The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

Recommended Videos

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
VanQ said:
Rebel_Raven said:
From what I understand, though, pretty much everything you've said is right on the money. I do love the character designs. Still, isn't the goal of Atelier Ayesha to save your sister? Pardon my ignorance as far as te story goes.

I agree that only complaining doesn't help. If I hear about a game on the way with a female protagonist, I try and spread the word, and be happy about it. I made a thread talking about Child of Light, and AC: Liberation HD in hopes of getting word about it out.
The goal of Ayesha is to save your sister, but not in the conventional Damsel in Distress kinda way. I don't want to get too much into it as I haven't put much time into Ayesha yet and don't want to accidentally spoil anything.

The Atelier series I was referring to in specific were the games set in Arland.
Atelier Rorona: The Alchemist of Arland
Atelier Totori: The Adventurer of Arland
Atelier Meruru: The Apprentice of Arland

These three games are all set in the same setting and continuity and are seperate from the other Atelier games. When it comes to keeping a schedule in check, they're not nearly as difficult as some people make them out to be. The strictest of the three, Rorona, gives you at last 3 months of time to meet the required deadlines to not fail the story. Apparently they will be bringing the game more up to date with its modern incarnations with Atelier Rorona+ on Vita.

I do love Atelier Rorona, but the UI and alchemy/battle systems on the PS3 version are extremely outdated at this point. There is nothing wrong with skipping it and going straight to Totori, with its updated UI and less strict emphasis on deadline. You have to reach certain ranks by certain days but everything you do from performing Alchemy, exploring the world and completing assignments given by the Adventurer's Guild will give you points towards that.

Meruru is even less strict on time and has more of an emphasis on building your kingdom. That's something I should note, by the way, Meruru is the Princess of her country and the protagonist. She takes the responsibility onto herself to save her failing kingdom and to develop it and make it a better place for all that live there.

Princess Meruru may be just one Princess out of many but she is the very anti-thesis of everything Anita has complained about in her videos. She's outgoing, intelligent (when she needs to be), easy going, caring and a damn fine ruler and role model. She's not oversexualized and she dresses like a rational human being.

I highly recommend giving the Atelier games a try. They really are overlooked masterpieces in my opinion. And more people should talk about them!
I have no doubt they're wonderful games! Believe me on that. I look at the Ayesha DLC, and so much want to see the extra characters in action, but like I said, the Atelier series seems to have only so long before it's game over no matter what, and that's a gigantic turn off.

Even in Meruru I'd screw around, and do what ever I can to put off beating the game for as long as possible to climb the tech tree, learn everything, and just talk to people to see if they have something new to say. It's not unusual that I exhaust every line of speech in RPGs.
I'd waste time looking at my work, and soaking in the world as much as possible.
I've picked up a bad habbit of never beating JRPGs coz I'm looking for anything I've ever missed.
And then time's up! Then I gotta start all over, right? :/
Unless there's an ungodly amount of free time, I'd just fail repeatedly until I stopped enjoying the game, and went for an optimal run. It's not beyond me, just not common.
If it weren't for the time limit I'd be all over the Atelier sreries, honestly.

I mean Dynasty Warriors Empires, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms campaigns tend to give you something of a hundred years to beat the game. It's not uncommon I run out of time with one place left to conquer trying to make my empire perfect, or at least see the warning that my time's almost up.

I'm just really OCD about RPGs, I think. I can't beat the game if I think I'm missing out on something, and Atellier seems too much at odds with that. :/
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Warachia said:
What generally happens is the mods post a message saying that they will hand out much larger penalties for smaller infractions to keep everyone in line, the reason they lock a thread is because they don't want to have to ban people, and they want to differentiate between user crated content and contributor content, why they choose not to lock contributor content though is beyond me.
Why they don't lock contributor threads? If I had to guess...
1) Ad-hits. Controversy brings in traffic. Traffic brings in ad-hits, and thus money.

2) The ability for the Escapist community to comment on content freely.
However, this is more of a feelgood reason in practice as evidenced by the OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF POSTS NOT COMMENTING ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF WITHIN THIS VERY THREAD.
 

VanQ

Casual Plebeian
Oct 23, 2009
2,729
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
I have no doubt they're wonderful games! Believe me on that. I look at the Ayesha DLC, and so much want to see the extra characters in action, but like I said, the Atelier series seems to have only so long before it's game over no matter what, and that's a gigantic turn off.

Even in Meruru I'd screw around, and do what ever I can to put off beating the game for as long as possible to climb the tech tree, learn everything, and just talk to people to see if they have something new to say. It's not unusual that I exhaust every line of speech in RPGs.
I'd waste time looking at my work, and soaking in the world as much as possible.
I've picked up a bad habbit of never beating JRPGs coz I'm looking for anything I've ever missed.
And then time's up! Then I gotta start all over, right? :/
Unless there's an ungodly amount of free time, I'd just fail repeatedly until I stopped enjoying the game, and went for an optimal run. It's not beyond me, just not common.
If it weren't for the time limit I'd be all over the Atelier sreries, honestly.

I mean Dynasty Warriors Empires, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms campaigns tend to give you something of a hundred years to beat the game. It's not uncommon I run out of time with one place left to conquer trying to make my empire perfect, or at least see the warning that my time's almost up.

I'm just really OCD about RPGs, I think. I can't beat the game if I think I'm missing out on something, and Atelier seems too much at odds with that. :/
It honestly sounds like a game for you. Character interactions and progression happens through normal gameplay. Exploration rewards you with what you need to progress to the next chapter. Your habit of running around doing things should get you through the story mode of Meruru just fine. As long as you take a day here and there to complete the story assignments, you shouldn't fail the game. You actually have to work hard to fail the game.

If running around and talking to everyone, learning about the world, exploring all areas and seeing everything that you possibly can see then frankly... you'll probably end up doing better than I did. The way you sound, Meruru was made for people like you. Like I said, in Meruru, the time limits are just there to say that's when you have to have this particular item to progress. You can just whip up the item in your cauldron in the first week after getting the assignment and then just faff about until the next assignment comes along.

The game highly encourages interacting with the characters and world around you.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
VanQ said:
Rebel_Raven said:
I have no doubt they're wonderful games! Believe me on that. I look at the Ayesha DLC, and so much want to see the extra characters in action, but like I said, the Atelier series seems to have only so long before it's game over no matter what, and that's a gigantic turn off.

Even in Meruru I'd screw around, and do what ever I can to put off beating the game for as long as possible to climb the tech tree, learn everything, and just talk to people to see if they have something new to say. It's not unusual that I exhaust every line of speech in RPGs.
I'd waste time looking at my work, and soaking in the world as much as possible.
I've picked up a bad habbit of never beating JRPGs coz I'm looking for anything I've ever missed.
And then time's up! Then I gotta start all over, right? :/
Unless there's an ungodly amount of free time, I'd just fail repeatedly until I stopped enjoying the game, and went for an optimal run. It's not beyond me, just not common.
If it weren't for the time limit I'd be all over the Atelier sreries, honestly.

I mean Dynasty Warriors Empires, and Romance of the Three Kingdoms campaigns tend to give you something of a hundred years to beat the game. It's not uncommon I run out of time with one place left to conquer trying to make my empire perfect, or at least see the warning that my time's almost up.

I'm just really OCD about RPGs, I think. I can't beat the game if I think I'm missing out on something, and Atelier seems too much at odds with that. :/
It honestly sounds like a game for you. Character interactions and progression happens through normal gameplay. Exploration rewards you with what you need to progress to the next chapter. Your habit of running around doing things should get you through the story mode of Meruru just fine. As long as you take a day here and there to complete the story assignments, you shouldn't fail the game. You actually have to work hard to fail the game.

If running around and talking to everyone, learning about the world, exploring all areas and seeing everything that you possibly can see then frankly... you'll probably end up doing better than I did. The way you sound, Meruru was made for people like you. Like I said, in Meruru, the time limits are just there to say that's when you have to have this particular item to progress. You can just whip up the item in your cauldron in the first week after getting the assignment and then just faff about until the next assignment comes along.

The game highly encourages interacting with the characters and world around you.
I'll keep an eye out for a copy of Meruru then. :3 I do like nation building/managing. Maybe a cheap Atelier game barring that, time limits be damned! :p
I love faffing about in an RPG! XD
 

Warachia

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,116
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
Yes, I try and take into consideration what people have to offer. I read the lists. The lists are short, or one of my other problems with the lists, and they're largely ignoring consoles, hand helds, etc. which really shortens the list.

I don't think I ever asked for indie games. Mind pointing out whre I did? I don't have a huge amount of faith in the indie circuit to bring about change to the gaming industry, and my Laptop doesn't let me PC game much. Especially not in comfort. I'm not gunna ask for PC indie games, in other words.
You asked for them a few pages back, and you can see it in your debate with somebody else on page 26:
Seriously, there's not a lot of games where you play as women from year to year. You wanna throw up some list of indies, and old games?
And then when they gave you Vicsor's list (which again, includes hundreds of games including indie and handheld games) you tried to change the subject.

I'm sorry, but Giana Sisters, Minecraft 360, and Terraria on PS3 are "AAA"? Assassins' Creed Liberation is AAA? Dynasty Warriors is AAA? Way of the Samurai is AAA? there's a lot of non AAA games on consoles as far as I'm concerned. AAA generally comes from Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, and Square, and that's about it. AAA games get TV commercials and advertisement, and a lot of console games don't.
There's a lot of indie games, and not AAA games on PSN. Never heard of them? Probably because they don't have enough As. :p
Those first few are in the arcade section, they are indie games, and are available on more than consoles, meaning they aren't really console games (console games being console exclusive). Yes, Assassins creed liberation is AAA, Same with Dynasty Warriors, Way of the Samurai is not, what defines them as such is their budget.

There's also a HUGE amount of AAA games on the PSN, just about every game released from the mid-lifespan of the PS3 to now is on the PSN, you're also going to have to clarify something, I don't know what "Probably because they don't have enough As." means, I'm guessing you were trying to say they aren't advertised as much?

I recently bought a 2ds because I'm fed up with PS3, 360, and WIIU (which just needs games, period, but monster hunter's just awesome.:p) generally focusing on guy only games.

The Nintendo handleld library (the reason I got a 2ds) is somewhat appealing with Pokemon Conquest, Harvest Moons, Pokemon, Style savvy, Rune factory, and a lot of games that would prolly never see the light of day on consoles... or even PC, at times and what feels like a more likely chance to have gender select (which is nice, but it's not going to fix my problems with the industry.) and games aimed at women more squarely, and light hearted games.
Not sure I'll get games like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on it, though, so I'm keeping my consoles coz sometimes light hearted desires give way to wanting to use a shotgun, and hit people with baseball bats. Virtually of course. I'm not a terribly violent person in reality despite having several firearms, and archaic weapons, and go to turkey shoots now and then for fun.
There's already been several Pokemon games on consoles, Harvest Moon's had several releases on consoles, Rune Factory's latest releases have been on consoles, granted they're a bit harder to find, but you shouldn't write off what people will and won't put on consoles so casually.

I don't want to PC game. I've ran into too much trouble too often in trying to get a PC game working on my laptop, and frankly there's the occassional news of PC game screwups that wouldn't really happen on Consoles.
My laptop won't handle a lot of games, either.

It's likely me not being clear more than anything. Something I worry about a lot. It's kinda why i'm wordy. I'm trying to get my point across as clearly as possible. Sometimes it doesn't work, I guess.

Fair enough, I don't have a good laptop either, I guess the difference is when I find something that doesn't seem to work right I have fun in trying to find a solution.
 

Rezeak

New member
Jan 26, 2011
11
0
0
Anita Sarkeesian has a point about sexism being a problem in games but validates by making an irrational arguments like if a game has you rescue someone it's bad if it's a girl even if it's interchangeable but it's 100% ok if it's a man cause it doesn't play against a trope. In other words if a character is in trouble it has to be a man or it's not ok according to Anita Sarkeesian.

Either way, the saddest thing about her is that the support she is given for something on the whole is good is invalidated by thing like how she deleted a lot of reasonable points against her kickstarter videos but left only the supportive and idiotic troll to manufacturer herself an image of female gamer fighting trolls. Though with that said it was amazing to see someone manipulate trolls and idiots to make her self $100k+.
 

Warachia

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,116
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
Warachia said:
What generally happens is the mods post a message saying that they will hand out much larger penalties for smaller infractions to keep everyone in line, the reason they lock a thread is because they don't want to have to ban people, and they want to differentiate between user crated content and contributor content, why they choose not to lock contributor content though is beyond me.
Why they don't lock contributor threads? If I had to guess...
1) Ad-hits. Controversy brings in traffic. Traffic brings in ad-hits, and thus money.

2) The ability for the Escapist community to comment on content freely.
However, this is more of a feelgood reason in practice as evidenced by the OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF POSTS NOT COMMENTING ON THE ARTICLE ITSELF WITHIN THIS VERY THREAD.
I doubt it's reason 1, because they don't run those kinds of ads on text articles, they'll get just as much from that as they will from other people visiting the site, not to mention anybody who wants to comment can skip the article entirely by just clicking the "comments" button instead of the article.

The reason people aren't talking avout the article is because they've already said what they thought of it about twenty pages back, and are more interested in discussing things relating to the article rather than the article itself.

Personally I didn't bother commenting on the article when it was put out, my opinion is the article is shit, it's horribly written, for example, if we were to remove unnecessary description the entire first page of the article would be gone.

Now having said that, the only other reason I'd post would be to reply to other people who have also posted, I wouldn't comment on the article itself any more.
 

Lictor Face

New member
Nov 14, 2011
214
0
0
Gindil said:
It's been found out that she used Let's Play footage for her videos instead of buying a recorder and playing the games. No Twitch account for verification of the footage used. Hell, in the other threads about this, you found out that her backers were doing the research when she did the surveys for the Kickstarter people.

Isn't that counted as plagiarism? Especially since she did not credit the footage she used, nor the people that helped her in whatever way.

It would be a pretty textbook law suit if anything.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
Warachia said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Yes, I try and take into consideration what people have to offer. I read the lists. The lists are short, or one of my other problems with the lists, and they're largely ignoring consoles, hand helds, etc. which really shortens the list.

I don't think I ever asked for indie games. Mind pointing out whre I did? I don't have a huge amount of faith in the indie circuit to bring about change to the gaming industry, and my Laptop doesn't let me PC game much. Especially not in comfort. I'm not gunna ask for PC indie games, in other words.
You asked for them a few pages back, and you can see it in your debate with somebody else on page 26:
Seriously, there's not a lot of games where you play as women from year to year. You wanna throw up some list of indies, and old games?
And then when they gave you Vicsor's list (which again, includes hundreds of games including indie and handheld games) you tried to change the subject.

I'm sorry, but Giana Sisters, Minecraft 360, and Terraria on PS3 are "AAA"? Assassins' Creed Liberation is AAA? Dynasty Warriors is AAA? Way of the Samurai is AAA? there's a lot of non AAA games on consoles as far as I'm concerned. AAA generally comes from Rockstar, EA, Ubisoft, and Square, and that's about it. AAA games get TV commercials and advertisement, and a lot of console games don't.
There's a lot of indie games, and not AAA games on PSN. Never heard of them? Probably because they don't have enough As. :p
Those first few are in the arcade section, they are indie games, and are available on more than consoles, meaning they aren't really console games (console games being console exclusive). Yes, Assassins creed liberation is AAA, Same with Dynasty Warriors, Way of the Samurai is not, what defines them as such is their budget.

There's also a HUGE amount of AAA games on the PSN, just about every game released from the mid-lifespan of the PS3 to now is on the PSN, you're also going to have to clarify something, I don't know what "Probably because they don't have enough As." means, I'm guessing you were trying to say they aren't advertised as much?

I recently bought a 2ds because I'm fed up with PS3, 360, and WIIU (which just needs games, period, but monster hunter's just awesome.:p) generally focusing on guy only games.

The Nintendo handleld library (the reason I got a 2ds) is somewhat appealing with Pokemon Conquest, Harvest Moons, Pokemon, Style savvy, Rune factory, and a lot of games that would prolly never see the light of day on consoles... or even PC, at times and what feels like a more likely chance to have gender select (which is nice, but it's not going to fix my problems with the industry.) and games aimed at women more squarely, and light hearted games.
Not sure I'll get games like Rainbow Six Vegas 2 on it, though, so I'm keeping my consoles coz sometimes light hearted desires give way to wanting to use a shotgun, and hit people with baseball bats. Virtually of course. I'm not a terribly violent person in reality despite having several firearms, and archaic weapons, and go to turkey shoots now and then for fun.
There's already been several Pokemon games on consoles, Harvest Moon's had several releases on consoles, Rune Factory's latest releases have been on consoles, granted they're a bit harder to find, but you shouldn't write off what people will and won't put on consoles so casually.

I don't want to PC game. I've ran into too much trouble too often in trying to get a PC game working on my laptop, and frankly there's the occassional news of PC game screwups that wouldn't really happen on Consoles.
My laptop won't handle a lot of games, either.

It's likely me not being clear more than anything. Something I worry about a lot. It's kinda why i'm wordy. I'm trying to get my point across as clearly as possible. Sometimes it doesn't work, I guess.

Fair enough, I don't have a good laptop either, I guess the difference is when I find something that doesn't seem to work right I have fun in trying to find a solution.
The context is kinda messed up on that, it seems. I wasn't asking for indie games. I was expressing some frustration at the notion that people say "play indie games!" as if that's supposed to shut me up, and make everything all better, not likely realizing the fact that I don't have a laptop really good at that sort of thing.

Looking at Viscor's list it seems to be a great deal of steam games. Coz it says Steam, and GoG, and not much else.

I don't really see budget being the defining factor of AAA, but it plays a part. AAA are the blockbuster well known games to me. It's more how much media attention the games get. I mean even CoD, and Modern Warfare, and GTAV get TV commercials even though I'd figure that no one needs to be told about their release, they just know it happens. Then again a lot of games don't do that. Then again not many games have that kidn of star power.

you're also going to have to clarify something, I don't know what "Probably because they don't have enough As." means, I'm guessing you were trying to say they aren't advertised as much?
To clarify, yes, that's what I was saying. To me a AAA game gets common TV commercials. It's a weird standard no doubt, but I kinda see a correlation between games that get TV commercials, and games that do well enough to get sequels, and TV commercials mean that there was a big enough budget to allow for them.
Games that don't get commercials are AA at best.
Just my own weird lil' view on things.

Well, yeah, pokemon snap, pokemon battle arena, and such have been on consoles, but from what I've seen, those aren't typical pokemon games so much as spinoffs. Core Pokemon games have you wandering around a region catching them all, and such.

Has there been a recent Harvest Moon on consoles? I looked on PSN, but all I saw were guy versions, cept for the Vita versions.

I do have Rune Factory Tides of Destiny, yeah. Not quite what I expected, really.

It's hard not to write off what people will put on consoles coz, well, when they do put it on there, it's just really low key. Most of the stuff is generally just typical guy oriented stuff. AC Black Flag, FPS sausagefest PVP games, and like I said, even the harvest Moons on console are guy only. The dating sims they have in store are guys only, too. :/

Hard to find games for a brick and mortar shopper is extremely detrimental, IMO.

I can appreciate having fun trying to find the solution with PC problems now and then, but honestly, that's about all I do with computers. I like trobuleshooting, and stuff, and I get kinda amazed at the problems some people have, plus how much Geek squad charges for some of the simplest stuff.
Still, I have almost constant problems with gaming beyond playing Civs III, and Civs III conquests, and emulating old gameboy/gameboy color/gameboy advance/NES games.
Coming home to do that instead of just firing up a game, playing, and relaxing doesn't sound too appealing most times. I have very limited free time, especially these days. rar
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
VanQ said:
I really don't want to risk posting in this thread seeing as there has been a wave of random bannings but... Lately I wonder what the hell I was thinking when I started following MovieBob's stuff, it's things like this that remind me he wasn't always the social justice warrior digging for page views that he is now.

Anita has brought out the very worst in all of us... what have we become? Remember when we used to talk about games guys? A time before we were more hung up about what utensils a character has between its legs?
Snip
Or maybe the reason we remember female heroes like Samus and Lara and Jade (pulled that one right out of my butt, I tell you what), isn't because they're chicks, it's because the games were good.

the 90's were still a time of experimentation, when we didn't see concepts hammered into the ground to the degree they are today (or maybe my glasses are rosy indeed?)

Nilin from Remember Me could have been listed alongside the greats if the game was worth playing.

Lara Croft required a system reset and that hasn't made her any less divisive.

Samus has to walk off Other M.

And Jade won't be seen for at least another half-decade at this rate.

My point is, It doesn't matter what gender the protagonist is. The quality of the product is what matters.

It seems lie every time a game with a lady lead bobombs, pundits focus on the gender of protagonist as the sole cause and what pigs gamers are and blah-dee-stinkin'-blah. They never focus on things like lackluster marketing, or executive meddling, or poor quality. They also never use this line of logic when a game with a male lead does a similar performance at market.
Another snip
Dang you're wordy.

Anyway, to answer your last question, it's because for some reason, people are still hung up on representation of gender rather than just making the games they want to make. When a guy acts stupid or evil, it's just a guy who acts stupid or evil. When a woman acts stupid or evil, suddenly it's this horribly misgonist attack on all women.

Despite all our claims of being egalitarian, we clearly are not.

I'd like to see lady protagonists in games too. I probably won't play them (I'm a guy, and I can project easier onto protags I can relate to, even if it's just by gender), but I'd be nice. What I'd like to see is more females with the same kind of personalities that male player characters display, i.e rampant sociopathy, but without that irritating ice-queen persona that's become indus- sorry- fiction standard.

Hell, more lady villains and mooks would also be nice.
When women act evil, or stupid, it probably only gets seen that way because, well, IMO, women have been villains in games more than they've been playable characters in games. There's not a whole lot of great counter-representation.
If we had balance against women who weren't acting evil/stupid, it wouldn't be as huge of a problem, IMO.
I mean, look at guys. Guys often get to be the playable hero, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of griping that their acts of evil/stupidity are an attack on men. Well, aside from the fact that guys are often the fodder, which seems to be a recent thing, and it's understandable.

Spending years getting a bad reputation is going to have an effect, even if it is undeserved. Female protagonists have been getting that bad rep for a very long time.

I can relate to your preference for playing guys. I've a similar preference towards playing women. It's really hard to bring myself to play as a guy, and enjoy it.

Honestly, the amount of games where women are enemies as mooks, or main baddies are probably higher than games where you can play as a woman from start to finish. I'm not saying that there can't be more female villains, and grunts mind you. It's just going to feel crappy to get games where women are enemies, and not more female protagonsits along with it. it won't help women feel empowered, or any less alienated. In fact it could make things worse.

I'd like to to play as the female villain. I'd love a catwoman (comic book version) game where I work against the law to steal, infiltrate, and just be a criminal catburglar. Yeah she'd probably get some anti-villain treatment or get treated like an anti-hero with the plot, but I could see a lot of potential.
Sadly, I really doubt we'll ever get that game. Just the the movie version with Hallie Berry.
I'm pretty sure men have been villains far more than women, but they're the "default" so they tend no to get mentioned as much.

You know what's really rare? Female hero and female villain.
Oh, yeah, I don't debate at all men have the majority of the villain roles, and guys are the ones that get mowed down by the thousands in games. And yeah, it sucks they're the default.
I totally understand the desire to see more women as enemies as main foes, and grunts.

But I stand by my point that there's a lot more male default heroes putting a better light on guys to balance out guys being the default enemy, and I feel that takes a lot of the sting out of it. It's hard to talk from experience, though since, well, women are rarely the played main character, and the enemy for the majority of the time.

It is rare that women are at both ends of a game, the played protagonist, and the end game enemy, I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing more games like that. I mean when women are the villain, they're often below the main bad guy who's a guy, or there's a final boss after them.
You had me until "{enemy} the majority of the time," because that's just plain false. If anything, supporting character is the default female role, usually as side-kick, quest giver, or mission control.

Edit: Whoops, mis-read your thing.
 

Machine Man 1992

New member
Jul 4, 2011
785
0
0
Gindil said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
I'm pretty sure men have been villains far more than women, but they're the "default" so they tend no to get mentioned as much.

You know what's really rare? Female hero and female villain.
You mean like Portal?
D'oh!

Well, as far as a computer can have a gender, but that's a whole other topic for discussion.

I'll just lave with, "point taken."
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
Machine Man 1992 said:
Rebel_Raven said:
VanQ said:
I really don't want to risk posting in this thread seeing as there has been a wave of random bannings but... Lately I wonder what the hell I was thinking when I started following MovieBob's stuff, it's things like this that remind me he wasn't always the social justice warrior digging for page views that he is now.

Anita has brought out the very worst in all of us... what have we become? Remember when we used to talk about games guys? A time before we were more hung up about what utensils a character has between its legs?
Snip
Or maybe the reason we remember female heroes like Samus and Lara and Jade (pulled that one right out of my butt, I tell you what), isn't because they're chicks, it's because the games were good.

the 90's were still a time of experimentation, when we didn't see concepts hammered into the ground to the degree they are today (or maybe my glasses are rosy indeed?)

Nilin from Remember Me could have been listed alongside the greats if the game was worth playing.

Lara Croft required a system reset and that hasn't made her any less divisive.

Samus has to walk off Other M.

And Jade won't be seen for at least another half-decade at this rate.

My point is, It doesn't matter what gender the protagonist is. The quality of the product is what matters.

It seems lie every time a game with a lady lead bobombs, pundits focus on the gender of protagonist as the sole cause and what pigs gamers are and blah-dee-stinkin'-blah. They never focus on things like lackluster marketing, or executive meddling, or poor quality. They also never use this line of logic when a game with a male lead does a similar performance at market.
Another snip
Dang you're wordy.

Anyway, to answer your last question, it's because for some reason, people are still hung up on representation of gender rather than just making the games they want to make. When a guy acts stupid or evil, it's just a guy who acts stupid or evil. When a woman acts stupid or evil, suddenly it's this horribly misgonist attack on all women.

Despite all our claims of being egalitarian, we clearly are not.

I'd like to see lady protagonists in games too. I probably won't play them (I'm a guy, and I can project easier onto protags I can relate to, even if it's just by gender), but I'd be nice. What I'd like to see is more females with the same kind of personalities that male player characters display, i.e rampant sociopathy, but without that irritating ice-queen persona that's become indus- sorry- fiction standard.

Hell, more lady villains and mooks would also be nice.
When women act evil, or stupid, it probably only gets seen that way because, well, IMO, women have been villains in games more than they've been playable characters in games. There's not a whole lot of great counter-representation.
If we had balance against women who weren't acting evil/stupid, it wouldn't be as huge of a problem, IMO.
I mean, look at guys. Guys often get to be the playable hero, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of griping that their acts of evil/stupidity are an attack on men. Well, aside from the fact that guys are often the fodder, which seems to be a recent thing, and it's understandable.

Spending years getting a bad reputation is going to have an effect, even if it is undeserved. Female protagonists have been getting that bad rep for a very long time.

I can relate to your preference for playing guys. I've a similar preference towards playing women. It's really hard to bring myself to play as a guy, and enjoy it.

Honestly, the amount of games where women are enemies as mooks, or main baddies are probably higher than games where you can play as a woman from start to finish. I'm not saying that there can't be more female villains, and grunts mind you. It's just going to feel crappy to get games where women are enemies, and not more female protagonsits along with it. it won't help women feel empowered, or any less alienated. In fact it could make things worse.

I'd like to to play as the female villain. I'd love a catwoman (comic book version) game where I work against the law to steal, infiltrate, and just be a criminal catburglar. Yeah she'd probably get some anti-villain treatment or get treated like an anti-hero with the plot, but I could see a lot of potential.
Sadly, I really doubt we'll ever get that game. Just the the movie version with Hallie Berry.
I'm pretty sure men have been villains far more than women, but they're the "default" so they tend no to get mentioned as much.

You know what's really rare? Female hero and female villain.
Oh, yeah, I don't debate at all men have the majority of the villain roles, and guys are the ones that get mowed down by the thousands in games. And yeah, it sucks they're the default.
I totally understand the desire to see more women as enemies as main foes, and grunts.

But I stand by my point that there's a lot more male default heroes putting a better light on guys to balance out guys being the default enemy, and I feel that takes a lot of the sting out of it. It's hard to talk from experience, though since, well, women are rarely the played main character, and the enemy for the majority of the time.

It is rare that women are at both ends of a game, the played protagonist, and the end game enemy, I agree. I wouldn't mind seeing more games like that. I mean when women are the villain, they're often below the main bad guy who's a guy, or there's a final boss after them.
You had me until "{enemy} the majority of the time," because that's just plain false. If anything, supporting character is the default female role, usually as side-kick, quest giver, or mission control.
I think we miscommunicated.

Males are the default enemy on pretty much every level. Women generally get elite soldier status for some reason, though. I.E. Metal Gear Frog units (some of the most badass female soldiers in the universe), or kunoichi, or something that sets them apart from the typical grunt. they might get as high as Lt. Rarely are they the final boss.

I agree with you, women, not just NPCs, but playable characters, too, are the default support roles... which really chaps my hide sometimes. I hate being relegated to medic, rogue, mage, and generally not a front lines person. Especially because armor doesn't work as well on women so they're flimsy... ... I'll stop here. If I really get started on this topic, I'm not gunna stop for a while.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,896
0
0
While some of the points she's made in the past have been her misunderstanding the story or characters (Zia from Bastion for example), her overall goal really is for the good of the industry.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Rebel_Raven said:
Anita's an unusual case. I can't say I like the way she presents things. Putting aside personal attacks against her, too.
Thing is she has a point. Several. If all of her points are getitng dismissed odds are you probably see no problems with the industry. I could be wrong, though.

Games with female protagonists doing worse is often a matter of quality of the game (Generally lacking when it comes to women. Wonder why?), lack of advertisement, and generally just not giving it the push most male only games get that succeede, so of course they're going to under perform. And so they think all games with female leads are going to underperform. And we enter the past 13 years of little representation with games with female characters nearly set up to fail.

More reward, less risk, I get that. Thing is, it's not all that safe. I mean a lot of companies are failing. A lot of companies have failed recently. Some of them even played it safe.
Sure some companies are bulletproof, but most just aren't and I think those smaller companies are trying to be too much like the larger companies. It's a business model that might be worth following, but it involves following a niche that's already full so it's only good for the companies that are successful. The rest of the smaller companies have to compete against them, though which leads to failing.
The issue with Anita is because the way she presents things and the way she herself is in relation to the industry and the community, truly coming off as an outside trying to moralize and preach in the same vein as the anti-violence crusaders, it creates more confrontation then insight. Add to that how she has become larger then the actual issues themselves, and suddenly she is harmful to the discussion entirely, eclipsing most talk on the issue as you have to fight down the bitterness and resentment on both sides just to talk about the actual issue like a person instead of a caricature of a feminazi or a militant MRA. While you may argue she has some points, one can argue that creationists have a point that when they say that science hasn't disproved god's existence, and while true, it does nothing to help the actual discussion on the whole and everything to distract and derail it. I honestly think Anita is one of the worst things to happen to the discussion of female representation, portrayal and feminism in gaming for what she has turned the discussions into. What few points she may have is lost in a sea of her own lack of journalistic integrity and the pile machine she keeps feeding.

I would agree with you that by having every triple A company trying for the same audience and doing the same thing, it is not a safe or reliable plan, but no individual company likes to take risks and the industry itself is just an assortment of individual companies, most now run by corporate culture and people at top who simply do not care about the product they make. And the industry has had over 30 years of not targeting the female demographic the same as the male, from back in the days of arcades. 30 years of not buying the product nearly as much does nothing but lend to the assumptions of the bean counters that they have who they should be marketing too. And any outreach they try often does fail, very true. Hell, a lot of the failure is because they try to market the female demographic with the same sort of stereotypes hey use to market to males, only without a quality game mechanic underneath. Again, a result of corporate culture and the ones calling the shots having no interest in actually making good games, merely selling games. The exception I would think would be Nintendo, as apparent by their not shifting their efforts to fps and brown pallet gaming, though they in turn fall victim more to the aspect I mentioned in my last post: less plot means less likely female characters. Nintendo has never been great with rich plot or deep stories, and worry more about reliable and fun gameplay. Hell, Samus, Dixie kong and the female pokemon trainers show off the general "flour sack" think I talked about too. But nintendo is also resting on its laurels and never changes the story of any of its games. You still stopping the metroids, rescuing DK or his banana and being the very best in every subsequent game. And nintendo is not one for new IP either.

so most of the triple A industry doesn't care because they are so wrapped in marketing and corporate bs, while the ones most likely to at least use more female characters are caught in loop of churning out new games that have to be like the old ones, thus only allowing them to try to make gameplay better (which is good) but allows them to ignore any sort of story, and thus character as well.

But I would say it is not helpless, even once we acknowledge the limits to likelihood companies have to actually change. Kickstarters can do much to show a demand which will make companies pay closer attention. No one pays attention to the person who doesn't buy their product when they have plenty who do, especially when them not buying it is already assumed and calculated as a risk. What does stand out is when the people written off go en mass to support a competitor. All the more when the competitor has much less resources. When notch hit it big with minecraft, developers payed attention. God, the rise of "open world games" as a buzz word showed they didn't understand the appeal quite right, but that they did pay attention. And the games inspired by that game, such as terraria or cubeworld showed that even if developers didn't jump on the idea, other indies sure did and released quality follow up games (even if cubeworld updates once every 6 months, i is still a decent game for a 2 man team).
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, see the problem with Anita is that she has this kind of platform to try and pretend there is an issue when there isn't one. The fact that has managed to get a platform and expand it into being able to fill lecture halls and the like, and actually convince people that there is something valid, positive, or progressive in what she's saying, or that she's addressing a real issue, is exactly the problem. People knew this could very well happen, which is why there have been efforts to stop her when she first started to get going on this level, and why there is such decisive opposition.

I've gone into why there is no issue with the way women are portrayed in games or fantasy in detail before, if your curious, finding some of my back posts on this site shouldn't be hard. In short the situation is fine, the characters you see in video games are simply the stuff of heroic fantasy, which typically includes an idealized physical appearance. These are EXACTLY the kinds of characters female creators make when they are writing for a female audience. I've said more besides this of course, but that alone pretty much nukes Anita's entire "body of work". You sit down and read Kim Harrison, or read/watch "True Blood", or dozens of other sources that have largely come from women's fantasy and you'll find that in most respects your simply transporting those characters into a different medium when it comes
to video games. Basically Anita's typical target, which is male dominated gaming (and media in general), isn't an issue, she just wants attention. Following reality, to attack the things she does Anita is ultimately saying that she thinks women should be entirely different in their tastes from how they are now, men, sexism, and objectification, don't even really enter into it... however pretending them do is a way of getting attention.

Bob, for all of his apparent respect for Anita and what seems to be his intent, sort of makes my point about Anita for me. You'll notice that he points out her "fighting fuck doll" quip, when it comes to attractive women who do the action hero thing. That right there pretty much summarizes her entire position and exactly why she can't be taken seriously, she effectively creates a no-win scenario specifically so she can complain from any direction and get attention. Basically the argument can come down to that if a guy finds an image traditionally attractive, then it's objectifying, and is a problem even if the character is an extremely capable protagonist that gets away from all the victim tropes.

The basic idea is that if a female character needs to be rescued, then she can argue that it's sexist. If you see a female character representing the same kind of heroic ideal as a male one and doing all the same stuff, then she can argue it's a "fighting fuck doll".

The argument that all major female characters tend to be on the high end of the appearance scale is something that she also likes to bring up, but really that's just heroic fantasy, and what women create for themselves. The guys are just as improbable for the most part, you'll very rarely see some dude who is anything close to normal, or unattractive, unless someone is trying to make a joke (which can also work if someone makes a joke by having say a fat woman do stuff). In general your male heroes all tend to be either pretty boys, or extremely rugged, typically all running around with washboard stomachs, six pack abs, and the kind of muscle definition you just can't show without oiling yourself up. Women with breasts as big as their head might not be rare in video games, but the same can be said of dudes with arms bigger around than their neck. Video games have been equal opportunity here for a while. Sure, not many women are built like a Dead or Alive fighter, but at the same time not many men are built like Marcus Fenix... who would be getting plenty of attention from the ladies if he was pumping iron on a beach somewhere... and let's be honest, the guys who win titles like "Mr. Olympia" wish they could look like that, especially casually.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
Therumancer said:
I see what you are saying, and I do agree with it for the most part, but there are issues in gaming in relation to things such as female character portrayal or female audience participation. No, I certainly do not think Anita is right with what it is, but rather, the disparities in portrayal and participation are symptoms of a larger issue, something you even hinted at here in how male characters are idealized unrealistic brick shithouses. The choice of male protagonist, the lazy character design, the tropes and character archtypes all seem to be different facets of a larger issue in gaming as a whole relating to lazy production and a strong feeling that the developers think very little of the audience they sell to. This is supported by the lowest common denominator sort of design and advertising, such as by making only attractive characters or advertising to the audience as though they are the most stereotypical "gamer" ideal. Pandering sexualized adverts for instance, which sort of suggest gamers are stupid enough to be suckered in by a little sexuality as a sign of "maturity".
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
runic knight said:
Therumancer said:
I see what you are saying, and I do agree with it for the most part, but there are issues in gaming in relation to things such as female character portrayal or female audience participation. No, I certainly do not think Anita is right with what it is, but rather, the disparities in portrayal and participation are symptoms of a larger issue, something you even hinted at here in how male characters are idealized unrealistic brick shithouses. The choice of male protagonist, the lazy character design, the tropes and character archtypes all seem to be different facets of a larger issue in gaming as a whole relating to lazy production and a strong feeling that the developers think very little of the audience they sell to. This is supported by the lowest common denominator sort of design and advertising, such as by making only attractive characters or advertising to the audience as though they are the most stereotypical "gamer" ideal. Pandering sexualized adverts for instance, which sort of suggest gamers are stupid enough to be suckered in by a little sexuality as a sign of "maturity".
"Mature" is a term I think people need to stop using in regards to sexual material. "Adult" is a better description. The idea of sex in games is largely so people can let their hair down and do things that are immature and get away frm reality (so to speak). It's aimed at "adults" due to adults being able to better separate reality from fantasy and not take these things as having any reflection on reality.

I think half the problem here is that anyone who sees a "mature" advertised by over the top, sexualized, art, and wants to make an issue out of it, is effectively proving that they are not mature enough to handle something like this and be able to separate that image from any kind of genuine socio-political message. If you don't "get" it, then it's not the game for you, and you should move on, not try and project your values onto something where they do not apply, and act like there is something wrong.

Outside of the whole "adult" games category, when it comes to the general range of heroic fantasy, the idea is to get away from real life. Your a normal, average looking, person with ordinary concerns every day. The idea of heroic fantasy is to step into the metaphorical shoes of some physically ideal hero whose concerns are more along the lines of saving the world, or looting epic treasures, or whatever. If you want normal, you wouldn't be playing video games, reading fantasy novels, reading comics, or watching action-fantasy movies and the like. If you want to be a normal person, or look at normal, ordinary people, you have real life for that.

In general there are certain kinds of scenarios people find appealing. You see a lot of very derivative stuff being recycled as people keep trying to make a popular idea better with whatever the latest technology is. What's more for every jaded person who has "seen it all before", there is someone new just getting into this stuff at the same time for whom even the most stereotypical fare is new. As a result we see a pretty steady production of similar products with very similar kinds of protaganists. There is nothing wrong with, or unexpected, in that. Granted, I myself have commented that we do need to see more stuff that at least spins this mould in some new directions at times for those who have been through this treadmill hundreds of times already, however that isn't really what Anita is complaining about, Anita is going off about how there is something wrong with the way women are portrayed in the general run of video games, when really there is not.

When it comes to the characters you control and such, in general I do not think there is anyone who really wants their character to be truly ordinary, as they already have that. A normal girl for example wants to be in control of a physically ideal heroine, line one of the ones she might read about, or create herself. A normal guy is the same way in also wanting an ideal. In some cases short term normality adds to the experience, where you might play an "average" dude or dudette to begin with, but rapidly become more than that due to extraordinary events. In RPG terms it can be fun to start out with some bumbling peasant pulled out of his farm, but that only works because your only a few level ups
away from toning up those arms, becoming smarter than Einstein, and dropping the peasant smocks for truly outlandish hero garb as you bash increasingly powerful monsters upside the head. "Outlandish garb" is part of it as well as both genders like to see those perfect physiques displayed, with girls the characters usually wind up dressing like they came out of a fantasy novel, showing off some cleavage and leg in a way that wouldn't be practical IRL (but that's why it's fantasy, and honestly if you've ever read much fantasy by women where some of those outfits were inspired, girls are good at coming up with excuses to justify dressing that way given the rest of the hero scenario), or for guys you'll notice an alarming, and oft forgotten tendency to do the same thing, sometime take a look at how many dudes in fantasy run around without sleeves so they can show off their arms, fantasy or modern that's equally dumb... it's really quite equal opportunity to be honest, it's just that there is more attention to be gained by complaining about the ladies and pretending there is an issue or gender disparity on the "fantasy scale" when there isn't one. To be frank there have been sensibly designed characters of both genders, and equally obnoxious ones as well, that said the obnoxious ones
tend to be the most popular from both genders for one reason or another. Marcus Fenix probably sold plenty of games based on those massive guns of his (and by that I don't mean the one with the chainsaw on it), had his armor been designed with sleeves (to protect against shrapnel and the like) it probably wouldn't have sold as well. :)

At any rate, we seem to mostly be in agreement I guess, and I'm getting further and further onto tangents, which happens when I get tired.
 

Gindil

New member
Nov 28, 2009
1,621
0
0
Lictor Face said:
Gindil said:
It's been found out that she used Let's Play footage for her videos instead of buying a recorder and playing the games. No Twitch account for verification of the footage used. Hell, in the other threads about this, you found out that her backers were doing the research when she did the surveys for the Kickstarter people.

Isn't that counted as plagiarism? Especially since she did not credit the footage she used, nor the people that helped her in whatever way.

It would be a pretty textbook law suit if anything.
Well, Wikipedia and TVTropes go uncited for her "research" as well so...