[Lorric]

First part, in the case of a game like Hitman Absolution the answer would be no, because I would upload "serious" playthroughs of games.

I just don't agree with the idea behind your second part though. If I was just uploading a video for my personal collection, there would be no statement.

Second part, show me where I said that. Show me where I told anyone they're not allowed to have an opinion.

If you find the game distasteful nobody makes you play it.

I'm not sure what the point of that statement is you're not telling people to shut up about it.

What I'm trying to say is it's not WRONG. Though I'll listen to why people think it is wrong with an open mind, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not wrong.

Perhaps someone does not want to do such a thing. Perhaps just the fact you are able to would ruin the entire game for them. But at the same time it's not wrong if someone else does do that.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.

The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.

Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?

Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?

[Mr. Vega]

You're killing a stick figure in Fallout. It's appalling on a abstract level. Now imagine playing as Lee in the Walking Dead and having to shoot Clementine dead (and several children do die in that game, one as a possible mercy killing by the PC). Now how does it feel?

You can do it, you just better not have a hint of exploitation.

[AdmiralRalwood]

First part, in the case of a game like Hitman Absolution the answer would be no, because I would upload "serious" playthroughs of games.

I just don't agree with the idea behind your second part though. If I was just uploading a video for my personal collection, there would be no statement.

It also wouldn't be "uploading for everyone else to watch" if it was just your "personal collection".

[swashmebuckle]

It would be nice if people could just admit that they enjoy exploitative power fantasies rather than bending over backwards to try to defend the games as being non-exploitative. These are some repressed individuals.

I'm thrilled that you felt the need to bring a carefully broad passive-aggressive characterization to a thread which has many nuanced positions amidst some unfortunate chaffe as well.  I'm obviously hoping that wasn't aimed at me, but it is rather difficult to tell.  Perhaps you would like to join the discussion?

No, that wasn't directed towards you Ryan. I was referring to the men who have clearly had a nerve struck by the Sarkeesian videos and felt compelled to go on the offensive against her examples (or her) rather than acknowledging the actual cause of their distress: that someone exposed their exploitative power fantasies for what they were.

If you love blowing the heads off virtual hookers and also feel ashamed of it, it's a lot easier to pretend that the games aren't about those power fantasies than it is to confront why you feel that love/shame.

[Mr. Vega]

Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.

The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.

Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?

Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?

One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily and for the thoroughly sinning but redeemable citizens of Dunwall.

[Phantom Hoover]

You're killing a stick figure in Fallout. It's appalling on a abstract level. Now imagine playing as Lee in the Walking Dead and having to shoot Clementine dead (and several children do die in that game, one as a possible mercy killing by the PC). Now how does it feel?

You can do it, you just better not have a hint of exploitation.

Abstraction's a pretty general concept, games don't stop being an abstraction the second you stick 3D graphics on them. One reason people find attacking NPCs entertaining is that it can pretty quickly show up absurd corners of the game design.

[Phantom Hoover]

Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.

The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.

Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?

Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?

One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily.

dude one of the 'good' options in dishonoured is kidnapping a woman for a crazed admirer

[Mr. Vega]

Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.

The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.

Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?

Does anyone hate you in Hitman if you kill the strippers? Does anyone mention it at all? Does anyone come after you?

One thing I really liked about Dishonored it that the game condemned you for doing evil. Even when you took the high chaos path you couldn't dislodge the game's moral compass. It was marketed as a revenge story, but it's actually a story about whether you could resist the urge to give into your vengeful impulses and do what's right for Emily.

dude one of the 'good' options in dishonoured is kidnapping a woman for a crazed admirer

Even if it saves her life. But yes, I know, the game is heavy on the Victorian and Gothic horror despite (or alongside) its main message.

[Meneldil]

Were Skyrim developers right when they decided allowing you to kill children would be gross?
Yes they were.

The old Fallout games made it possible to kill children, but made it so that other NPCs would hate you if you ever did it. I don't think that's gross.

Perhaps. What value does allowing it add tho? The message that killing children makes people hate you? And the ability for people who want to kill children in video games to do it.
I realize that allowing it would from the game mechanics perspective be the default, so it's forbidding it that needs the "why", but I do think "no you can't simulate killing children in our game" is the better message to send.

Like really, how else is the game meant to work? Do you want strippers specifically to be immune to bullets? Do you want the game to have a built in 'oo-er' mechanism that kicks in if you look like you're enjoying killing strippers?

Have a vindictive stripper sister of one of them shoot you in the back three days later for all I care.


Look I'm not saying this "unfortunate" combination of game mechanics is the worst thing to ever happen to women in gaming, but I know that if a game allowed you to go into a gay club and beat up and kill everyone without consequence, I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. And if someone uploaded a video of himself doing that, I'd probably fantasize about beating them up and uploading it to youtube. If you include a victimized group into your work (and it doesn't get much more victimized than sex workers) you need to take responsibility for what you're portraying.

[Mr. Vega]

Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

[Mr. Vega]

AHAHAHAHAHA

https://twitter.com/CousinDangereux/status/505101848173633539

Ok, my day is made. And I now have a recommended reading list!

[Lorric]

It seems we didn't really get anywhere in the end with that latest round of posts. But now that that's over, I'd like to bring back Aesaar's post. It kind of got lost in the shuffle before and I don't want it to get lost in the shuffle now. It's a good post imo and he asks some good questions that I'd be interested in seeing people try to answer, and I'd be interested in hearing more from him.

I wish he had the patience to go through all her videos and write something up too.

One of the things that annoys me most about this is that **** like this make it really difficult to criticize her work.  A lot of her stuff is really dishonest, but it doesn't matter because she's the victim of a lot of harassment.  The legitimate critics either go unheard, or they're demonized and lumped in with the morons.

I've seen accusations of dishonesty flung about freely regarding the TvW videos, but I've never seen a sane person come up with sane explanations. It's all "Game <x> was misrepresented!" or "This scene was taken out of context!", which to me sounds more like people desperate to justify their particular tastes than good, factual critique.
I've also not seen a good refutation of the overall point Sarkeesian makes (that being that representation of women in games is deeply problematic due to it falling in a narrow range of stereotypes).

I would like to see both of those things though; After all, any hypothesis is only as strong as the criticism it can withstand.

I don't actually disagree with Sarkeesian's premise, but I actually do think it matters what examples she uses.  The recent Hitman one is a great case, actually. 

Basically, part of a mission in Hitman: Absolution goes through a stripclub.  Naturally, this being Hitman, you have the ability to kill pretty much anyone you want, which includes the strippers.  But, since they're innocents, you're penalized for doing so.  Sarkeesian uses this as an example of sexism, treating it as though that was the whole point of the game, that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that singular purpose.  Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters." All the while using footage of the player dragging the bodies around in a great big circle to show just how objectified and disposable these women are. 

Not only is this them being treated like every single other npc in the game, be they male or female, but she says earlier in the video (generally speaking) "...this kind of misogynistic behavior isn't always mandatory; often it's player-directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged." which is crap, given that, again, Hitman penalises you for killing innocents, and in that specific case, they're actually out of your way.  It's like she takes the mere existence of vulnerable female characters as encouragement to harm them.

What is that if not misrepresentation?  It's completely dishonest.  There are plenty of good examples to make her point, some of which she uses herself (the Mass Effect one in particular), so why is this kind of dishonesty even necessary?

The video is here, should you want to watch it.  Part I'm talking about is at 21:46, but the whole thing is worth watching.

There's also the whole part where she doesn't seem to understand what a background character is, but I'm not talking about that right now.

While I'm on the topic, I noticed a trend with her a while ago: she focuses on the way female characters get treated, whether or not male NPCs in a given game also get treated the same way.  Now, she explains that this isn't ok because of a power differential in modern society.  Ok, that's fine.  What is the solution, then?  If a game has female characters, they must be in a position of power or it's sexism?  Women can't be vulnerable ever, and a game can't even show sexist situations or it's reinforcing the patriarchy?

Christ, she uses footage from New Vegas (among others) to illustrate this.  I don't know if you've played it, but that game is probably as far from sexist as you can get in the modern gaming industry.  It depicts sexism (hi Caesar's Legion), but it deals with it quite seriously.  I'm not saying that, as a counterexample, this invalidates her premise.  It doesn't, but it certainly doesn't support it.  I haven't played every game she chooses to talk about, so how do I know she's not doing this elsewhere with other games?  Whether it's conscious or not, it undermines her entire methodology, and I rather dislike her for it.

But if there's one question I wish I could ask her, it's this: Can a game depict sexism without being sexist in itself?  Can it allow the player to engage in activities that could be considered sexist without being sexist itself?  Given the way she deals with her critics, I don't think I'd be likely to get a serious response.

Honestly, I wish I had the patience to go through all her videos and actually write something up.  Like I said before, I don't actually disagree with her central premise, but I do have a problem with the way she demonstrates it, and I don't think she deserves most of the praise (or the hate) she gets. 

I do hope this qualifies as a sane explanation.

And like Flipside, I used to rather like Thunderf00t's stuff (and his science-related work is still excellent), but I think he's getting a bit too angry about this issue.  I've been avoiding his feminism-related videos for a while.  His complete and utter lack of tact really doesn't help, given how heated this discussion is in the first place.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

That R G commenter in the thread below is ****ing delusional.
Man alive, where do these people come from.

[Mr. Vega]

No no, I want to hear more about the hit list.

Seriously though, we acknowledge the difference between portrayal and exploitation. Most of these games just try to cover their exploitation with this excuse.

[karajorma]

It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists.  It clearly does.  I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

That's exactly why I linked the article about rape culture earlier. By going after the people who made anti-rape nail polish, certain feminists have seriously undermined their own cause. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where something like that wasn't necessary. Yes, anyone who blames a victim for not using such polish is scum. But the guys who invented the polish are no more bad guys than someone who designs burglar alarms.

This article is a another great example.

[MP-Ryan]

Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

I feel like I made this point much more succinctly on page 4.

[Mr. Vega]

Leigh Alexander just made my case far better then I ever could.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

I feel like I made this point much more succinctly on page 4.

Aside from this passage (although this is really more for Flipside and Bobboau):

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games. 

[Mr. Vega]

It's not that I don't think systemic feminism exists.  It clearly does.  I do think, however, that there are a number of feminist theorists (Sarkeesian may or may not be among them, I am not that familiar with her work to judge) who are too busy chasing molehills to the detriment of their argument concerning the mountains.

That's exactly why I linked the article about rape culture earlier. By going after the people who made anti-rape nail polish, certain feminists have seriously undermined their own cause. Yes, it would be nice to live in a world where something like that wasn't necessary. Yes, anyone who blames a victim for not using such polish is scum. But the guys who invented the polish are no more bad guys than someone who designs burglar alarms.

This article is a another great example.

I'm going to avoid going down the usual "they're not representative of us" route and go straight into "I disown these views and disassociate myself from those who hold them, and I hope that the rest of us who call themselves feminists, and mean it, will shun these beliefs as well."

It's like the line about voting: if you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to vote in it. Well, if someone has been persecuted or assaulted because they're a woman, you don't get to tell them they aren't.

[MP-Ryan]

This article is a another great example.

Radfem is on a page so far away from every other critical sociological discipline it had might as well be on another planet; it's certainly not a true representation of the feminist perspective.  When I read pieces by radical feminists who uncritically talk about the proliferation of the female sex after the male sex has destroyed itself because it's evil or something, I decide that (1) I have better things to do, and (2) some people really need to lay off the hallucinogens.  I don't think Sarkeesian comes even close to radfem - for one, she can make a cohesive and compelling argument with no evidence of frothing around her mouth - but she does fall into a similar trap where she risks having her work dismissed as irrelevant and trivial.  For that matter, I think it's beyond risk and actually happening.  She makes a number of excellent points, but she also loses credibility on the quibbling points that she raises.

I fall back to something I learned writing lengthy critical analyses in my university courses while listening to other people watch CSI:  when one has a smoking gun, a confession, a videotape, and DNA evidence, one need not include the circumstantial evidence of carpet fibres, shoe prints, and the eyewitness testimony of the schizophrenic drug addict down the back alley.  It seems odd that Sarkeesian has gotten as far as she has without learning that lesson.  Then again, she comes from an entire school of thought that hasn't collectively learned that lesson, so it's not that surprising.