What has always bothered me about these movements is that these social justice advocates seem to be shooting themselves in the foot. One of the main reasons that game developers are so fond of the white, straight male protagonists is not because they are evil agents of the patriarchy trying to keep women and minorities down, but because it is the only safe choice.

A white, straight man, you can put it any scenario. Give him any background, make him suffer any type of abuse and have virtually anything happen to him, and no one will complain or give a shit. And this is something that you cannot do with a character who's a woman or part of a minority.

If you go with a black guy, you can't have him be captured and enslaved, because that'll be a clear endorsment of racism. You can't have him be beaten by a white guy, or it'll be promoting white supremacy. You can't have him act too white, because that'll be forcing a person of color into a white-approved role and will entail ignoring and forgetting his cultural identity. Yet you also can't have him act too “black”, because that'd be enforcing racial stereotypes. He can't be around too many white people, because then he turns into just a token character, yet you can't have him around too many blacks either, because then you might be furthering segregation and showing that races should be separate.

If you go with a woman, then you can't give her a partner, because it'll be using her as an instrument of romance to entice male players. You can't dress or shape her the way you want, even if part of it has to do with the story, because having too prominent breasts, a slim waist and skin showing, you're objectifying and sexualizing women. You can't give her any background or storyline that you want, because a lot of themes are just absolutely taboo. You can't have her endure too much violence, or it'll be endorsing male on female violence. You can't have her interact with too many men or talk about men, because then it'll be too male-centered. You also can't have her interact with too many women or talk about them, because it'll be seen as a male (lesbian?) fantasy. You can't have her act too (typically) feminine, or you'll be treating them as an inferior gender, yet you also can't have them be too male, because then you're saying that acting masculine is the only acceptable way for females to get anywhere. You can't have her lose against males, or it'll be portraying women as weak. You can't have her receive help from any men, let alone be rescued by one, or you'll have the damsel in distress trope.

None of this is true. The demands you refer to are expressed only by what I'd call the fringe "vocal minority" of feminists on the Internet. I'm sure there are some feminists who actually believe that you should not be able to subject female characters to any sort of adversity, but the majority of opinions over the matter are a lot more nuanced than that, and that's what your post fails to acknowledge--in particular, feminists such as myself, who recognize that adversity is a key component of storytelling, and isn't something that any decently-written character should be totally immune to, regardless of his or her gender/ethnicity/what have you.

I think most feminists would agree with me, too--yes, most of them--that the main thing you have to keep in mind when it comes to the depiction of women and minorities in video games is the intent behind the depiction. No intelligent feminist is going to act like a woman getting raped in a film or video game is inherently oppressive and inherently co-opting the patriarchy or some stupid shit like that.

I consider myself more of a film guy than a game guy, so I'm going to use more film examples for this. But I think they really go hand in hand. So, have you seen Boys Don't Cry? I'm sure if you haven't seen the movie, you've at least heard of the case. It's about the story of Brandon Teena, a transgendered person who befriends a couple of ruffians who rape and murder him when they find out that he "lied" about his gender.

Now, do you honestly believe any sane person would watch that film and interpret those rape and murder scenes as some kind of patriarchal male dominant rape fantasy or something crazy? Do you think the intent of those scenes was to say that raping transgendered folk is okay, and that we should all kill them? I don't think so. The intent of those scenes are pretty clear.

And I think the same logic applies to video games.

While pointing out these issues is obviously a necessary step towards overcoming them, it can cross a line. Instead of just making game developers aware of a lack of female leads and giving them the idea to portray women differently, this is also leading to negative and adverse effects. Game developers are more likely to go for the safe choice of the default straight white male, then to take the risk of including more females or minorities. Because all it takes is one slight misstep to start a feminist-inspired public outcry followed by a twitter hate campaign and boycot action.

Even those feminists probably have a lot more of a nuanced position than, "Oh, she's getting hurt, therefore bad."

It's not necessarily the content of the art--it's what the art is expressing. That's the argument that needs to be had that you are not making.

And not only is there a whole lot that can go wrong with using more female or minority characters (as opposed to the typical white male), it can also really stiffle creative freedom.

As established, you have the creative freedom to do anything you please, but that's not the point. If you want, you can write a story about raping all women, supporting misogyny, etc. etc. etc. But there's no reason why we shouldn't be critical of stories like that. We're far beyond basic tropes like "damsel in distress". It's just a fact. It's been done to death. It's been done so often, it kinda makes women look bad, or weak, when put in such an objectified position.

Which is kind of a raw deal for women.

A lot of themes, story lines and plots become a no-go for all of the abovementioned reasons. Being treated equally should entail both the good and the bad, not just what certain people deem good and acceptable. "Yes, we definitely want more women in video games. But only if they're portrayed EXACTLY the way we want them to be. So no, you can't have her be oppressed, abused or raped. And no, you can't have her be beaten or overcome by a male. You also can't treat her in a stereotypical manner, but don't forget to include her female identity too! She also can't ever be rescued or helped by a man, or portrayed in any weak way, because that's endorsing the patriarchy. And no, you can't have her show any skin, even if it's part of the story, because that's sexist and objectifying women. So yeah, we want more women in games. But only if they're basically infallible and nothing too bad happens to them, and that they always triumph in the end."

Nobody says this. Nobody wants this.

To get a bite. Like I won't even try a serious discussion with you anymore.

except i'm not trying to "get a bite"

The industry is big enough to support games everyone likes. Don't feel like there's a need to say something I don't personally care for is wrong or problematic, and therefor shouldn't get made.

until i can play a fighting game around friends without feeling really awkward and embarrassed when i play as female characters because of the way they are portrayed, i will disagree

People were arguing with you because of the stupid (and false) shit you were spewing over and over.

99% of what i said was opinion based

pretty sure opinions can't be false

Quote from: True Turquoise on March 31, 2015, 08:00:06 PM

PC gaming is srs biznuz

He seriously got mad over a fucking preference? Christ man.

No. People get mad over MY preferences, so I bite them back.

oh, but this thread is about Anita as you've put her name in the title and linked to her video.

there's a bunch of letters in the title
i guess that means the topic is about the alphabet

No, the topic is female representation in video games. The speaker in the video just happens to be Anita Sarkeesian. Why the fuck wouldn't I put her name in the title?

Hey Mop Boy!

http://sep7agon.net/index.php?topic=33442.0

Why the hell did you derail my thread? Asshole.

because pc gaming sux

Try reading the next sentence there maybe?
Just last week we saw two Twitter campaigns against devs to remove content. Worked on Lionshead.

it was ultimately lionshead's decision

what would they have done if they didn't listen

Quote from: Verbatim on March 31, 2015, 05:19:26 PM

Explain how it's garbage. This should be a laugh.

Anita Sarkeesian is not only a disgrace to Armenians, but is also a massive fucking cunt that's bending the video game industry behind and fucking it dry and senseless.

Also, she's not even a real fucking gamer let alone an actual fucking developer. She's only trying to spew shit and cause a tear in games.

If I wanted to include a female character that I created and wrote a story arch for and that took years and there is one point in the scene where she has her shirt off because she lost it while falling into a pit and needs to get out if the pit while only wearing a bra, I would get complete fucking shit from Anita because I am not allowed to keep continuity within the story forcing me to rewrite what happens and change around years of work to serve Anita's shitty agenda.

Not the best example, but my point is we can't have women appear how they would be in most R rated flicks if the game is rated M. The damsel trope... I get it that's been overdone, but what if it's actually required for the main female character to get captured and you play as her and need to find away to GTFO? Anita will still rip you a new one with all these bullshit points.

Fuck her.

regardless of whether or not anita is a gamer, she still manages to make a few good points

i don't support pressuring developers into changing aspects of the game to appease SJWs or pressuring them into including SJW-friendly characters

but i do still think we need to be more conscious of how we represent females in video games

avgn hasn't been good since 2008

fascinating

Well I listen to good music

ॐ नमः नारायण
ॐ नमः नारायण
ॐ नमः नारायण
ॐ नमः नारायण

That's fair. Although technically you could spin it around another way. I mean think about it this way. Out of all the games out there, somebody chose to use your game engine. They chose to use your engine and what you made as the groundwork for their own idea.

Rather than be insulting, wouldn't that actually be somewhat honorary to you? Because usually, there's a lot of games and their respective sandboxes to choose from. Having somebody to pick yours, your groundwork, your framework, and build off of that.

To me that seems something to be proud of. That you've made something that somebody looked at from a differnt angle and modified. They were inspired to make something else from what you gave them.

sure--if i was kindly asked permission by some yearning modder to fuck with my game, i would be flattered

but i'd respectfully decline if their idea failed to meet my vision
and if they proceed to fuck with my game anyway, then they're an asshole

if i like their idea, then it wouldn't be a mod anymore--i'd make it an official part of the game if it ended up being perfect

that's how i'd do it
if you're not gonna ask me for permission, i don't see how i could not take that disrespectfully

i realize that modern game devs encourage modding, and that's their right
but the way i see it, they're allowing a lot of misguided people to fuck up their games indiscriminately

obviously, i must just simply take my own art a lot more seriously than other people
maybe they don't even consider their games to be art

the main thing that i want people to take away from me with regards to this subject, or any subject revolving video games, for that matter, is that i'm not trying to FORCE my opinion on anybody--the reason it might seem like i am is because i am very militant and passionate when expressing these opinions, but i ultimately don't give a shit at the end of the day if anyone disagrees

i just never understand why, and that's frustrating

Yes, but the component that allows me to adjust what I can "fucking see, with my eyeballs, on the screen" is sometimes in an .exe separate from the game itself, and sometimes it's not even that, but is a text file that I have to edit manually.  That would make it an edit to a game done from outside, or *pulls sunglasses* a mod.

Well, then I would just make the argument that you shouldn't have to do that. I don't play on PC, so I can't sympathize with having to do that.

But why not let the developers decide whether or not they consider it "pissing on their art"?  Why are you insulted on their behalf?  If they're giving out the tools to the public, I doubt they see it that way.

Who isn't letting them? I've expressed the exact opposite sentiment. I said, yeah, I don't care if the developers don't consider it to be pissing on their art. I disagree with them.

It's also pretty snobbish, and just plain wrong, to believe that your own creation is infallible, and to believe that no one is better at your job than you.

That's not the point. I don't think my creations are infallible, or that no one can do the job better than I can. But that doesn't change the fact that I'd still take it offensively, because regardless of who can do the job better, it's still my piece of work.

Mods improve games (well most of them anyway)

Tell me right now how i'm supposed to play Skyrim without mods?

By not playing Skyrim, because it's a bad game.