Tropes vs Women in Videogames

[lanky316]

Finally watched the video and while I agree with the concept of the series I think she's started pretty poorly. A mixture of bad examples used and poorly executed arguements weren't the best starting point. At one stage she starts talking about how a DiD is about ojectifying someone as something to be won and little more? Complete opposite is the reality, the point of a DiD is that it's a basic character plot device used to make you care more about what you're doing.You're supposed to care more about the point of the game/film/book in these cases as being human (or antrhopomorphic animal) you want to save them and empathise easier. While Taken would've sure been funnier if the point was OurHero trying to retrieve a pair of slippers stolen from his hotel room I don't think it'd have quite the hook...

When she then applied this to some of these older games though it got painful, not only is there next to no plot development or characterisation ofr ANY one but she starts to imply some long drawn out nonsense about how "Princess Peach is used as little more than a ball in a game of macho manliness between Mario and Bowser. She's just there to be played with, fought over and won and nothing more" (paraphrased natch) which isn't the case at all. It's just a flimsy excuse at creating a plot and story that so many developers threw out there in the theory that "well... we need something to keep them playing". To suggest there's any thought process at all regarding story on these games, subliminal or otherwise is just laughable.

The thing is, I agree with the basics of what she would be trying to say. Games generally are very much on the manly side (a pasttime traditionally seen as something laddish, appealing to laddish people, SHOCK!) and throughout the years women haven't been represented that well but the execution of her arguments were flawed. Even within the video she had golden opportunities but went the complete wrong way. She throws all that nonsense at something as harmless as "get through the levels as quickly as possible with as much points as possible!" to make it into a demon of the patriarchy and all she throws at Double Dragon is "look... Some versions show her panties!" which was a perfect game for her to target. Especially as yes, the game will literally degenerate into an out and fight for the girls affections between the two players. A much easier target then some harmless Nintendo platformer without any form of character or real plot anyway.

I think the series will be interesting and due to it's nature will raise very good points but this part wasn't that well scripted and I feel her targets were poorly chosen. I guess she went on about Nintendo and spent most time on those two titles this episode because it's an easier hook and will get to more non-gamers than obscure references but as a look at sexism in video games, I think she started fairly weakly. When's part two out?

[Skummy]

"Princess Peach is used as little more than a ball in a game of macho manliness between Mario and Bowser. She's just there to be played with, fought over and won and nothing more" (paraphrased natch) which isn't the case at all. It's just a flimsy excuse at creating a plot and story that so many developers threw out there in the theory that "well... we need something to keep them playing". To suggest there's any thought process at all regarding story on these games, subliminal or otherwise is just laughable.

But surely the fact that "rescue the girl" is such a standard that people would unquestioningly accept it as a "throwaway" plot is exactly the problem? It's something we accept unthinkingly as a perfectly acceptable storyline.

Now, personally, I'd say that Mario is a poor example, because it so often plays the "Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach" angle for laughs. In a lot of the spin-off games (the RPGs and so on), it's often a precursor to a larger plot, and when it's the plot in it's own right, it's treated as something fairly silly.

When Peach does get the opportunity - something I'd argue should probably happen more, as I find it silly that the more recent Mario games give you the option to play as Luigi, Mario or a bunch of different coloured Toads, when Peach would be an appropriate choice of additional playable character - she proves herself to be at least as capable as Mario.

For the most part, I'd say that Mario plays around with the trope enough to exclude it from criticism, though not entirely from the discussion, as it's a good example of a game outgrowing the initial "save the princess" storyline and, at least somewhat, subverting it.

[King Ellis]

It probably doesn't help that when Peach does actually get a chance to be a hero and stars in her own game, her assortment of powers include crying.

[MDK]

And using her umbrella

[Skummy]

It probably doesn't help that when Peach does actually get a chance to be a hero and stars in her own game, her assortment of powers include crying.

Which is why we should care more about Super Mario Bros II "inexplicably the most overpowered character in the game" Princess Peach.

But, yeah, I think if you're arguing "they've clearly not thought about it so it isn't sexist!", I don't think you get how this works.

Also, I agree with Quom in that money is the common demoninator. Saying you can't discuss money when dealing with feminism is like saying you can't discuss mosquitos when talking about malaria. You can't just take an issue out of context, but that's the end result of almost any discourse on any kind of social exclusion.

Money is relevant to the discussion, and I think will be the key factor in changing this around. As much as the "big" games like Call Of Duty and so on are aggressively macho, the industry is moving more towards mobile gaming and social network games, which tend to be more inclusive and gender-neutral as a result of having a potentially wider target audience. The "mainstream" games industry, if you can call it that, are already trying to jump in on that market with an increased focus on social media and networking elements, and I think that trend will only continue.

[lanky316]

"Princess Peach is used as little more than a ball in a game of macho manliness between Mario and Bowser. She's just there to be played with, fought over and won and nothing more" (paraphrased natch) which isn't the case at all. It's just a flimsy excuse at creating a plot and story that so many developers threw out there in the theory that "well... we need something to keep them playing". To suggest there's any thought process at all regarding story on these games, subliminal or otherwise is just laughable.

But surely the fact that "rescue the girl" is such a standard that people would unquestioningly accept it as a "throwaway" plot is exactly the problem? It's something we accept unthinkingly as a perfectly acceptable storyline.

When Peach does get the opportunity - something I'd argue should probably happen more, as I find it silly that the more recent Mario games give you the option to play as Luigi, Mario or a bunch of different coloured Toads, when Peach would be an appropriate choice of additional playable character - she proves herself to be at least as capable as Mario.

"Rescue a person" is the standard plot point, transposing it to a simple gender issue is missing the point of it. Finding Nemo is essentially a DiD storyline, the fact that Nemo is a male doesn't change that. Saving Private Ryan was a DiD story and I'm sure it's not hard to go on with examples of plots where there is someone who needs rescuing who is not a female (MArio himself in Luigis Mansion?). What I said is that It's quick and easy writing "What's the point? Save somebody!" it's very easy to do quickly without too much thinking and can be used to great effect. Yes, you could certainly find a lot more examples across media where the figure is indeed female and traditionally it almost always was (it has since become a little rarer thankfully) with most examples being by women for women. My "objection" was her throwing it into the hat in what was presented as some sort of deep analysis into inherent and well thought out sexism in the Mario games. It was a poor argument IMO which was the point of my comment.

You're right about chances for more opportunities and it was a point that I agreed with. While I understand in reality it's probably just a simple pallet swap in the same way as Luigi was originally but there is no reason it couldn't have been Peach in the latter games.

[Skummy]

Finding Nemo is essentially a DiD storyline, the fact that Nemo is a male doesn't change that.

Yes it does.

Surely the fact that you can refer to it as "Damsel In Distress" would suggest that this is a gendered issue. Finding Nemo is a terrible example, because Nemo is a helpless, somewhat disbaled, child taken from his parents - if you admit that this is the same as a "Damsel In Distress" story, then you're accepting that the conventionally female "damsel" is interchangeable with a weak and helpless child in need of parental protection. Are you seeing why this is an issue yet?

The argument is not that sexism is "well thought out" in these games at all, it's that it's second nature. That's the point.

[lanky316]

A Damsel in Distress is the name for the trope in which a character is rendered helpless and needs to be rescued. The character in question is usually female and nubile, is portrayed as helpless and in danger in order to put the cast of characters to action. It is called a damsel in distress BECAUSE that was (and still in a lot of cases is) the traditional role in storytelling. In reality it is not SPECIFICALLY gender based when discussing the actual trope.

You're still missing the point of what I'm saying so I'd suggest you don't reply. My point is specific to her specifciations so stop making up your own and changing what I'm saying. She specifically referred to Mario being a deliberate and well calculated attack on women (more than a little paraphrasing and enhancement ) I was saying that this is not the case at all and her suggestion didn't do her any favours. I stated it is fairly common practice in media to have the main point of things be humanoid in nature and why the simple and easy view point is for "rescue a person" to be the "plot" in something. I never argued funnily enough that people are lazy and more often than not went with "women needs aid" you've made all that up yourself.

[SeanDMan]

If we called Nemo David In Distress would that make it a non-gendered trope?

What about Druid In Distress?

[SeanDMan]

What about Private Ryan, his other example that you conveniently ignored? He was a Dickhead In Distress.

[Vamp]

I'm still not able to watch videos on my computer but man people who are saying "but they just wantz to make the moniez" are really kind of missing the point of feminism. The idea is to reflect on and challenge patriarchal systems and structures, and capitalism is patriarchal, going "these companies are just trying to make money" is kinda missing the actual wider point of what feminism is going on about and putting things in a vacuum. I mean, I get what you mean, but its not really an argument because its on a different plain of discussion. There are other issues raised here which are more interesting, the reflection on limited character development within games, but also then I think there's been a bit of a tendency in this thread to look in a vacuum of video games and not consider that the images of women in video games appear within a patriarchal system and that the image of woman is already under considerable subjugation and has negative elements to it (or so a feminist argument would presumably go). Although I'm still wary that I can't watch the video and the woman might not be a very good critic.

I'd argue that one needs to address the greatest motivating force for the creation of a product. For a large portion of AAA titles the sole purpose of their existence is to make money. End of discussion. To ignore that entirely is to not only piss in the wind but to throw punches at invisible enemies. AAA games are McDonald's they are easy to access, easy to digest and ultimately leave you feeling like you're still hungry. What she's doing is saying 'yes but does it taste good' which is a pointless discussion as that's not why it exists or how it makes money.

You don't change the world by bitching about what's wrong with it, you change the world by offering an alternative. Otherwise all you're left with is undergrad wank.

I think you've misunderstood what I was goign on about. Capitalism is a patriarchal system, so of course feminism addresses that. The point is that it relies on selling sexism. That's the issue in this context. Going "oh but be fair to them all they want is moniez so they have to be the sexist" is just kinda silly. You have a point with the alternatives bit, which is my issue with feminism and probably why I'm not a staunch feminist. But then its cultural theory.

[Colly]

What about Private Ryan, his other example that you conveniently ignored? He was a Dickhead In Distress.

You could so easily have said Matt Damon in Distress, but you had to be mean. :/

[SeanDMan]

He was totally a dickhead. Did you hear that story, where he busted in on his brother and a girl and cockblocked them, just because she was a fat chick? Fat chicks need love too man. Fuck that guy.

[apsham]

So someone did a Tropes vs. Men kickstarter which... honestly would've been alright. There are some tropes in most video games I'd like to see analyzed and debunked but... they just seem to have taken the money and ran.

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/

[King Ellis]

Doing Tropes vs Men just sounds like the 'WHERE'S WHITE HISTORY MONTH?' we get every February.

[Quom]

I'm still not able to watch videos on my computer but man people who are saying "but they just wantz to make the moniez" are really kind of missing the point of feminism. The idea is to reflect on and challenge patriarchal systems and structures, and capitalism is patriarchal, going "these companies are just trying to make money" is kinda missing the actual wider point of what feminism is going on about and putting things in a vacuum. I mean, I get what you mean, but its not really an argument because its on a different plain of discussion. There are other issues raised here which are more interesting, the reflection on limited character development within games, but also then I think there's been a bit of a tendency in this thread to look in a vacuum of video games and not consider that the images of women in video games appear within a patriarchal system and that the image of woman is already under considerable subjugation and has negative elements to it (or so a feminist argument would presumably go). Although I'm still wary that I can't watch the video and the woman might not be a very good critic.

I'd argue that one needs to address the greatest motivating force for the creation of a product. For a large portion of AAA titles the sole purpose of their existence is to make money. End of discussion. To ignore that entirely is to not only piss in the wind but to throw punches at invisible enemies. AAA games are McDonald's they are easy to access, easy to digest and ultimately leave you feeling like you're still hungry. What she's doing is saying 'yes but does it taste good' which is a pointless discussion as that's not why it exists or how it makes money.

You don't change the world by bitching about what's wrong with it, you change the world by offering an alternative. Otherwise all you're left with is undergrad wank.

I think you've misunderstood what I was goign on about. Capitalism is a patriarchal system, so of course feminism addresses that. The point is that it relies on selling sexism. That's the issue in this context. Going "oh but be fair to them all they want is moniez so they have to be the sexist" is just kinda silly. You have a point with the alternatives bit, which is my issue with feminism and probably why I'm not a staunch feminist. But then its cultural theory.

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said they have to be sexist. I said AAA video games are devoid of any major anything. It's like getting your knickers in a knot over the quality of day time television. I'm a fag, yet I don't expect games or gaming culture to bend to my will. I'm sure most minority races are under represented or shown in a stereotypical light etc etc.

My argument is that this is like bitching about the characters in a 1980's popcorn action film. If this is the worst form of misogyny left to discuss then it's time to rejoice. Because there is no grand plan, there is no art. This is mass produced entertainment with no message within. What is being presented as misogyny is just people over analysing something basic to best fit their agenda.

It gets to the point where it's like comparing which minority had it worse in Nazi Germany. Except of course Nazi Germany actually did care about what they were doing.

[apsham]

Doing Tropes vs Men just sounds like the 'WHERE'S WHITE HISTORY MONTH?' we get every February.

Hardly. While minuscule compared to the female issue, it's still a relevant discussion.

[lanky316]

So someone did a Tropes vs. Men kickstarter which... honestly would've been alright. There are some tropes in most video games I'd like to see analyzed and debunked but... they just seem to have taken the money and ran.

http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/

Looks like they pulled through in the end

[MDK]

Quom Godwinned this bi-zatch.

[Vamp]

I'm a fag, yet I don't expect games or gaming culture to bend to my will.

Good for you. Some people who belong to minorities do expect fair and equal representation. I'm nto really sure that shoudl be represented as unfairly asking gaming culture to bend to their will. I'm not much of a feminist, I agree with the overall goal but I have issues with them, I still get the general principle and agree with it.

I'm sure most minority races are under represented or shown in a stereotypical light etc etc.

So that means other minorities can't point out unfair tropes in a system? They're not allowed to say anything because other minorities are also being badly represented? Seems like a bad system. It seems to me that one minority group challengign current tropes and ideologies represented in cultural text might pave the way for other minority groups to do the same.

My argument is that this is like bitching about the characters in a 1980's popcorn action film.

People do that. And also it isn't like that, since 80's popcorn action films aren't around anymore. They're in the 80s. This is about a current issue.

If this is the worst form of misogyny left to discuss then it's time to rejoice.

Its not. Nobody is saying it is. Its part of an overall problem in a patriarchal system. That's the point. I already said that.

Because there is no grand plan, there is no art.

That would work better if the video game industry wasn't trying to produce more art games. I mean, it still would miss the point but it'd work better. Video games are cultural texts, the argument is that they're putting across bad tropes and that's bad. Which is a solid argument to be making.Aa solid argument against that is not "they're not art so that doesn't matter" of course it does.

This is mass produced entertainment with no message within.

Yeah and no. Its mass produced entertainment that contains negative tropes of women (is the argument) which puts across bad tropes to other people. Which is kind of a message. That's the point, these are negative tropes that exist in a patriarchal system that video games, whether you believe its unintentional or not (I'd rather believe it isn't intentional for the most part, but I'm nice) reproduce.

It gets to the point where it's like comparing which minority had it worse in Nazi Germany. Except of course Nazi Germany actually did care about what they were doing.

Really? You brought Nazi Germany into it? Kind of scraping the bottom of the barrel isn't it? I'm not sure saying "It was worse in Nazi Germany 'cause they meant it" is much of an argument.

The best point you made in all this was the overanalysing thing, which is kind of true of a lot of cultural theory. Its mostly a natural and understandable reaction against the overwhelming domination of social structures and systems. The problem here, really, or at least a big part of it, is that these cultural theories have had longer to develop and, in part, video games have had a slower development and is still a medium that seems stuck in its teens a bit. Characterisation in video games is still not really at a very developed stage, barring exceptions of course, and so applying a developed and established cultural theory to it (albeit one that has problems within, feminism isn't a completely united front afterall) probably can't help but appear a bit off balanced at the moment. But then art and cultural academia will end up reacting to video games more and more. And quite rightly as it grows into a more important cultural text. At the route of all that will be questions of identification, which I think will be the major issue for cultural theories, especially feminism, and I think that'll be a difficult question that has big implications on questions about characterisation in video games. I think you need pretty stable ideas about how a player identifies with characters before you can really tackle the question of characterisation and tropes.