alanschu

I think the important thing about physically attractive people is trying to discern the motivations behind why she is made that way. Sometimes we can fall into tropes doing that too (the Ice Queen for example), but I was a big fan of Isabella because her design is basically to illicit the "she's a sex object" perspective, and even her superficial interactions leads one to conclude just the same. But I find her motivations interesting. She isn't there just to have sex with the male, and is frankly mostly just a woman that is comfortable with her sexuality and enjoys making other people feel a bit uncomfortable because of it. But peel back some of the layers and you get someone that is a bit deeper. I know some think it's still a bit cliched (which is fair enough) as to what her layers are, but I enjoyed it. Same with the types like Annah and Fall-From-Grace as well (although FFG is probably a bit more predictable of a counterpoint to the standard succubus).

She is certainly presenting it from a particular point of view. Sidetracking this away from Anita's video specifically: I was chatting with a friend/co-worker today about this a bit as well, and we find it interesting. I remember someone calling for "mature" themes in DA3, such as rape. I responded with a statement that I think it'd be interesting if the male PC got raped and the player was powerless to do anything about it. The response I got was that that was clearly just being contrary to serve feminist agenda. On the one hand this has effectively painted himself into a corner. Threat of rape can only be "genuine" if it satisfies conditions he feels is "natural" and "realistic." Deviating from this expectation undermines any attempt at it being presented as mature, because he felt it'd just come off as forced to try to be different. There's two problems here: First: the only acceptable way to present this is for the woman to be the victim. I find this perspective to be somewhat telling and perhaps intrinsic to systemic/institutional ideas, which I don't think fairly line up with reality. That he outright rejects the notion that a deviation from this is a bit unsettling to me, as it reinforces my perspective that there seems to be an issue with men feeling this is the only way to present something in a "mature" way. Second: the realization that he's actually right. Take Damsel in Distress and reverse it, and you'll often get people going "they're just reversing the trope to try to prove a point." Change Double Dragon so it's some guy getting kidnapped and it's "they went away from the girl because of feminist pressures." This can be a bit unsettling itself because it gives the idea that genuine attempts to just present a scenario without any gender role implications will automatically have gender role implications assigned to them by their audience (i.e. I feel you believe Anita is demonstrating this somewhat, herself. Which is a fair criticism). So we run into a problem of "We can't have a man rescue a girl, because it's Damsel in Distress and has sexist implications." But having "woman rescuing man" gets dismissed as "they've just tried to reverse the Damsel in Distress trope." I think Mass Effect did a good job with the Virmire survivor, as one was a male, the other was a female, and both are equally valid options regardless of Shepard's sex. Though there were criticisms that one of the choices (and only one at any given time) was a potential love interest (I personally think this makes the choice more interesting. Does Shepard let his affection influence his decision?). Not all games will be able to have situations like this, however. It's certainly not an easy resolution. It seems as though ideally the best way is for these events to simply no longer be considered issues. That's easier said than done, and likely would require some level of "affirmative action" to ensure that the distribution of games that have specifically "man rescues woman" set in proportion to respective permutations, it'll be something we think about less. If there was an even 50/50 split of games that had women rescuing men in Mario's time, Anita's entire justification in using Mario as an example would be completely undermined. The issue, I feel, is that it is very pervasive, which Anita obviously feels is a problem for appropriate representation and the socializing effects it can have. (As an example, on this very forum I remember a thread where someone felt that pink was an intrinsically feminine colour and that women were biologically predisposed to find it more appealing.... This perspective I do not agree with at all and went on giant ramble responses for that as well. Perhaps had his experiences growing up been different, he'd have been less likely to assume it was something biological rather than social - or perhaps not since we can't turn back time to verify ) Cheers! Allan

Agreed. I actually felt bad when I was in a sour mood and snapped at him! Though he didn't seem to acknowledge my PM so I assume he hates me!

It's probably this: Stupid format copying...

Note that one does not need to be in an emergency condition to be admitted to a hospital.

I don't know if this is necessarily a valid defense. You are correct, that she wouldn't care at all if it was Mario's male BFF that had been captured. And it is always important to make sure that a type of "reverse sexism" isn't also occurring. But given the point is to examine situations where women are placed in Damsel in Distress and its relative frequency, I am not sure what you were expecting. If there was a common trope of italians being depicted as fat plumbers and crimes against turtles throughout gaming history, I think this defense would have more leg to stand on. The unfortunate thing is that Damsel in Distress isn't a trope that is exclusive to games, but even then if Mario was the only game franchise to rely on it so heavily, Anita's critique of it when looking at gaming in general would be severely undermined. The principal point of Damsel in Distress, though, is that it's based around a woman being placed in a situation of distress, with no recourse to do anything about it except await her rescue by a man and provide the motivation for the plot. So yes, Mario was specifically picked because there was a woman being kidnapped. Unfortunately for Mario, the game fits this very universal trope (which predates Mario by millenniums) It's more an issue of prevalence and socialization. How much of the vitriolic reaction towards Anita is because of being exposed to this type of media and being informed that "this is the way things are?" You could also draw an argument that Peach being kidnapped is as much a reflection of society (it's seen as an acceptable motivation) at the time, though by utilizing it further you also serve the point of reinforcing these types of gender roles on your video games. I personally think there's a strong cultural backing as well (particularly in the perspective of Miyamoto). And I think it's also telling that you focus on it as a "young boy market." I think this is part of the problem. It was a young boy market, and it helped ensure that it was a young boy market by catering exclusively to young boys, and doing so in a way that perhaps perpetuates some level of gender roles for what expectations there are of men and women. Given women in general have always had very suspect depictions in games, looking at the history of gaming doesn't seem like a bad place to start. As you say, however... what type of plot should she really expect? By that standpoint, something else entirely could have been used for Mario's motivation... but it wasn't. Why is that? Define "malice?" I have seen some say that because there's no outright acts of misogyny, Mario doesn't apply (a perspective I struggle to agree with). The malice appears to be the idea that it continued to perpetuate an already established trope, and Mario happens to be an absurdly successful franchise that exposed this trope to boys pretty much everywhere. When taking a larger scale perspective of tropes vs women in games, Anita appears to have started at the beginning. When assessed in a vacuum, I think it's early to get overly critical because she was looking at an immensely popular game (and other early games) to establish that this trope has been in video games as long as video games have existed.

Master of Magic.

*sigh* Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act Although reading up on that, the Act doesn't cover emergencies that arise to someone that is already admitted to a hospital.

Yup! Thought it was interesting haha.

There's actually a word for that: Ludonarrative dissonance I haven't actually played the game, but I hear it kind of evolves the interactions as the game goes on (Similar to SpecOps) where the enemies are more ostensibly afraid of the fact that Lara is still alive and Lara evolves to being more confrontational and aggressive as well.

The response to Jack Thompson is still typically just as bad, but you're right that it's a bit of a double standard when the target of the ire is more uniformly agreed upon. Thompson had the unfortunate perspective of taking a very extreme stance on the games being "murder simulators" and with his whole getting disbarred shortly afterwards, ended up fading into irrelevance. The principle difference with Anita and Jack, in my opinion, is that Anita just wanted to investigate female tropes in video games (since she is a female gamer. Her perspective/concern is hardly new) and has been much more moderate in her assessment, whereas Jack Thompson was on a hellbent crusade to show how violent video games creates violent people (a proposition that already has a lot of research done to illustrate this isn't the case).

I actually agree that the video seemed rather conservative and safe in its approach. To be fair as well, some of my coworkers comment that the later games actually poke fun at the whole "Peach always gets kidnapped" thing as well.

Exactly. It's impossible for health care to be completely private for that reason alone. Unfortunately, that type of care is also ridiculously expensive.

Errr, her point with that was that the damsel in distress trope has its roots in early gaming, and she illustrated that the theme of Peach being captured has remained the central motivation for the game in 13 of 14 different iterations of Mario games, and that the trope continues today. Though she does acknowledge that the mere existence of this trope in a game doesn't mean that a game must be sexist. Eh, the original Lara Croft still focused heavily on Male Gaze. I think it got worse as the series progressed initially. A review by a Mary Sue writer details her experiences (and epiphany) with the Tomb Raider series and how her perspective of it changed as she got older and was exposed to the different games (she agreed that lara was amazing and awesome with the first game), and the reservations she had with the new game and how she ends up loving what the game did with Lara's character in this one. An enjoyable read.

Hahaha. Outside of the initial reaction and occasional resurgence of topic, I haven't followed her too closely. I do think Cliff has a point, however. I watched Anita's video today and had no real beef with it. Some of the stuff was disappointing (Rare's game, for example) for a variety of reasons. Although the reaction of the extreme does lead me to want her series to be absurdly successful just to spite them haha.

On some level health is always going to be public components, unless you enable hospitals and other acute emergency care centers the ability to deny emergency treatment until proof of insurance/capability to pay is confirmed (this is not a good thing). This situation is compounded because these types of health care costs are the most prohibitively expensive to boot.

I hate the Tyranids. Total ripoff of Starcraft's Zerg! I love trolling Warhammer fans by saying that.

I think you're attributed FAR too much to them simply because they have a video series (I see no shortage of pretentiousness on this board by the way. Perhaps you just don't see it that way because the opinions that I often consider pretentious are opinions/perspectives that you agree with). Hell, I'm pretty damn certain I come across as pretty pretentious half the time as well. Lord knows on the internet everyone tries to convince the rest of the world that their perspective and views of the world have weight and merit (and I wouldn't be surprised if someone felt this post was a pretentious mess!) It's an editorial, and they would love for the medium to explore and try new things. This is exactly what I would also love the medium to do more of. Games that can make me think and reflect (i.e. a game like Planescape: Torment) is something that I really enjoy. Same with games that can illicit a genuine emotional reaction through its content. You may not agree with their perspective on areas that the game industry should explore, but these should be the types of topics that broaden your own reflections as well. It's easy (and insular) to block out perspectives that you disagree with. The best thing a show like EC and Bull**** have done is have these episodes that challenge me, because it makes me reflect on my own personal perceptions of the world. Then again, I don't find cognitive dissonance an intimidating thing and tend to enjoy those types of epiphanies. Hell, in general I don't agree with many of the opinions/perspectives on this very board but people typically aren't royal ponces about it so I always find myself gravitating back (some exceptions, but I just find myself putting them on ignore). EDIT: To follow up on JFSOCC's post, there's one part I like about it his post: sometimes their episodes "irk" me too. I wonder if it's because they made a mistake or if I genuinely, and fairly, disagree with their perspective... or if it's because I may have some preconceived notion or bias that has influenced me to think that way unfairly and without proper consideration.

More CliffyB If Video Games Are Going to Grow Up, Then the Bullying Needs to Stop

I have zero clue as to why Steam prices are the way they are in places like Europe compared to retail (or the US), but I get the impression that you seem to think that it is Valve that sets the price for games on Steam.

It's basically postulating that SpecOps is attempting some level of "interpretive" storytelling through leveraging the medium (i.e. game mechanics) rather than pure escapism of most games. Their SpecOps review basically pushed me to try the game and it was one of my favourites from last year. Well, they kept coming back to the "because you wanted to be a hero" and saying "everything after this point is the devs talking to the players". The view they gave was pretty grim overall. I don't like when somebody preaches to me about how things "should" be, and they are preaching about how stories should be told and development should happen. I don't want my entertainment to be an afterschool special... at least not obviously, which seems like something they're advocating some times. How on Earth do you tolerate being on these forums? It's post after post about how things "should" be, including your post right now that I am replying too. It's not an after school special. It's just something done in a unique way that made me go "huh." It was a refreshing change of pace and I disagree with the notion you have about how games "should" be.

No. I often remember saying "Those graphics are awesome!" Take a game from today and plop it in the 1980s (assuming it could magically run) and suddenly the games we thought looked awesome aren't going to look so hot. It's all relative. After looking at the NES games, it was more difficult to go back to the Atari to play.

Random leader is the only way to play Civ 5 :D

It's basically postulating that SpecOps is attempting some level of "interpretive" storytelling through leveraging the medium (i.e. game mechanics) rather than pure escapism of most games. Their SpecOps review basically pushed me to try the game and it was one of my favourites from last year.

I remember this episode. I didn't mind it. You're stuck too much on the term "amnesia." FONV is used as an example for in media res. The game doesn't bother with everything pre-Benny shooting. Is the real point that they mentioned a situation where they preferred how FO3 did this aspect over FONV (A perspective I'm sure many would consider unfathomable). In other words, were you following it until something was brought up that introduced some cognitive dissonance, and since you disagreed with that assessment, concluded that the show was no longer worth your time? FONV was a vastly superior game narratively, but based on the context that they provided, I can understand his perspective (it's not an issue for me). My favourite episodes for this show (and a show like, say, Penn and Teller's Buill****) are the ones that lead me to some sort of introspection (usually by challenging my perspectives)