Violence and Sexism in Video Games - History repeats itself

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Ya I mean don't we get threads about how the open world is ruining the RPG. Gammers love love to complain about what they don't like. It's not bad. It's a good ting. It's how we learn to make better games, or at least new games. Also it can be nice to complain about a games problems.

Sexism is kind of subjective, but that doesn't mean every view is valid. There are differently people who know more about the topic then others.

Well you've basically already touched upon the typical excuse given for why complaining about open worlds or this or that is perfectly okay and good for consumers, but talking about sexism or racism or homophobia or anything remotely social justicey is always wrong and is little more than an invasion into gaming to ruin it. Apparently things like a preference for a certain type of world, or a voiced/voiceless protagonist, or even the very concept of "fun" are objective realities, whereas noticing that the outfits for female characters are all weirdly lacking in material that male characters get to enjoy is you imposing your subjective issues onto the game.

Oh yes the objective fun. I love objective fun. It's just so fun, objectively.

It's actually funny because of how new and undefined gaming is. There is a ton of subjectively when talking about games. I mean we have had dozens of different kinds of open worlds, you can't even objectify say such and such is an open world let alone if open worlds are destroying the RPG. Heck try objectively defining RPG. Meanwhile the feminism debate tends to have a lot more defined elements because of how long it has been around and how much has been written on it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Despite me downplaying the effects of any single game, there is the argument of what the cultural relevance of gaming can provide. Thing is, for your average gamer who spends maybe an hour or two gaming and then has to go back to the drudgery of life... the effects are naturally superficial. But what of young kids spending 6+ hours videogaming, with interactice, consequence free violence, and likely being their primary resource concerning mature content?

We know heightened aggression and frustration in various types of gaming and sporting events influences behaviour in the immediate pre, post, and interim session. Pretending that this doesn't create some form of longlasting behavioural pattern is merely the other extreme from saying games are responsible for a lot of violent tendencies.

Same argument could be made about sexism and young children playing games they really aren't supposed to.

Thing is, I don't think videogames are a big impact on violence or sexism. But at the same time I think people would agree some games are not suitable for children. Instead of; "Videogames help cause violence/sexism...", how about; "Bad parents cause attitudes of violence and sexism to become imprinted on young minds."

Which we know to be true. The media also playing a role in skewing young perspectives is also self-evident.

 

[Jute88]

Have the people in your country reacted differently?

Here (Finland) playing games is considered something only children do, eventhough the average age of a gamer is somewhere in its 30s these days. But mostly people seem to be talking how gaming affects children, how much should they be allowed to play and so on. I think there was someone talking about in the news how discussions about gaming seem to be focusing on the negative things. It would be like talking about sports just from a negative angle. While true, it misses the bigger picture that gaming is not just a bad or a good thing, depending on individual it can manifest in a variety of ways.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Despite me downplaying the effects of any single game, there is the argument of what the cultural relevance of gaming can provide. Thing is, for your average gamer who spends maybe an hour or two gaming and then has to go back to the drudgery of life... the effects are naturally superficial. But what of young kids spending 6+ hours videogaming, with interactice, consequence free violence, and likely being their primary resource concerning mature content?

We know heightened aggression and frustration in various types of gaming and sporting events influences behaviour in the immediate pre, post, and interim session. Pretending that this doesn't create some form of longlasting behavioural pattern is merely the other extreme from saying games are responsible for a lot of violent tendencies.

Same argument could be made about sexism and young children playing games they really aren't suppose.

Thing is, I don't think videogames are a big impact on violence or sexism. But at the same time I think people would agree some games are not suitable for children. Instead of; "Videogames help cause violence/sexism...", how about; "Bad parents cause attitudes of violence and sexism to become imprinted on young minds."

Which we know to be true. The media also playing a role in skewing young perspectives is also self-evident.

I think most games are suitable for kids, maybe not the war propaganda ones or other such games but as long as you have the parent explain to them what fiction is, it would be fine. I fear people baby their kids too much in this regard, when I was ten I played silent hill with my dad and rather than worry for me he was actively trying to scare me by making weird sounds and stuff, such fun times. We also played mgs1 and a bunch of other M rated stuff and while I did mimic a lot of Tekken moves when playing with my friends, I never actually got in fights or accidentally dropkicked anyone. As long as you supervise and actually parent the kids, they can handle most things. Oh and 6 hours is a tad too much for a routine lol.

 

[infohippie]

But what of young kids spending 6+ hours videogaming, with interactice, consequence free violence, and likely being their primary resource concerning mature content?

Then that is the fault of the terrible parents, not the game. Responsible adults should not have to suffer restrictions just because a proportion of parents are too thick to actually parent their kids. I'd much rather see the introduction of a licence to procreate, with compulsory sterilisation of people who fail the licencing test.

 

[Satinavian]

Huh, so the German debate ended with a "games are art and thus are protected" argument, huh?

No, it didn't

Video games legally were not classified as art in Germany. They were classified as toys. Thus they got none of the exceptions or concessions for artists and all of the child protection legislation.


Very recently they were kind of reclassified and now do count as art. But that was long after the violence debate and it could still be challanged in court as the letter of the law didn't actually change, only experts and lower level courts changed their mind about the correct interpretation. That is why publishers still try to follow the guidelines for toys and avoid things where they would need the an explicit art-exception (e.g. swasticas)


Then again, Games actually made in Germany tend to feature heavily in the Simulation Genre and there is and has never been a debate of violence and sexism and the German game development industry. It is mostly about imports anyway. the international developers know they should use a less-blood-and-gore-version if they want to sell in Germany the same way they know they need a no-nipples-version if they want to sell in the US. That has been the case long before the German violence debate (which was mostly hot air anyway)

Does the modern US-debate about sexism in games feel similar to the German violence debate from those years ? Yes, certainly. The same kind of hot air, the same kind of outrage from people who don't know anything about video games but want to milk the debate for their own publicity, the same prospects to change anything about game content (pretty much none)

 

[Necrozius]

I feel that a lot of backlash against feminist critique of video games (or any medium, really) comes from the frequent accusations of flat-out misogyny toward the game makers themselves and of gamers in general. Which I find goes against the frequently asserted claim that sexism in culture is deeply ingrained and pervasive ; that people aren't often aware of it. So we're all either hapless, gullible fools or consciously malicious woman-haters. It's not easy to respond reasonably to that kind of condemnation, especially when folks are then accused of tone policing if they point out how upset they are over it.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I think most games are suitable for kids, maybe not the war propaganda ones or other such games but as long as you have the parent explain to them what fiction is, it would be fine. I fear people baby their kids too much in this regard, when I was ten I played silent hill with my dad and rather than worry for me he was actively trying to scare me by making weird sounds and stuff, such fun times. We also played mgs1 and a bunch of other M rated stuff and while I did mimic a lot of Tekken moves when playing with my friends, I never actually got in fights or accidentally dropkicked anyone. As long as you supervise and actually parent the kids, they can handle most things. Oh and 6 hours is a tad too much for a routine lol.

Oh, I don't think there's anything wrong with a parent that takes specific means to correct attitudes between what children see, and what should be. But frankly, if I were a parent of a young child, there has to be boundaries. Tekken is one thing, GTA V is another. It's not just active violence but attitudes towards people. And you're right ... but a growing number of parents just treat a gaming machine as a distraction rather than some source of moderated fun.

In the same way I'd stop my 10 year old or younger playing GTA V, I'd take away their gaming console if they didn't do their homework. Paternalism towards children is a natural recourse to young minds that lack context of a working idea of what it means to be decent to others and personal responsibility.

Then that is the fault of the terrible parents, not the game. Responsible adults should not have to suffer restrictions just because a proportion of parents are too thick to actually parent their kids. I'd much rather see the introduction of a licence to procreate, with compulsory sterilisation of people who fail the licencing test.

Well, to your first point I did write this;

Thing is, I don't think videogames are a big impact on violence or sexism. But at the same time I think people would agree some games are not suitable for children. Instead of; "Videogames help cause violence/sexism...", how about; "Bad parents cause attitudes of violence and sexism to become imprinted on young minds."

That being said, I couldn't think of a state more horrible than one that kicks in your door and sterilises you because of a checklist of appropriate behaviiours. It's still encumbent on people doing the right thing. Not to allow badly parented children to become monsters regardless. There is an extent to which you can blame the parents, though I don't disagree that violent and sexist attitudes begin in the home.

A 15 year old kid kicked out onto the street for being LGBTQ having to steal to survive is one thing. A 15 year old kicked out onto the street, who goes out of their way to join a criminal syndicate to live well off another's suffering, and refuses to do anything else even when capable, is another.

 

[Something Amyss]

Regardless of the debate. Shouldn't the "video games are art" qualify the sexism in games as well? If a video game can be as violent as it wants, does that not in turn permit it to be as sexist as it wants as well?

Sure. And the moment you admit to video games being art, you open them up to criticism on these points (and others), which seems to be what most people are railing against.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Oh yes the objective fun. I love objective fun. It's just so fun, objectively.

If I may speak objectively, your fun isn't fun enough.

It's actually funny because of how new and undefined gaming is. There is a ton of subjectively when talking about games. I mean we have had dozens of different kinds of open worlds, you can't even objectify say such and such is an open world let alone if open worlds are destroying the RPG. Heck try objectively defining RPG. Meanwhile the feminism debate tends to have a lot more defined elements because of how long it has been around and how much has been written on it.

To be fair, the vast majority of the people who consistently come out as virulently opposed to feminism tend to be lacking when it comes to an understanding of feminism and the terms associated with it. And that's on a good day, on a bad day we have people who's only real knowledge comes from some antifeminist shitbag on youtube who just makes up whatever's convenient for his two hour rant about how sexual harassment isn't a problem.

Lack of understanding is an issue. In my experience, a lot of gamers won't notice sexism if it's slapped in their face. I kind of think you can blame games for this. It's just so common in games that I think people have been slapped so much that they are use to it and think it's normal.

 

[CritialGaming]

Regardless of the debate. Shouldn't the "video games are art" qualify the sexism in games as well? If a video game can be as violent as it wants, does that not in turn permit it to be as sexist as it wants as well?

Sure. And the moment you admit to video games being art, you open them up to criticism on these points (and others), which seems to be what most people are railing against.

"Why don't you like what I like? How dare you!" Right?

The thing that bothers me about it, is that people criticize superficially. Often times they will rail against a game based on a trailer or screenshot, without knowing the context. Uneducated criticism is where I really start to have an issue. Don't like the appearance of the female characters? Fine, but don't call it sexist because they dared to put a girl in shorts.

The argument is brought up a lot that game developers should dress men and women the same way. A plate mail bikini is fine for a woman, so long as the men are in plate jock straps. But in larger context that doesn't work. Men and woman dress differently, this not sexism, this is socialism. To say you can only put a woman in a pretty dress, if you then put the man in the same dress doesn't make sense.

Women's clothing fits differently. Put a tank top on a man and a woman, and on one of those characters you will see breast cleavage. Physical differences cannot be avoided, unless the designers go out of their way to make the woman as gender neutral as possible, but if you do that you lose the point of having two different gender models in the game entirely.

Then you get the argument of body types. Every woman doesn't have to be thin and "beautiful". Which is true. But look at the games out there. Most of the time your playable character is doing incredible physical activity right? Whether the character is a military soldier, or simply a highly trained "assassin", one thing is consistent the person doing these things needs to be somewhat physically fit.

Of course you COULD make a chubby or fat character beating the shit out of countless bad guys, running for miles through a combat warzone, or simply just running. But @errtheking would argue that doing such a thing breaks the consistancy of the world. What do you call it? Ludonarative Discobaskets?

The other option is monster characters. But really, in the modern gaming scene, how many monster protagonists do we really see? Spyro became a toy collecting game, Crash Bandicoot is only now maybe getting re-made, Bugsy sucked, Sonic....well we all know what is happening with him. Sure you can play monster characters in a gallery game like League of Legends, but where are the stand alone monster titles of old? Where are the female monsters?

Everyone clamors for equality and choice, but offers up no solutions and no compromise. What are developers supposed to do? They make a good title with a strong female lead like the Tomb Raider reboots and Bayonetta, and that doesn't please people. Mirror's Edge and Remember Me, just kind of fall flat in terms of sales despite being decent games. Meanwhile the CoD shooter sells bazillions, Halo, Battlefield, Star Wars, all send the message that as much as people might ask for change, they really just want more of the same.

 

[Something Amyss]

"Why don't you like what I like? How dare you!" Right?

Yes, that sounds exactly like the complaints against criticism.

I hope that's the route you were going.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Of course you COULD make a chubby or fat character beating the shit out of countless bad guys, running for miles through a combat warzone, or simply just running. But @errtheking would argue that doing such a thing breaks the consistancy of the world. What do you call it? Ludonarative Discobaskets?

Put away the fat chick. No one makes that argument. If we are going to have characters running around beating up people lets let them look the part. Any woman will tell you the first place she loses fat is in her breasts. (Well except for Linda, but duck that made up example.) The bodies we see in games aren't athletic. They are far too curvy with far too little muscle. (When was the last time you saw a female game character with a six pack.)

 

[Zhukov]

The argument is brought up a lot that game developers should dress men and women the same way. A plate mail bikini is fine for a woman, so long as the men are in plate jock straps. But in larger context that doesn't work. Men and woman dress differently, this not sexism, this is socialism.

Yeah, whenever I see real soldiers getting geared up the men are all donning cams, body armour, webbing and helmets while the women all prefer camo-print bikinis and high heels.

Because men and women dress differently you see. Socialism, yo!

Then you get the argument of body types. Every woman doesn't have to be thin and "beautiful". Which is true. But look at the games out there. Most of the time your playable character is doing incredible physical activity right? Whether the character is a military soldier, or simply a highly trained "assassin", one thing is consistent the person doing these things needs to be somewhat physically fit.

To begin with many of the things video game characters do would not be possible for any person, no matter how fit their body or how idealized their proportions.

In addition, many character do not do physically astounding things. Many of those that do are able to do so due to things other than physical conditioning (power armour, super powers, magic etc).

Lastly, there are characters other than the playable characters and protagonists. I believe we call them NPCs.

Everyone clamors for equality and choice, but offers up no solutions and no compromise. What are developers supposed to do? They make a good title with a strong female lead like the Tomb Raider reboots and Bayonetta, and that doesn't please people. Mirror's Edge and Remember Me, just kind of fall flat in terms of sales despite being decent games. Meanwhile the CoD shooter sells bazillions, Halo, Battlefield, Star Wars, all send the message that as much as people might ask for change, they really just want more of the same.

There's some truth to that.

However there's also a great many false assumptions.

Firstly, "everyone" most certainly does not clamor for equality and choice. In fact, a vocal portion of everyone tends to clamor for the exact opposite for a variety of reasons ranging from "SJW pandering" to "market forces". I think it's safe to assume another portion of everyone simply doesn't give a damn one way or the other.

Secondly, the people clamoring for equality and whatnot and the people ignore female-lead games are not necessarily the same individuals. I can't speak for anyone else but as someone who, well... not exactly clamors, err... someone who frequently rolls his eyes and makes snarky comments for the whole diversity thing I've purchased 5 games out of the ones you mentioned (both Mirror's Edge, both new Tomb Raiders and Remember Me). Generally liked them too (Love ME, new TR is alright, RM was a bit of a mess.)

 

[CaitSeith]

Shouldn't this thread be in the Game Industry Discussion section? Sigh...

 

[CritialGaming]

Yeah, whenever I see real soldiers getting geared up the men are all donning cams, body armour, webbing and helmets while the women all prefer camo-print bikinis and high heels.

Because men and women dress differently you see. Socialism, yo!

I'm not talking strict military combat situations here. Obviously, outside of fantasy settings, combat gear and such should be worn equality. This is something that I believe Gears of War does pretty well.

To begin with many of the things video game characters do would not be possible for any person, no matter how fit their body or how idealized their proportions.

In addition, many character do not do physically astounding things. Many of those that do are able to do so due to things other than physical conditioning (power armour, super powers, magic etc).

Lastly, there are characters other than the playable characters and protagonists. I believe we call them NPCs.

But surely you must be able to tell the difference between artistic exaggeration of proportions in order to make the character stand out. Bayonetta is obviously not a "realistic" character, she literally has legs for days! But look at someone like Elena from Uncharted, or the new Lara Croft. Nothing about either of those characters is "unrealistic", they aren't even in supreme athletic shape. And of course, super powers are super, however many comic book heroes only have minor exaggerations to proportions, and their body-type isn't altogether unrealistic if you overlook the exaggerations, which many people cannot.

People take things too literally, which is also part of the problem.

Yes there are NPC's, but that is a whole other can of worms to this topic.

There's some truth to that.

However there's also a great many false assumptions.

Firstly, "everyone" most certainly does not clamor for equality and choice. In fact, a vocal portion of everyone tends to clamor for the exact opposite for a variety of reasons ranging from "SJW pandering" to "market forces". I think it's safe to assume another portion of everyone simply doesn't give a damn one way or the other.

Secondly, the people clamoring for equality and whatnot and the people ignore female-lead games are not necessarily the same individuals. I can't speak for anyone else but as someone who, well... not exactly clamors, err... someone who frequently rolls his eyes and makes snarky comments for the whole diversity thing I've purchased 5 games out of the ones you mentioned (both Mirror's Edge, both new Tomb Raiders and Remember Me). Generally liked them too (Love ME, new TR is alright, RM was a bit of a mess.)

People see what they want to see. You could list playable female characters going back decades and you'll still get an argument. There seems to be a complete inability to see a female character and not slap sexualizations upon her, regardless of whether or not they are there. Which goes to show how there is no solution to this, and how the debate is so polarizing. Because on one side you have the people clamoring for "insert problem here" and the other people going "you are projecting your problem where it doesn't exist"

And even when developers relent, attempt to give people what they want, it isn't enough. Developers can't fix the problem, because the problem is imaginary to begin with and therefore every attempt to please the people with said "problem" only serves to have those same people change exactly what the "problem" is. They want a problem simply to have a problem, and there is no chance for any give and take with it.

Sexism should be addressed, but I would hope we could strike a balance or some sort of give and take regarding the changes we make to games in the future.

 

[Erttheking]

Of course you COULD make a chubby or fat character beating the shit out of countless bad guys, running for miles through a combat warzone, or simply just running. But @errtheking would argue that doing such a thing breaks the consistancy of the world. What do you call it? Ludonarative Discobaskets?

http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/3724796.jpg

Only if it didn't fit the tone of a story. If it was a realistic game, yet it would clash with the tone, but then again they don't put fat guys in those games and people are generally ok with fat guys in non-realistic games.

And Ludonarrative Dissonance means there's a clash between story and gameplay. Like in Prototype 2 how the main character wants to help the common people but can still get his health back by eating them. In your example, the gameplay and story are on the same wavelength

 

[Signa]

Well, everything is sexist [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eh_z3Z2y4M], so that means video games are too.

I mean, the whole reason this has gone this far this time instead of with violence is because people are willing to look at how something might be interpreted rather than an objective line to be crossed. The problem is, there's a billion different interpretations from a billion different people out there, so someone is always going to have a problem with something. With social media being what it is today, just one person can make a large enough wave to get something changed or not made in case the creators get called a sexist.

It happens outside of games too. There was a pill being heralded as a female Viagra, and when feminists started pointing their fingers at the FDA for being sexist for not giving women an equal playing field on sexual grounds, they approved it. The problem was, there was still some considerable health risks with it while not actually helping a woman's sexual encounters by any significant margin. It was on the market for 6-8 months before people started looking at it again for being ineffective and possibly dangerous.

 

[Fox12]

Uh, no. Not even remotely. Maybe you forget that we've actually had the violent game debate in America before. Critics called for government censorship. It ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

That is completely different from a handful of bloggers and culture critics talking about feminism. Let's get real.