Anita Sarkeesian + Hitman Absolution = Epic Fail

[NuclearKangaroo]

you said historical context is important, its not, it only serves to obstruct real equality, black people cant be equal to everyone else, neither can women or sex workers under that point of view

I was referring to cultural context. Our culture includes recent history. I really do not understand why you think that obstructs real equality.

because it does, you are saying killing a black man in a video game and killing a white man in a video game is not the same thing, both acts are not equal so both races cant be treated equally

you cant simply make special rules for one group and argue everyone is equal

Everyone isn't equal. That's the issue. That's why you need to be thoughtful as to how you're portraying certain groups of people.

so why did you ask me why i think it obstructs real equality? you know it does, you just dont care

 

[Shadowstar38]

you said historical context is important, its not, it only serves to obstruct real equality, black people cant be equal to everyone else, neither can women or sex workers under that point of view

I was referring to cultural context. Our culture includes recent history. I really do not understand why you think that obstructs real equality.

because it does, you are saying killing a black man in a video game and killing a white man in a video game is not the same thing, both acts are not equal so both races cant be treated equally

you cant simply make special rules for one group and argue everyone is equal

Everyone isn't equal. That's the issue. That's why you need to be thoughtful as to how you're portraying certain groups of people.

But, shouldn't we BE treating everyone as equals while the rest of the world tries to get there? Doesn't the fact that developers didn't see an issue with murdering females the same as males say something positive about society, or those particular people? Wouldn't treating them as if they need extra protection add to the problem?

 

[WhiteNachos]

The story context matters, of course. But you also have to look at it in the context of the culture at large. Black people have a history of being oppressed by white people in America,

That is a racist statement. There was never a point where all white people participated in oppressing minorities. Not every white person in the south owned slaves, there were tons of white abolitionists and tons of white people against segregation.

so Django Unchained was cathartic. A movie about a heroic white guy going around killing evil black people would be tasteless and offensive, because of the exact same context.

Ok how about a white shopkeeper defending his store from rioting black people. Let's make it the Rodney King riots just to double down. Or how about a white dude vs. the bloods or the crips.

Hookers and strippers are very frequently murdered by men, due to the incredibly off balance power dynamic, so it's kinda crappy that a silly/fun action fantasy would trivialize that.

Trivialize how exactly?

 

[Amir Kondori]

While I actually like the first video she released when I went back and watched some of the videos she put up before she did the Kickstarter I knew it was going to get worse.
She doesn't like to back up her assertions with facts or citations and she often will twist things to fit her hypothesis. The quality of the video game videos has been going down rapidly too.
I think she was the wrong person to try and tackle this subject.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

you said historical context is important, its not, it only serves to obstruct real equality, black people cant be equal to everyone else, neither can women or sex workers under that point of view

I was referring to cultural context. Our culture includes recent history. I really do not understand why you think that obstructs real equality.

because it does, you are saying killing a black man in a video game and killing a white man in a video game is not the same thing, both acts are not equal so both races cant be treated equally

you cant simply make special rules for one group and argue everyone is equal

Everyone isn't equal. That's the issue. That's why you need to be thoughtful as to how you're portraying certain groups of people.

so why did you ask me why i think it obstructs real equality? you know it does, you just dont care

I don't think that. I think the opposite.

you are a complete contradiction

- i dont think everyone is equal
- now i do
- now i dont
- now i do
- now i think the opposite

make up your mind before starting a discussion because you cant defend 2 mutually exclusive things

 

[Gatx]

What she DOESN'T show is that you can kill / knock out male characters, strip them of all their clothes, and leave them lying around in their underwear and/or dumped in a dumpster. Which is something you CANNOT do to female characters (take all their clothes, I mean), and is arguably worse than what you CAN do to female characters (kill them / knock them out, drag them around, -- and not much else).

That's a kind of sexism there though, though it's not quite something people would argue. Part of feminism is gender equality so if you're able to brutally kill male characters, it'd be sexist for female characters not to be given the same treatment (context allowing I guess).

 

[eberhart]

But you also have to look at it in the context of the culture at large.

"Have to" in order to what?

Black people have a history of being oppressed by white people in America, so (...) movie about a heroic white guy going around killing evil black people would be tasteless and offensive, because of the exact same context.

Explain.

Are those black people the same ones who are being oppressed? Or at least from the same time and space? Are they being oppressed NOW in the same way? Is there any relevance to that particular oppression? See, just because you are saying "context" doesn't mean that particular word can be an argument in itself. People who point at it using character's PoV do their job by answering similar questions to those above and below before they are even asked - are you?

Is there a limit to that "tasteful immunity from being killed by a specific killer"? If oppression happened (to someone else who happened to share a skin color by accident, but that's apparently a small thing, so let's ignore it) 100 years it means tasteless while 200 years ago is all right?

If "oppression distance" is at least remotely measurable by years, then is it also measurable by other means? Like, does Mongol oppression of Slavs make games where white dude kills Asians less "tasteless" in comparison? Or are they automatically offensive because some magical number was reached through Vietnam alone? But wouldn't that also mean that both kind of killing games are tasteless? Or is there something special about one specific plight of one specific group?

Or is it merely "that American thing" again, rather naive in a world where video games have more than American sensibilities to work with, not to mention far richer cultural context to draw from, which results in inevitable hierarchy shifts? As in: "just because thing X happened there does not make it automatically relevant enough to dominate any context"?

Hookers and strippers are very frequently murdered by men, due to the incredibly off balance power dynamic, so it's kinda crappy that a silly/fun action fantasy would trivialize that.

Is there anything that video game does not trivialize by including that "anything" in virtual, interactive world? If yes - what is it? If no - why are certain encounters tasteless when trivialized by default when so many others are not? Is there some rule for that or is it just as subjective as trivializing infanticide in Crusader Kings by attaching merely some negative "score" modifier to it? Like... Hitman did?

Is any killing trivialized when it lacks a deep commentary and consequences to player comparable at least with what happens in "Crime and Punishment"? Perhaps. Should any piece of culture aspire to that level or is it only a task for "video games with killing sexualized NPCs"? Why are gender- (or race-) related issues special enough to deserve that kind of a bar or at least a special recognition via focusing on them so much? Power imbalance is hardly unique, while historical context (oppression) is not even remotely comparable to what happened to different groups (that receive no special treatment in games, sometimes even the opposite).

Right now, when stripped from redundant elements the whole idea means that you can be offended because something happens to a (fictional) person who shares (arbitrarily selected) trait with you, provided that trait was also a reason for negative treatment in the past. You might have a leg to stand on, albeit crippled one, if what happens in-game has at least some remote connection to that particular trait - eg. killing someone *because* of that trait. But that would mean that being offended would have to be reduced to games that actually promote racism, sexism and other -isms and we can't have that, as it limits fundamental human right: to feel offended

 

[prowll]

Anita is fundamentally correct. What's the range of possible interaction available in these types of games in general? Punch, shoot, drag around. To kill or not to kill, that is the question.

Obviously this is true with respect to both male and female victims, but that doesn't make it right that men are treated just as badly.

NPCs in games are usually victims, and the best they can hope for is that they get lucky and the player doesn't kill them. They're a lot like the people in Gaza right now, while the "heroic" IDF is saving the world (or at least Zionist Israel), one Palestinian corpse at a time.

This comes back to the fact that in the majority of video games, the protagonist is playing a mass murderer. This premise shapes the entire game experience and how he interacts with NPCs.

You HAVE to kill creatures en mass in video games because otherwise there's no game. Otherwise you just run around doing nothing and not advancing the plot. This is the core of what Anita means (admittedly not the best example since those strippers aren't required for the plot) - you either PLAY THE GAME by killing the strippers or you reject fully experiencing the game by bypassing them.

2013 saw a decline in the percentage of mainstream games that feature killing as a primary aspect of gameplay to 61% from the 80% of the previous eight or more years, but that's still a ridiculously high number, far higher than every other artform in human history.

Mass murder is so common in video games and has been for so incredibly long that players don't even notice it. They don't understand it, don't criticize it, don't want to criticize it, don't want to understand it.

The only way to advance most games' plots is to kill. Not only do games boil down to "to kill or not to kill, that is the question" but just like Anita says, the game only WORKS if you kill. The penalty for not killing is stalling the game.

Consider The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us. These games have really good, sometimes great NPCs precisely *because* they aren't there just to get blown away by the protagonist. Neither game is *about* murder in the way most games are. Because the games aren't about murder, they can explore complex reality and *build* characters. Because the games don't trivialize people's lives in order to accommodate them as bullet bags they can express mature reality.

We might want to give serious thought to an industry which for decades has been dominated by the idea of a world filled with evil monsters which a Level 1 hero or noble soldier fortunately is willing to commit genocide against to save the world and make himself more powerful and rich. No other artform in history is built on this premise, even comic books with their militant fascist violence are mild in comparison.

*looks at wall of text*
... Think I need to boot up Saint's Row 4 again...

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

I'm confused. I thought my opinions were clear:

Everyone deserves equal treatment.
Many groups of people don't get that, and that sucks.
When making art it's a good idea to be aware of this and not perpetuate it.

if everyone deserves equal treatment, why are you asking for black people and sex workers to be treated different from everyone else?

 

[WhiteNachos]

you said historical context is important, its not, it only serves to obstruct real equality, black people cant be equal to everyone else, neither can women or sex workers under that point of view

I was referring to cultural context. Our culture includes recent history. I really do not understand why you think that obstructs real equality.

because it does, you are saying killing a black man in a video game and killing a white man in a video game is not the same thing, both acts are not equal so both races cant be treated equally

you cant simply make special rules for one group and argue everyone is equal

Everyone isn't equal. That's the issue. That's why you need to be thoughtful as to how you're portraying certain groups of people.

so why did you ask me why i think it obstructs real equality? you know it does, you just dont care

I don't think that. I think the opposite.

Basically, here's how it goes:

Having sex with any NPC in a game: Okay!
Having kids in your game: Okay!
Having both those things in your game: Well... it's not a black-and-white issue. I'd say if you're really committed to making a mature game (not a "Mature" game) and you intend to deal with this sensitive subject in an honest and meaningful way, I say go for it. Make some art. However, if you're just gonna make some fun action fantasy, maybe don't include it, because an action fantasy is an inherently trivial thing, and this is NOT a trivial issue.

Neither is war or crime or murder. And can you tl:dr why it's so bad if a stripper winds up amongst the dead?

It's not ALL BAD ALL THE TIME. It's just that a stripper is inherently sexualized and objectified, so when you combine that with violence it makes a really problematic combination if not handled correctly. That's why it's important to be thoughtful about what you're saying.

Also I think it's funny how we're arguing from the perspective that the way video games portray war, crime, and murder is inherently fine and dandy.

I hate when people use the word problematic like that. Calling it problematic doesn't tell me anything othre that you think it's bad for a unspecified reason. So why is it bad?

 

[WhiteNachos]

The story context matters, of course. But you also have to look at it in the context of the culture at large. Black people have a history of being oppressed by white people in America,

That is a racist statement. There was never a point where all white people participated in oppressing minorities. Not every white person in the south owned slaves, there were tons of white abolitionists and tons of white people against segregation.

Me: "Man I sure love ice cream!"
WhiteNachos: "Dude that's disgusting! You're clearly referring to every bit of ice cream in existence, including poop-flavored ice cream, ice cream in the garbage, and pistachio! What's wrong with you?"
Me: [stops hanging out with WhiteNachos]

Black people also have a history of being oppressed by other black people. Black Africans sold other black Africans into the slave trade even. But this whole history argument is a bad joke. Modern white people are not responsible for past oppression they weren't a part of. And how long you do get to keep using this history excuse for anyway? 20 years? 100 years? Or are white people bound with original sin and so you should never treat black people and white people equally in media?

so Django Unchained was cathartic. A movie about a heroic white guy going around killing evil black people would be tasteless and offensive, because of the exact same context.

Ok how about a white shopkeeper defending his store from rioting black people. Let's make it the Rodney King riots just to double down. Or how about a white dude vs. the bloods or the crips.

Considering the long history of films, books, etc. that have portrayed black people as violent, savage attackers and cruel thugs attacking innocent white people, I'd say that's pretty tasteless.
[/quote]

So it doesn't matter if the story doesn't portray all black people thugs, it's still bad because it has a bunch of violent black people as villains? I'm honestly not sure if that's what you're saying or not.

Silly action fantasies are trivial.

You know hitman is primarily a stealth game right?

Ideally they're clear about their intentions, that they're just trying to entertain you without attempting anything more meaningful. You're not meant to take any of it seriously, and when the movie contains serious subject matter it inherently trivializes it.

I couldn't disagree more. I've seen comedies change up tone and tackle serious issues with class and depth and respect. I've seen a stand up on suicide that went from funny and goofy to a rather serious look at society and it didn't trivialize any of it.

Everyone deserves equal treatment.
Many groups of people don't get that, and that sucks.
When making art it's a good idea to be aware of this and not perpetuate it.

And when you treat them unequally that perpetuates them.