The Most Dangerous Woman in Videogames - Anita Sarkeesian

[wulf3n]

Anyone else read Dune? I'm pretty sure as an individual that goes to planets with extreme environments Samus must be wearing something like a still suit under her armor. It'd be thin, form fitting, and used in conjunction with her armor to regulate body temperature and recycle water, which is crazy essential when fighting aliens on a foreign planet.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say Nintendo weren't thinking about the complexities of their universe and its technology as much as Frank Herbert was

 

[anthony87]

Um... We have several sensible counter-arguments. They have been brought up and linked in this very thread, try out the 1-16 page range. I can wait while you do that.

I'm aware, I simply don't think they're of any quality either.

Pretty much sums up how I feel about Anita Sarkeesian's stuff. Maybe we're all not so different after all....

 

[Gindil]

345 results since 1983? That factors into 11 women a year in games. round abouts, but before you get happy here, lets consider several things:
Not all of them from english games. Considering I don't want to learn another language just to game more, those are gunna have to be deducted. I'm not alone in this. It's pretty unreasonable to expect it.
They count gender select characters, which aren't to be included in my list. As venerable as Femshep is, she's not the star of her own game.
Some of whom are system exclusive. I'm pretty SoL as are others if I don't have that system, huh?
Some of whom are only briefly playable in a game that you otherwise play as a guy in. Well, I don't buy games to play as a guy unless they're pretty stellar, and I don't buy games to play as a female for only a fraction of the game.
Some of whom are only playble after beating the game as a guy. Having said that, I don't want the game spoiled before I even get to play as the female.
Some are NPC members of your party. I generally have to pick those up over time, and, well, they're NPCs. Side characters, not people you ply as from start to finish, starring in their own game. Deduct those.
The list is really padded by fighting game women. Fighting games, despite, ironically, being one of the greatest sources of playable women doesn't fit my list because those games don't focus on one character from start to end. No one has their own game in that.
It covers even the briefest of indie games.
Basically the list is so dilluted with stuff that doesn't apply to what I want, it's practically useless.

And so is your arbitrary Bechdel Test. I highly doubt you're going to play all of these games and it just seems like you're whining that you have no representation instead of using the list as a basis and finding games that may fit your standards and play them.

That list is includes things invalid to my argument and in no way invalidates my grievances with the industry.

Then take them up with the industry. It seems more and more that you're only interested in moving the goalposts when you've been presented with female protagonists and antagonists while ignoring the games and the stories therein.

It's not just the lack of female characters for me to play, and apparently reeasonably have access to as you're saying I should have a gaming PC, a Dreamcast, an NES, a N64, a gamecube, and pretty much every system under the sun, then the free time to track down the older games on the list, isn't the entirity of my problem with the industry.

I highly doubt you can play all of the games presented. But acting as if women are never in the games is rather disingenuous don't you think?

Lemme ask, how many games with female protagonists you play as from start to finish, with no jumping through hoops to get there, are we getting next year? And the year after that? What systems? Will the games be any good, and well marketed, or pretty much set up to fail against the male competition? What's the future of female repreentation, and the modern times of it?

The only one jumping through hoops is you with your gaming Bechdel test which eliminates 99% of the games that may be interesting. I'm not going to address it any further because it's ridiculous that you have such a rigid argument that doesn't allow you to play games on their merits with an obvious gender bias.

That's what really important. Going retro, and expecting people to buy old systems, nevermind buy multiple systems, and track down old games is pretty unreasonable.

And yet people do it and enjoy the games...

One really should consider "What if I have all the games off that list I can reasonably get, and I beat them all, and have no more intense drive to play them anymore? What's going to be coming out? What's new?" I'm pretty close there now, though a 3ds opened up my options a lil'bit.

When you can do it, maybe I'll plunk down more games for you to play.

Consider people just coming into games. The sort of people that can make you more money as they are willing, and able to spend it. Making them jump through hoops to get into what you want them to buy is only going to take you so far, if it takes you anywhere at all.

More than likely, the people coming into games are going to enjoy the games that they fancy the most. It doesn't make it easier to enjoy the games when you have gender blinders on.

How is it even remotely inviting to basically say "Oh, we don't really include you these days. If you want to game as your own gender, go buy old stuff, and be sure to pick up a bunch of old systems."

How is it even remotely inviting to stomp on old games and not play them for their merits and judge them accordingly?

In otherwords, I'm looking at a bigger picture than just what I want. I'm looking out for potential newcomers to gaming which is going to be necessary.

Not really... New comers would be introduced to new games just like new book readers are introduced to new books. Through friends and possibly family. That doesn't mean they need a test to find the games that are approved by committee.

Instead of inviting in more customers, the industry's more interested in segregating them away while they focus on an group that can't support the entire industry. At least not until so much compeititon dies off that monoplies happen.

You're making assumptions about the industry that are truly unfounded.

Oh wait, that's kinda happening now. CoD, and MW are practiclaly unchallenged, most sports games are only liscenced to one studio and competition is hard to mount. GTA is killing pretty much every open world game to where it's really hard to compete.

Right... TF2, Maple Story, and other F2P games are dying based on GTA and CoD... Those are assumptions that are again unfounded. Also, GTAV has been getting a lot of flack over their online game. And Minecraft is still a thing.

So why do people try and compete instead of take the paths of least resistance?

Maybe it's because you're not really here for the games and it seems more and more that you just want to complain about smaller details instead of looking at the games you like and enjoying them...

The third list fails to fix the prolems with lack of representation in the console arena, though, doesn't it? PC isn't the only gaming system.

But it sure is a list for some people.

If it's obvious via gendered words implying that you're a guy, you're a guy in a game. It's not fun overlooking it coz either way you're reminded of the gender of the character you're playing.

You're making no sense on this...

Since I like playing virtually anything that I can get my hands on that interests me, making a list of what I want in -a- game is absurd.

Funny that, when you accuse me of forcing people to jump through hoops...

What's needed is a lot of female lead games of various genres that aren't almost entirely PC only.

Then make them. Your list is arbitrary and ignores any game with a gender opposite female. I have no interest in someone that isn't even going to try games and only looks at things from a narrow lens.

Quina is not a playable female character that you play as from start to finish, she's a party member. Having an NPC in your party =/= playing as them from start to finish.
Playing as a female character for a fraction of the game's total play time = cop out.
They don't apply to the list.

Well, you get to play as her and she's a Hero in her own right as per the Monomyth theory. She applies to the list because the rules were that it was to be an ugly woman. And I showed her. Sorry, not interested in your list. Just play the games and enjoy them.

 

[RolandOfGilead]

"Because make no mistake, as innocuous as Tropes vs. Women turned out to be in comparison to the rage that preceded its debut, there is a status quo in gaming and it does seem recognize that a tipping point has been reached and that its time as the status quo is coming to an end."
1) Sad to say, but I think you're being way too optimistic, 2) you need an editor.

 

[QuantumWalker]

Again, more gross generalization. You are taking aspects of a small percentage and attributing them to the whole. This is the same reasoning behind bigotry.

Are you going to respond to anything I say with "gross generalization"? Because that would tell alot about whether it's worth responding to you anymore.

I'll take a crack at it then.

Dont pull that arrogant oblivion crap on me. Just because some amount of the gaming community and/or game industry might happen to be sexist and possibly uphold some sort of patriarchal coup, does not mean gaming in general is upholding anything other than wanting to play games.

Arrogant oblivion...whatever. Look, the reality is that games aren't this innocent, pure thing free from ideology, it does espouse patriarchal ideals. Men are killers, leaders, owners and protectors of women. Women are to be owned by men, protected, look good for their male, and be content with their lot in life. Failing that, they at least need to be able to kick ass while servicing the male gaze and pretending to subverting the above.

Here is the generalization you are making with this post and from what I can gather from your previous ones.

1) The idea that games have ever been free from the creators of the games themselves, and/or the environments that they arise in.

- I mentioned in a previous post how some of the foundational games that get brought up in historical discussions (Missile Command, Doom) were the product of either their creator trying to convey a message to his audience, or an amalgamation of the cultural entities that the creators enjoyed. In the case of Missile Command the creator was trying to convey the abstract horror that full on nuclear war would have, and the futility of trying to save everyone. In essence Missile Command functions similar to the Kobayashi Maru test from Star Trek in that the game presents the player with a no-win scenario. (although I believe Missile Command predates Wrath of Khan)

- Gaming history has never been free from ideology, I don't remember anyone in this thread saying otherwise so I'm not sure where you are coming from with this line of thought?

2) The idea that games perpetuate patriarchal ideas and sentiments.

- Depending on how you define patriarchy the assumption you are making about all games is that they present men universally as inherently dominant and good and women as inherently subordination. You seem to be operating on the assumption that "larger number of male protagonists == definite attempt to keep women down". But please correct me if I am wrong and elaborate on why you feel that games are more oriented towards enforcing a patriarchal ideal.

- One inconsistency with what you are saying and what is actually happening is that games themselves do not push women away. Certain games are definitely offensive to women (sex simulators for one) but in most other cases it comes down to whether or not the style of gameplay, types of characters, or game story appeals to the gamer whether they be male of female. Their seems to be a reason why women gamers form the majority of puzzle game and sim game players while men seem to form the majority of FPS Players. It may come down to a difference in how both genders view meaningful ways to spend their time with the hobby but their is always a gray area between the two.

- You also state that games present women as always attractive in order to appeal to the male gaze. The problem with that is, by default both male and female avatars are generally designed to be physically appealing and idealized as opposed to their users. For every buxom scantily clad female avatar you find their will exist an overwhelming number of handsome, toned, and unbelievably athletic male avatars. You would be hard pressed to find games that intentionally present the player with traditionally unattractive avatars to play as (the North American release of NIER comes to mind) and if they do you're looks may boil down to a non issue because NPC's won't react to your looks any different than they would otherwise (e.g. the various disfiguring scars you can give the PC of Mass Effect). Allow me to make a broad statement but outside of older RPG's that include a charisma stat I have never really played a game where my characters perceived appearance had an impact on the game (excluding playing a fantasy race that some NPC's didn't jive with)

- While you are correct in assuming that women

3) The idea that gaming narratives focus on enforcing oppressive imagery and ideas onto female gamers

- Plainly put you would have to make a pretty convincing argument to tell me how games try to present the idea that "women are property" as an acceptable norm. To steal an annoying overused phrase

• "Games do not exist in a vacuum"

Even if a game did exist with the intention of trying to un-ironically tell women that they belonged in the household it would be shot down and lambasted by most modern communities. Name one game that has appeared in the western world that tries to present sexist ideas as an acceptable norm that both men and women ahould aspire too and I will show you a game that got more negative press than Duke Nukem Forever.

- Their rarely if ever exists a work of gaming fiction that shows women in a subordinate position that does not try to justify that situation. Most commonly you will find either a game world set in a medieval style setting where historically women did not have the same rights as men, or you will find some sort of dystopian society. You can argue that these in-game justifications do not excuse the presence of those ideas but I think that any story has the right to present characters in whatever setting they choose too, even if I don't like the idea personally.

 

[Iszfury]

I feel compelled to post for the sake of spectacle, acknowledging that this thread will eventually reach 1K. And I'm now starting to realize that no matter how many gamers act only distantly fazed by Sarkeesian's comments ("we're no nonsense, trust us, we're only in for the games, her point wasn't really wrong but I disagree with her approach, blahblah, etc."), they've actually been made extremely insecure by recent events. They're projecting. They're uncomfortable. Gamers feel the status quo tipping; they're being forced to acknowledge trends and patterns that their own insular communities prefer to ignore. If that wasn't the case, they (we) wouldn't have to passive-aggressively rationalize the above positions ad nauseum. So many terrible euphenisms. Threads like this are a goddamned magnet, and we can't keep their greasy hands off of them. We claim to be disinterested but we're obsessing to hell, and the irony is biting.

 

[Do4600]

Okay, how about I attack her for having $160,000 to produce the show, buying a mountain of video games which she then takes pictures with, and then instead of using that resource to get her own footage that explicitly captures the quality she's looking for, she uses youtube footage.

Not to nit-pick your argument, but you make an assumption here on facts that are not in evidence-- she has a crew, some of which no doubt own games themselves. it is therefore entirely possible that the pile of games you're seeing is not, in fact, games she spent the KS money on, but the conglomeration of other people's collections.

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

A fair point, but I think it at least demonstrates that she has access to those games, and with access she should at least be able to use them as primary sources in her argument.

 

[DarkSpartan]

Okay, how about I attack her for having $160,000 to produce the show, buying a mountain of video games which she then takes pictures with, and then instead of using that resource to get her own footage that explicitly captures the quality she's looking for, she uses youtube footage.

Not to nit-pick your argument, but you make an assumption here on facts that are not in evidence-- she has a crew, some of which no doubt own games themselves. it is therefore entirely possible that the pile of games you're seeing is not, in fact, games she spent the KS money on, but the conglomeration of other people's collections.

It would certainly fit in with her other noted behavior. Without seeing paper receipts, we'll never know the provenance of the collection in that photo. It's entirely possible that the photo you're referring to is older than the Kickstarter.

A fair point, but I think it at least demonstrates that she has access to those games, and with access she should at least be able to use them as primary sources in her argument.

On this, we agree completely. She most likely has access to the hundred-plus games she's pictured with (whether they're hers or not), she shouldn't have grabbed LP footage from her YT peers. A nice recording rig shouldn't have cost her that much, either.

One more thing of note: We don't see any of the discs in question, either. That could just be a pile of empty cases. Regardless, she had months to make these videos... You'd think she'd've played at least a few?