Dad Alters Donkey Kong for His Daughter - With Pauline as the Hero

Recommended Videos

AVeryClassyCat

New member
Feb 24, 2013
69
0
0
Adorable story, this Dad is awesome :)

It's cool to see the ways in which parenting have evolved with higher technological knowledge.
 

Living Contradiction

Clearly obfusticated
Nov 8, 2009
337
0
0
Someone get Lacktheknack a beer. I think a horrible memory needs to be drowned in fermented goodness.

Back on topic, kudos to this father for doing something neat. It may be old news, but that doesn't make it any less wonderful. I hope he inspires dozens of people to find new ways of bringing video game gems to new generations.
 

Reincarnatedwolfgod

New member
Jan 17, 2011
1,002
0
0
Hixy said:
This has nothing to do with feminism at all, the little girl wanted to imagine herself in the game so he made that possible. It was a nice thing to do and we don't need it ruined by feminist bashing or by using it as another ''games are sexist'' thing. This thread is going to degrade fast.
I agree have to agree. why must the mentioning of the word feminist always turn a thread into a shit storm.
well anyway while I still have my sanity
 

Godhead

Dib dib dib, dob dob dob.
May 25, 2009
1,692
0
0
AstylahAthrys said:
This is really cool and props to that dad for making it! He deserves a dad of the year award simply for the effort!
I'm sorry but this is nowhere near as awesome as the dad who dressed up in a dress with his little son so he wouldn't feel discriminated. In public mind you.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
How is this news? It's nothing more than redrawing the sprites and changing some hex values for the colours - probably took an hour or two. I used to do this stuff as a teenager.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Not just this one. MANY retro games, including Super Mario Brothers and the Legend of Zelda, see women only as passive characters to be kidnapped and held hostage so that the player can rescue them.

These games basically say that women are too helpless to defend themselves - at best - or that women aren't really people and instead are objects to be won.
No no no no no. This was what I hated about Ms. Sarkeesian's latest video and comments like yours. You assume such a trope exists because somewhere along the line men gained dominance in the media and decided to portray women as objects because... well, because they're cruel and heartless and just want to keep those weak women under their thumb. NO - not at all.

The trope exists because, in antiquity, women were considerably more valuable than men when it came to the continuation of the tribe. Infant death rates were incredibly high, and to maintain a stable population you needed baby ovens working around the clock. If you have 100 men and 10 women you've got ~10 shots at making a baby in the coming year. If you've got 100 women and 10 men you've got ~100 shots at making a baby. Women weren't protected because they were seen as weak, they were protected because they were crucial to the survival of the tribe. It made sense for a man to risk his life to save a woman, and it made equal sense for the woman to try and stay out of danger herself. This objectifies women AND men, though in a completely different - and NECESSARY - way than what you take issue with.

You're free to take objection to the trope in modern times, but understand the context and history of the trope. The games don't say women are too helpless to defend themselves, they're utilising a trope that exists because women are too valuable to defend themselves.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
NoeL said:
You're free to take objection to the trope in modern times, but understand the context and history of the trope. The games don't say women are too helpless to defend themselves, they're utilising a trope that exists because women are too valuable to defend themselves.
**facepalm**

Really?

First off, yes, I acknowledge that your are historically correct - for the use of the trope around 1000+ years ago. Honestly, more like 2000-3000 years ago, but one has to allow for the Dark Ages setting society back so far I suppose. The survival of the tribe hasn't been the actual context of the story since some very, VERY early times.

Since around 500 CE, the reason for the trope has been to keep women out of positions of power. This was implemented by the Catholic Church to increase the power of the Pope and provide an excuse to execute strong women (aka "Witches"). Only passive women, who sit and wait to be rescued, were proper women. Strong women who could rescue themselves were "witches" and needed to die.

By 400 years ago, it was a trope because it had always been a trope. And then things started to get a little better for a while. The Catholic Church lost power after the Reformation, women started being able to speak their mind (a bit more anyway) under (some of) the new churches.

And then around 200 years ago, that came crashing back down again. Not only were weak women glorified, causing the rebirth of this trope as a Courtly Bard trope, but DEAD women became a thing. That's what led to the "dead mother" trope for female protagonists.

Most of our fairy tales were written down during the Victorian Era by courtly bards and writers. That's why so many use tropes like this (and other anti-woman tropes) - because they were popular in society then.

Disney brought a lot of these back into popularity during the 1940-60s with their early movies (feature length, not shorts) like Snow White and Cinderella. There are actually three versions of Cinderella - the bloody German version, the polite French version, and the other French version where Cinderella fights with a sword and kills Ogres because she's fucking awesome. Disney took the Polite and German versions and mixed them (removing the blood) to create their version.

The point is, yes, the trope was created thousands and thousands of years ago by early tribal humans where everyone was treated like property. If you won a war in that time, the losers were your slaves. Your soldiers got to rape all the women so that the next generation would be all your kids. Do you really want to use that bloody, awful time period as a defense for modern tropes?

We've evolved as a society since then. Is it that much to ask that we don't treat people as property? As a prize to be won?

And, before you accuse me of ignorance, I think you might want to check on my knowledge first.
 

jehk

New member
Mar 5, 2012
384
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
We've evolved as a society since then. Is it that much to ask that we don't treat people as property? As a prize to be won?
Word.

Who cares what the history is. What you've said stands on its own merit.

Also, he's flat wrong that women are more valuable ie parenting. Men are just as important.
 

mezorin

New member
Jan 9, 2007
84
0
0
This was a lovely gesture for a dad to his daughter, and was the feel good story of the weekend. Makes you wonder if he was ready for the 15 minutes of fame he got for doing this ROM hack around the same time "Damsels in Distress Part 1" aired, though. In a perfect world, maybe Nintendo would see that this might not be a bad idea to go back and retro actively allow some options to let players pick Peach or Daisy in some of the other "Main" series games similar to how you can have two male characters and two female characters to choose from in the Metal Slug series. This is an easy way for Nintendo (and other companies that sell retro titles) to undo some damage here, and move into the 21st century while introducing a whole new generation to the classic greats.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Hixy said:
Tomb raider, bayonetta and that X blade thing but i will forget these because they heavily sexualise the characters which is it's own issue.
I would argue that Bayonetta and (old school) Lara Croft have ten times the class of X-Blade's Ayumi. I made the horrid mistake of buying that game; the shameless TnA of its main character did nothing to change the fact that the game controlled like shit, had crap AI and a dull combat system.
 

NoeL

New member
May 14, 2011
841
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
And, before you accuse me of ignorance, I think you might want to check on my knowledge first.
Given you listed no sources I decided to look for myself... and yeah, doesn't look like your knowledge checks out, so you'll have to provide me with some sources.

Bara_no_Hime said:
Since around 500 CE, the reason for the trope has been to keep women out of positions of power. This was implemented by the Catholic Church to increase the power of the Pope and provide an excuse to execute strong women (aka "Witches"). Only passive women, who sit and wait to be rescued, were proper women. Strong women who could rescue themselves were "witches" and needed to die.
Source? I can find no record of this. There were a few councils scattered through the middle ages where this happened, but for the most part witch hunts were condemned and outlawed by the church - their official stance being that witchcraft doesn't exist. In fact the anti-witchcraft laws tended to come from the secularists, not the Catholics. And around 385 CE Priscillian (a man) became the first heretic ever sentenced to death by Christians for practicing witchcraft, meaning these laws didn't specifically target women at all.

From trusty Wikipedia:
Altogether it may be said that in the first thirteen hundred years of the Christian era we find no trace of that fierce denunciation and persecution of supposed sorceresses which characterized the cruel witch-hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly in the Protestant areas of Europe and America.
Bara_no_Hime said:
By 400 years ago, it was a trope because it had always been a trope. And then things started to get a little better for a while. The Catholic Church lost power after the Reformation, women started being able to speak their mind (a bit more anyway) under (some of) the new churches.
Ok? What does this have to do with the damsel in distress?

Bara_no_Hime said:
And then around 200 years ago, that came crashing back down again. Not only were weak women glorified, causing the rebirth of this trope as a Courtly Bard trope, but DEAD women became a thing. That's what led to the "dead mother" trope for female protagonists.

Most of our fairy tales were written down during the Victorian Era by courtly bards and writers. That's why so many use tropes like this (and other anti-woman tropes) - because they were popular in society then.
You're not giving me any context. WHY did womens rights come crashing down? WHY were weak women glorified? WHY did dead women become a thing? WHY is the trope "anti-woman"? I get that it paints the woman as an object, etc. but how is it different to any other stereotype inserted to tell the hero's tale? The woman is desired for her beauty, the wise old man is desired for his knowledge and wisdom. Does that mean Star Wars is "anti-old guy" because Obi Wan or Yoda can be reduced to a tome? Or is being wanted for your beauty just more offensive than being wanted for your brains? Why? Why is being physically desirable a bad thing? Why is being fair and passive a bad thing? Why should a woman HAVE to be an ass-kicking dragon slayer to be a "strong female character"? But eh, I'm digressing.

Bara_no_Hime said:
Disney brought a lot of these back into popularity during the 1940-60s with their early movies (feature length, not shorts) like Snow White and Cinderella. There are actually three versions of Cinderella - the bloody German version, the polite French version, and the other French version where Cinderella fights with a sword and kills Ogres because she's fucking awesome. Disney took the Polite and German versions and mixed them (removing the blood) to create their version.
Yeah - and little girls loved the shit out of those movies. Again, why should a female character have to be a warrior to skirt accusations of sexism? In those two cases I agree with you though, as the women overcome their problems through no effort of their own, and instead rely on secondary characters to do it all for them. Not a particularly interesting protagonist or good role model in my opinion, but it panders to that sense of fantasy we all have where we just wish shit would instantly be better. I mean, in those movies Prince Charming is hardly more than a wallet with a chiseled jaw, representing the "better life". Painting men as a free ticket to liberation (if they're pretty enough) isn't any better than painting women as lazy.

Bara_no_Hime said:
The point is, yes, the trope was created thousands and thousands of years ago by early tribal humans where everyone was treated like property. If you won a war in that time, the losers were your slaves. Your soldiers got to rape all the women so that the next generation would be all your kids. Do you really want to use that bloody, awful time period as a defense for modern tropes?
You're misunderstanding me. You've given examples of the trope existing but haven't provided any reasonable explanation as to WHY the trope exists. Both you and Ms. Sarkeesian just seem to imply "this exists, it paints a (in my opinion) negative picture of women, therefore men are to blame for it". I presented the origins of the trope (which you agreed with) to try to explain WHY it exists - and it's not because men are jerks.

Bara_no_Hime said:
We've evolved as a society since then. Is it that much to ask that we don't treat people as property? As a prize to be won?
**facepalm**


Sources: (sorry, I don't know how to use footnotes)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt#Middle_Ages
http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.php
 

Smeatza

New member
Dec 12, 2011
934
0
0
Am I the only one who finds this story entirely underwhelming?
A father did a nice thing for his daughter, is that supposed to be impressive?
A dude created a simple mod for a very old game, is that supposed significant?

The only reason I can think of to even publish this story is because it will start sexism debates. Outside of that I see no value in it.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
NoeL said:
You're misunderstanding me. You've given examples of the trope existing but haven't provided any reasonable explanation as to WHY the trope exists. Both you and Ms. Sarkeesian just seem to imply "this exists, it paints a (in my opinion) negative picture of women, therefore men are to blame for it". I presented the origins of the trope (which you agreed with) to try to explain WHY it exists - and it's not because men are jerks.
Actually I never accused men as being "to blame" for it. Neither did Ms. Sarkeesian in her (new, KS funded) videos either. If you see me blaming men in general for this, anywhere, you are imaging an attack that does not exist. I might blame a specific man (the Pope, Walt Disney) but never men in general. And never did I suggest that men used this trope because they hate women (well, maybe the Pope, but certainly not Disney).

What I (and she) blame are lazy writers. These writers needed a quick prize, an easy goal to frame their game, and most of them went with "helpless woman" and that isn't right. Were the creators of these games woman hating sexist assholes? No. They were lazy guys stealing an old Disney trope (or old Victorian trope before that) and slapping it into their game because it was quick, easy, and required no original thought.

You want to know why? Fine.

In the 1940s-60s, Disney did it because the current movement in society was to get women out of the factories (where they were needed during the Second World War) and back into homes (ie, the Kitchen) so that the menfolk could have their jobs back. It is the same reason that toys at the time broke into different toys for boys and girls (prior, most toys were generic to both genders).

And since out of work veterans is a bad thing, that part almost doesn't bother me. However, it started a trend - getting women out of factories only took a few years, but the trend went on for a decade and a half. It became part of "Americana" or "American Culture" or "The American Dream" - the father working, the mother staying at home with the kids. The nuclear family, in their little suburban home. It became a market, so advertisers and media in general pushed this idea that women had to stay home while men worked. It pushed the idea that young girls had to prepare for marriage from the time they were 5 years old.

There is a reason that the older Disney films involves female characters who only dream about being brides. That changed when Disney left that era - for a while, Disney didn't use Prinesses, and when they brought them back, the Princesses were focused on other things. The Little Mermaid is considered to be the beginning of the Disney Renaissance - she was a Princess who wanted freedom and legs so she could go explore the surface world. The Prince was more or less incidental - a means to an end. That was Disney adapting to a modern audience where a woman existing ONLY for marriage would have been off-putting and upsetting.

So yes, even modern Disney (and by modern, read anything made since Little Mermaid) recognizes the Damsel trope as bad. That's why they stopped using it.

Anyway, if you want me to go farther back into the past, PM me, because really we're getting seriously off topic here.

One last thing, your Star Wars comment. Um, no. Obi Wan could not be replaced with a book. He offers encouragement and mentorship aside from training. In fact, it's questionable how much training he actually provides (that's mostly Yoda). A book couldn't have told Luke to "use the Force" at the end of the first movie.

So no, your idea that Obi Wan is objectified is absolutely laughable. Did not happen. And, while Leia is captured, notice I don't mention her as a Damsel trope - because she picked up a blaster and HELPED rescue herself. She was not helpless - she is able and competent (for the most part) throughout the three movies.

I don't care much for Star Wars in general, but one thing it did right was not objectifying anyone. Even when Leia wears her metal bikini, she still manages to be competent. (And, pointedly kills the one objectifying her - by strangling him with the leash he held her with.)

Ahem.

Once again, this thread is about an Awesome Dad who did something nice for his daughter. He showed how simple it is to make a game fair and equal. So why not answer me this - why do you find equality offensive?
 

SD-Fiend

Member
Legacy
Nov 24, 2009
2,075
0
1
Country
United States
Radoh said:
Well then, looks like another person who just doesn't get it. Pauline was already the hero in the original game.
Basically the story behind is this: Donkey Kong is Mario's abused pet who finally got sick of Mario's shit and decided to run away. Him grabbing Pauline is him taking the one good thing in his life away with him.

Also, this has been done before and was talked about on these forums, so people who are acting like this is a new thing, stop it, it isn't a new thing.
How does that make her the hero though? it's not like in king kong where the heroine was friendly with the Gorrilla. heck she doesn't even like DK very much.

This is cute and all but i think it would've been more impressive if he put his daughter into the game.
 

ScrabbitRabbit

Elite Member
Mar 27, 2012
1,545
0
41
Gender
Female
OK, so maybe we've seen more impressive feats of modding throughout the years but this is still a lovely gesture from father to daughter. I, for one, find myself cheered up by this bit of news.
 

Darken12

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
I love how the anti-feminists got all up in arms before any of the actual feminists they were griping about made it to this thread.

What that man did was wonderful.

Now I will rejoice in my go-grrrrrl-powah moment. Mmmmmm girl power. Delicious, delicious girl power.
 

Sargonas42

The Doctor
Mar 25, 2010
124
0
0
I've noticed a lot of "oh god feminism has run rampant and gone too far!" raging over this in some places. (not really here, but I mean the internet at large.) It's sad really, 'cause this couldn't be further from the truth. Mike is an acquainted of mine (albeit not a close one, I just know him as a college of a good friend of mine from Wired) and this was literally just a case of "Daddy can I be a girl?" followed by "Sure kiddo, why not! Just give me a day or two.". Super sweet, with no ulterior motive or message. Parenting at it's finest!

One reason I think this is getting so much more press than normal is that it happens to fall when it does within the whole "feminism bubble" going on right now because of Anita, and because Mike is actually well known in classic gaming circles.