Ab56 v2 aka Ash

Can you rely on people not having a relationship with these characters? The whole point of a game is to be interactive. If a little girl can feel frustrated enough with Donkey Kong to want to play as Pauline instead of Jumpman/Mario, doesn't that suggest that in some way, she is identifying with the characters and has a relationship with them? If there is such a relationship, there should to be greater creative responsibility in the gaming medium as to what sorts of images developers feed their consumers, even with games as "reductive" as what you're describing. That doesn't mean distilling games into generic, "politically correct" plots with uninteresting characters--which no one in this suggested we should have, by the way. It does mean getting developers to think in ways that are more creative and would ultimately result in many games with different sorts of characters, thus diluting the damsel in distress' prevalence. This sort of cheerleading adds absolutely nothing to the discussion in this thread. If you have nothing to contribute or dislike the thread, don't post in it. I don't post on this forum often, but I'd prefer if we could get a decent conversation in when I do.

I agree that the IGN page is more of a symptom that reinforces the problem rather than a root cause of pervasive patriarchy, though I don't think anyone said otherwise. I'm really not sure how mentioning this IGN page on some random Internet discussion forum as an example of how bad this problem is would actually harm any progress. Personally, I think it's especially important to point out examples like that when we seem to have so many people here who don't think there is a problem in the first place, or seriously disagree as to the scope of it. If a solution to the root problem is born, it's not going to be born on OCReMix forums. Now if Anita Sarkeesian, who has the public's attention and a wide audience, were to start attacking advertisers, I would be more inclined to agree. But she hasn't been prescribing solutions yet.

Is the argument here that IGN is immune from criticism because it's appealing to advertisers to make a profit? Because I wouldn't allow them to get off that easy. They should come under even greater scrutiny to the point where it becomes unprofitable to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Why is it only sexist against one gender and not both? As a man, I'm offended at the idea that a man in tights is somehow less of a man than one wearing a utility belt. However, I wouldn't deny that the whole page basically leaves women out of the equation entirely, as though women cannot be gamers.

Here is another really shitty thing as far as women and gaming go: http://corp.ign.com/

This is a really bad derail and you should feel bad. If you really care about what happened to the $160k, take it up on her Facebook page. That conversation will go absolutely nowhere here and isn't about video games anyway.

The Damsels in Distress video is split into at least two parts. I believe it was said she is going to cover more modern games in the next part. Context is everything, and I feel you are ignoring the context of the vast majority of games using the DiD trope rather than having women saving men or anything like that. Can you support this point with evidence? I am unconvinced that things are almost equal now.

Frankly, she has done a lot to generate interest and discussion about changing gender roles in gaming. More people are talking about this topic now than I've ever seen before. In addition to these videos, she gives talks at conferences and does interviews in magazines. I think some level of self-promotion is actually good, because it gives her a greater platform to speak about these creativity issues where the developers might actually pay attention. But I digress--why are we attacking her as a person again? Isn't this thread about video games?

I think the point is to generate awareness and discussion so that in the future, developers would think to create characters with greater variety when it comes to gender roles. She didn't ask to retroactively change all these games, nor did she ask for some sort of quota or a specific way to depict characters.

You're misrepresenting my point. Anita never "proposed" that games should be created in a particular way. She pointed out a notable, common phenomenon of how women are being treated, gave her perspective at times, and let the viewer draw their own conclusions as to what should be done with that observation and perspective. If I recall correctly, she was careful not to prescribe a remedy. Regarding your point about there being no market for games that portray women better, I'm just going to quote myself on a point you apparently agreed with, because it addresses what you're saying completely and has not been challenged: ThunderF00t's video is garbage.

By the way, this also happened: http://www.polygon.com/2013/3/17/4115548/animator-creates-mod-to-make-zelda-the-heroine-of-the-legend-of-zelda

I don't know why we are still talking about the ThunderF00t response. I picked it apart a few pages ago, and no one challenged most of what I said. We probably shouldn't talk past each other, lest anyone thinks that video is anything more than a bad joke.

Yeah, but I'm saying it really doesn't matter. There are different ways of looking at these subjects and reaching different conclusions through these perspectives. Ms. Sarkeesian looked at it from a women's perspective. If the topic was Tropes vs. Men, maybe she would have focused on how patriarchy affects men in this medium. But that wasn't the topic. More importantly, we are not focused on specific intent to be sexist; we are concerned that the prevalence of certain images will influence people to think in a certain way that sets women back. I don't think we know exactly what her money has gone to, but it's irrelevant. It's her prerogative to use that money however she wants as long as it's in the scope of her project. If she finds her method of advocacy more effective in promoting the kind of change she may hope to achieve, then she can use her money on that. Why does this even matter anyway? It's a personal attack rather than a response to one of her arguments. It's a completely unfair point for him to make because it is stated very clearly on her Kickstarter page that this is only one part of one episode in a full series, the topics of which she has expressly listed. We know she's going to cover positive gaming images. Thus, it makes no sense to say she's moving the goal posts. It also makes little sense to condemn an entire series based on one episode when the rest of it isn't even out yet to more fully develop the themes. If anything is clear, it's that this guy is guilty of exactly what he is accusing Ms. Sarkeesian of: poor research on his discussion topic.

Okay, well I watched the whole video and deconstructed it. It is another bad criticism for the following reasons: 1. The video spends a long time focusing on one example Ms. Sarkeesian used and the fact that the kidnapped woman punched a big guy in the groin at the end. He bemoans this point about how caring for others is natural, which Ms. Sarkeesian never even implicitly disputed. The whole point of pointing out the DiD trope, which this video maker missed, is that this one game stands in the context of hundreds of others in which this trope is the dominant image of how women are depicted in the medium. This guy really didn't get what the video is about. 2. Patriarchy harms men and Ms. Sarkeesian never said it didn't. This is a false equivalency anyway, as if to say patriarchy affects men and women in the same way. 3. Developers choosing to create products a certain way to appeal to a market does not make them immune from criticism when the results are a problematic portrayal. If it was profitable to use black face caricatures, that would not make their use less reprehensible. The gaming market has changed dramatically since the 1980s anyway, and the developers have not adapted as well as they could. Ms. Sarkeesian is pointing out one reason why she thinks that is, and developers are free to do with that information what they will. In the 1980s, 20% of gamers were female. Now 50% are, and the age range has changed a lot. Moreover, it's really unclear to what extent the developers have defined their own market through the types of games, plots and characters they have made. 4. He is telling Ms. Sarkeesian to go create a game with positive images if she wants to promote change. It's patently ridiculous to task critics with personally fixing everything they critique. 5. Fifteen minutes in, he starts talking about her master's thesis, like the guy in the other video. Do these people have no legitimate arguments, so they need to pick at something irrelevant? 6. He says that Ms. Sarkeesian constantly moves the goal posts to paint women as the victims no matter what. If this were true, why does she plan to do a whole video about positive video game characters? 7. At the end he starts off on this overly drawn on point about why women are physically weaker and the difference between scientific research and feminist research. This is a really dumb point for two reasons: (a) it's clear that when Ms. Sarkeesian talks about women being portrayed as "weak," she means "weak-willed," not merely physically weak, and ( the creator of this video acknowledges himself at the very beginning that Ms. Sarkeesian is a pop culture critic, not a scientist. She is focusing on learned attitudes, not physical differences that may or may not exist. Unless this guy has a masters or higher in sociology, or some other established credentials, I'm not sure why he is somebody we need to be listening to more intently than Ms. Sarkeesian anyway.

Okay, I am persuaded that Terra isn't a particularly problematic character, though I think Swifthom's points are valid. Thanks Vilecat and Monobrow. Malaki, you don't have to be a jerk just to make a point. I am open to changing my mind upon hearing well-reasoned arguments.

Celes maybe. Terra's whole schtick was being helpless or otherwise in need of male characters to take care of her for half the game. But I guess that's made less problematic because Celes provides more of a contrast.

Not that I necessarily agree with this overly narrow idea of yours, what you described is pretty much exactly what's happened in nearly all Mario games. Here's a question I'm curious about: can anyone think of an example of a positively portrayed female video game protagonist who isn't mute (NPCs don't count)? 'Cause I can't.

I think those games are fine and good to have. I haven't played those specific games so I'm not sure how story or character intensive they are. The more troublesome games are the ones where there is more of a narrative and the developers give the protagonist a lot more character. In those sorts of games, we should look at how women are being characterized in particular. It can be difficult to write, but I think it would help if female game characters were written to be actual people with motivations that didn't weren't implicitly tied into their gender. That is, a person who just happens to be a woman rather than a woman whose character is defined purely by her stereotypically feminine characteristics. Of course, I don't mean to say that we need to strip female characters of their gender attributes completely. That wouldn't be helpful at all in creating better female characters. It's tricky business and I'm glad I'm not a writer.

Sweet, thank you for splitting the thread, Darkesword. Dexie: I think it would help if we didn't categorize thing as "definitely sexist" or "definitely not sexist," not to say anyone's necessarily doing that here. I don't believe we can always be clear-cut about it, but we can make the argument that some factors can make a game more or less problematic as far as sexism is concerned. Here, I would say that the context of Super Princess Peach being the first real game to star a female character in this franchise, and having her abilities tied to her emotional state leans toward being more problematic. Being overly emotional or "hysterical" is often a trait negatively associated with women, so a casual observer might connect these dots together and infer that the developers are suggesting something inappropriate about women and their emotions. This is true whether or not the other characters use emotion-based powers. Of course, none of that invalidates that Peach is saving Mario and Luigi in this game rather than the other way around. That is a positive element of the game for sure. However, I do think that initial emotion-based power factor leans more in favor of a problematic portrayal of women than not.

I think Peach is pretty problematic, and you don't. Anita probably used Peach and Zelda specifically because they do have some issues in her view and they are the biggest names in gaming. We've already laid out our reasons for why we think our respective ways, so I think we should move on and discuss other examples. May I ask what examples of sexism and/or misogyny in gaming you think are especially bad?

You could have fooled me. Half the thread seems to refuse to agree that there is a problem. Identifying a problem generates discussion and invites different perspectives to look at the problem so it actually can be solved. There are innumerable ways to tackle this problem--maybe none of them perfect--but we will never hear any of them if no one talks about the issue in the first place.

No one argued this; I only laid out what the effects were. I can't say I know the best solution, but I can certainly identify the problem.

No one's really making the argument you're contesting in your second point so I'm going to leave that alone, since I agree. Your third point lends to the idea that these characters are either meant to be interpreted, or nonetheless will be interpreted by the audience precisely because they have such little characterization. I was never concerned with what developers actively intended so much as the actual effects of their actions, so your first point doesn't really matter. Young girls consume games and other media and look for characters to see as role models. Many girls often pick the ones they identify with, because they happen to be the same gender. For example, in this very thread someone linked a video in which a little girl wanted to play as Pauline in Donkey Kong, a character she identified with more than the male character. However, the vast majority of Mario games don't offer that opportunity and instead only feature female characters that are more like props than something young girls want to be like. That makes the games feel more exclusive and intended for male enjoyment, and that's what the problem is at its heart. I would not agree that games like Super Mario RPG are free of huge flaws. They do relegate Peach, the only girl, to a support role and she's getting rescued half the time. That's not to say the game doesn't have its good points, but really, very few Mario games seem to actually delve into this characterization anyway.

I've been constantly backing up my assertions with my reasoning in this thread while you guys have given me virtually nothing but pithy one-liners that don't really explain what your point of criticism is. It would be an insult to the word "critique" to say that's what you're doing. I really don't appreciate having to bend over backwards to intuit what you're getting at and then mounting arguments against it. I have a generally good idea of the franchise I'm talking about, which is enough. If you really think I don't, provide specific examples as to why my reasoning is bad and make a point. So far you haven't actually addressed anything I've said at all. This is not an actual discussion.

That's enough. It's clear to me that you are more interested in trolling than actually contributing anything of value to this thread, so I'm not going to engage you further.