How games' lazy storytelling uses violence and rape against women as wallpaper

[anon33466019]

Mutants, please tone down the anger. The discussion and semantics are important. But the nit picking about arguments is missing the forest.

[WalterPlinge]

Please make the distinction between “sexy” and “sexualized”; almost everyone critiquing this aspect of video games does so (including Anita Sarkeesian herself). Furthermore, I see no need for false dichotomy. There is a profound and largely unexplored middle ground between “NPCs in burkas” and roadside rape, as in GTA V.

The point I am making (or rather, repeating) is that the way open world games (and video games, in general) approach violence against men and women is not equivalent. Even if one is skeptical concerning the claims that video games normalize sexual violence and/or domestic abuse, it is profoundly discomforting to routinely see both used exclusively against video game women in the name of “realism”.

[anon15383236]

@grumblebum

I know what the words mean. I just think they’re arranged in a trite and unhelpful fashion. As part of a concluding call to action, they are weak and toothless; basically, rhetorical white noise. As I already explained to you, when you didn’t know what the words meant (or more accurately, the vacuum of meaning that they have come to represent).

Writing and speaking for clarity has value.

So now you’re saying “subvert the dominant paradigm” has no meaning?

I think, again, that what you’re actually demonstrating is that you don’t understand the meaning, a meaning which is as obvious to me as “shut the door” or “put away your shoes.” The phrase in questions contain no “vacuum of meaning” at all – the dominant paradigm in question is patriarchal heterosexism, and it still needs subverting, as Anita’s video repeatedly demonstrates, and despite your apparent claims to the contrary.

We don’t normally demand that phrases with clear meanings like “put away your shoes” need fresh new language to make them even more clear, and this one doesn’t either, unless one is in a field like advertising. Are you in advertising?

[IronEdithKidd]

@smartr

To be frank, that’s an excellent argument to systemically use these tropes. As a rule, you write to your target audience.

There’s a problem with this approach - growing numbers of women like playing video games, and not just the casual ones. I’m a female who’s been playing video games since I was a wee child (thanks for bringing Pong home, dad!), and I’ve witnessed diversity in AAA titles dwindle to the lazy, often misogynist tropes Sarkeesian is picking apart in her videos. Putting in a tiny bit more effort to avoid the tropes would improve gaming overall, and possibly help break this boring cycle of AAA sequel games (more original games, plz). Added bonus - increasing market share by tapping into the other half of the overall market.

[grumblebum]

@andy_hilmer

Make a meme of it

Well, if you insist:

And here’s one for me, 'cause fair’s fair:

[anon50609448]

@andy_hilmer

Only if you are a corporate drone who doesn’t actually know what the words mean. But you’re right, stupid entitled people should be given the power to destroy language.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean here or who the stupid entitled people are. Is the issue that the corporate world turned “paradigm” into a vacuous nonsense word? And then the point that we shouldn’t let them do that to a perfectly good word?

The videos are supposed to reach an audience that doesn’t have academic training in a relevant field, I think. And we can shake our fists at it all day, but language does change and very good words are made awful by overuse. Look at that phrase and divide the population into three categories:

1. Those that understand it to mean what she wanted to mean
2. Those that just don’t know what it is supposed to mean at all
3. Those that are reminded of nauseating unrelated work experiences

If group (1) is not a majority or even a plurality (and I would guess it is actually the smallest of the groups) then its a bad turn of phrase to get the message across.

I think grumblebum did a very good job of showing different ways of saying the same thing that would be more accessible to non-academic viewers:

@grumblebum

“Subtly alter entrenched expectations.”
“Present variety as normal.”
“Shake shit up a bit.”

I don’t think the phrase has a lot of content and I think the big words are trying to dress it up to be more profound than it is. Subverting the dominant paradigm in the collective conscious means what, here? I feel like what this phrase boils down to is, “make people think differently.” If we stopped using bad storytelling that treated women as object that would make people think differently.

I think the phrase she used, with it’s $64 words is a shield against less educated people who would say, “Would it? Isn’t it just a game?” or “Wait, how would they think differently?” I think she’s capable of taking these questions on head-on.

[OtherMichael]

@catgrin

I’m built in the way that causes men to do things like offer to give me babies on street corners

Personally, I’d be very suspicious of babies offered on street corners. Who knows where they’ve been. They’re probably just designer knock-off babies - you could be arrested just for having one!

Seriously, though, how’d you like my baby? Until he stops spitting up all night long, he’s yours.

[andy_hilmer]

@anon50609448

I think the phrase she used, with it’s $64 words is a shield against less educated people who would say, “Would it? Isn’t it just a game?” or “Wait, how would they think differently?” I think she’s capable of taking these questions on head-on.

So the head on approach is a good thing, right? Not a bunch of hipster 4chan drivel attempting to police ideas by excoriating language.

[grumblebum]

No, I never said the phrase didn’t mean anything.

What I’m getting at is that it reads as the equivalent of “filler,” at this point. And it’s just needlessly distracting: Due to overuse/misuse in a couple of different spheres, the onus is now on the listener to stop and figure out if the speaker is even saying anything at all. That’s what I meant by “vacuum.”

But more importantly, there are vast swaths of people who don’t get the meaning and who may well be turned off. Either because they feel threatened/excluded, or because they associate such language with a group (elites) who they actively distrust. If the goal of Sarkeesian’s videos is to reach a large enough audience to actually make a change within gaming culture, she needs to speak to them, too. Especially to them, I’d suspect.

I don’t play multiplayer games, but I feel fairly certain that “subvert the dominant paradigm in the collective consciousness” doesn’t crop up much during in-game chats.

@anon15383236

it still needs subverting, as Anita’s video repeatedly demonstrates, and despite your apparent claims to the contrary.

Huh? I’ve stated quite clearly that I think her overall point is valid. That’s why I wish she’d drop the shibboleths and reach a larger audience.

Am I in advertising? Not exactly, although I’m partial to the idea that we all are, in a sense. Sarkeesian certainly is. She’s marketing a viewpoint. I’m only offering my two cents because I generally agree with that viewpoint, and would like to see her succeed.

[andy_hilmer]

To memize the memer, you are “taking stupidity back” and making the world safe for the dull. After all, academic words and double-digit reading level might allow more subtlety than you are capable of handling; I can see how an environment of academic language might threaten you. It’s certainly given you reason to bring back the grammar-scold dick-waving contests of 2009.

[daneel]

@grumblebum

I don’t play multiplayer games, but I feel fairly certain that “subvert the dominant paradigm in the collective consciousness” doesn’t crop up much during in-game chats.

[grumblebum]

Thank you for the refocus/rephrasing.

I couldn’t figure out who the “stupid entitled” people were, either, so I just defaulted to them being me. And then, off down the snark-hole!

@andy_hilmer

you are “taking stupidity back” and making the world safe for the dull.

Oh, wait. I guess he did mean me. Anyway, thanks for trying to help. Obviously, a wasted effort, but appreciated.

[grumblebum]

I think we can all see who is doing the dick-waving around here.

[andy_hilmer]

Really? The person derailing a conversation with a bunch of childish wanking about grammar is somehow the victim of grandstanding?

I anticipate much more eating of posts by the moderators before the end of today. I’ll be glad to be part of that meal, but before it happens you should reflect on why it has happened.

[anon33466019]

Andy, grumble, you are derailing any useful or insightful conversation. I respect the voices and patter of both of you–quite a lot honestly–but please take a breath.

[grumblebum]

@japhroaig

please take a breath.

Honestly, I sort of already tried (see my self-deprecating meme). Admittedly only sort-of, and not terribly clearly.

But yeah, noted. I’m done.

[MikeTheBard]

Love Sarkeesian’s work. She’s definitely made me rethink things on a number of occasions.

What I would like to see, though, is the next level of discussion on where these tropes come from, why they’re successful, and what changes should be made.

Men have an instinctive drive to protect their tribe, and when that fails, to avenge. We like to look at women. We are attracted to violence because it seems like a simple and efficient solution. These are the product of millions of years of evolution- We can’t just shut them off, nor should we.

@doctorow

As Sarkeesian points out, you may get a mission to hunt down a brutal pimp, but you’ll never get a mission to get the hooker he’s just beaten to a pulp to the hospital, nor do you unlock achievements by visiting her at a shelter or helping her get re-established elsewhere.

I love, love, LOVE this- It’s exactly what I’m talking about. Why don’t we start including that sort of thing? It feeds the same instincts, but in a more positive way.

[anon47741163]

Something I read once about the movies vs television, is that the lower resolution and sound quality of the TV make for less emotional nuance. Sex and violence work on TV because they can still carry an emotional impact even through such a small window. With the larger palette available on the big screen, you can get more nuanced stories and richer emotional tones to the audience.

This helped me understand the typically low production values of slasher films and pornography- the reason to see these films isn’t enhanced all that much by spending a lot of money on realism.

So in a way, it doesn’t matter that much if we’re talking about War as a product, or merely selling console merchandise: the market assumption is a high-volume, low fidelity appetite for twitchy stimulating experiences.

Against all the examples she brings up, I have to compare my experience of the game Flower. Very high resolution sound and visual, showcasing a really simple interface and game concept. And the emotional impact was stunning. I wanted to give a standing ovation at the end credits.

I think of it as the natural evolution of a climax ecosystem. Dandelions and blackberry plants love the churned up edges of fresh disruption, and towering trees need a lot more stability. When you’re selling political fashions or video games, people’s tastes are going to evolve.

These critiques I think mostly give us permission to ask for better art, and not just accept what’s being offered.

[anon47741163]

Demitri Martin has a bit I love about a video game called “Super Busy Hospital” where you pick up the pieces left behind by all these other violent video games. I actually think you could get a very fun game out of this premise!

[catgrin]

Here’s that gag done as a fan vid:

Now, if you want to go practice cutting and stitching on someone - there’s a site for that. Surgeon Games lists surgery-based games to play (some happy, some dark). They even have Amateur Surgeon Christmas Edition!