Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2014/08/29 17:52:46
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
I don't believe the matter is so simple as "if you loose points then the game discourages it." OTOH, I don't think it is as simple as "if you can do it then the game encourages it." But in any case, Sarkeesian claimed that "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." I doesn't seem her argument has anything to do with a point mechanic one way or the other -- but rather just the capability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 17:55:33
Chongara wrote: Right, I acknowledged the achievements for killing male characters.The issue I'm pointing out is that hers stands in stark contrast to the others. The achievements for the male characters don't have sexualized depictions of them and don't refer to their them as an object in possession o fa desirable quality. Clearly everyone is the subject of violence in this universe, but a female character is the only one that seems to have had it framed with eroticism.
Except that Layla isn't the only one there that's a woman. The very first achievement is 'Heavy Burden', which you get for killing Diana (named 'Heavy Burden' because Diana has been an ally through all the other Hitman games). There's also the "The Killing Fields", for killing all of the Saints* (the name stems from the fact that you hunt them and their troops down in amongst several corn fields). The one "Destroy Something Beautiful" uses "something beautiful" to represent it. That seems to the point and in no way gratuitous.
*The Saints themselves are a whole other kettle of fish.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 17:53:24
I'm pointing out that just because doing something is detrimental, doesn't mean no one does it (granted I also agree Anita staged that entire scene and portrays the game inaccurately and ties it all into her video as if it somehow has a point to it even though it really doesn't). Are people gonna beat up those strippers? Of course they are. They can so sooner or later, someone will do it just for the hell of it. Taking that and talking about sexual arousal or whatever the hell she was saying is rather bizarre.
Now, does beating up some strippers in one level of a game that has like, 4 strippers in it, make make them sexist? I wouldn't agree with that. I jumped off a building in GTA just to see what would happen and crashed a helecoptor into a tank in BFBC2 just to see if I could eject from it and blow the tank up with C4 in mid air. People will do things just for the hell of it, not necessarily out of any perverse sexual desires. Give me a video of some guy beating up those hookers spewing sexist slurs and gak and yeah that guy probably fits Anita's bill, but the conclusions she attempts to draw from that bit are on the whole rather outlandish.
EDIT: Hell. I once played a game of CoD4 doing nothing but throwing flash bang grenades just to see what would happen (I got 4 kills, including a head shot )
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:01:45
jreilly89 wrote: Yeah, except people wearing red clothes =/= mysogyny. Claiming all non-important characters wear red shirts is way less of a "critical analysis" than claiming all games with this trope are mysogynistic.
You seem to be missing the point again. It is not about saying “These games are misogynistic”. It is about using games to show tropes that exists and are actually widespread. And then showing the problem with those tropes.
It is not one game being misogynistic, it is the prevalence of certain tropes being so. Very, very few games, when taken into a vacuum, could be considered misogynistic.
jreilly89 wrote: My point was if she can make wild claims without backing them up, so can I.
Yeah, okay. Nice to know.
jreilly89 wrote: b) I'm using it as comparison. I know it isn't what she claimed to do, but I'm using it as a comparable argument.
A comparable argument for what?
jreilly89 wrote: Tetris. Megaman. Bomberman. There are tons of classic games that refute this trope.
And tons that fits it. Ask a random person on the street to give you the most basic plot of old-school video game: go save the princess. Yeah, he is not going to give you the plot of Tetris or Bomberman, because there is none, or the plot of Megaman, because he does not even know the game exist. He is likely not going to give you the plot of Sonic either, even if he knows the game.
Why? Because even if neither the plot of Sonic, nor the plot of Megaman, nor the (non)plot of Tetris and Bomberman all do not have any damsel in distress, they do not have anything in common. Hence why even if only, say, only two out of every ten games (random numbers) include a damsel, we could still have the damsel as the most common trope in video game . That guy did not brought up “Save animals imprisoned into robots and big containers” because that is the plot of Sonic, and basically only Sonic. He will rather bring up something that is the plot of Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other games!
The other scenario that could come forward if “Alien are invading, kick them back to space”, I guess. But this feels less specific to video games.
jreilly89 wrote: Absolutely. But again, that includes CONTEXT. How do you know he was the first to die without context?
Uh? Because the person is telling you. If you do not trust her, just check it out. There is certainly no need to tell the whole story though.
jreilly89 wrote: Refusing to identify games that don't fit in nicely with her theory?
Okay, I want to make sure I understand you right. Your problem is that Anita has not mentioned that Tetris, Demolition Derby and Theme Hospital do not use the Damsel in Distress trope?
jreilly89 wrote: Guess what? Calling all men sexist makes you sexist.
Guess what? She never said that.
jreilly89 wrote: She claims developers are intentionally misogynystic
Can I have some first-hand reference here? Link to video and time?
You know, I do not identify with other gamers any more than I do identify with other moviegoers or music listener. Why do no one ever writes “Movie goers are X” and then have all the movie goers going berserk on him or her? Why do no one ever write about how music listeners are all anything?
I'm sorry, I refuse to continue to debate this ad nauseam. I have made several points with evidence and you disagree. You have made several points with little evidence and I disagree. I'm not continuing down this rabbit hole. It was fun for a few minutes, but this has grown tiresome. Can we just settle for differing opinions on her?
I don't believe the matter is so simple as "if you loose points then the game discourages it." OTOH, I don't think it is as simple as "if you can do it then the game encourages it." But in any case, Sarkeesian claimed that "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." I doesn't seem her argument has anything to do with a point mechanic one way or the other -- but rather just the availability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses.
No, it has to do with intent. By stating that players are meant to do something, she's claiming the designers intend for players to do something. Claiming that the designers intended for players to kill the strippers runs contrary to all evidence.
2014/08/29 17:56:57
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
I don't believe the matter is so simple as "if you loose points then the game discourages it." OTOH, I don't think it is as simple as "if you can do it then the game encourages it." But in any case, Sarkeesian claimed that "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." I doesn't seem her argument has anything to do with a point mechanic one way or the other -- but rather just the capability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses.
Good GOD Gary's Mod is some sick perverse gak.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/08/29 17:57:19
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Probably because that wouldn't evoke a Fight Club line.
Do you have an issue with the Max Payne 3 achievement "Something Wicked This Way Comes" because it refers to Max Payne as a thing rather than a person?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 17:59:06
2014/08/29 17:57:56
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Manchu wrote: But in any case, Sarkeesian claimed that "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters."
Except that's not what players are "meant" to do at all? That's what we're getting at. That's why it's dishonest. She's claiming an objective/goal that simply isn't there.
Hitman games have always been open in the way they allow you to approach your target (with Absolution being one of the weird exceptions being a far more linear game, but I digress). The fact that you can do a lot of different things (only kill your targets, kill everyone, kill no one, do not lethal runs, HTH-only runs, etc.) does not mean that each and every method of playing the game is something you're "meant" to do. Anita has cherry-picked something that's possible within the game and misrepresented it as the object of the game; the thing players are "meant" to do (when you're clearly not meant to do that, and anyone playing the game could tell you that).
For my part I killed just about everyone in that level because I was terrible at Absolution and for the first half of the game had to shoot my way through every level. But that's because I was bad about it, not because I was deriving some form of "perverse pleasure" in the "[desecration] of unsuspecting virtual female characters".
sirlynchmob wrote: He attacked her arguments and methodology of cherry picking to meet the narrative you're trying to present.
You already made that claim and I already responded to it.
Manchu wrote: It is not a sincere argument. It is a parody -- a caricature of feminists generally and explicitly an attempt to discredit Sarkeesian by falsely equating her arguments to nonsense.
That's what got us to this point:
Manchu wrote: I was actually referring to your argument that either I think that parody is sincere or I must think that men should be stabbed. Do you think that is a sincere argument.
So we have two people making an argument using the same methodology and research. Why do you label one a parody, and not the other? Why is just one attempting to discredit feminists in general, but the other isn't trying to discredit gamers in general?
Her arguments are nonsense, there is no false equating here. He used her arguments, which if her arguments were valid wouldn't have been possible. She has no research to support her claims, it's all just her opinion piece.
You even agreed it's a sincere argument here:
As to the idea that men are often portrayed as disposable in media and that men are considered disposable in everyday life, I think that is a real thing.
Yet this is a parody to you?
What is the more important issue here? the dehumanization of males leading to the call for them to be culled by 90% IRL, or that video games have men rescuing women? Where due to men who play female characters in MMOs, they actually become more supportive of equal rights as the see the problems some women face.
Isn't focusing on the feminists narrative really just more dehumanization of males? Especially when she has no facts to back up her arguments and anyone with a few minutes on google can find many sources that prove the opposite of what she says?
2014/08/29 17:59:41
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Chongara wrote: Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.
Well, Anita should have mentioned this rather than misrepresenting something from the game. I mean, if you are loosing point for killing the girls, you are not encouraged to do it, clearly.
That's a stronger statement than I think can really be made. Points are one reward the game can offer, so is just advancing the plot, letting you see near new areas, or doing these things in an easier or faster way than you could otherwise do. In order to be able to definitively say that the game discourages doing something it, that thing really has to fail on all those metrics, or at least on enough of them that a player would not see the action as more desirable than another within the framework of the game mechanics.
Like, if you get more points for letting some enemies spot you, but you can get through the level faster by killing them the game is encouraging you to kill them over not being spotted if your goal is expedience.
Having not played (and having no desire to play), a Hitman game I can't definitively make statement of how it works in those regards. However, from a design standpoint the things that can encourage players are somewhat complex. Speaking very broadly for games in general: For any given action simply docking the player in a single scoring metric within the game for taking that action is not sufficient to say that your game is not encouraging that action.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:03:16
2014/08/29 17:59:57
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
As mentioned, it's a Fight Club reference. Most achievements have oblique or direct references to other things. My personal fav is the "Bearly Legal" achievement from Red Dead Redemption, which you get for killing 18 bears!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:02:59
Manchu wrote: the capability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses
ALSO -- considering many prominent women (including Sarkeesian) have been the target of threats to this effect, I think it is reasonable to bring up that a video game allows the people to simulate carrying them out. The developers of Hitman were not forced to make hyper-sexualized female characters nor to make them potential targets of violence and desecration. These were choices. Someone had to say, "the players should be able to do this if they want to."
In Fight Club, "something" actually refers to things (or at most pandas) rather than persons. Unlike changing "barely" to "bearly" for killing bears for RDR, the developers of Hitman kept the reference to a "thing" and applied it to a woman. Yes, this is just a molehill and not a mountain. But there are millions of molehills.
Sigvatr wrote: I will just assume that you used that example as a hyperbole and not as a serious claim.
See above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:04:37
H.B.M.C. wrote: The reason I cannot stand Anita's videos is because of her intellectual dishonesty, cherry-picking and blatant (you could basically say deliberate) misrepresentation of the subject material to "prove" a point.
There is not a single thing in this post which is true.
In Fight Club, "something" actually refers to things (or at most pandas) rather than persons. Unlike changing "barely" to "bearly" for killing bears for RDR, the developers of Hitman kept the reference to a "thing" and applied it to a woman.
Manchu wrote: the capability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses
ALSO -- considering many prominent women (including Sarkeesian) have been the target of threats to this effect, I think it is reasonable to bring up that a video game allows the people to simulate carrying them out. The developers of Hitman were not forced to make hyper-sexualized female characters nor to make them potential targets of violence and desecration. These were choices. Someone had to say, "the players should be able to do this if they want to."
So essentially, it should just be normal females and males you kill and desecrate?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:06:43
2014/08/29 18:06:48
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Manchu wrote: In Fight Club, "something" actually refers to things (or at most pandas) rather than persons. Unlike changing "barely" to "bearly" for killing bears for RDR, the developers of Hitman kept the reference to a "thing" and applied it to a woman. Yes, this is just a molehill and not a mountain. But there are millions of molehills.
Except you're wrong.
In Fight Club, the line is spoken by Edward Norton after he's gone psycho and nearly killed Jared Leto.
2014/08/29 18:07:00
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
Manchu wrote: the capability to attack and kill hyper-sexualized female characters and then manipulate their corpses
ALSO -- considering many prominent women (including Sarkeesian) have been the target of threats to this effect, I think it is reasonable to bring up that a video game allows the people to simulate carrying them out. The developers of Hitman were not forced to make hyper-sexualized female characters nor to make them potential targets of violence and desecration. These were choices. Someone had to say, "the players should be able to do this if they want to."
It's a game about killing people, you have 20 missions to go through, yet Anita and yourself just want to focus on one small part of the game where if you watch the videos of the play through no one kills them. Why address something that is not a problem and no one does it?
They were not hyper-sexualized, they looked like strippers, and most strippers are hotter than the two in the game.
2014/08/29 18:07:53
Subject: Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
As to the idea that men are often portrayed as disposable in media and that men are considered disposable in everyday life, I think that is a real thing.
Yet this is a parody to you?
Yes. Why would the veracity of the point detract from the parody considering it is deployed not for the sake of its own veracity but rather in order to cast doubt on the arguments of a person who does not even disagree with it?
sirlynchmob wrote: Isn't focusing on the feminists narrative really just more dehumanization of males?
Chongara wrote: Looking at the achievements for Hitman I see an achievement for "Killing something beautiful", with an icon that depicts a woman in underwear and heels in the middle of removing her bra, supposedly attained for killing a character named Layla. In contrast to the achievements for killing the male characters, this seems to call a great deal of attention to the character's gender and sexuality.
Well, Anita should have mentioned this rather than misrepresenting something from the game. I mean, if you are loosing point for killing the girls, you are not encouraged to do it, clearly.
That's a stronger statement than I think can really be made. Points are one reward the game can offer, so is just advancing the plot, letting you see near new areas, or doing these things in an easier or faster way than you could otherwise do. In order to be able to definitively say that the game discourages doing something it, that thing really has to fail on all those metrics, or at least on enough of them that a player would not see the action as more desirable than another within the framework of the game mechanics.
Like, if you get more points for letting some enemies spot you, but you can get through the level faster by killing them the game is encouraging you to kill them over not being spotted if your goal is expedience.
Having not played (and having no desire to play), a Hitman game I can't definitively make statement of how it works in those regards. However, from a design standpoint the things that can encourage players are somewhat complex. Speaking very broadly for games in general: For any given action simply docking the player in a single scoring metric within the game for taking that action is not sufficient to say that your game is not encouraging that action.
-Game allows you to kill anyone.
-Game penalizes you by docking points and by leaving corpses for other NPCs to find.
-Game has setting in strip club.
-Strip Club usually has strippers. Usually.
-No strippers to be found in this strip club because killing strippers isn't right.
Still not seeing the reasons you can kill strippers?
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
2014/08/29 18:09:21
Subject: Re:Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats
ZebioLizard2 wrote: So essentially, it should just be normal females and males you kill and desecrate?
Let's be clear -- pointing out that a developer made a choice and that choice has problematic implications is not the same thing as saying "games should be like X instead."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: They were not hyper-sexualized, they looked like strippers
Really?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 18:09:54
Manchu wrote: ALSO -- considering many prominent women (including Sarkeesian) have been the target of threats to this effect, I think it is reasonable to bring up that a video game allows the people to simulate carrying them out. The developers of Hitman were not forced to make hyper-sexualized female characters nor to make them potential targets of violence and desecration. These were choices. Someone had to say, "the players should be able to do this if they want to."
Ok.
1. "Hyper-sexualised"? Where do you get that from? They are certainly sexual, given that they are strippers working in a strip club. That's completely in context, not gratuitous in the slightest, and does not sit above any other part of the game as being out of place for the location, story or anything else (that would be the Saints, which as I said is a different story altogether).
2. You can do this to everyone (/Gary Oldman) in the game, not just these women. It is dishonest to misrepresent this specific part of the game (as noted, a very small part of one mission out of twenty), as some great indicator of "women as decoration".
3. I very much doubt that anyone in the design team for that game specifically said that there should be a choice that allows players to "desecrate women". That's daft. You can drag around anyone's body in that game, not just those two specific strippers. Moving bodies is part of the game, as you have to hide the guards/targets and whatnot you take out to avoid detection. At no point does that turn into some strange way of deriving "perverse pleasure".
So, again, Anita is pushing a falsehood to prove a point.
)
. That guy did not brought up “Save animals imprisoned into robots and big containers” because that is the plot of Sonic, and basically only Sonic. He will rather bring up something that is the plot of Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other games!
~1.5k
