What was it about the woman who wants to change gender stereotypes in video games that brought out so much hate?
The last few days, a number of folks have been upset about this bizarre clusterfuck, in which a woman (Anita Sarkeesian) starts a Kickstarter for a project to thoroughly and carefully critique the issues surrounding female characters in video games. Good on her, I say. Mind you, I think male characters in video games are also overdue for some serious examination, but that in no way invalidates Ms. Sarkeesian’s project. As periodically happens on the internet, her project drew a tsunami of invective so misogynistic it makes me want to run off and join a lesbian commune. (I asked—apparently I don’t meet the entry requirements.)
Now, I’ve been downstream from the exact same kind of pseudo-Anonymous attack myself in the past, and it’s frustrating. It’s like being attacked by hundreds of noisy chihuahuas. Individually, they’re ineffectual and annoying, but there’s a bottomless well of them. Adding to the frustration is the knowledge that they don’t even mean half the misogyny they spout, they’re just saying the ugliest things their limited imaginations can encompass, in order to get a reaction. Of course, the punchline is that Ms. Sarkeesian’s project ended up raising ten times its intended budget, because the schmucks calling themselves “the true face of the internet” have somehow never heard of the Streisand Effect.
This case raises an interesting question, though. Gender role representation has been improving in all kinds of media, with men and women increasingly allowed to be complex characters outside of genital-based stereotypes. Video games are running behind, though. It makes me think of a conversation I was recently having with a friend about lagging indicators, metrics that are the last to change, so that by the time a change shows up there, it’s fully propagated everywhere else. Lagging indicators show up in most forms of data analysis; the simplest way to understand them is that when your grandma’s heard of a band, it means they’re not cool any more. Grandma is a lagging indicator.
This makes me think of articles like this one, all about how the big game and electronics companies are still relying on “booth babes” and similar objectification of women to try to sell their products. “Yeah, but they’re just doing what works!” runs the standard objection, but that’s not true. Women are close to half of the market for video games, and more than half of the market for consumer electronics. Cheap T&A marketing tells women, and an awful lot of men, “This product is not for you. It’s for someone else, someone who makes boob-based purchasing decisions.”
What we’re looking at here is an entrenched culture. They’re still doing booth babes because that’s what they’ve always done. Likewise, gender roles in video games tend to still fall into a very few stereotypical models. Video games, like soap operas and sports journalism, are a lagging cultural indicator, and the vicious reaction to Ms. Sarkeesian’s project indicates that some gamers, surprisingly, want a longer lag time.
Photo of young woman playing video games courtesy of Shutterstock
About Noah Brand
I have the same problem with her project that I have with all these sorts of things:
There is a focus on destroying the creativity of others rather than the critic creating something themselves.
The piece run on the GMP today about how Daddy Blogging began as a grass roots movement is probably a great example. The Daddy bloggers gained status and success by building up a community that provided parenting advice. They created new content. They did not simply attack existing content until they were blue in the face.
If there really is a market out there for video games produced out of a “different type of corporate culture” then the best way to prove it would be to actually start creating those games. But as a self-described “pop-culture-critic” Ms. Sarkeesian isn’t really interested in creating anything new, just in putting down the work of others.
Note: The comments that Ms. Sarkeesian put up with are still not justified, there is no justification for out-right misogyny. I am sad that I have to include this, but I’m sure that someone will attack me if I don’t (and I’m pretty sure I’ll get attacked anyway).
However, the world would probably be a better place if people like Ms. Sarkeesian spent more time building and less time trying to tear down what others have built.
But but …
I thought a “critique” was closer to an “analysis” rather than necessarily a put-down .. thingy? An analysis would be good to have, right?
Critique is an analysis, though generally a critical analysis. A good critique isn’t about putting anything down, but about understanding it and pointing out it’s flaws…and perhaps suggesting ways to fix or improve those flaws.
But if the flaws are real…why not just put out a better product?
Because, as I pointed out, she’s not a game designer. Also, from what I understand, she’s commenting on mainstream culture and in this case mostly AAA games…i.e. the big ones. She doesn’t have the cash that a AAA gaming studio would have to make a huge game and promote it and ship it, even if she were a designer. I mean what you’re basically suggesting is that like, movie critics, shouldn’t critique cinema…but that they should just go make a movie instead, not just a movie but a blockbuster. That is so unrealistic as to be nearly impossible, mate.
So, what your saying is that games like Portal or Angry birds shouldn’t exist, because it’s impossible for popular games to be developed on a shoestring budget…right.
Also, the comparison to movie critics is a non sequitur, movie critics act to inform consumers about the pros and cons of a particular movie. Ms. Sarkeesian is only interested in attacking the entire industry at large, not about helping consumers to make purchasing decisions.
A better analogy would be someone asking for money so that they could do a six-part documentary on why McDonald’s food is problematic. It’s just unhelpful at this point, and consumers would be better served by receiving alternative options.
Uhhhh… Portal isn’t on a shoestring budget. It is a major production. Valve is one of the biggest studios out there. They had a “shoestring” budget back in 1998, but even then it wasn’t shoestring because it was founded and funded by Gabe Newell, who is a billionaire because he was a part of Microsoft from the very beginning.
Trust me, Valve is NOT a small studio. They’ve been around since the beginning of the millenium, and have been a revolutionary company since then… but they are also a big studio.
Er, the team that made portal was a bunch of Students (some who started in there teens as I recall), who made a game (well tech demo) about a no knee princess (she can’t jump as a result), who had to use portals to solve puzzles. Gabe Newell saw this at a student showcase, was highly impressed, told them to demo to valve and offered them jobs. Very limited money to AAA game based on a new concept they made themselves, pretty much out of Uni.
Given this its entirely possible a game can go from shoestring to major title (even based off your second post about AngryBirds/Minecraft). Also minecraft does infact have a story, if not the greatest and best, just defeat the Ender Dragon. Also Space Pirates and Zombies, made by a few people from ground ip, is a similar success story.
Im somewhat confused by your gripes about graphics/story. The last 2 years have taught me these do not always make a fun game (Plants Vs Zombies!).
Infact looking at the number of games on kickstarter that are having money thrown at them from simple working concepts, hell even new mobile gaming, never has there been a better time since Commodore days to make games from the ground up on your own time.
Or just pretend Valve, EA, Activision etc. are the only people making games worth playing. Your choice.
Also, Angry Birds can exist because it doesn’t need the rendering power that a PC or console game does. Such games like Angry Birds have existed since the invention of Flash. In fact there’s whole websites dedicated to simple Flash games just like Angry Birds. It CAN be developed on a shoestring budget if the person 1) has a good art style, 2) has a simple game mechanic, and 3) can market it well. But it does not need the rendering power, the writers, the physics tools, the art department, the lighting, the gameplay mechanics, the programming, coding, debugging, the testing and retesting constantly, the distribution, the packaging etc. of a big budget like Portal.
Now if you had a game like say… Minecraft, which has millions of players and was created on a shoestring budget, you could point to it and say “HA! See! You CAN make a game on a shoestring budget!” However, this game has 1) simple graphics, 2) simple gameplay, 3) was in Alpha production and in Beta production for literally years as people started playing it and 4) they built on the platform gradually as their consumer base grew. So they had a steady flow of cash that allowed them to add more to the game as time went on, since the game wasn’t fully released as a finished game until maybe barely just last year. They had an entire base of people that they used as the play testers, and released patches and updates regularly. But the game itself has no story line, no writers… nothing. It is simply a game in which you build things.
Portal, on the other hand, has a story, dynamic lighting, scripted events, complex graphics, complex physics, and more complex AI.
“A better analogy would be someone asking for money so that they could do a six-part documentary on why McDonald’s food is problematic.”
Such as the smash hit, Super Size Me, which was one among many social commentaries that has emphasized how unhealthy that kind of food is.
As to the movie critic comparison…there are critiques of cinema as an industry out there, that then are used to improve the industry. And whether you’re commenting on a single movie or the entire industry, the point is to inform consumers (and movie-makers) as to the good and bad aspects to the industry (or the movie). Critique, on a macro or a micro level, serves the same purpose.
One can create games using existing software, like RPG Maker for example : as long as you can create something with a good plot and great characters you can get quite a lot of fans and fame.
Part of building something new involves identifying problems with the old something, in this case video games. She’s not a programmer or a game designer. She’s a social critic…so she’s doing what she can in the venue she has to comment on the problems in he media she loves.
Also, she doesn’t have to “prove” that there is a market for different types of video games; that ship’s sailed. That’s already been proven.
If it’s already been proven, then why is she writing a critique?
At the end of the day, she’s not actually creating anything, just continuing to attack something that others have created.
As you say, she’s “not a programmer or game designer” so she’s not going to be able to actually suggest real improvements, just provide “comments on the problems.”
We already have the entire internet providing “comments on the problems” we hardly benefit from more of the same. We would actually benefit from better designed games, but again, Ms. Sarkeesian isn’t actually interested in that, just in pointing out the flaws of others.
Oh. My. God. Non-game designers can totally make extremely useful critiques of games…particularly if they play games. They are the consumers, after all. And she’s making the critique because even though it’s been proven, nothing has changed…or at least very little has changed. So, as a consumer and as social critic, she’s making her voice heard, because the more voices that speak out and the wider audience they reach, the more likely it is that AAA game designers might hear it and listen to what they’re saying.
Hear, hear, Heather.
Game studios are as big as movie studios. There are a few developers out there that do provide wonderful female characters (Valve fangirl right here), and many allow you to create a strong female character. However, the biggest studios, quite often being developers of fighting games, tend to go with things that are “tried and true”. Meaning women characters that are fan service. However, with female consumers becoming a growing base, adding their voices to the critique, we’re beginning to see the evolution of the female character. Part of Ubisoft’s next installment in their Assassin’s Creed series will feature a female assassin named Aveline. She is the first in a previously all male line of main protagonists. Granted, she’s not the star of Assassin’s Creed 3, but she’s certainly featured.
Things are beginning to change. You still get characters like Bayonetta every once in a while, where her powers come from being, uh, naked. But they’re not as prevalent as they used to be. With the successes of games with strong female characters, and a growing chorus of female gamers demanding better characters, the tide is turning and more and more female characters are becoming more than just token T&A.
TL;DR Female gamers have very much a right to demand better characters, and things are starting to turn their way. But that doesn’t mean that us ladies (and/or men) should stop demanding better characters or critiquing the fan-service characters.
Your beloved Portal and Portal 2 came about because enterprising college kids programmed a simple game called “Narbacular Drop” and presented it to major studios.
It did not come about because of “social critique.”
Feel free to give money for more “critique” if you want, but don’t pretend it’s going to help.
You have the part where it was developed by college students. But Valve HIRED the students from the local tech college that developed “Narbecular Drop”, which had a new and interesting game mechanic, and then GAVE THEM THE TOOLS to develop it into a major game. They did the same with Portal 2, where they picked up an interesting game mechanic from college students, HIRED THEM, and then incorporated that mechanic into their sequel of Portal 2. However, the CHARACTERS from those games, GlaDOS, Chell, everything in those games – that came from Valve’s WRITERS.
Jesus Mike.
Since you probably didn’t really read the wikipedia page that well, I’ll give you examples of the differences between the games that the students developed and the games that Valve made by incorporating those mechanics created in college.
Narbacular Drop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNG52b_jLYc
Portal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCheThV29K4
TAG: The Power of Paint: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFrPjrRwR8o
Portal 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeVmSEvhzQU
Valve hired the students that made these innovative game mechanics and then gave them a cohesive storyline out of it. Both Portal and Portal 2 were made with Valve’s own developer tools, and built around Valve’s own engine, called Source. Narbacular Drop and TAG were both senior student projects that came out of the local game design/technology school.
I’ll add, that I suppose technically the reason Portal 2 came out at all was because Portal did so well. And originally Portal was just part of an apology by Valve for taking so flipping long to put out Half Life 2…it was bundled in the Orange Box (think that’s what it was called) with Team Fortress 2, another smash hit. So it wasn’t conceived of as a huge project, but it was developed by a major studio.
Also, you point out that Portal wasn’t developed via social critique…and yeah that’s true, but I’m not arguing every game is or should be developed from social critique. From what I know, neither is the critic this article is about. T&A is fine when that’s not almost the only type of female character that exists.
Wanna know some of what has come about via social critique by gamers about games?
-A female Col. Shepherd in the Mass Effect games who was, at least in the first two, arguably one of the least T&A character models ever. And even into ME3, she remains a pretty awesome character.
-Female Charr character models from Guild Wars 2
-Same-sex relationships in Star Wars: The Old Republic and a gay male relationship in Mass Effect 3
-The main female character in Half-Life 2 (which I haven’t actually played) is another character model that is purposefully not about T&A.
And yeah, okay, at the same time these games are coming out, crap like Call of Juarez is coming out too…but that’s because change doesn’t happen over night, especially in a huge business which the gaming industry is. But critique does have an effect; it’s just that the gaming industry is still developing. It’s still figuring itself out…and so critics critique it and hopefully developers listen and make better games.
You are right, in that Portal wasn’t a result of DIRECT social critique – it came about from writers who were already doing the unexpected by creating strong female characters that weren’t token T&A. They were ahead of the game so to say. So the characters of Chell and Alyx were created by the same people, and as such became a huge part of the influence to making stronger female characters and non-”traditional” characters more common place. Valve is a highly successful studio, and they proved that you can make a game with strong female characters and make huge profits off of it.
Good point.
Uh, Chell is not a strong female character. She has literally zero personality and doesn’t talk! Her gender is basically a completely irrelevant part of the game.
Gordon Freeman is the same – yet people still love him as a character. I still consider Chell a character through how other characters interact with her, and the description of her from the comic that was released.
I can’t speak for Chell, because I haven’t played Half Life 2…it’s on my to-do list…
But with regards to having great characters who don’t talk…well yeah as Steph pointed out, Gordon Freeman is the same way. But as for great female characters who don’t talk…how about Samus from the Metroid series? Not talking doesn’t mean zero personality…and arguably Samus was a much better character before she did start talking in the fiasco that was Other M.
Which I suppose this is a bit off topic of the original post…well except maybe not…because with Other M the critique was to give her a voice, and the execution of it was done piss poorly. And so then the critique of Other M will hopefully help developers learn from what went wrong.
“Since you probably didn’t really read the wikipedia page that well”
Welp, now we’re at the point of open insults. Glad to see that’s what it takes to “make your point.”
The fact remains that these games were created by creative college kids whose original ideas caught the eye of a developer (I never said anything different).
You have yet to prove that “social commentary” contributed in any way shape or form to the process.
My point has always been, and will remain: if you want video games to change, learn to program. If you want to whine, go ahead and make some social commentary.
Since my comment trying illustrate the differences between the games got deleted, I’ll try to explain this more nicely.
Both Portal and Portal 2 took the senior student projects that came out of Digipen, the local technology college, and hired the students to work on a new game. Portal took the basic premise and game mechanic (in Narbacular Drop it was “magic doors”, in Portal it was “portals”) and then gave them the tools to develop the gameplay. However, the writers of Portal: Chet Faliszek, Eric Wolpaw, and Marc Laidlaw are all longtime Valve writers. They were the ones that created Chell, not the students. They were writers in Half Life, as I mentioned below, and they were responsible for creating Alyx Vance. Same people. They were the ones that made that story. The game of Portal was also developed through Valve’s own tools and engine, called Source. The students created the basic idea, the writers gave it life. But the students didn’t create Chell. Or GlaDOS for that matter.
Same thing happened with Portal 2. After the success of Portal, they started working on the story for Portal 2. They took the idea from TAG: The Power of Paint, a student project. The idea was that special paints can change a surface and gives it new properties, like the ability to jump high or run fast. However, TAG was not the fully fledged Portal 2, it simply provided Portal 2 with a unique game mechanic. Again, the writers created the story and provided the engine for the game.
While Portal 1 was a bit risky, Valve published it with tools that they had created and its own writers, essentially making a big budget production. Portal 2 was definitely a big budget production.
Hiya,
So I’m a moderator here and I’m just letting you know that sometimes comments get held in moderation for awhile when none of us moderators are around to look at it. We’re all volunteers so sometimes it takes awhile. Also, it’s often an automatic thing, when a comment has multiple links or uses specific terms. In your case it was the use of multiple links. Generally, we try to get comments sorted (either approved or deleted) within an hour…but this doesn’t always happen. So yeah, we ask patience.
Also, here’s a link to the commenting policy: http://goodmenproject.com/commenting-policy/
haha all right, I thought I saw my comment had been baleeted because I was angry and probably wasn’t using very nice language.
You continue to act as though I don’t know how Portal was developed. I do, note that I’m the first one who said “Narbacular Drop.”
You have yet to demonstrate where “social commentary” helped this process.
My point has always been that learning to program changes the face of games. Writing social commentary does not.
I look at glamour magazines and stuff for women and see nothing but hot women many in bikinis. How do they know that women don’t want hot women in the games? Women have an idea of what women should look like also. Can the game developers already be considering that?
I find it amusing that you’ve decided to criticize this woman’s creativity rather than creating something better.
Frankly, the criticisms she has are completely valid and worth bringing up. Female characters are evolving… slowly… into something a little more complex than a Reward For Playing.
Valve, my absolute favorite developer, produces strong female characters that are completely capable and still attractive. They aren’t and don’t need to be built with silly proportions with boobs that defy physics. Those aren’t integral to their characters. Zoey and Rochelle, from Left 4 Dead 1 and 2 respectively, are both attractive characters that are no different than the male characters. I play as them because I identify much better with them. I feel better that I’m not playing as the token T&A character.
Chell, the protagonist from Portal 1 and 2 (both wonderfully written games) must navigate her way out of a deadly testing facility run by a malevolent AI. She is described as “abnormally stubborn and refuses to give up, no matter how daunting the challenge”. She is silent, much like her male counterpart from the Half Life series Gordon Freeman.
Speaking of the Half Life series, Alyx Vance, the second most important character of Half Life 2, is also very very high on the strong female list. She, along with the protagonist Gordon Freeman, help spark a resistance against an alien race that has conquered and now controls Earth. The daughter of a major scientist, she is very intelligent and capable of both building things and firing a weapon. She is widely considered as one of the most attractive video game characters, not because of ridiculous proportions (she’s actually very realistically built), but because she is smart and funny, as well as being physically attractive.
Valve consistently puts out well written video games with strong and compelling female characters. There certainly is a market for them. The company has proved that you don’t need token T&A to sell a female character. None of the characters they write feel contrived. The female characters in the Left 4 Dead games play just exactly as the male characters do. Chell, even through her silence, is as widely loved as fellow mute Gordon Freeman. And Alyx, Gordon’s right hand woman, is integral to the story of Half Life 2 and its episodes – without her help, Gordon wouldn’t be able advance.
Best female character ever: GLaDOS.
I completely agree. haha
God what a brilliant character she was.
Ugh, Half Life 2 gives me motion sickness problems that don’t occur in any other area of my life. It’s really weird, especially because the Portal games didn’t affect me the same way.
@ Steph
I like Zoey. Would I like her better if she had proportions that defied physics, probably? Would it stop me from buying the game? I own two copies. If she had proportions that defied physics, would that stop you from buying it or playing as her?
I’m currently in my third year of a Game Design course at University, and I can tell you the future unfortunately isn’t very bright.
For starters, there’s an 80/20 gender split. That was actually measured in the first year, could well be less now. The uni has a few programs to try to encourage females to join but it hasn’t had the best take up. And while there are a few very talented and creative individuals in my course, there are also a LOT of immature guys that I know won’t be helping things.
The issue is that the industry is very cutthroat at the moment. We still haven’t recovered from the recession, the average studio life is around three years. As such the safer option always wins out when deciding what game to make, so I think we’ll have to wait until a time of prosperity to see change.
“For starters, there’s an 80/20 gender split. That was actually measured in the first year, could well be less now.”
Which is interesting because the last stats I saw were that when it comes to consumers, it’s about 50/50. So for some reason women are playing video games, but aren’t going into game design. It could be because women aren’t interested in game design, which is possible. However, considering the way video games are largely considered a ‘boy’s toy’ and the way that a lot of video games do treat their female characters so badly (if they have female characters at all), I’m betting that a lot of women either don’t even realize they could be game designers even if they have the interest. Well that and I’m betting a lot of women think that it’d be hopeless or too difficult to try to penetrate the perceived boy’s club of game design.
That 50% stat is great, but a little confusing. It measures absolutely every form of game (as it should) so when you look into it you see that the female market is centered around casual gaming and mobiles. “Hardcore” gaming is still pretty male dominated, and you have to play a LOT of games to consider it as a career :p
As a classic ‘hardcore’ gamer I totally get what you’re saying…but I also think the line between hardcore and casual is becoming less and less about how often someone plays a game and about the genre of game. Someone could play iPhone games all day and still not be considered ‘hardcore’ because of the types of games they’re playing. It’s become an identity in itself that is no longer simply descriptive.
Certainly, things will still progress slowly. I think, though, that if the industry can continue to mature, hopefully they’ll invest more in hiring good writers. Until then, I will continue to send my money towards Valve, because damn their games are good, well written, and their female characters are amazing.
Well now this is totally off topic but…if you actually were interested in playing an MMO but just couldn’t get past a lot of the crap in MMOs, I suggest looking at Guild Wars 2.
I could do a whole like, sales pitch here, but I’ll refrain. But hey if you’re interested in it e-mail me at theblissfollower@gmail.com and we can chat about it. 
Or just check their website, lol.
If stores would actually stock AO titles so the “sex sells” market could be separated from the rest of the game market, I think that would help too.
Well these trolls probably feel their past-time is being threatened and are defending it to the core. So often video games cop the blame for all kinds of bullshit, zomg school shooters, zomg men failing, etc that some of them are probably just reacting to another perceived attack.
I think it’s good to list the tropes of women in games, hopefully someone will do one for men too (zomg yet another man that needs 34million calories to sustain his muscle mass). Trolls are going to cause laws to be passed that will bite them in the ass!
I’ve found that for the most part, video games is a place where commenting on gender stereotypes is pretty evenly done (whenever it’s done at all). GiantBomb, Extra Credits, TotalBiscuit, even Zero Punctuation on occasion…they critique the industry for it’s representation of women and it’s representation of men.
Could you elaborate on what laws you mean when you say “Trolls are going to cause laws to be passed that will bite them in the ass!”? There’s never going to be a gender-equalization law for fictional characters.
Laws as in forcing isp’s, websites to hand over data for things like harassment. I believe the UK is trying to pass it and maybe other countries.
ht tp://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/12/internet-trolls-bill-defamation-online
Not laws to bring in equalization, that’s up to people to write content, make games, movies etc with it in and considering it’s the creative arts it’s a bit silly to mandate equality in representation per item, eg a game has to have 1:1 ration men to women (good luck doing a ww2 game).
“It’s a bit silly to mandate equality in representation per item, eg a game has to have 1:1 ration men to women (good luck doing a ww2 game).”
For what it’s worth, I don’t know anyone who actually plays video games who is suggesting this.
All right, let me tell you something so obvious it hurts.
There are many types of games, catering to many different kinds of players.
From strategy games to erotic games : thousands of titles have been created.
Picking a few and showing that Oh My Gawd, the lady is in a tight suit and my eyes aren’t bleeding when I look at her is just….
TVtropes provides us examples of Chainmail Bikini or Stripper Iffic: what this woman wants is some cash to play games for free.
There are many different types of games……..there are not many different types of games that AAA studios are making. There are not many different types of female characters in popular games (even if you include non AAA games that became really popular). Also, she’s not picking a few games to comment on…her plan is to show trends, thus the term “tropes.” Her plan is to show some common themes and point out how they are problematic.
Also the idea that she’s wanting to be paid for playing games is just a bit ridiculous. She’s going to be playing games for purposes completely outside personal enjoyment. If she hates fighter games, for example, it doesn’t matter because in order to do this right she’ll definitely have to look at some fighter games. Plus, she’ll end up looking at some of the worst and most offensive games and female characters, which doesn’t sound like fun. that’s work.
This case raises an interesting question, though. Gender role representation has been improving in all kinds of media, with men and women increasingly allowed to be complex characters outside of genital-based stereotypes. Video games are running behind, though.
Really? This claim perfectly matches the stereotype of the misogynistic gamer who lives in his mother’s basement and can’t get laid. But if you look at other kinds of media or entertainment are they really more progressive when it comes to gender roles? For example the Fifty Shades books which are still on the first three places of the NYT bestseller list. Are these books a good example for “complex characters outside of genital-based stereotypes” ? Video games are a lagging indicator because I say so is not a convincing argument.
A big difference, I think, is how long these other media have been around. Other media have been around long enough that tropes and cliches have been created and broken multiple times. You still get books, movies, etc that rely on old stereotypes, but there are also a wealth of really popular books, movies, etc. that don’t. And so it sort of softens the blow a bit because it’s not as if the entire medium is full of these really horrible representations.
So I don’t think video games are falling behind, so much as I think they’re still being figured out….and not just in terms of gender representation, but even the business & legal side of it. I think part of the problem with video games is that it’s not only video-game-haters that actually buy into the gamers are adolescent (or adolescent-minded) boys/men…but the industry itself buys into it. And then they market their games to who they think their audience is which just feeds the perception that games are for adolescent boys…and on the circle goes feeding into itself.
I think we’re starting to break out of that cycle though as more people make critiques of video games and that stereotype of who is playing them.
So, are video games lagging behind or are they just taking their time to develop just like other forms of media? You seem to recognize that video games are still a growing media type but the OP says they are indeed lagging behind. I wonder if comparing a 30 yr old media type to one that is a bit over 100 yr old and then saying the 30 is lagging behind isn’t a bit hasty.
As you say the business side figures into this. We are just now in the last few years getting to the point where you don’t need the backing of a massive studio to make a hit game. (And of course the greed of playing to the largest audience has slowed down the trend of opening things up.)
And also it doesn’t help to think that the only solution is to go after the 30 yr guys that do this stuff. It’s going to take working with today’s boys since they will be the future 30 year old guys. And by work with I mean actually teach them, not just presume they already embody the dark side of today’s 30s and then go into some sort of warped idea of damage control.
And that is a problem because? I am not being factious. I genuinely do not understand this argument. The nature of entertainment is that some things will appeal to certain groups. There are scores of TV shows, comics, films, and video games that are not for me. I have an option: do not watch or read them. Glee is not for me, so I do not watch the show. Fox News is not for me, so I do not watch it. The Twilight Series is not for me, so I do not read it. Sarkeesian’s project is not for me, so I will not donate to it.
If you do not like a product, do not buy it. That does not mean you get stop other people who want that product from buying it just because you do not like the marketing strategy or because the main characters are not the “right” sex for you or because the characters do not match your political views.
The problem is twofold…firstly it says that objectification is okay, which it’s not.
More importantly, though, is the fact that in mainstream games there’s very little else out there. It does exist, as we’ve been discussing in these comments, but in AAA games there are precious few female characters that aren’t strictly T&A. It’s not about political views…and it’s not even about stopping other people from purchasing a product. It’s about sending the message to the people who are creating that product to branch out from the T&A female character because a good portion of the people who purchase games would like to see some actual female characters.
You assume that everyone agrees that women are objectified. They do not.
The rest of your response does not answer my question either. My question is why is it wrong to create games for people who make “boob-based purchasing decisions” (and for the moment I will ignore the inherent misandry of that statement). The only argument presented is a political one, which your following statement confirms: “It’s about sending the message to the people who are creating that product to branch out from the T&A female character because a good portion of the people who purchase games would like to see some actual female characters.”
That is a political argument that has nothing to do with game play, graphics, or entertainment, the three reasons that men and boys actually buy and play games. The fact is that the vast majority of console and PC gamers are male, and the games that developers and publishers release very much appeal to that audience. One can argue that the developers and publishers should create games for different audiences, but that is not the argument. The argument is that developers and publishers should stop making or change the way they make the games that appeal to their core audience because a smaller audience who rarely buys or plays those games does not like them.
And before you argue that it is because of sexism, even when the characters are neutral (like in Halo), it still does not result in a large female audience.
Sarkeesian is not a Video Game critic; in fact, she’s not much of a critic at all Maybe in the most literal sense, but she shows very little knowledge of whatever subject she’s critisizing. She cited Portal 2 as an example of non-violent conflict resolution when the entire franchise centers around dodging death traps and surviving psycological abuse from an unhinged AI, whom you have to destroy at the end of each game. She is so adament that sexy pictures of Bayonetta will drive men to molest women on public transit, that she suggests cities should pay for women-only subway cars because so many men cannot control themselves. She even asserted that the Mariah Carey song “All I Want For Chiristmas Is You,” a song with no gender-specific pronouns, is sexist; when a woman sings it, they encourage emotional dependency on men, but when a MAN sings it, she’s “stalker-y.” She never brings up the possiblity of feamle or same-sex stalkers, or, Godess forbid, the possibility that a man could be heartborken over a woman without acting like a creep. And the less said about her lecture at the end of her “Mystical Pregnancy” video, the better.
Sarkeesian claims she wants a discussion on the myriad of topics she addresses, but she makes it nearly impossible to leave feedback. She only approves comments that either directly agree with her or that she can personally contradict. For most of her videos, her like / dislike buttons are disabled, and even the viewer statistics are disabled– Two things I’ve never seen before, or since, in a YouTube video. The only way to get involved in the “discussion” is to make a video response, which, presumably, FF has no direct control over. You could make a valid, respectful point or be a total creep, FF makes little distinction.
Finally, Sarkeesian’s methods of damage-control could be making the problem even worse. Many internet personalities (What The Buck, for example, has gotten homophobic trolling nonstop since it began) have undergone similar harassment and wiki vandalism without a peep from the media outlets that have now leaped to FF’s defense. Moreover, this is not peer-to-peer harassment from a someone with a private account, or a Cross Assault competitor being sexually degraded by their fellow players. Public Figures get threats and harassment no matter who they are or what they stand for; it isn’t right, but someone seeking notability should be prepared for that possibility. Once you feel comfortable enough to ask for tens of thousands of dollars from people you’ve never met, you should take some responsibility as a public figure and screen your comments. You should discuss it, by all means, but giving random malice and atention grabbing sych a direct, un-moderated, platform is irresponsible. Radio hosts screen their calls, and most public figures have some means of screening out threatening or harassing fan mail. I’d like to believe something like this is the beginning of the end for such trolling, but I have my doubts. Screen shots of whole, unfiltered harassment on your blog with big scary trigger warnings only validate the trolls; it could even escalate to DDos attacks and even hacking.
Sarkeesian’s methods of damage-control weren’t. She was, I believe, trying to encourage it to generate outrage and boost funding. The video wasn’t on YouTube until the very end of the campaign, and it was spammed on 4chan within minutes of going up, not as a target, but in advertisement. Like 99% of things that exist, this pissed off 4chan, and 4chan did what 4chan always does when 4chan gets pissed. Then Sarkeesian posted about all the hate she received and generated media attention which drastically boosted her donations, all based largely on her victim status.
If 4chan hadn’t been directly angered, she would be about $120k poorer because there would have been no controversy.
I suspected something like that had occurred. In other words, she kicked over a hornet’s nest and then claimed she was being victimized by the stings she got.
What would feminists do if there was actual equality? All these pontificators with their gender studies degrees would have to go out and get real jobs I guess.
Is this “critque” actually going to be nuanced, or is it just going to be another tally-list that’s riddled with confirmation bias?
Having seen this sort of thing done roughly a hundred times before, I sure won’t be holding my breath.