Depictions of Women in Gaming (and other related issues)

[Koopaul]

Well StarSocks says "no" to censorship, so I think we all agree on that.

Also we went a whole day without any problems! I just worry too much.

[Kriven]

Sorry, that was really unclear. I didn't really mean reduction in number but reduction in overall ratio. Like, if 70% of games included pandering, then reducing that number to 40% of games (such as by increasing the number of non-pandering games)

Oh, I see.

That's not an issue at all then, because it would be reflecting the current creative trends as opposed to enforced things.

Sorry I didn't understand x.x;

Also we went a whole day without any problems! I just worry too much.

[Koopaul]

Freaking math. No one said there would be math .

[StarSock64]

I guess what I'm confused about now is how exactly we're defining censorship?

I was thinking about it in a pretty strict sense, but I'm not really against people openly criticizing creations or diverting their money from projects that represent ideas they don't agree with. Saying people can't try to shame a game via text/speech is sort of like trading one form of censorship for another, yeah? So what exactly is it that you guys don't think people should do? Do you think this type of discouragement is bad?

I guess I see how it could be because it might freak creators out and make them keep with safe decisions so that people don't flip out on them. But at the same time, putting pressure on creators to try to be more responsible doesn't sound too bad.

[Kriven]

I usually define censorship as a set of standards enforced by a governing body.

But I also feel like there's a form of social censorship which heavily involves, as you mentioned, shaming. I feel like there's a distinction between shaming and constructive criticism, y'know? Shaming makes me think of fire and brimstone (and honestly, a lot of reviews are less than civil).

I guess I'm looking at it more from a "Death of the Author" perspective, where I feel like there should be a separation for where criticism is directed. I feel like criticism should be directed more at the work itself than at the person or people behind it. The same for consumers. I really don't think it's right for one consumer to shame another for having a different purchasing preference.

Provided it isn't something absolutely ridiculous like child porn. That's a whole different ball park.

[Koopaul]

Yeah well anything that violates an individual while making it is a whole different ball park! In the realm of fantasy things can be really grey morally.

I remember how controversial that one Call of Duty was. The one where you gun down an entire airport full of innocent people? I must say I was incredibly uncomfortable watching my friend play it. That was a turning point that made me question these thing about video games. There's no simple answer to be sure.

[Devicho]

I'm exhausted and I had a really awful day today, so while I want to throw some input it, it might be less coherent than I'd like it to be and I'm going to try to cut things a bit short so that I don't leak any anger into it. Apologies if I accidentally bring up something that has been mentioned before.

If you ask me, if okay to like something that may have problematic aspects. It's just very important to be aware of what may be problematic, and why. For example, it's okay to like the previously-mentioned Ivy. Different strokes for different folks, after all. It's just important to be knowledgeable and critical of the media you consume. Like, when Tom mentioned her one alt costume, where she is dressed in a feminine manner but isn't scantily clad. I also really like that costume! She isn't overly sexualized, it looks appropriate enough for someone who is expected to have some combat ability, and so on! Her regular recent costumes, however... well, in a fight (especially with weapons), her ass would be killed. There's so much skin exposed for the sake of sexual appeal that it throws all practicality out the window. And then (I don't know much about the series canon so I'm going by what I read in this topic) if you take into account how she apparently is under a vow of chastity, why is she dressed like she was supposed to be on a porn set but wound up in combat instead? It doesn't seem to make any sense for the character if this is true.

Secondly, one has to be aware that there is a difference between portraying women as sexual objects, and as sexual beings. Let's say Alice is a character in this hit new video game. Alice could possibly be pretty open about her sexuality, and has wants and desires. Alice might wear somewhat more revealing clothing, but it makes sense for her character and for the setting. She also has more to her characterization than her sexuality. Maybe she's outgoing in other aspects of her life, maybe she's less outgoing for reasons that make sense, or hell maybe she dresses more provocatively due to other reasons; maybe her backstory involved something that may have made her ashamed of her body, and dressing in a way that shows it off may be one way she makes herself comfortable and comes to realize that her body isn't something to be ashamed of. Who knows? Either way, I personally would not mind a character like Alice in a game even with her appearance being the way it is.

One of the heroines of a rival game, Mary, however, is clearly created to appeal to a straight male audience. She wears skimpy clothes, but there's no real rhyme or reason for it. It doesn't suit her character, as nothing about her character suggests she would actually want to dress this way. Her clothes don't even suit the setting; she may for example be meant as a character to use in combat settings, but her outfit leaves half her body vulnerable. Her characterization mainly centers around her sexuality--or at least her physical appearance--to the point where nothing interesting remains if you were to take that away. So on and so forth. If I were to pick between these two heroines, I would much rather play the game with Alice in it, because it feels like she is her own being, and not just an object to be gazed upon, and maybe I can even connect with Alice on some level.

Hopefully I've gotten my point across well enough.

[StarSock64]

I guess I'm looking at it more from a "Death of the Author" perspective, where I feel like there should be a separation for where criticism is directed. I feel like criticism should be directed more at the work itself than at the person or people behind it. The same for consumers. I really don't think it's right for one consumer to shame another for having a different purchasing preference.

I think if this was just a few months ago I would probably disagree, but I've been having second thoughts about this sort of thing. On the one hand, I've seen developers say really stupid and bad things, and I think they should be held accountable when they do. I realize that's sort of a different issue, though. Also, it's not like games come about by magic, so it feels intuitive that the creators should be held accountable. But the more I think about it, the less trying to shame creators seems like it solves anything. So yeah, I think I agree.

I don't particularly like the consumers shaming consumers thing either. I guess it's preferable to be responsible with where you put your finances, but...I think it's pretty harsh to try to keep other people from enjoying what they like. Trying to make them understand why the thing they buy might have some problems is totally cool though. If they're too stubborn to even recognize that there might be problems, then I can understand why this thing would escalate (but that doesn't mean it should).

I guess both of your points kind of tie in with the thing I said about intimidating creators out of even trying because of fear of shaming. It seems to me like criticizing works and not as much the people might be better for trying to encourage better products, since that's what C+C tends to do for improvement of any sort anyway.

I can understand why someone might want to shame people...heh heh...Anger, for one thing, but also because of a desire to want to show people that that sort of thing is unacceptable. I'm not really convinced that this has practical benefits, though. I could just be too lax about the whole thing. Like, I guess part of what's brought feminist issues to the forefront is the "fire and brimstone" of it all, as Kriven put it...but I sort of feel like we've come to a point where that mentality might be doing more harm than good. I'm not too sure about that.

[Koopaul]

I understand Devicho's point but I also believe that all entities in a video game could be considered objects.

For example, if a character was designed to be squashed on sight, he is an object to be stomped.



He's a simple thing, designed for a simple purpose. All entities within a video game are created to convey an emotional reaction from the player. Whether it's a deep emotional connection, or a simple reaction. "Stomp it!"

Everything we see in a video game is a stimulus, what that stimulus is depends on the creator. But when you really break things down, these things really are all objects to be judged and reacted to. That's just how I see it. I understand things can get pretty meta fast.

[Devicho]

You're bringing up something that really isn't the same, however. A generic enemy isn't quite the same thing as a unique character, who because they're a unique character is expected to have some... character, to be frank. Also, there is a difference between objectifying a Goomba, which is a fictional species, and objectifying a woman, which exist in real life and will probably be playing these games and seeing this treatment of their gender.

[Koopaul]

But that was just a basic example. It happens to all characters. Of all classes of all genders.


A human being was just reduced to a thing for me to torture for my amusement. Think about that. And just like in real life, torture and violence happens. It's not right. So why should it exist in a video game?

EDIT: You know what, this has taken a somewhat odd turn. I'm going to be a little more careful now.

Sorry.

[StarSock64]

There's still a big difference between NPCs and character-you're-actually-meant-to-care-about, though. The latter you relate with and have emotions for, and maybe you'll even cry for them when something sad happens! They tend to say something about the human experience, and they "speak" to you when they're done well. The former? You're not really meant to care about because it's not a developed character, which is just a consequence of the fact that you can't concentrate on all characters.

Torture and violence in video games aren't particularly oppressive to any group. Well, it can be, and in that case that's not cool, but typically you just go kill stuff without discrimination.

[Gors]

I see that the thread had touched in the 'games have violence but we aren't violent; so sexist games don't make us sexist' line of thought, so I guess I'd give my last two cents to develop upon it.

Death or violence in games, such as throwing bombs at enemies to blow them up, or mincing them like beef, is not as bad compared to the latter. My reasoning is that 9 times out of 10, you need to do it against a minor character who serves as a threat. This is further emphasized when the enemies are 'inherently bad', such as evil cyborgs, aliens and thieves. The killing in games is usually given a reason (be scoring, or progressing in the game) and it's part of the fun. Alas, in the games you are in the shoes of a highly trained assassin, or ninja, or any superhero of some sort. It would suck if there were no physical depiction of you serving a hot steaming plate of justice in their faces.

The above example is just a single example in a sea of games, so it might not be fitting to every game ever. But, here you see that the violence has a reason: it's part of the story and/or gameplay, and a very very clear depiction of that you are surviving, and killing the threats. It's a very intuitive and even instinctive design. But of course, excessive violence is bad for me, and I don't think it's cool to have gibs and blood everywhere for shock value. I also think that it can be a really cheap design just to attract the edgy diapered babies who think they're hardcore. So, it's all a matter of context (yet again).

Now, as for sexist things in games, well, they don't really make someone who has a decent mindset sexist; but it is insulting to people. You see, you could probably argue that insulting is less worse than outright killing in an excessive graphic manner, but as I said before, killing is often part of the gameplay, so there is a reason for that. There is a reason death is programmed into the games, and when making an action game, chances are you'll need to deal with violence towards some of the characters one way or the other.

Insulting, though, isn't part of the gameplay. There are not a lot of redeeming factors to make use of _ist ideology in games, and this reflects in my thought. You can actively choose whether your female protagonist will be a solid character or fanservice bait. And by acknowledging it, it only makes your choice to the latter worse, because you are given an option to do something cool and yet you resort to shallow characters for quick interest of a select group of people.

Finally, it's never good to be so black-or-white when making comparisions; You can't pick an example and think it's the 'default choice'. This only ends up creating faulty and bad arguments than actively discussing things. Not that everyone here is doing it, it's just a friendly reminder. Have fun discussing!

[MoneyMan]

re:"Video games don't cause killing, why would they cause sexism"
In short, because people know killing is bad.

In fact, it's less they cause sexism and more that they reinforce a sexist society that was already there. A lot of times, people don't know that sexism reaches beyond saying "GRR WOMEN ARE WORTHLESS," and is instead part of a giant unfair system females are stuck in. By being witness to objectifying and degrading media, a system is reinforced in people's minds that "WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS, AND SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE THIS," with no voice in their head saying "no, women should be treated better than this." People who make media have been fed these sexist messages, and thus with their media they feed such messages back to society. It's a vicious cycle, and it can only be broken when someone realizes "hey, this ain't right."

For killing, on the other hand, there's always a voice throughout society that says "KILLING IS BAD." This is reinforced throughout all media, we hear it again and again that killing is bad. When a hero does kill, the victim is typically either not a human, or an unsympathetic, almost dehumanized "bad guy," thus trivializing the killing. "Killing" in such situations isn't even treated as "killing," but instead as "stopping." If you kill a "good guy," however, you're either a villain or a hero who had to undergo some sort of tragedy to be brought to this point. Media don't cause killing, but they reinforce a societal system that trivializes violence and killing. With it, a HUGE problem comes in when people think of a group as a "bad guy."

[Sengir]

But I also feel like there's a form of social censorship which heavily involves, as you mentioned, shaming. I feel like there's a distinction between shaming and constructive criticism, y'know? Shaming makes me think of fire and brimstone (and honestly, a lot of reviews are less than civil).

I guess I'm looking at it more from a "Death of the Author" perspective, where I feel like there should be a separation for where criticism is directed. I feel like criticism should be directed more at the work itself than at the person or people behind it.

Honestly if a developer is a sexist shitbag I'm gonna call him out for being a sexist shitbag.