Lego?

Lego recently launched Lego for girls.

And it's recieved negatively by critics and media for being too stereotyping girls.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/lego-fr ... -50006457/

http://www.drrobynsilverman.com/parenting-tips/4135/

Of course it doesn't help that Lego is just following the market trend. My two young kids love anything that's pink, toy kitchen stuff or princesses/dolls. We certainly didnt force them on them, as they (well the eldest one did pick them out) picked those things out in the toy store.

They find the appeal in it. So why should we pamper to the critics who find it "sexist?"

So in a nutshell I'm guessing she's talking about the Friends Lego range.