Tensei

So what's your point?

I think we have a different understanding of the term then. I don't think sexism implicitly refers to very overt, intentionally malicious actions (the terms usually reserved for that are misandry/misogyny). To me, it literally just means treating someone differently based on their gender. In that sense, even inconspicuous actions such as holding a door open for a girl can be sexist, though they're probably not particularly harmful by themselves. That's what I meant when I said that sexism is very insidious; everyone has probably done something like that in the past, but it doesn't automatically make them a bad person or anything. Ultimately, however, it's all the tiny little things that add up and shape society as a whole, which can eventually result in some nasty incidents such as the harassment Anita got for making this series, or the 'feminist whore' in Dead Island.

Well, for one you call me 'genius' in a sarcastic fashion, and then you imply that I have too much spare time. Seems pretty personal from where I'm standing! I mean, it's not like you HAVE to explain yourself if you don't actually have an adequate argument to back up what you said earlier, but if you're going to join an online discussion it might help to think things through before you post! You definitely seem pretty eager to steer things away from what you said in your initial post, so I'll let it slide.

Why are you going for a personal attack instead of just explaining what you're talking about? It makes me think that you haven't really thought things through before posting. If you put your opinion out there you are pretty much consenting to have it scrutinized, and your initial post seemed a lot like a strawman argument, so I was interested in figuring out what you exactly meant.

Why do you want me to argue against someone? I commented on the video, genius. Okay? But here's what you said: "Well, I guess it's so worth it to denounce video games because it's totally helping to achieve gender equality in real world." Nobody in this thread even claimed anything similar so who does that refer to? Who are the people denouncing video games?

Who are you even trying to argue against here? Anyway, the issue I'd have with that vid is that 1. The woman in the scene is generally pretty realistically proportioned, in contrast to the monsters Kratos usually fights. I don't really have a problem with the brutality itself, but the imagery of Kratos bashing a womans head into a wall and stomping on her face is kind of disturbing to me because it brings to mind other things such as domestic violence. 2. The achievement name is just lazy and dumb. There are a million of other puns/references you could use to describe what happens in the video, but instead they essentially choose to go with "ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED: CURBSTOMPED A WOMAN". Sure, Kratos brutally murders plenty of men, but I can't recall a single instance of unlocking an achievement with a gender reference in the title afterwards.

The thing is, sexism doesn't have to be intentional (neither does racism) to be considered sexism, but it's hard to talk about the 'milder' examples because it's so insidious. If a job interviewer, without realizing, hires more men than women in spite of their equal qualifications, he's not being actively malicious (since he doesn't even realize it), but he is being sexist. You're right that there's a distinction between the hero's perspective and the player's perspective, but that is where to me the problem lies. In older games where the plot and characters really aren't expanded upon, we as the players don't actually know why Mario wants to save Princess Toadstool, because she doesn't really appear or do anything in the game. The way the game presents it really is just "X got stolen from you, go retrieve it/her", and that's where the problem lies.

Yeah, let's start talking about the semantic definition of the word 'semantic', cause this thread didn't have its head up its ass far enough yet. You questioning another person about their definition of the word 'rights' absolutely is semantic. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion that men and women are naturally entitled to equal rights. There, solved, we can move on.

Would you mind not derailing the thread with semantics? If you think a discussion on innate rights and morality is interesting, maybe you can make a PPR thread about it, but there's no point in harassing a person over the definition of a word. There is a certain distinction between saving a person in real life and saving a person within a story. As a story element, it will always have some kind of significance because A. it's a common element in tons of stories throughout history, so it carries certain cultural connotations, and B. Unlike in real life, a writer has full creative control over the story elements, so everything that happens in a story, happens with a reason. So, obviously it's not INNATELY degrading. However, as a story element it carries some unfortunate connotations that tend to make me wary if a contemporary game plays it completely straight, because it simply reeks of insensitivity and lazy writing.

Nobody is saying that writers should be forced to keep an exact 50/50 quota on male/female rescue missions. The goal of these videos isn't the creation and enforcement of some arbitrary rules or quotas on videogame writers, but an attempt to generate awareness within the community, so it will hopefully 'fix' itself. I'd wager that 99% of the appearances of the damsel in distress aren't in any way intended to be malicious, but really are just a perpetuation of age-old gender roles that exist in the collective consciousness. In many ways it's also a call on writers to stop being lazy. It's SOMEWHAT excusable in NES games where a throwaway plot was the norm, but what I've been trying to say in my previous posts is that by repeatedly using the trope and playing it completely straight, it does perpetuate some harmful stereotypes. Of course it's not so bad on a case-by-case basis, and of course it's not a huge deal that Mario has to save Princess Toadstool, but all the little things eventually start adding up and lead to genuinely awful things like the recent fighting game community incident. Jovian, if you want to see what I think is a good and refreshing example of a guy saving a girl in a videogame, read what I posted about Prince of Persia a few posts up.

Prince of Persia 2008 handles this amazingly. Throughout the game you have a flying female companion called Elika. Ironically, SHE is typically saving YOU if you miss a jump or fail a QTE. Aside from that, she and the prince have pretty typical snarky back and forth banter, but they inevitably end up falling for each other. Since it happens over a relatively long period of time (that is, the entirety of the game), and they actually go through a lot of ordeals together, the way in which their relationship develops is relatively believable. One of the key moments is when one of the bosses uses magic to conceal Elika from you, and you have to make a leap of faith off the tower in the hopes that she saves you. The ultimate goal of the game is to seal up the evil god Ahriman, but at the end Elika reveals that *SPOILERS* she has to sacrifice herself in order to achieve that goal. Being fully committed to the cause, she goes through with this, but Ahriman promises the prince that he can bring her back if he undoes the seals again. This is not done through a cinematic, but the game actually makes you walk to each seal yourself. And then it ends. So it's basically a complete subversion of the archetype. The prince 'saves' the girl by bringing her back from the dead against her will, and in doing so unleashes the evil god that they both were trying to stop for the entire game. Okay, but what does that have to do with what I said? Again, my point is that Princess Toadstools only purpose in the game is to provide a motive for Mario to go through the levels. She doesn't really do anything outside of...existing and getting kidnapped. That's a role that can be filled by any desirable object, so the fact that they're using a female character for it is objectifying.

Well, no... either you misunderstand my point or we have a very different understanding on the capabilities of wrenches. Mario still actually does things like running, jumping, throwing fireballs etc. Princess Toadstool only exists as a motivator for Mario to defeat Bowser, she doesn't actually do anything outside of that, that's why she's interchangeable with any kind of inanimate object that would be important to Mario, such as a golden wrench (since he's a plumber). Hence, objectification. But those are all informed attributes of the objects that aren't actually expanded on within the game itself. Sure, I can buy that Mario as a character cares about saving Princess Toadstool if that's what the manual says, but I as a player have far less motivation, because again, she doesn't actually do anything in the game that would make me personally care about her as a character. Let's say that Mario has to retrieve the golden wrench or Bowser will use it to destroy/take over Mushroom Kingdom. That would definitely make it a big motivator for Mario, but again, for me as a player that's just another informed attribute of the MacGuffin that doesn't really serve any purpose within the game itself. What I'm saying is that if you have a very simplistic plot like that, a non-character such as Princess Toadstool is entirely interchangeable with an inanimate object for the purpose of player motivation. All the stuff about Toadstool being Mario's love interest, Mario really liking his golden wrench, or having to stop Bowser from destroying the world is basically fluff that has little bearing on what happens within the game.

I don't think the relation between the character and the DiD really matters. The objectification does not come from the fact that the woman happens to be the protagonists wife/girlfriend, but from the fact that you could simply replace them with a valuable object in terms of plot significance, a.k.a. a MacGuffin. In Super Mario Bros, Mario could just as well be trying to retrieve his golden wrench or something, and the game wouldn't change at all. For the purposes of the game and the protagonists primary motivator, Princess Toadstool very much *is* treated as Mario's property which was stolen away from him. I also don't think that whatever justification the writers come up with for the villains/protagonists motivations matters: these aren't real characters, and the writers have absolute creative control, so they can write them in any way they want. The fact that they choose to go for a damsel in distress-type plot in the first place should really say enough. As for Zelda, in a lot of games she is far more nuanced and interesting than, say, Princess Peach. The problem there is that in spite of all her competence and powers, she almost always has to be saved anyway.

You are FREE to say what you want, and I am FREE to call you out on it. You are also FREE to talk about, say, neurosurgery, but that doesn't mean that you are QUALIFIED to talk about it. See the difference? Your statement was literally "I don't think gaming excludes or pushes women away." That isn't an opinion, but a statement of fact, even if you happen to add "I think". Since you weren't being specific and generalized all games and women, I just have to point to a single instance where a woman felt excluded or otherwise pushed away from a game to prove you wrong.

But I'm not even saying that there aren't any games that drive away men. Why are you bringing that up? My point is that Brandon isn't a woman, therefore he's not really qualified to say "Well, I don't think games drive away women."

The fact that 'Check your privilege' is a stock phrase for strawman feminists doesn't diminish my point: If you're not part of a minority, you're inherently less qualified to be speaking for that minority. That's the whole point of privilege. I'm a white heterosexual guy who has never been on the receiving end of neither racism or sexism. Does that mean that racism/sexism don't exist? No. Anita Sarkeesian says that certain games drive away women? Well guess what, she's a woman, so SHE WOULD KNOW.

I'm not being defensive, I made a snarky remark about Brandon not checking his privilege. By which I mean that being a guy, you're probably less qualified to make calls on whether games are appealing to the other gender. I didn't even comment on the statement that the damsel in distress archetype is okay because twilight is popular (what?)

I think the purpose of these videos is less about pointing fingers and more to just bring this kind of stuff to peoples attention. You're right that you can't just tell companies to stop doing those things because they're ultimately out for money, but what you can do is create awareness, and I feel like that's exactly what she's trying to do. Also, how does 3DS popularity equate to cultural relevance? What cultural relevance means is that gaming is 'growing up' as a medium in its own right. Just look at the growth of esports, the increase in indepth meta-discussions on the medium (20 years ago nobody would have asked "Can videogames be considered art?") as well as an increase in social awareness and reflection among the videogame community (evidenced by this video series itself, as well as similar shows such as Extra Credits). Then there's the ubiquitously recognizable icons and mascots such as Mario and Sonic, indie games, smartphone gaming, kickstarters, people who pull in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year creating virtual clothing for videogame characters. In short, gaming becoming serious business. That's what is meant by cultural relevance. I'm sure you, being woman, would know all about that, right?

Look, nobody is complaining about the fact that they tried to do something different with the game or give Samus more depth as a character, but the problem is that none of the changes actually improved the game. Resident Evil 4 was a huge departure from previous games, but almost everything they changed was for the better, and still holds up as my favorite game in the series. What I'm saying is that if you're going to retcon or otherwise change integral aspects of a game, you had better have a DAMN GOOD EXCUSE to do so. Other M does not. Also, note that pretty much all the complaints pertain to the plot, characters and writing. For example, when she finally comes face to face with Ridley, she starts crying, freezes up, and has to be saved by someone else. This is pretty much a 100% against established canon (She has fought Ridley multiple times before at that point, and is an experienced bounty hunter used to working solo), so it places extra emphasis on the significance of this scene. So what are the writers trying to say here? That when push comes to shove, women turn into blubbering messes and have to be bailed out by big strong men? This particular scene is even more damning if you consider that Samus' femininity is constantly brought up as one of the central themes of the game: if you're trying to make some kind of profound statement on gender/femininity, why would you include such an awful scene? Another huge issue I and many others have with this game is that it changed the relation between player and avatar for really no reason. If you think about it, previous Metroid games always emphasized solitude and exploration of an alien planet, and very much made you feel like you really *are* Samus, especially with the sparse amount of cutscenes. Other M took this and threw it all away in order to make Samus less of a player avatar and more like a character in a movie. Again, this isn't inherently a bad thing, but the new elements will have to be at least as good or original as the ones you took away, if not better. And again, Other M just fails at this. While a lot of the plot/writing of Other M might be 'original' within the confines of the series, it actually borrows WAY MORE from established sci-fi franchises than previous games did, and plotwise ends up feeling like a halfassed Halo/Mass Effect/Aliens mishmash. In many ways, you could compare the Metroid franchise to Legend of Zelda. Imagine if the next Zelda game had Link as a voiced protagonist in a LotR/GoT-esque plot. That would be Other M. Sure, it would be unexpected and perhaps even 'refreshing', but it most likely wouldn't be very good.

The game puts an honestly ridiculous emphasis on bringing up Samus' presumed maternal feelings for the baby metroid (a relatively minor/non-existent element in super metroid), often very blatantly (such as the bottle ship, or Samus mentioning that a distress signal sounds like the crying of a baby). It feels like a very half-assed attempt at adding 'depth' to the character, and that's not even getting into some downright idiotic plot points such as Samus literally letting herself take fire damage because Adam didn't authorize her to activate her varia suit.

It wasn't bashed for being 'too different'. It was bashed for having a completely inane plot full of nonsensical retconning, terrible voice acting, and some of the most hamfisted symbolism I've ever seen (BOTTLE SHIP, GET IT?! BABIES!)

I've been enjoying this a lot, to the point of actually buying the game because of it. It keeps a fairly nice balance between being informative and having funny banter; the person playing is a first-time player and going in completely blindly, but he always has experienced co-commentators to guide him in the right direction or intentionally misleading him for entertainment.

With regards to Pewdiepie/Tobygames, the problem I have is that first of all, nobody in their right mind would actually react like that to a videogame, which pretty much leads me to believe that all those scare-cam style LPers are just putting on an act and exaggerating their reactions on purpose. This in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but it does cheapen the whole experience since they explicitly include the webcam feed to show their reactions to playing a scary game. If the reactions aren't genuine, it kind of defeats the whole purpose. Then there's the fact that all of it just feels lazy, unimaginative, and low effort. I recall seeing a video where Toby had connection issues and couldn't even be arsed to edit out three minutes of "connecting to server...", between the two of them they have hundreds of videos about Happy Wheels (not exactly a deep game if you've ever played it). I feel like they're putting in the absolute minimal amount of effort to make money off their videos.

No, the whole weak and vulnerable thing is actually something the developer said.

I really don't see what's funny about people exaggerating their reactions and yelling over videogames. Granted, this particular video isn't as offensively bad as pewdiepie/tobygames I guess, so eh.