Sexism in gameplay

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Batou667:

GunsmithKitten:

Batou667:

Always will? That doesn't necessarily follow. I think at this point in our society's development that equality is all but inevitable. Nothing short of some ultra-conservative or religious cultural revolution would get women back in the kitchen.

Umm, yes, it always will, unless you can forsee a future where achievement, aggression, ambition, logical thinking and individuality, all hallmarks of "male thinking" suddenly are adverse to success.

Ah, but now we're not talking about sex any more, we're talking gender roles. I think that gender roles can, and will, change, and at any rate the qualities you listed aren't exclusively male.

I've not heard yet the "Men and women are fundamentally different mentally!!" crowd attribute them to female traits. Have you?

Lilani:

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get but probably 1/4 through the game before putting it down,

Then perhaps re-assess your "knowledge" of it?

Lilani:

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get but probably 1/4 through the game before putting it down, and I haven't gone back since. Yes, I understand how two children caring for each other during an adventure is cute and compelling, but that isn't what I experienced. All I remember is dragging this useless little fucker all over a stupid temple while doing just about everything for her except breathing. All those other nuances I didn't know about, and I might care about her greater role in the grand scheme if she wasn't such a helpless little shit who won't even run away when she's in danger. I don't care if she has no way to fight, but surely a bit of running without being dragged along isn't beyond her abilities.

It's not supposed to be a cute adventure, it's a rather grim story of two children who have been abandoned. One who is young but has partially lived his life, another who older but has been left alone her WHOLE life. It was frustrating? Yeah that's the way it would be, you're in charge of two children.

Lilani:

Also, pretty much all of the roles you described could just as easily be filled by a magic staff or any other inanimate object. Holding up the castle through magical powers? Totally sounds like something a magic staff can do to me. And it wouldn't be the first time shadow people went after a magic object in a story. And some staves have been known to do things "on their own" to help protagonists at key points.

And? It doesn't change Yorda's importance to the story, it doesn't change that she's a character. You don't have a magic staff or magic object, you have her and her power alone and you're relying on it. Yorda isn't an object, you call out to her and keep her safe, you don't just pick her up and put her down.

Lilani:

Also, if the rationale behind having a male protagonist in Last Guardian is that a girl couldn't or shouldn't be able to do it, then yes. That does make it sexist in a way. "A male character just seemed to fit best" is a lot better of a reason for having a male protagonist than "Girls are weak and it's awkward looking up their skirts."

You are just repeating yourself, I told you I agree with it.

Boogie Knight:

Okay, this really bugs me when an individual argues that something is not sexist by throwing up a series of bullet points which read waaaay too much into something.

Seriously? I'm reading too deep? You're gonna pull that card?

Boogie Knight:

Especially the "they're useful" argument. Slaves are useful, but that doesn't make the institution any less demeaning and dehumanizing.

Sure? But how do you argue she's a slave?
And she's not just "useful" she's core to progression of the game, big difference there. And there's nothing to suggest Yorda is a slave.

However, I think there are people who are extremely thin skinned and are also professional agitators so they will see sexism/racism/homophobia in otherwise innocuous things. Not waving a banner for women's rights doesn't make one sexist, nor does having a female character who is fragile and vulnerable.

The permanently offended will look at any fictional character of their group identity and raise cane if that character doesn't project the desired strong image. Bluntly, I think this speaks more to their shallow nature and inability to face insecurities. The single greatest cure to the -isms in fiction is good characters with layers and depth of all races, colors, and creeds. However, the single greatest obstacle to that cure is not entrenched bigotry but the hard reality that good characterization is so rare, because that kind of talent is inherently rare.

Yes ok that's valid. What's your point?

Further, from what I've played of the Team Ico games, they're minimalist fairy tales. They're flights of fancy, and it may not be the best vehicle for communicating nuanced characters because it uses readily available archetypes as a shorthand. Might theses archetypes be less than forward thinking? Oh hell yes, but damning the games for not advancing a social/political agenda is not where the battle needs to be fought. And people who want to defend these games to think more deeply rather than come up with lame arguments in the futile effort of proving a negative.

So, my argument is meaningless because I'm not defending something that helps the socio/political agenda? Because Ico is minimalistic, it doesn't deserve defending? Because it's minimalistic, you don't think it's worth defending? And I fail to see how my arguments are "lame", I've addressed his points, and he's admitted to not playing more than 25% of the game.

Not deep enough for you? What high-horse are you on?

GunsmithKitten:

MagunBFP:

WOW!!! Sexist much? Achievement, Aggression, Ambition, Logical Thinking and Individuality are all male qualities?

You ever heard anyone attribute them as female qualities?

I really hope I'm missing some kind of subtext/sarcasm font here because otherwise you're suggesting that there are no aggressive women? That there are no ambitious, or logical women? That all women are just sheep and lack individuality?

Funny, I tell that all the time to people who assert up and down that "Men and women have differences and we need to accept that!", but it never goes over well.

As we are so often reminded anything a man can do a woman can do as well, if success relies on these qualities and women can't be successful because these qualities are gender-reliant then you are clearly making a case for a massive difference between the genders.

Except I'm not the one that believes that. It's the "Men and women are different and we need to accept that!" broad brush painters that tout that philosophy.

I'll admit I've never heard them described as female qualities, but neither do I associate them specicifically with males... as you may have noticed I just refer to them as qualities. Some guys have them, some women have them, some guys don't, some women don't. Saying that these are exclusively the domain of men is sexist, kinda no two ways about it.

The rest of your response sounds like you're agreeing with me... women can embody these "male" qualities, you do believe that anything men can do women can do as well, and that there are people who have incorrctly come to the conclusion that mentally and emotionally men and women are not capable of the same things (physical differences are a self-evident truth, so physically its hard to argue against) So I'm going to assume we're on the same page, Yay us! (I like it when people agree with me).

GunsmithKitten:
I've not heard yet the "Men and women are fundamentally different mentally!!" crowd attribute them to female traits. Have you?

The "men and women are fundamentally different mentally" crowd can sod off, frankly, and that applies equally to the EvoPsych bigots as it does to the "women are more NURTURING and CARING and therefore SUPERIOR" subset of feminists.

Men and women are different. Some of this may be mentally hard-wired. A lot of it is social. Certainly there's enough wriggle-room for women to be heads of state and men to be nurses or nannies and both be perfectly OK and not some harbinger of The End Times.

Boogie Knight:
No no no, Ico is not sexist. Two children, caring for each other is not sexist. And you have not done your research on the game (are you Sarkeesian by chance?)

1. Without her you cannot unlock the doors, ergo without her Ico is trapped.
2. Losing her results in a game over, she is the ONE thing keeping the castle from being petrified (such a useless burden eh?)
3. She is frail and confused for a reason, she has been literally imprisoned by her mother for her entire life in an abandoned castle and IN A CAGE. She is understandably terrified of the shadow sprites and has no idea that there is an world outside the castle.
4. There are several huge plot heavy moments in which she acts on her own accord and helps Ico.

And despite your four bullet points, the girl is still entirely dependent on the boy to even get her to move and she is utterly incapable of doing basic things such as running away when monsters come at her. See, I get what you are saying and I think ICO is kind of a good game (I found it a bit dull, but I see why people like it) but that doesn't excuse the terrible handling of the female lead and the fact that throughout gameplay she exhibits no individuality and is little more than an object the male lead needs in order to escape (honestly, as far as gameplay is concerned she might as well have been an item called "the key" that you had to pick up and lug around).

Whatever or not it is intentional or unintentional sexism can be discussed, but make no mistake about just how terrible the girl is in terms of gender study.

I do take offense from the latter half of your post though. I am not a "professional agitator" or "permanently offended" and you perfectly mirror the mentality that JudgeGame posted about just two days ago (link to the article he refers to here). A discussion about the potential (unintended) sexism in games in general or a single game in particular does not mean that we are "offended" or that we hate gaming, only that we see a problem in how women are portrayed in games. We want to talk about this because we love games and want to feel like we are a part of the community. But by brushing our concerns off as unfounded and us as "permanently offended", you are only demonstrating just how closed and isolationist the gaming community can be. You don't have to agree with us but the least you can do is acknowledge that we have the right to our personal experience and a right to express that experience without getting slandered or dismissed out of hand.

Gethsemani:
snip

Boogie Knight removed the quotes tags from my quote for some reason, I'm the one who made those bullet points. Everything else is his/her own.

Gethsemani:

And despite your four bullet points, the girl is still entirely dependent on the boy to even get her to move and she is utterly incapable of doing basic things such as running away when monsters come at her.

And I've explained why that is the case, a person being helpless is not grounds for saying that they are filling a sexist role.
If you're arguing if she's "too helpless." Then I'd say it's arbitrary.

Gethsemani:
and the fact that throughout gameplay she exhibits no individuality

Which makes her role in the story all more powerful when she does take action on her own.

Gethsemani:

and is little more than an object the male lead needs in order to escape (honestly, as far as gameplay is concerned she might as well have been an item called "the key" that you had to pick up and lug around).

If you look at it purely from a gameplay perspective sure, but then you could just replace all the characters with blocks and be done with it. She's a character, he's a character, they rely on each other to escape.

Gethsemani:

but that doesn't excuse the terrible handling of the female lead
.......

Whatever or not it is intentional or unintentional sexism can be discussed, but make no mistake about just how terrible the girl is in terms of gender study.

Whether she's a good case for gender study or how well she handles as a female lead is not my argument. I'm merely arguing that it's not sexist, and the flaws of seeing certain things as sexist when you cherry pick.

He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Cheesepower5:
He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Yes, but you would agree that there is a "right way" to argue right? I like valid criticism, it makes argument more interesting.

But what I see a lot of critics do (even those that I respect) is omit information (either intentionally or inadvertently) that refutes their claims. And (from what I've seen) it's most usually when they are making claims of sexism, racism, and even fascism.

Anita does it, Moviebob does it, Roger Ebert does it now and then, anti-defamation practitioners do it.

Lovely Mixture:

Cheesepower5:
He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Yes, but you would agree that there is a "right way" to argue right? I like valid criticism, it makes argument more interesting.

But what I see a lot of critics do (even those that I respect) is omit information (either intentionally or inadvertently) that refutes their claims. And (from what I've seen) it's most usually when they are making claims of sexism, racism, and even fascism.

Anita does it, Moviebob does it, Roger Ebert does it now and then, anti-defamation practitioners do it.

That was actually aimed at Gethsemani and you sort of ninja'd me, but whatever, I'll bite.

It's probably human nature to omit information like that. I highly doubt Roger Ebert, Anita Sarkeesian or whomever actively goes and thinks "I think X is in the wrong, but Y goes against my view, so let's pretend Y never happened." It's just a subconscious thing we all do in some way, in order to affirm our own views. And of course, anyone trying to claim games are wahtever -ism of the day will run into hindrance. It is very difficult to definitively say one game is that, let alone the whole medium. It doesn't mean that games are never sexist, or that they never can be.

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want. If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves.

Cheesepower5:
That was actually aimed at Gethsemani and you sort of ninja'd me, but whatever, I'll bite.

Oh lol. Dang it man, I checked the timestamp to make sure. I hope I didn't seem overzealous in that case.

Cheesepower5:

It's probably human nature to omit information like that. I highly doubt Roger Ebert, Anita Sarkeesian or whomever actively goes and thinks "I think X is in the wrong, but Y goes against my view, so let's pretend Y never happened." It's just a subconscious thing we all do in some way, in order to affirm our own views.

Huh. I don't know if that's a more positive or negative view of humanity compared to mine.

I think what you're saying makes sense, but I think justifying it like that ignores the problem. People should do research, they should question their own views (as painful as it may be, even for myself).

Cheesepower5:

And of course, anyone trying to claim games are wahtever -ism of the day will run into hindrance. It is very difficult to definitively say one game is that, let alone the whole medium. It doesn't mean that games are never sexist, or that they never can be.

Well I certainly hope no one is making that claim, and they keep the open mind.

Lovely Mixture:
Then perhaps re-assess your "knowledge" of it?

I wouldn't finish a book if got 1/4 of the way through and wasn't enjoying it. Does that mean I am wrong because I haven't finished it? Is it my fault the author failed to connect with me in that time? The beginning of a story is supposed to lay the groundwork for the middle and end. To set the rules and get you engaged to see things through to the end. I was not engaged at all by the beginning. If getting to the end meant dragging that useless thing to the end, I wasn't going to have it.

It's not supposed to be a cute adventure, it's a rather grim story of two children who have been abandoned. One who is young but has partially lived his life, another who older but has been left alone her WHOLE life. It was frustrating? Yeah that's the way it would be, you're in charge of two children.

Again, I didn't feel like I was in charge of two children. I felt like I was in charge of one child and a sandbag.

And? It doesn't change Yorda's importance to the story, it doesn't change that she's a character. You don't have a magic staff or magic object, you have her and her power alone and you're relying on it. Yorda isn't an object, you call out to her and keep her safe, you don't just pick her up and put her down.

But the fact that you can replace her with an object and have the result be the same says a lot about her character, don't you think? I can't think of any story I've enjoyed where that would work, or where I would want that to happen at all. And if we're talking about a story about two children, it should be even less so. Any time you've got a child whose role and impact on the story would remain the same if replaced by an object, you've got some serious characterization issues. You haven't just missed the mark, you've gone over the fence and into the next county.

Also, if the rationale behind having a male protagonist in Last Guardian is that a girl couldn't or shouldn't be able to do it, then yes. That does make it sexist in a way. "A male character just seemed to fit best" is a lot better of a reason for having a male protagonist than "Girls are weak and it's awkward looking up their skirts."

You are just repeating yourself, I told you I agree with it.

I thought you had said just because the creators are sexist doesn't mean the product is, and I was responding to that.

Cheesepower5:
He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Lovely Mixture certainly isn't dismissing it out of hand, but Boogie Knights more or less is by saying that anyone who calls sexism is "permanently offended" or a "professional agitator". If the discussion is on the level that Lovely Mixture keeps it, where we discuss the parts that might be sexist without resorting to ad hominems, it is on the level I want it to be.

Cheesepower5:

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want. If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves.

Here's the problem though: I loved The Witcher, despite its' "sex cards". I loved the Hitman games, despite their insistence on putting strippers and prostitutes everywhere for no good reason. I've liked many games despite how they've portrayed women. That's why I, and many others, speak up about what we perceive as sexism in games: Because we want to make these games even better and more appealing to even more people. We don't want to bash Team ICO, IO Interactive or CD Projekt Red, we want to start a discussion so that they get a chance to look at areas that might be improved.

In the end, the developers decide what they want to put in a game. That doesn't mean that we, as consumers, can't discuss what the developers should do with the product they want us to buy.

EDIT: Also, I won't be responding to Lovely Mixture since Lilani is already having the same discussion with him and it wouldn't be nice to him to force him to have it twice simultaneously.

Cheesepower5:

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want.

I'm not a feminist, although I am a boob lover (who isn't?) but I just wanted to point out that this line of rhetoric isn't very valid because all it is doing is side stepping a perceived issue. It's almost like saying to an African American in the '60s to just go to establishments that let them shop there and to ignore the ones that don't. I realise that this is a horrible analogy because no one is being physically hurt here - but if people think there is a social inequality being portrayed in an aspect of our culture they should be allowed to comment on it and to seek change. Telling them to just suck it up and play the games that aren't sexist isn't really a point worth making.

Cheesepower5:
If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves

But there is nothing wrong with voicing concerns over the way things are portrayed in video games. This isn't about feminists wanting to only ever play games where gender equality is rampart - it is about people being concerned about the way the gaming industry as a whole is portraying females. I think in suggesting they just make their own games that appeal to their needs instead of asking for change in other games is missing the point a little.

Gethsemani:
Lovely Mixture certainly isn't dismissing it out of hand, but Boogie Knights more or less is by saying that anyone who calls sexism is "permanently offended" or a "professional agitator". If the discussion is on the level that Lovely Mixture keeps it, where we discuss the parts that might be sexist without resorting to ad hominems, it is on the level I want it to be.

Yeah, there's a degree to which anyone can reasonably be upset at something they find unfortunate implications in. But you still have to accept that some people won't find it offensive or won't see the implications.

Gethsemani:
Here's the problem though: I loved The Witcher, despite its' "sex cards". I loved the Hitman games, despite their insistence on putting strippers and prostitutes everywhere for no good reason. I've liked many games despite how they've portrayed women. That's why I, and many others, speak up about what we perceive as sexism in games: Because we want to make these games even better and more appealing to even more people. We don't want to bash Team ICO, IO Interactive or CD Projekt Red, we want to start a discussion so that they get a chance to look at areas that might be improved.

In the end, the developers decide what they want to put in a game. That doesn't mean that we, as consumers, can't discuss what the developers should do with the product they want us to buy.

EDIT: Also, I won't be responding to Lovely Mixture since Lilani is already having the same discussion with him and it wouldn't be nice to him to force him to have it twice simultaneously.

I can understand that. It's natural, as a consumer, to have to put up with things you don't like to get the things you do. I'm not a fan of obnoxious, out of place fanservice shots either, but I'll put up with that or other minor gripes to get an enjoyable experience. I'm glad you're not trying to outright bash the games, but the fact is movement won't happen without someone dedicated enough to make it. (In games, a lot more than just one person, actually.)

I don't mean to tell you to not be offended, I just feel there are more effective ways to make games the way you want them than trying to convince everyone to get offended on your behalf. I suppose I should be the last person to tell someone they should do something instead of complain, though, I'm not a model of initiative either.

Arakasi:

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment. Games were primarily entertainment. In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first. They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.
The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art. I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

gamernerdtg2:

Arakasi:

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment.

I wouldn't look at any other art form if it didn't entertain me in some way. Are you saying movies shouldn't apply either because they are also a form of entertainment?

gamernerdtg2:

Games were primarily entertainment.

...And that excludes them from being art how?

gamernerdtg2:

In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

Non-sequitur, please explain.

gamernerdtg2:

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first.

Even if artistic and entertainment were well defined to be entirely opposing I fail to see how that would change how one should judge them.

gamernerdtg2:

They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.

At least partially, yes, they want games to be recognised for what they are. Early videogames were still art though.

gamernerdtg2:

The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

There are some games which are more artistic than others or more stylish but all of them are still art forms.

gamernerdtg2:

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art.

No one said that art had to be good. I personally don't like the Mona Lisa and think it is insane that so many people do. Art can still be good or bad, but it is still art.

gamernerdtg2:

I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

Why would it be getting worse? Every indication seems to suggest that people are becoming less and less sexist, and with the people the art will follow, or it will die.

In short, I think you need to read the definition of art:
Noun
-The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
-Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Both apply to videogames.

gamernerdtg2:

Arakasi:

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment. Games were primarily entertainment. In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first. They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.
The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art. I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

You take a polarized stance, and I can appreciate that.
Early games were not thought of as art - we are now looking back on them and deciding which ones are "artistic" and which ones are not (just like the Modern Museum of Art has done). When I say entertainment, perhaps "amusement" would serve it better. Something to pass the time that's fun...I'll explain later.
My general observation is that gameplay is being lost to graphical display and storytelling. It would seem we're in a stage where gameplay is being questioned -and even thrown out entirely- for this consideration of it being "art". I'll come back and explain the other things that I've not been clear about.

i believe that Sexism is being used at poor quality games

Lilani:
I wouldn't finish a book if got 1/4 of the way through and wasn't enjoying it. Does that mean I am wrong because I haven't finished it? Is it my fault the author failed to connect with me in that time? The beginning of a story is supposed to lay the groundwork for the middle and end. To set the rules and get you engaged to see things through to the end. I was not engaged at all by the beginning. If getting to the end meant dragging that useless thing to the end, I wasn't going to have it.

No, it is not your fault for being bored by a game and not having interest in it. It is your fault for arguing over something you know not the material of.

Again, I didn't feel like I was in charge of two children. I felt like I was in charge of one child and a sandbag.

So how exactly would you have improved that gameplay exactly, make her an AI and then come back here because everything thinks it is sexist that she acts like a 'tard?

But the fact that you can replace her with an object and have the result be the same says a lot about her character, don't you think? I can't think of any story I've enjoyed where that would work, or where I would want that to happen at all. And if we're talking about a story about two children, it should be even less so. Any time you've got a child whose role and impact on the story would remain the same if replaced by an object, you've got some serious characterization issues. You haven't just missed the mark, you've gone over the fence and into the next county.

No you couldn't. Half the reason you can't leave the castle is because you take Yorda with you. The Ico sees her in a cage and asumes she's there for the same reason he is and decides to bolt with her. Right when the gate is clear and you think you are about to get out of that hell-hole, The gates are fucking slammed on them and Yorda's mother (The witch of the castle) stops both of them and appears saying that Ico may leave but Yorda can't saying that she is her daughter and that there will be dire consequences if he does. Ico wants to take Yorda with him but renders it as her decision. Which she decides to go with him.

This happens at about 1/3 into the game(according to my playtime). Now call me crazy but if she was a brick, at that point he probably would have thrown it down and end-zone dance his way out of that castle at that point. And we wouldn't have had to sit through the other 2/3 of the game.

Toy Master Typhus:
No, it is not your fault for being bored by a game and not having interest in it. It is your fault for arguing over something you know not the material of.

I am only arguing about my experience up to that point. Her only role in the game up to the point I played was a sandbag, so that's all I know of her. Nothing else applies to my experience. And if you're frustrated with this argument, then perhaps you should stop arguing over my personal tastes in games. You like Ico? Fine. Whatever. No skin off my back. I don't. It's you and the other guy who are trying to prove me wrong. If you want to bring this back strictly to how Ico is sexist I would be happy to oblige, but it seems instead this has slipped into why I'm "wrong" for not liking it.

So how exactly would you have improved that gameplay exactly, make her an AI and then come back here because everything thinks it is sexist that she acts like a 'tard?

Some sign she was an autonomous being would have been nice. Maybe some sort of inclination to self-preservation. Even if not attacking the creatures then at least running away and not just hanging around while Ico is fighting. She acts all scared when she's getting pulled under, but since she never does anything beforehand to prevent it I feel frustration at her stupidity more than empathy for her situation. Even when you're in a huge area she insists on staying right where the enemies are, setting herself up just right to get caught. You can say "Oh, but she's a child so she's panicked!" but I'm not feeling it. All I see there is a useless little shit who needs to start trying a little harder if she wants to make it out alive.

No you couldn't. Half the reason you can't leave the castle is because you take Yorda with you. The Ico sees her in a cage and asumes she's there for the same reason he is and decides to bolt with her. Right when the gate is clear and you think you are about to get out of that hell-hole, The gates are fucking slammed on them and Yorda's mother (The witch of the castle) stops both of them and appears saying that Ico may leave but Yorda can't saying that she is her daughter and that there will be dire consequences if he does. Ico wants to take Yorda with him but renders it as her decision. Which she decides to go with him.

This happens at about 1/3 into the game(according to my playtime). Now call me crazy but if she was a brick, at that point he probably would have thrown it down and end-zone dance his way out of that castle at that point. And we wouldn't have had to sit through the other 2/3 of the game.

Again, no matter how much you tell me about Yorda's role in the future of the game, that does not change the fact that I have zero empathy for her from the start. I don't care if she is some sort of walking plot point, if none of this exposition changes how she behaves when danger is near, then I'm afraid I have no fucks to give. I cannot bring myself to care about someone who just sits there like an idiot while enemies are nearby and then has the fucking nerve to act all scared when she gets caught. No. Fuck that.

Arakasi:

gamernerdtg2:

Arakasi:

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment.

I wouldn't look at any other art form if it didn't entertain me in some way. Are you saying movies shouldn't apply either because they are also a form of entertainment?

gamernerdtg2:

Games were primarily entertainment.

...And that excludes them from being art how?

gamernerdtg2:

In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

Non-sequitur, please explain.

gamernerdtg2:

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first.

Even if artistic and entertainment were well defined to be entirely opposing I fail to see how that would change how one should judge them.

gamernerdtg2:

They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.

At least partially, yes, they want games to be recognised for what they are. Early videogames were still art though.

gamernerdtg2:

The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

There are some games which are more artistic than others or more stylish but all of them are still art forms.

gamernerdtg2:

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art.

No one said that art had to be good. I personally don't like the Mona Lisa and think it is insane that so many people do. Art can still be good or bad, but it is still art.

gamernerdtg2:

I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.

Why would it be getting worse? Every indication seems to suggest that people are becoming less and less sexist, and with the people the art will follow, or it will die.

In short, I think you need to read the definition of art:
Noun
-The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"
-Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Both apply to videogames.

I think that definition is polarizing. The connotation is that when you use the word "art" it means visual art, and that's very narrow. By this definition, designers are artists. It leaves out what happens between the player and the game. I don't want to watch someone play, I want to play. Playing is primarily amusement, not art.

Regarding sexism in entertainment, I assumed you understood that I refer to the way men and women are typically portrayed. The female form is typically exploited for sex, and the men are all powerful. I don't see anime, hentai, porn, swimsuits, or whatever people consider entertainment to be dieing out. As long as those things exist, sexism will exist. I see sexism as limiting the way men and women are portrayed.

Early games were considered amusement, not art. I didn't go to a museum, I went to the arcade. Arcades were in amusement parks, and other places. The current generation tends to look back and redefine things. I dissagree with that.

Here's my main gripe - Dear Esther is art. Ico is Art. I don't need to play dear Esther to experience it because I can watch on YouTube. Does that make it a game? I don't think so. I don't want to watch games, I want to play them. I'd only watch if I was trying to learn how to play better, not because I thought the games were art.

I don't want games to be passive. As each generation comes and goes, games are more about story and graphics. The interactivity (or gameplay) is being pushed aside in the name of art, and I'm not into it at all. Video Games need their own consideration, thier own catagory within culture now.

We play games actively...at least that's the way it was. Perhaps we need another name for things like Dear Esther...maybe art works for that. Double Dragon, Street Fighter, and a half dozen games in my head are not art. We can extract the characters from the game to make art from them, but play is play. Art is art. I can play in an artsy way, but we all don't play games for the sake of art. I don't interact with a painting in the same way I interact with a game. That's my polarized view.

It really depresses me that people are apparently so weak willed to over analyse things to this extent.

"Peach is a Woman! Look! She does typical woman things! Why isn't she doing MAN things! For Equality!".

Because that's not her character.

That's not the way she was designed.

That's really all there is to it. I'm pretty sure most men don't see peach and think "Oh, all women must be like that".

Likewise, I'm sure most women don't look at Marcus Fenix and think "Oh, all men must be like that".

There is no "Sexism" in characters, people are capable of being stereotypes. Any character is capable of acting in any way, the idea that we have to be offended because a certain character acts a certain way is just silly.

I have enough security in my view of the world to know that a female character in a video game acting like a stereotypical female isn't going to rock my view of women and make me think they're all weak and helpless.

The argument is basically "There isn't enough diversity for women in games".

You're absolutely right.

The same is true for men.

Majority of male characters: Some hero figure, generally experienced in whatever they do (Generally killing other things.), emotionally undeveloped.

Majority of female characters: Needs protecting, serves as goal for protagonist, often sexualised.

Both are completely inaccurate to any reality.

One may argue the females are more "Negatively portrayed", but, this is really just opinion. While you yourself might not want to be some Disney princess who's rescued from every situation, there are a fair amount of people that do.

Likewise, while some men may want to be the hero who's emotionally stunted and detached, there's a fair amount of us that really can't think of much worse.

But, at the end of the day, it's completely irrelevant, because I'm entirely capable of saying "Hey, this is just a character. Maybe he's just like that."

And the moment it stops selling so well, I'm certain change will happen.

It's just silly to think that any change can happen just by bitching hard enough, that's not how it works. Games are products, if games with well developed female characters who aren't stereotypes start to sell well, you can sure as hell bet they'll be more of them.

But, that's not the case. People buy and support characters which are stereotypes, some of the favourite characters in gaming are hilariously stereotypical characters with almost zero personality beyond this.

Because, at the end of the day, it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. And when fun comes into it, reality takes a back seat, and given that males make up the majority of this market, it's obviously going to pander to stereotypical male fantasies.

And the most common of which is...

Games exist to make money, and they're going to do that however they see fit. They're most certainly not here to be respectable about it. And for the most part, that's going to involve things like this. And I fully suggest that if you want to change that, you actually work towards doing so rather than bitching on a forum or supporting somebody else's bitching.

If a game's portrayal of a man, or a woman offends you, don't buy it.

Likewise, any game that you deem progress on this, support it.

ShinyCharizard:
When it comes to sexism in games I just struggle to care at all. I can't be the only one who just doesn't give a shit.

Agreed.
Of course, if the game is an abhoration, like say "Rapelay" then yes, that is a problem.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked