Tropes vs Women in Videogames

[Skummy]

It is really weird to me that "treat women as people and not as plot objects" is something that people think will bankrupt companies.

That's not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that most games developers are on the downward spiral anyway and they don't want to make big decisions in a conscious effort to smash tropes.

The reality of the situation is that most single player games featuring a single protagonist are based almost entirely around that character, everyone else bar the big boss is a plot object and you could argue that the big boss itself is a plot object. You try and change that by treating women as not just a plot object and suddenly you have a woman that is central to the plot, but you don't want her as a plot object so what exactly do you want?

Tropes are always going to happen, and it's much more likely for a game developer to create a story with a female protagonist with her own tropes than they would if they were to create a male protagonist and weasel in a way of making a female character central to the plot without also making her a love interest of the protagonist.

The issue, for me, is that you can have a wide range of male characters with intricate personalities, whilst the vast majority of female characters will be all but solely defined by the fact that they are female.

[Crybaby Bunting]

But we only know that the male character has such an intricate personality because we're spending the entire game following them and developing new experiences, unless there is a female character in nearly every scene as the male character we're not really going to see much character development.

The new Tomb Raider for example is a perfect example of a game fully fleshing out a female character, the only problem being that once the rape back story was revealed it was seen as not the right kind of character development even though it fleshed out Lara Croft just as much as many male protagonists.

[Sousa]

But we only know that the male character has such an intricate personality because we're spending the entire game following them and developing new experiences, unless there is a female character in nearly every scene as the male character we're not really going to see much character development.

It's like you're just skirting the results of getting it but aren't. Look at what you just said. "We" identify and understand male characters because they are the protagonists.

The new Tomb Raider for example is a perfect example of a game fully fleshing out a female character, the only problem being that once the rape back story was revealed it was seen as not the right kind of character development even though it fleshed out Lara Croft just as much as many male protagonists.

What exactly is this "rape backstory"? I could launch into a whole thing about Lara Croft (she is the Mongols of video game gender discussion), but I'm curious about this.

[DMN in the House]

I don't remember there being any rape backstory in the new Tomb Raider game, but I might have missed something.

[Skummy]

Also, to be clear, I'm not just talking about the protagonists in these games, I'm talking about male characters in general.

[TEOL]

The new Tomb Raider for example is a perfect example of a game fully fleshing out a female character, the only problem being that once the rape back story was revealed it was seen as not the right kind of character development even though it fleshed out Lara Croft just as much as many male protagonists.

What exactly is this "rape backstory"? I could launch into a whole thing about Lara Croft (she is the Mongols of video game gender discussion), but I'm curious about this.

Did somebody say 'Mongols'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5nlD2CR7tI

[TKz]

I don't remember there being any rape backstory in the new Tomb Raider game, but I might have missed something.

In the new Tomb Raider (which, Skummy will agree is probably the best example of a game where a woman can be the central figure of a game and not be reduced any kind of gender role), there's a point in the game where she's captured for a moment by an enemy and he get's a bit lecherous with her. It's never sexualized and it's really uncomfortable, nor does it last more than 30 seconds at most. But when it was shown in previews for the game, it wasn't exactly very well highlighted and made it look a lot worse than it is without context.

The fact the drama came from the out of context preview and hasn't been mentioned since the game was actually released should tell you how blown out of context it was.

[TEOL]

Of course, the fact they thought it was a sensible way to portray it in the preview is a problem in itself.

[TKz]

Of course, the fact they thought it was a sensible way to portray it in the preview is a problem in itself.

Oh, yeah, really fucking stupid way to try and drive home that it's a mature game. Square Enix hasn't exactly done well with advertising lately, remembering the Nuns trailer from Hitman.

[RPS]

Related:

http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-be-a-woman-making-games-1292389459

[Sousa]

As ever don't read the comments.

"YOU WERE SCARED OF A DRUNK GUY? WHAT ARE YOU, A DUMB BITCH?"

I hope she had her dick-chopping knife handy.

[Your Mom]

As ever don't read the comments.

"YOU WERE SCARED OF A DRUNK GUY? WHAT ARE YOU, A DUMB BITCH?"

I hope she had her dick-chopping knife handy.

Dont read the comments? Well of course the first thing I did was read the comments. Feel kinda sick now

[GoGo Yubari]

Oh, JHS

Don't ever read the comments on a Gawker site. You're gonna have a bad time.

[GoN_]

[Skummy]

Running commentary;

I'm less than a minute in and already hate that guy.

Less than two minutes in, and he's mispronounced "without further ado" twice.

Less than five minutes in, and his argument basically comes down to "here are games with female characters in them", so they're not sexist, clearly. He's not made a point yet.

When he's openly admitting that half the games he's talking about as being "groundbreaking" are games you've probably never heard of, they're probably not that groundbreaking. It could be the best game ever, but if no one played it, it's irrelevant to the argument.

And now he's arguing that Princess Peach is called "Princess Toadstool" because "she was called that in the American release first", and really hammering that home. Because apparently poor translations and terrible localisation is of more importance than consistency or reasonable naming. Also, it's not relevant. Nor is the shit about Doki Doki Panic and Super Mario Bros 2. The idea of people not liking Mario 2 because of "revisionist history" is hilarious.

This guy's a dick.

Cheap shots on the original video for no good reason other than smarminess. I don't really see his point about Dinosaur Planet, other than to be smarmy and try and get one up on the original video...because reasons, I guess. Probably because he comes across as the kind of guy who gets his kicks explaining to women how they're feminism should work. His argument that the female protagonist of Dinosaur Planet doesn't count as a female protagonist because there was also the option of a male character doesn't really make any sense. That's literally a situation where a male and a female are presented as equals, surely that's as strong an example of a strong female hero as you're likely to find? But no, that's irrelevant when you could use that precious time to get cheap shots in on a woman you've never met.

Dinosaur Planet would have "crashed and burned" because Tomb Raider was a thing, apparently

Apparently it's "reductionary" to refer to Lara Croft as an object of sexual attraction. It's not.

And now he's arguing the use of "trope", and being an absolute dick. He's arguing about the usage of words, without understanding that words change their meaning over time. He's blaming it on "the internet in it's infinite wisdom", but the modern usage of the word trope exists in media theory well before that. Dick. He's arguing about the importance of the correct pronunciation of words, while being the same guy who said "further adieu" earlier.

He just said he's not being a snob, but he is. And now he's arguing that the entire "tropes" argument falls apart because the word "trope" is incorrect. Which, again, is a misunderstanding of how words work, and a presumably conscious effort to ignore the main body of the original video's point and get hung up on semantics. Which is pretty much the easiest way to know that someone has lost an argument.

More dickish know-it-allism and nothing that matters to whatever the point is supposed to be.

"The original version of the myth, if there even was one" might be the silliest sentence yet.

Trying to argue that Andromeda doesn't fit the "damsels in distress" trope because she was put there to be sacrificed by her parents. I don't see the relevance. Also arguing that her nudity wasn't a factor in the original myth is irrelevant, when the original myth was thousands of years ago. There have still been hundreds of years for the nude damsel in distress image of Andromeda to become the popular image and to permeate public consciousness.

Bleeped out swearing, how *bleep*ing bad-ass.

He just claimed that an image laid something out "pictorially". Well, obviously.

A reading of St. George and the Dragon that's fundamentally flawed, and irrelevant to the "discussion". Yet he's calling out the original video for omitting this.

Cutting hairs on the difference between "apes" and "ape men" in early 20th century literature, without discussing any kind of historical or social context that the idea of "apemen" would hold at the time. So, again, it's just saying things to arbitrarily argue semantics with the original video, and not bringing up any useful points. Quel surprise.

Oh wait, now he's trying to argue that it's got more to do with when The Ascent Of Man was written, which is to put it vaguely and miss the point, to put it nicely.

Oh, and now he's trying to sum it all up by arguing semantics - big shock - about the difference between damsels in distress being women who were "kidnapped" and those who were "placed in distress", and that "arguably" women are still shown in a subjugated position. It's not arguable, that's the entire point of the story.

The archetype should look at "how the woman gets there"; there being "in distress". Does it matter? Oh wow, and now he's calling out the original video for not looking at "women of colour in video games". "What, no one wants to..."...well, how about you do it? That would be a fucking rollercoaster ride, I'm sure. It would also be an exceptionally short video.

"As a pop culture critic, her pop culture connections are flimsy at best" from a guy who's argument just came down to "Miyamoto probably saw a movie with a monkey in it, right?".

And there's a part two, with this video ending at a seemingly arbitrary point. Oh fucking hooray. No way I'm sitting through another twenty-five minutes of floppy-haired smug prick wanting you to shower him in praise because he read the Wikipedia entry for Gilgamesh.

[RPS]

I'll sum up what skummy said in a much lengthier post...

Dude is a fucking moron and really annoying.

[Sousa]

I for one would like to watch one single solitary response that doesn't boil down to "SHE'S COMING FOR OUR DICKS."

[GoGo Yubari]

I'm not watching that whole thing. Is it like this?

[Sousa]

My fedora is fuming. Fuming!

[Skummy]

I posted on the video of aforementioned smarmy idiot, saying that he argues semantics over content and basically a slightly more polite, concise version of what I said here.

His response?

"I argue perfectly well, you just do not understand things well."

Which must be an example of this excellent arguing I've heard so much about.