• 81 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by TDot (285 posts) -

That Re: Damsel in distress dude is the fucking worst. He accuses her of doing very little research when all he did was google "female protagonists in videogames" and reads directly from this page http://www.giantbomb.com/female-protagonists/3015-2287/ (this first one that shows up in google.) He also didn't watch the video because she does mention the princess peach game. And the video isn't even about the lack of female protagonists.

There's also perfectly good critiques of that video that isn't that horrible kid.

#52 Posted by AWalczak08 (24 posts) -

omg, I absolutely love that leviathan trailer. I doubt that the sense of humor there is carried through in the game, but I kind of want to buy the game even though the game looks kind of boring.

#53 Edited by Brodehouse (9791 posts) -

@tdot said:

That Re: Damsel in distress dude is the fucking worst. He accuses her of doing very little research when all he did was google "female protagonists in videogames" and reads directly from this page http://www.giantbomb.com/female-protagonists/3015-2287/ (this first one that shows up in google.) He also didn't watch the video because she does mention the princess peach game. And the video isn't even about the lack of female protagonists.

There's also perfectly good critiques of that video that isn't that horrible kid.

MrRepzion is not the best or brightest mind on YouTube. He plays to emotions and thinks how something feels is more important than rationality. He had this ridiculous 'thought experiment' a while back where he put some fake piercings and jewelry in his face... when people said "ugh I don't like those piercings you got" he exploded into "YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANYONE!" It figures that Patrick would select Repzion instead of Thunderfoot, Amazing Atheist, or anyone else.

Someone in this thread posted Thunderfoot's follow up video that I haven't seen, but I remember his original is fairly well done (with one caveat where he makes a bad argument).

@noelveiga said:

I found myself agreeing with the Fuck Videogames presentation a lot more than with Patrick's summary of it.

The 'Fuck Videogames' presentation is an extremely inarticulate way of expressing the idea that it's important for people to be well read. Having a broad array of cultural and creative intelligence rather than a hyperfocus into one area. This kind of goes without saying, and it's always been how art and appreciation was taught, and what is really lacking from videogames. With no slight meant to Jeff or Patrick, we have people who have played almost every game from the last 20 years, but have no eye or understanding of architecture, theater, music composition. Mastery or excellence isn't required, of course, but there's not even an interest.

It's actually what attracts me most about Tom Bissell's writing, is that he doesn't approach modern games from the eyes of someone who wrote a review for Link to the Past in 1992. He approaches it from the eyes of a literary art critic.

A designer says he'll never work on a first-person-shooter again.

Another low thinker who supposes that life imitates art rather than art imitating life. The reason you should not work on a first person shooter is because you're tired of the exercise, you want to try something new. The ideas I see expressed her are the typical overwrought wringing of hands and drawn out fainting spells of a Tennessee Williams play, and I have no time for it whatsoever.

#54 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3053 posts) -

How about an actually good video responding to Tropes v. Women? They're not hard to find.

#55 Edited by biggiedubs (493 posts) -
#56 Edited by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

I don't really understand why you're giving that Kevin Bacon-looking kid in the Re: Damsels in Distress traffic for this one. I think those of us who disagree with him already know people like him exist, and his message is toxic enough that I'm a little disappointed you'd get people who might agree to connect with him.

Anyways, liked the Darius Kazemi and the "for the love of god leave Phil Fish alone" stuff. Like most good things, it applies beyond its specific field.

#57 Edited by TDot (285 posts) -

@brodehouse I Haven't watched thunderfoot's response but the Amazing Atheist is just a total disgusting ranting lunatic. There most legitimate critique I've seen was one saying how most of the games she talked about were Japanese and that she didn't talk at all about Japanese culture. Every other video I've seen has just been aggressively horrible and insulting.

Also when did self-identified atheists become so aggressive towards feminists?

#59 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3053 posts) -

@biggiedubs: I am legitimately ecstatic to see that he posted that before. Awesome. Though the comments section on that other Worth Reading makes me want to beat my head against a wall. "A female Uncle Tom"? Really?

Also that Guardian chart was pretty awesome to look at. Sometimes I forget that they are still making a ton of games kids can enjoy.

#62 Posted by Dhutch (43 posts) -

Seriously Patrick, if you want to 'show the other side' on the Sarkeesian thing, pick classier videos, not just some dude in his bedroom burping and eating candy bars. I'm sure they're out there. Showing opposition for opposition's sake isn't balance.

Or, if your goal is to show off how dumb the response videos can be, you should mention that, not present something without comment.

#64 Edited by Brodehouse (9791 posts) -

@tdot said:

@brodehouse

I Haven't watched thunderfoot's response but the Amazing Atheist is just a total disgusting ranting lunatic. There most legitimate critique I've seen was one saying how most of the games she talked about were Japanese and that she didn't talk at all about Japanese culture. Every other video I've seen has just been aggressively horrible and insulting.

Also when did self-identified atheists become so aggressive towards feminists?

It's not so much atheists as it is rationalists and skeptics (many of whom are, coincidentally, atheists). Generally, it's people who are somewhat analytic and are actively ready to probe an argument rather than be bullied by the court of public opinion or pleas to emotion, and the most likely to respond negatively to the kind of shaming tactics and dogmatic nonsense that feminists use. It also so happens that they're responding to the same aggressive push by feminism that games have received, with Elevatorgate being their flash point (much as ours could be #1reasonwhy or the Dead Island bust).

Coincidentally, I think Amazing Atheist's specific Tropes vs Women video is actually one of the most calm and least 'ranting' of them all (which goes against character, since he's usually something of... a ranting blowhard). He seems less interested in getting into the actual nuts and bolts of the video and more just unimpressed with her censoring comments and avoiding responding to actual criticism.

For my part, my criticism is not trying to pass the buck onto the Japanese or that we're talking about old games... it's that stories that reflect traditional gender roles do not oppress women in real life. Traditional values do not even oppress women, it's a lack of choice that oppresses both men and women. It would be the same if we enforced 'progressive' values on a personal level instead of allowing people to choose however they want to live. This is connected to the violence response I put forth earlier; life doesn't imitate art, art imitates life.

#65 Edited by EchoEcho (818 posts) -

@make_me_mad said:

How about an actually good video responding to Tropes v. Women? They're not hard to find.

This was a great video, thanks for sharing.

#66 Posted by MankMachinery (50 posts) -

Candy Box

#67 Edited by MankMachinery (50 posts) -

Candy Box

#70 Edited by Milk195 (16 posts) -

Hey Patrick, you've got the "Fuck Videogames" link pointing to the wrong thing. Currently in both Chrome and Firefox the link takes you to end of the slideshow. I assume you'd want it to be linking to the beginning of it, which would be: http://tinysubversions.com/fuckvideogames

#72 Posted by NoelVeiga (1091 posts) -

@noelveiga said:

I found myself agreeing with the Fuck Videogames presentation a lot more than with Patrick's summary of it.

The 'Fuck Videogames' presentation is an extremely inarticulate way of expressing the idea that it's important for people to be well read. Having a broad array of cultural and creative intelligence rather than a hyperfocus into one area. This kind of goes without saying, and it's always been how art and appreciation was taught, and what is really lacking from videogames. With no slight meant to Jeff or Patrick, we have people who have played almost every game from the last 20 years, but have no eye or understanding of architecture, theater, music composition. Mastery or excellence isn't required, of course, but there's not even an interest.

It's actually what attracts me most about Tom Bissell's writing, is that he doesn't approach modern games from the eyes of someone who wrote a review for Link to the Past in 1992. He approaches it from the eyes of a literary art critic.

See, I don't think that's what the presentation is about at all. I see it more as an attempt to empower indie devs who struggle to convey something through mechanics to let it go and either do it in some other art form or design a game that expresses something that can be best expressed through gaming.

That's not to say I agree with that point 100% either. All art forms require techniques that in turn require a lot of skill and knowledge. Not everyone can stop working on a game and start writing a book or a movie, for starters. Often the struggle to convey something in a medium that isn't a good fit can also produce interesting results. More interesting than the "sticking to what you know" approach that seems to also be advocated.

I also agree with you on the other side of it. From the creators' point of view there are often a huge variety of influences, so it's a bit of a shame that sometimes they fly over reviewers' heads unless they are heavily marketed (although in their defense, you could operate as a game reviewer effectively for a long time as long as you've seen Aliens).

#74 Posted by Wilshere (292 posts) -

@tdot said:

Also when did self-identified atheists become so aggressive towards feminists?

When people like Anita came out with their one sided and obviously wrong views that undermine the feminist movement.


#76 Edited by TheCheese33 (350 posts) -

Most of the video responses to Anita Sarkeesian's video aren't interested in actually discussing the topic. They just want to discuss her, and try to discredit her. It's pathetic.

#77 Posted by asmo29a (149 posts) -

I clicked on this because of the SotC screenshot.

#78 Posted by asmo29a (149 posts) -

I clicked on this because of the SotC screenshot.

#79 Edited by martyarf (250 posts) -

@wilshere said:

@tdot said:

Also when did self-identified atheists become so aggressive towards feminists?

When people like Anita came out with their one sided and obviously wrong views that undermine the feminist movement.

It's mostly to do with the fact that the "new atheist" community is a grotesque misogynist hellpit. I also don't understand why its the responsibility of the atheist "community" to aggressively defend a patriarchal system.

#81 Posted by FreakGirl (83 posts) -

This Candy Box game is interesting... :)

#82 Edited by fisk0 (3997 posts) -

@martyarf said:

@wilshere said:

@tdot said:

Also when did self-identified atheists become so aggressive towards feminists?

When people like Anita came out with their one sided and obviously wrong views that undermine the feminist movement.

It's mostly to do with the fact that the "new atheist" community is a grotesque misogynist hellpit. I also don't understand why its the responsibility of the atheist "community" to aggressively defend a patriarchal system.

I don't know, seems like Richard Dawkins started saying some weird shit last year or so, following Rebecka Watson's elevator story, which caused a split among some atheists, and where the Dawkins side seem to be spiraling into total madness in recent months.

#83 Edited by buzz_clik (6964 posts) -

@patrickklepek said:

Count on Wired's Chris Kohler to have the most poignant rip on modern Nintendo.

I like Chris, and I always enjoy reading his stuff, but it's always in the back of my mind that he gave Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts a 5 out of 10, saying that "it fails to produce any gameplay moments that are especially fun."

Which, y'know, is objectively wrong. I SAID OBJECTIVELY.

Moderator
#85 Posted by Random45 (1119 posts) -

Really Patrick, you linked a youtube reply video? Those are no better than youtube comments. And this one is like a bad youtube comment. I don't think he even watched the video he's replying to...

I was thinking the same thing.

#86 Edited by The_Ruiner (1036 posts) -

Hey Patrick!! This is the greatest Dinosaur game you've never played!!

#87 Edited by Nettacki (1317 posts) -
@dhutch said:

Seriously Patrick, if you want to 'show the other side' on the Sarkeesian thing, pick classier videos, not just some dude in his bedroom burping and eating candy bars. I'm sure they're out there. Showing opposition for opposition's sake isn't balance.

Or, if your goal is to show off how dumb the response videos can be, you should mention that, not present something without comment.

He's already picked a classier one in a previous Worth Reading (the one by KiteTales). And he's only posting this to provoke discussion, nothing more, nothing less. (Though he also thinks the video's pretty stupid. Check his tumblr)

Also, if Phil Fish wants people to judge the game separately from himself, he should start with making himself a bit more understated and try not to act like a dick too much to the point where his dickishness overpowers the quality of the game in question.

#88 Edited by Cleron (32 posts) -

This is a decent vid on damsel in distress.

WeisApple

And if you want to understand where the MRM or MRA's are comming from you should perhaps look at this, yes it's a whopping hour in length, but it's well worth your time if you are intrested, and maybe even if you're not.

GWW Address

#89 Edited by Aegeri (110 posts) -

@make_me_mad said:

How about an actually good video responding to Tropes v. Women? They're not hard to find.

While I don't agree with some of the ways that her argument is phrased and presented, I have to say there are so many good points in this video that I can't help but agree with many of them. I actually have come to really dislike the overall argument that "Damsel in distress trope is inherently and automatically sexist" and instead I prefer to frame the argument about "Female characters more frequently than men in video games, have no agency in the game". Agency - or how much the influence the character has to affect their own fate - I feel is more important than bringing things down to a base (and crude) discussion about if trope Y means game X is sexist.

In some ways, Zelda in particular demonstrates agency considerably in helping Link in the final battles and in Ocarina of Time as the persona Sheik. The problem is of course that in two examples, Ocarina of Time and Wind Waker, the moment Zelda shows herself as the "princess" she loses all agency immediately and ceases being a relevant part of the game in both cases (until again, the very end). I think that was a more valid and productive point of discussion (and interesting), then simply trying to list games where male protagonist X rescues female character Y = SEXIST as Anita's video is trying to make out.

The problem I have with Anita's arguments isn't that I feel they are wrong, it's that I feel she isn't putting them in a persuasive or comprehensive way. It's rather like the video that Patrick linked above, which I felt was incredibly bad in a similar way. It's listing off games from a basic google search, without trying to really think about what the overall argument in context is actually about. I mean seriously, his first example is a random game about a Kangaroo. Really? This is rather similar to what I feel Anita did in her first video, which was simply make a list of games, declare them problematic and move on. Without a deeper discussion, she isn't making a persuasive argument or really getting to the heart of the issue with how female characters are represented in games (which again, IMO is a lack of agency).

It becomes too easy to write off the problems with female characters being objects to be rescued or generally lacking agency in video games, because Anita makes the core argument too easy to be ignored. People just write her off and don't address the actual substance of the argument - even though there is plenty to address (which the above video does). It's too easy to distract from it by throwing out piles of red herrings, without considering the wider overall context such as when developers have to battle to just have a woman as the protagonist in the first place today (not in the 1980s). Or when someone from a high profile studio declares that female leads are "Tough to Justify".

It's the context today about how women as protagonists with their own agency (which is, generally speaking what I think of by this) are perceived, how they are treated as characters and how developers have uphill struggles to convince publishers a heroine like Lara Croft (the recent reboot, which was an awesome positive step forward) is worth backing. However, it's not as simple as just having a female character as the lead and that automatically means they are a positive example of agency for a video game character. You only have to look at Metroid: Other M to see how problematic the treatment of female protagonists can be.

This is why I find the video Patrick linked and to a lesser extent the one above somewhat disengenuous. Yeah you can point to a bunch of older games from the bygone era to show that women were protagonists, maybe even frequently. However, when they are relying on female Kangaroos and obscure games that never made it outside of Japan to make this point, it shows how Anita has allowed the discussion to zoom by so the forest is missed to focus on individual trees. Individual trees don't tell you anything, but when you look at the whole forest and see that only a few trees a certain way and everything else is a pine tree that *does* tell you something.

It tells you that you're in a pine forest. That's really the predominant problem today, is that many games don't bother representing women and when they do, they are frequently nothing more than objects to be rescued or lack any of their own agency. It's how Ocarina of Time turns Zelda from a character that many assumed was male before the "big reveal" and then seconds later, all of her agency is suddenly removed once it's obvious Sheik is Princess Zelda. It's why links like the above show that publishers think it's a massive risk to even *have* women as protagonists in the first place. They can certainly be sexualized objects, or there as a part of the plot but as the actual lead of the game? It's widely regarded as being doomed and publishers are adverse to it.

Consider most games that allow for a female protagonist, such as Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Saints Row and so on. How many of these games are RPGs with customizable options? How many games that are designed with a specific narrative or character in mind actually have a female protagonist today? Once you start thinking about that, put it together with the context cited in the links above (and there are certainly more) and it makes sense. The message here is the problem with sexism in the games industry: You can be an object for a narrative (damsel in distress being an example), an option in games along with other males (usually only a couple of choices in comparison, such as fighting games and others as the video above points out such as with Peach) or just plain not represented at all anyway (many action games, such as Team Fortress 2 which can produce infinite hats, robots and zombie skins, but not female character options).

And when it becomes time for a female character to be the star in their own video game? Publishers today quietly shuffle their feet and state they aren't really interested, because people don't see women as viable protagonists.

The point of videos like the damsel in distress trope discussion is *where* this attitude comes from in the industry. It comes from the ingrained sexism in the games industry that regards women as secondary options, sexual objects or window dressing to sell games at a booth. Arguing that she misses X, Y and Z games is willfully missing the overall context of the point that is being made. That point is how overall the games industry treats female characters and views them in games. As many many more links could easily readily establish, it's obviously not viewed very well whatsoever.

#90 Posted by Wilshere (292 posts) -

@aegeri: This documentary will give you the answer about "ingrained sexism in the games industry".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4

tl;dr Due to our different biology males are more drawn towards technical disciplines and figuring out how systems work. Therefore in the gaming the majority of the work force is composed of males. Given the freedom of choice males will always lean towards working on things that scratch their interest.

#91 Edited by laserbot (12 posts) -

What exactly is this piece of advice, as it reads like a narrative:

It’s similar to a piece of advice I gave in my coffee talk video from earlier this week. Someone asked about how to prepare for interviews, easily one of the most daunting parts of covering games, especially if you’re new. When I first started, I would meticulous prepare for my interviews by having a printed document with 20 questions or so. Little thought went into the interview itself. I would read the question, listen to the response, and then ask the next one on the list. As I became more confident in myself, I would rely on those questions less and less, until they became vague topics to fall back on if the conversation stalled. These days, I hop into the interview and figure the discussion itself will lead to something worthwhile. It’s no more of a calculated gamble than allowing a preconceived notion strangle where an interview goes.

I fear that it is going to give people the wrong impression that 'going with your gut' is the right way to approach things like this, when, in fact, it's because Patrick did so many interviews beforehand, using the appropriate preparation, that his 'gut' was at all reliable for leading a conversation and steering it into an interesting direction. Don't discount your expertise, and don't give people bad advice. Follow the steps, learn to do things the right way, then branch out.

#92 Edited by blazblueneko (3 posts) -

arigato monsioure klepick homslice twas a greateth articles as you can telleth i am tryingeth multipleth vanacularous

#93 Posted by KKGlider (39 posts) -

Oh, man, Patrick, I hope your posts aren't endorsements. That reply to the Damsels in Distress video was bad.