Comments on: Reality Reflecting Criticism: Tropes vs Women in Video Games

By: Thursday

Thursday — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:27:00 +0000

“The thing is most of the abuse is comming from the teens and educating them takes time and to be honest this should be done by parents.”

There are few thing that are more worth spending the time to do than improving and educating children.

By: sdsu

sdsu — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 03:50:44 +0000

… [Trackback]…

[...] Informations on that Topic: thesketchydetails.net/archives/5528 [...]…

By: external wall insulation

external wall insulation — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:37:38 +0000

… [Trackback]…

[...] There you will find 93302 more Infos: thesketchydetails.net/archives/5528 [...]…

By: My Homepage

My Homepage — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:31:47 +0000

… [Trackback]…

[...] Informations on that Topic: thesketchydetails.net/archives/5528 [...]…

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:57:02 +0000

Ok you still don’t get this.
Title of her series is tropes vs. women in video games. It suggest that it’s format will be similar to the format of tropes vs. women. That series is more or less in this format:
1) What means the trope we are talking about
2) Examples where it is used
3) what is the role of the trope
4) talk how much the women are opressed in the art
and that’s all. You may think that this spring discussion but it doesn’t. She present her way of thinking as the ultimate truth. There is no question, everything is black and white.
Now her series tropes vs women in video games is in 20 minute episodes which suggest it will be made in simmilar fasion just more examples and maybe a bit of history.
It doesn’t sound like a document at all. It will be her youtube episodes just bigger.
The ONLY episode that will be in any way new for her will be about positive characters. This will force her to do something outside from her usual format. Which is great. But it was last episode on her list. It already tells a lot about her point of view on this matter.
She will talk games not because she is passionate gamer and feminist and want to educate. Show what is bad and what is good. She started as feminist critic and saw that video games are popular so she should do series about them. She doesn’t care about the industry or the gaming artistic value and you know it. And if she does, she surely hide it very well since she didn’t talk about it once. This may sound like a rant but am i wrong? Do you belive that she does it for the art of gaming or she does it because we are easy and meaty target for her show?
If her goal was what you imply she would do something more broad than this.

anyhow
“She started the debate”. Nope… As i said. We know about those tropes. Let’s see…
1.) Damsel in Distress – yeah that’s really not new. Most cliche trope ever.
2.) The Fighting F#@k Toy – fighting games and oversexualisation of women… yeah that’s not new.
3.) The Sexy Sidekick – yeah that’s not new.
4.) The Sexy Villainess – that is… not new. It comes from the fantasy mostly
5.) Background Decoration – not new…
6.) Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress – fantasy oversexualise tribal culture… not new, but still can be intresting
7.) Women as Reward – It’s a cliche… not new. Just boring.
8.) Mrs. Male Character – comics loved to do this… and… i can’t remember that we still do this. I mean Nintendo but they did this few years ago… is it even relevant? Still not new
9.) Unattractive Equals Evil – yeah… Hello Disney… not new
10. ) Man with Boobs – i don’t even… Is it talking about character that are tomboys? I can listen to that
11. ) Positive Female Characters! – that’s new… we don’t talk about it enough.

BTW i don’t know what in her picture does Heather from sillent hill… She is amazing.
And Lara Croft in the eyes of creator was really really good character. Problem was marketing and the fact that tomb raider series was just bad and lazy after first two.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:29:32 +0000

Hi lysana. It’s true that the avarage gamer is female. But only if take games like farmvile and bejweled into accout. Those are valid games… But… it’s another market. It’s casual market. When we talk about games in general we talk about the AAA studios which big majority of playerbase is male so my argument still stands. You know what is funny avarage player is not a teen nor a kid, but still games are made for those markets. It’s anoying.

And yes parents should look up what kind of games/books/films kids watch. Of course there still is a peer presure, but totaly not giving a shit what kids are doing on their consoles/pc is stupid and very common.

By: Lysana

Lysana — Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:54:45 +0000

In fact, there is an easy refutation to your claim about games being aimed at 15-year-old boys because they’re the majority of the market so women should just suck it up and deal. Women spend the majority of the money on video games. No, you can look it up. It’s the truth.

And no, the parents cannot and will not teach opposite to the games’ content. Why? This society encourages the stereotypes they promote. And the game producers need to realize, as do the authors and screenwriters, that merely reflecting society is not helpful. Reinforcing the patriarchal norms hurts everyone. Men are victimized by that system, forced into roles that require them to behave in certain ways and deny them their full expression.

But the fact I even have to argue this is part of the problem as well. Why can’t you find sympathy for fellow human beings? Why do I have to tell you men suffer from the tropes to even have half a hope of reaching you?

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:31:56 +0000

By itself, no. The idea is to create discourse. That’s the goal of all academic inquiry. One project alone does nothing. Creating a dialogue that encourages people to further pursue and share this research field does. We’re still at a place with gaming where respected critics feel there is no artistic merit to games. That does not mean that putting the effort into exploring the rhetoric of gaming, so to speak, is worthless.

It’s like saying there’s no point in being one of the first people to evaluate a modern novel for literary merit because it’s not going to be in the canon yet. That’s true. But today’s critical groundwork becomes tomorrow’s major field of study.

Let’s use an example. Thirty years ago, it was unimaginable to think that colleges would teach courses just on Gothic literature. It was considered pulp literature with no merit. Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen was considered the other, less desirable text because it was a Gothic novel. Yet, some academic critics chose to investigate these texts through various critical theories, including feminist analysis.

Now, it’s rare to see a literature program that doesn’t offer such a course. Texts presumed missing for centuries have been found in private collections because people actually wanted to study them. Northanger Abbey is studied as literary satire, not silly fantasy, as the books she referenced have been found, read, and analysed to see if they match her descriptions. They do. A neglected field of research has become a strong and growing presence in literary theory because people were willing to put the groundwork in years ago to say “hey, you’re not the only person interested in this. Go for it.”

Who is to say whether or not video games will one day be examined with the same sincerity as film or television? Why work so hard to silence someone who wants to take that chance now? So you don’t like her research. Why condemn her as a human being–call her a slut and a whore (and much worse), threaten her livelihood, attempt to destroy her reputation as a critic–because you don’t like her field of research? What does that say about the discourse concerning this topic?

To me, it sounds like some people don’t want the topic discussed at all and find it an affront that someone would dare to look at video games like this. It’s such a threat that they choose to lash out and attack a researcher because they don’t agree with her research. It’s like saying you hate science so you’re going to punch your high school chemistry teacher square in the teeth. What does that accomplish?

If you don’t like the rhetoric, propose your own analysis. Argue against her issues, not her standing as a person. Don’t say “but someone else said this” because she’s not that other person. She has her own views on the subject. Debate those. Don’t throw out the most sensationalist arguments you can think of just because you don’t agree with the field. Do you think that these 11 tropes pose no harm at all? Great. Argue why. Don’t say “no they don’t” and attack anyone who doesn’t agree. She started the debate. You have to approach her on the same terms. Her research suggests one interpretation. Scrutinize her research and propose your own alternative. You get nowhere being aggressive and dismissive of alternative viewpoints.

And you certainly get nowhere if you say the research is pointless, won’t make a difference by itself, and shouldn’t be conducted because she’s only one person.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:10:13 +0000

I want to ask you something.
Do you really thing this document can in any way be a force to change something in gaming?
Before you anwser i will tell you this. Nowdays most devs use stereotypes because they are pressured by publishers to release game fast so there is not enough time to fully develop character. Back in the day devs weren’t even able to create good character so they were using any popular and easy to make trope (first game devs weren’t writers, they were just few programers). Also writing for gaming isn’t prestigious so we don’t even have good writers. And also creating a story for a game is diffrent than for a movie so we really lack in that department. As i said gaming spins around trends, everyone know about this. Why do you think in the last 5 years we only generic space marines and token girls from AAA studios. We are in this system because there are few huge corporations that want to play safe. And people buy those games, so they produce more of them, and people buy. Most of the buyers are kids which have this fantasy that they are big manly man with huge gun (teens that sometimes use game to boost their ego or relief stress etc.), so because the companies want to max the revenues they create games to cater to that demographic. Our gaming industry is changing like hell, few years ago we had a big boom in casual gaming. Which introduced a lot of women into gaming. The thing is designing AAA game for both genders was almost imposible back in the day. Most of the devs were male so there was a lack of female influence. At this point industry is slowly trying to appeal to both genders and we slowly get more expierience with what we can achive with our medium (play journey on ps3). If you would look at core design of World of Warcraft you would see that devs wanted women to play. Anyhow… Whole community KNOWS that we use stereotypes. Most adult ones are fed of it. The thing is the internet is… kinda messy, community of gamers is very, very not organised. We as a consumers are weak. Her style of criticism presented in the series tropes vs women is mostly telling what’s wrong… but the thing is we know what’s wrong. Add to this that document will be made someone who doesn’t have significant gaming background. Now let me once again ask question.
Do you really belive that document in the form of few 20 minutes talk about the tropes that most of us know, really can change something, when big majority of community doesn’t see the producer of this document as any authority figure?

pro tip: the anwser is no, since without the massive appeal you can’t do jack in the community this size and with such a big problems on the dev/publ side. And without gaming knowladge, the more picky ones will rip everything apart (and trust me, we are good at this). And lastly we already have people trying to change this who actually matter in this community.

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:38:41 +0000

“I’ve followed her videos for a good while now. Her arguments are based in the context of the media she’s examining. Do you really think her videos on The Hunger Games are the same as her videos on cartoon series? Feminism may be her main school of research, but it is hardly the only thing she does. She approaches each media text like a literary theorist. The way this style of criticism works is that you take a particular theory and see how it applies to a given text/artifact. The language repeats because that’s the frame of reference for the argument. It does not mean that she argues the same thing over and over or comes to the same conclusions.”

So she is someone with a few frames that goes from point to point and checks if the frame fits the picture. If it does then great we can say it fits… It isn’t entertainging. It would be if she did something with it aside from showing it. But as i said earlier it’s my personal opinion.

btw. Cartoons and hunger games are almost the same medium. One is a cinema and one is a television. There is no really big diffrence. Games are not films, films are not books, books are not music songs. So yes i think she uses the same background since cartoons and hunger games may be diffrent genres (which changes the language a bit) but the background of knowladge stays the same.