Someone make a skin for Yorda and Ico that turns Yorda into a Prince and gives Ico a pony tail so this can all stop, and then maybe Feminist Frequency will praise it as a progressive game.
Have you ever played ICO? If you did, you're a misogynist.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Like with every societal problem, inhumane treatment of animals, women's rights, etc, an extreme organization/attitude arises to fix the problem and usually goes overboard (PETA), thus turning people off from helping the actual good merits of their objectives.
@Jams: lol wait is dhalsim sikh? anyway sikhism originated in the indian region of punjab so i think im still valid.
although a sikh warrior video game character would probably be all sorts of badass. i saw this episode of deadliest warrior where a rajput warrior (hindu not sikh) smoked a roman centurion. that was pretty cool but also very dumb
@Laivasse said:
Completely irrelevant. Saying a culturally based assumption is better because it ties into people's opinions does not make it better than a gender based assumption which usually makes no statements about opinion, but instead makes a broad generalisation about physical characteristics and social behaviour. The latter is even, surprise surprise, a cultural construct. You seem not to understand anything you are talking about.
@Orbitz89 said:
You don't see the irony because you're only responding to the first part of the sentence. Yes, Japanese games tend to have some problems with female depiction, but it's no use accepting that and then saying all gender assumptions - eg. men are more physical, women empathise better, or whatever - are nonsense, purely because they are gender-based.@Laivasse said:
@Cretaceous_Bob: Don't you see the irony of using the stereotype that says 'Japanese games tend to be sexist' while criticising gender based assumptions?
I don't see the irony at all, Japanese games do have a tendency to be more sexist than your average Western or European game, It's just the way their culture is.. Women are still thought of as second class or lesser people over in Japan if their entertainment media is any indication.
This is utter nonsense. The subtext you missed (somehow) is that the problem with the sexism in Japanese games isn't that they're making an assumption, but that they're making an incorrect assumption, and that incorrect notion is even worse for being an assumption.
Nobody has a problem with gender based assumptions on their own. Video games depict women with breasts, don't they? And with higher voices? And wearing certain types of clothing men don't wear? Those are all assumptions, and you cannot find anyone at all complaining about that because literally no one is saying what you think they're saying.
Of course, if you see all of the sexism in Japanese games as accurate and inherent to the gender, then you can call it ironic. But come out and say that first.
Sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially:discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Prejudice
2 a(1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b: an instance of such judgment or opinionc: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
If you acknowledge, as you already have, that Japanese games do in fact have a markedly higher rate of sexism, you are of the opinion that my statement about Japan is not a prejudicial one, which invalidates your "irony" immediately.
There's nothing ironic about stating accurately that a certain culture has a tendency to depict a group a certain inaccurate way. The fallacy you've constructed here is demonstrably ludicrous. Would you say it would be ironic to call 17th century American culture racist? Surely you can see how any notion that makes you believe that that statement would be contradictory is false.
@FlarePhoenix: It's not really that sexist because the notion that a teenage boy would rescue a teenage girl in a theoretically life threatening situation is not some highly implausible trope made up by Hollywood or game developers alike, in a sleazy bid to undermine female equality. It's only sexist because someone who is predisposed to a very specific view of gender roles in society decides to see things through a one dimensional prism of "where else are women not shown equal to men in a 1:1 ratio" and condemns anything that does not abide by those standards.
I'm lost. Are we implying that games are sexist because one of the mechanics is maneuvering an individual around that is helpless? I find it hard to believe the sex even matters in this situation and is just implied sexism.
@FlarePhoenix said:
We're all just assuming she is referring to the fact a man has to drag a helpless woman around throughout the entire game. If we're so easily able to make that connection, doesn't that kind of give legitimacy to what she is saying? We are able to, on some level, acknowledge the game might appear sexist, but a lot of us aren't willing to accept it. Besides, you know what? I haven't heard a real reason why the game isn't sexist yet.
I disagree. It wouldn't automatically give her legitimacy just because many people are easily able to make the connection. There are two reasons that people have been making that connection.
- Anita has a history of heavily criticizing the "Damsel in Distress" trope, and many feminists have also deemed the trope as sexist before all this so it makes sense people would assume she is talking about the main character escorting the princess in the game.
- As far as I know, the only obvious trope in the game that would rile up feminists would be the Damsel in Distress one, which makes it obvious as to what Anita was complaining about in the game.
So it's a bit silly to suggest that because people are able to connect that Anita meant that the Damsel in Distress trope is what makes the game misogynist, does not mean that people are subconsciously admitting that the game is misogynist.
Also, here's a reason why the game isn't misogynistic at all. If the game were trying to send the message that "all women are weak and need protecting" then why is the main villain a woman herself? That would contradict the message and make no sense. You can go ahead and assume that the developers were trying to berate all women by making this game despite mixed message, but I think it's more logical to assume that there is no message in the game and they were simply creating characters who have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Even then! If the main villain weren't a women, it still isn't misogynist because in the universe itself it is shown the Ico is the only one who cannot be harmed by the shadows. It would make sense that Yorda would seek his protection because that's a pretty rare ability!
@FlarePhoenix said:
Games aren't going to change all that much if we do; all that will happen is the next big budget title might star a woman.
But one of the next big budget titles already stars a women. Tomb Raider.
@FlarePhoenix said:
We're no longer in the days were every little thing someone says could spell the end for video games, and it's time we stopped acting like we are. I really want to get to a point where we can take on criticism, and really look at what is being said. If we find we don't agree, at least we have something to go back with. At least we can give reasons as to why we disagree. If the person doing the critiquing refuses to listen to what we say, they'll be ones in the wrong. Every time we throw a hissy fit like this, the critics win. We are willingly giving them all the power, and it is time to put an end to it.
We are gamers, it is time to show people we are willing to defend what we love, and it's time to show them we can do it like adults.
This I can get behind though. As much as I disagree with Anita's views, I wouldn't insult her simply because it erases any progress I make when I try to show why she is wrong. Nobody wants to listen to the asshole who insults people over a disagreement.
I think many gamers can do it like adults, it's just that the vocal minority of any internet community also has the tendency to be the rudest and most obnoxious in the whole bunch.
Yep, this is the sort of hard hitting, thought provoking commentary on feminism we'd get from Fem Freq.. What's her follow up act? Talking about what the losing team should have done in last night's game? Talk about your low hanging old fruit. What's next? Custer's Revenge?
That's quite the leap you're making, OP. One foolish comment does not condone making another. That's the problem with Twitter. No context. Is FF lady expanding on this topic on her blog?
@Humanity said:
@FlarePhoenix: It's not really that sexist because the notion that a teenage boy would rescue a teenage girl in a theoretically life threatening situation is not some highly implausible trope made up by Hollywood or game developers alike, in a sleazy bid to undermine female equality. It's only sexist because someone who is predisposed to a very specific view of gender roles in society decides to see things through a one dimensional prism of "where else are women not shown equal to men in a 1:1 ratio" and condemns anything that does not abide by those standards.
@ck1nd said:
I'm lost. Are we implying that games are sexist because one of the mechanics is maneuvering an individual around that is helpless? I find it hard to believe the sex even matters in this situation and is just implied sexism.
Isolating a single instance and considering its plausibility is missing the point. If I had a game where I played a white guy who saved a helpless black guy, that's one thing. If I made a ton of games and all of them were about a white guy saving a helpless black guy, that's another. If my nation tended to only depict black guys in that way, it's not an issue of every single person who did that happening upon that subject artistically. That situation says that there is a broader, cultural reason for that decision.
You cannot possibly believe that trends are entirely coincidental.
I just saw Scully save Mulder in an X-files episode. X-files is sexist.
No women in Moby Dick. Moby Dick is sexist.
The main character in Raging Bull is a man, just like most movies, and therefore reinforces the widespread Hollywood notion that only a movie with a male lead can be successful. Sexist.
Two Broke Girls features two broke girls who often objectify and hook up with men in a crude a derogatory way. CBS is sexist.
GiantBomb works with the sexist CBS and has no female writers. GiantBomb is sexist.
Commercials often portray men as helpless and stupid. Hanes is sexist.
Ico fights shadow monsters that are undoubtedly masculine in nature therefore reinforcing the stereotype that men are more likely to be violent and he almost dies because of his helplessness before he is saved....BY A WOMAN. Ico is sexist against men, case closed.
@Cretaceous_Bob: I guess I'm old fashioned and see nothing wrong with visualizing a strength that the male gender has when it comes to "saving the damsel in distress." I feel it's the common misconception everyone seems to be having, and that seems to be an internal flaw of the audience rather than simply one of the studios. My entire child-hood was filled with day-dreams of saving helpless girls because I myself wanted to feel heroic. If a lady is jumping off walls and able to defeat foes around me - there is "nothing" for me to feel heroic for. It's simply part of me being male.
This seems more like an issue of insecurity and missed interpretation. I'm not going to say that the team that developed ICO think exactly the way I do, but I do feel it is a little out of hand to accuse a party of misogamy.
@thedj93 said:
@Jams: lol wait is dhalsim sikh? anyway sikhism originated in the indian region of punjab so i think im still valid.
although a sikh warrior video game character would probably be all sorts of badass. i saw this episode of deadliest warrior where a rajput warrior (hindu not sikh) smoked a roman centurion. that was pretty cool but also very dumb
I have no idea, I just love the idea of a game based around Sikhs. There's potential for badassery there and probably more fantastical and less gruesome than the Western religion based games would be.
@Ace829 said:
Even then! If the main villain weren't a women, it still isn't misogynist because in the universe itself it is shown the Ico is the only one who cannot be harmed by the shadows. It would make sense that Yorda would seek his protection because that's a pretty rare ability!
Seeing women as helpless, pure, moral, and worth protecting is a hallmark of historical sexism. Historical sexism has no problem with making female villains, either.
The question is why did the developers give each character the role and traits they did, and examining the internal logic of the story has nothing to do with that.
You know what .... I am a misogynist because I like ICO and fail to see the stupidity that this chick implies ... isntead of trying to tarnish good game she should make her own feminist paradise game and leave us the fuck alone , and as crude and moronic as this may (or rather ) sound the videogames industry has become huge thanks to us "misogynistic assholes" so we sure ass hell DO NOT need people like her in our hobby.
@Laivasse said:
So let's break it down into components then. Ico contains one powerful, evil woman and one passive woman who is neutral (it's a stretch to call Yorda 'good'; her origins are a mystery). Are you saying that Ico contains an implicit message about how powerful women are evil and powerless girls are good? Because you definitely need to hunt out some more supporting arguments from the game if that's what you are alleging. It's a threadbare, uninteresting interpretation that ignores all the subtleties beyond 'the boy holds her hand and pulls her along'. The feminist interpretation necessarily ignores the fact that the boy is probably stronger because he's just arrived and the girl is weak from spending an unspecified amount of time in a cage.
There is barely a single room that Ico can get past without Yorda. If he doesn't bring her with him, he can't get out. As the game progresses you're given the impression that perhaps Yorda was never meant to leave the castle, which presents another facet to her passivity. By the end of the game, it isn't Ico helping Yorda escape. So is the game an indictment of male power? A statement of how men present themselves as heroes as a means to furthering their own interests? A criticism of how men use women up and throw them away? The boy is an outcast, sacrificed because he has horns - does that, along with the emphasis on light and shadow in the game, make it an allegory about prejudice and race? No, not really - that's all just masturbatory waffle. But it has as much if not more supporting evidence than 'Ico is a male chauvinist game that says women have to be evil to be powerful'.
'Recognising what a game is saying about women' includes recognising when it is saying nothing. I don't think it's important to talk about Ico as a statement of gender roles at all, when there are so many other much more important things going on in that game - such as what it does for linear narratives in games; how it creates emotional resonance; how it creates a series of puzzlebox 'test chambers' which are not only believable as real spaces but mysterious and intimidating; how it creates a story with very little dialogue; how the specifics of the fantasy world in the game are fascinating (why the curse, who's the queen, etc); and how it is living proof that the style of your art and animation is more important than your raw graphical horsepower.
Unfortunately feminist theory has become the cheapest and easiest way for pseudo-intellectuals to make themselves appear all right on and progressive. It comes at the expense of meaningful and interesting discussion about games. I'm not part of the Pat-Klepek-hating brigade, but to use him as an example: he links to gender prejudice articles all the time, but I watched my first Ryan/Patrick QL yesterday and each of the women in the game were referred to by Klepek as 'chicks'. That's an example of the useless, tail-chasing posturing that much of the feminist discourse surrounding games amounts to - unproductive, unsubstantiated right on waffle, and that's definitely all this Ico thing is.
This is an exceptionally well done response as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy I read it in this, at times, infuriating thread.
@Ace829 said:
@Yummylee said:
OP is a sensationalist twat and this should probably be locked.
Despite the OP's blatant sensationalism, I do feel there is legit discussion value here as long as both sides don't start ripping each others throats out.
not especially though. He blasted her through the mud because of a 200 character tweet, so it was never to be. Best to wait until she actually releases a video and then we can attempt civil discourse (hahaha sure)
@FlarePhoenix said:
@Animasta said:
@FlarePhoenix: you're right, that is a different person
Thanks, I was fairly sure but not one hundred percent certain. Still, it probably doesn't matter to him much; he seems rather determined to attack all feminists without regarding what they're saying. I actually read the post he linked (about Dungeons of Dreadmor), and the person was quite reasonable in what she was saying. His representation of what she said was so off base it's not even funny.
It's a different person that she tweets about re: Ico developers while she was going on about Ico. I only recognize it by the URL, I didn't bother reading this particular post.
@ck1nd said:
@Cretaceous_Bob: I guess I'm old fashioned and see nothing wrong with visualizing a strength that the male gender has when it comes to "saving the damsel in distress." I feel it's the common misconception everyone seems to be having, and that seems to be an internal flaw of the audience rather than simply one of the studios. My entire child-hood was filled with day-dreams of saving helpless girls because I myself wanted to feel heroic. If a lady is jumping off walls and able to defeat foes around me - there is "nothing" for me to feel heroic for. It's simply part of me being male.
This seems more like an issue of insecurity and missed interpretation. I'm not going to say that the team that developed ICO think exactly the way I do, but I do feel it is a little out of hand to accuse a party of misogamy.
You've just said that you, as a man, cannot possibly make heroic efforts to save a mate/love interest/pretty girl/whatever if that person is capable. I don't know why you don't see a problem with that.
Male physical strength means less to the world today than ever before. There is nothing stopping women from using guns to save themselves and others, either in reality or fiction. Unless you believe that women are mentally weak, irresolute, and incompetent.
The desire to prove oneself and one's feelings toward another in a heroic trial is natural. The desire for helplessness you've bolted on is not.
@FengShuiGod said:
I just saw Scully save Mulder in an X-files episode. X-files is sexist.
No women in Moby Dick. Moby Dick is sexist.
The main character in Raging Bull is a man, just like most movies, and therefore reinforces the widespread Hollywood notion that only a movie with a male lead can be successful. Sexist.
Two Broke Girls features two broke girls who often objectify and hook up with men in a crude a derogatory way. CBS is sexist.
GiantBomb works with the sexist CBS and has no female writers. GiantBomb is sexist.
Commercials often portray men as helpless and stupid. Hanes is sexist.
Ico fights shadow monsters that are undoubtedly masculine in nature therefore reinforcing the stereotype that men are more likely to be violent and he almost dies because of his helplessness before he is saved....BY A WOMAN. Ico is sexist against men, case closed.
This thread is basically just people reading the thread title (and nothing else), yelling "Look what I can do!" and cannonballing into the pool. Hilarious.
@Cretaceous_Bob said:
@Ace829 said:
Even then! If the main villain weren't a women, it still isn't misogynist because in the universe itself it is shown the Ico is the only one who cannot be harmed by the shadows. It would make sense that Yorda would seek his protection because that's a pretty rare ability!
Seeing women as helpless, pure, moral, and worth protecting is a hallmark of historical sexism. Historical sexism has no problem with making female villains, either.
The question is why did the developers give each character the role and traits they did, and examining the internal logic of the story has nothing to do with that.
Then that historical sexism likes to contradict itself unless there are female villains that are also pure and moral.
Also, can you explain why examining the internal logic of the story has nothing to do with what the developers thought when giving the characters their roles? I'm pretty sure one of the ways to learn about an author's mind is to examine the story they put forth.
@Baal_Sagoth said:
@Laivasse said:
So let's break it down into components then. Ico contains one powerful, evil woman and one passive woman who is neutral (it's a stretch to call Yorda 'good'; her origins are a mystery). Are you saying that Ico contains an implicit message about how powerful women are evil and powerless girls are good? Because you definitely need to hunt out some more supporting arguments from the game if that's what you are alleging. It's a threadbare, uninteresting interpretation that ignores all the subtleties beyond 'the boy holds her hand and pulls her along'. The feminist interpretation necessarily ignores the fact that the boy is probably stronger because he's just arrived and the girl is weak from spending an unspecified amount of time in a cage.
There is barely a single room that Ico can get past without Yorda. If he doesn't bring her with him, he can't get out. As the game progresses you're given the impression that perhaps Yorda was never meant to leave the castle, which presents another facet to her passivity. By the end of the game, it isn't Ico helping Yorda escape. So is the game an indictment of male power? A statement of how men present themselves as heroes as a means to furthering their own interests? A criticism of how men use women up and throw them away? The boy is an outcast, sacrificed because he has horns - does that, along with the emphasis on light and shadow in the game, make it an allegory about prejudice and race? No, not really - that's all just masturbatory waffle. But it has as much if not more supporting evidence than 'Ico is a male chauvinist game that says women have to be evil to be powerful'.
'Recognising what a game is saying about women' includes recognising when it is saying nothing. I don't think it's important to talk about Ico as a statement of gender roles at all, when there are so many other much more important things going on in that game - such as what it does for linear narratives in games; how it creates emotional resonance; how it creates a series of puzzlebox 'test chambers' which are not only believable as real spaces but mysterious and intimidating; how it creates a story with very little dialogue; how the specifics of the fantasy world in the game are fascinating (why the curse, who's the queen, etc); and how it is living proof that the style of your art and animation is more important than your raw graphical horsepower.
Unfortunately feminist theory has become the cheapest and easiest way for pseudo-intellectuals to make themselves appear all right on and progressive. It comes at the expense of meaningful and interesting discussion about games. I'm not part of the Pat-Klepek-hating brigade, but to use him as an example: he links to gender prejudice articles all the time, but I watched my first Ryan/Patrick QL yesterday and each of the women in the game were referred to by Klepek as 'chicks'. That's an example of the useless, tail-chasing posturing that much of the feminist discourse surrounding games amounts to - unproductive, unsubstantiated right on waffle, and that's definitely all this Ico thing is.
This is an exceptionally well done response as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy I read it in this, at times, infuriating thread.
I also second this. You put it way better than I could have.
@Cretaceous_Bob: the Tweet in it's verbose and straight forward way criticized that Ico, the singular game, is annoyingly sexist on it's own. The reason the boy saves the girl is because of society, life and generations of women and men who came before us setting up the precedents from which some of us are trying to shake loose but are not all completely untrue. If anyone, at any point, were to make the argument that REALISTICALLY it could just as well have been the girl climbing the chains, shimming on ledges and fighting off shadow monsters with a stick - then these people are blinded by the pursuit of a theoretical equality between men and women that in real life will never happen for the same reason why uneducated, down on their luck young women driven to a breaking point will sooner turn to prostitution rather than construction work and vice versa. I'm just being brutally realistic about this. Calling out a video game with quite a moving story as an example of what society through years of misogyny has turned the status quo of young women in video games into is idiotic. Fight for equality, but this isn't it, this is just hanging on age old issues in the most inappropriate and least influential place imaginable.
@psylah said:
I think I can still get a Meximelt at the Taco Bell around the corner. The burrito I ordered had "meximelt" on the wrapper, but it was never on the menu. Do you think if I ask for a meximelt tthey'll make me one?
I can still get Meximelts here. The problem is they no longer have Chili Cheese Burritos. I'm not sure if it's a mid-western thing, but they don't have them in CA.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking for Boycott Atlus.
@AuthenticM said:
Maybe "sexist" is too powerful of a word in this case, but Ico is most definitely reenforcing the notion that women are helpless and dependant and must be assisted by men in order to do anything. I'm glad she played the game; I look forward to what she has to say in more detail.
Oh, and for the matter, if the Team Ico guy is not sexist, then he is at the very least the most ignorant motherfucker working at Sony.
I'd agree if it was a big strong man helping a helpless dame. But you don't play as some symbol of manhood. You play as a boy. Not a teenager, a boy that is even smaller in body size than the girl he protects.
This is utter nonsense. The subtext you missed (somehow) is that the problem with the sexism in Japanese games isn't that they're making an assumption, but that they're making an incorrect assumption, and that incorrect notion is even worse for being an assumption.
Sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially:discrimination against women
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Prejudice
2 a(1): preconceived judgment or opinion (2): an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
b: an instance of such judgment or opinionc: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics
If you acknowledge, as you already have, that Japanese games have a markedly higher rate of sexism, you are of the opinion that my statement about Japan is not a prejudicial one, which invalidates your "irony" immediately.
Nobody has a problem with gender based assumptions on their own. Video games depict women with breasts, don't they? And with higher voices? And wearing certain types of clothing men don't wear? Those are all assumptions, and you cannot find anyone at all complaining about that because literally no one is saying what you think they're saying.
There's nothing ironic about stating accurately that a certain culture has a tendency to depict a group a certain inaccurate way.
Except the thread isn't a woolly discussion about Japanese games - it's about Ico. You're the one who mentioned the generalisation of Japanese games as if it applied to the game everyone else was talking about, when it doesn't. Using the caveat, 'I haven't played the game so I don't know anything about it, but...' doesn't really cover you when you go on quote to a guy who was specifically talking about the game, then you rail against gender stereotypes as if they're in any way relevant to it.
Although I acknowledged problems in the way Japanese games depict women, I wouldn't say they're so much worse in that regard than Western games that you can make sweeping judgements against specific games you don't know about. That's the definition of cultural prejudice (thanks for the definition btw) leading you up a dead end. It's certainly ironic because it's more inaccurate than any gender-based stereotype that the Japaneseness of Team Ico caused them to make, in Ico.
The game is what you make of it. For me Ico is one of the best games ever made
@Ace829 said:
@Baal_Sagoth said:
@Laivasse said:
So let's break it down into components then. Ico contains one powerful, evil woman and one passive woman who is neutral (it's a stretch to call Yorda 'good'; her origins are a mystery). Are you saying that Ico contains an implicit message about how powerful women are evil and powerless girls are good? Because you definitely need to hunt out some more supporting arguments from the game if that's what you are alleging. It's a threadbare, uninteresting interpretation that ignores all the subtleties beyond 'the boy holds her hand and pulls her along'. The feminist interpretation necessarily ignores the fact that the boy is probably stronger because he's just arrived and the girl is weak from spending an unspecified amount of time in a cage.
There is barely a single room that Ico can get past without Yorda. If he doesn't bring her with him, he can't get out. As the game progresses you're given the impression that perhaps Yorda was never meant to leave the castle, which presents another facet to her passivity. By the end of the game, it isn't Ico helping Yorda escape. So is the game an indictment of male power? A statement of how men present themselves as heroes as a means to furthering their own interests? A criticism of how men use women up and throw them away? The boy is an outcast, sacrificed because he has horns - does that, along with the emphasis on light and shadow in the game, make it an allegory about prejudice and race? No, not really - that's all just masturbatory waffle. But it has as much if not more supporting evidence than 'Ico is a male chauvinist game that says women have to be evil to be powerful'.
'Recognising what a game is saying about women' includes recognising when it is saying nothing. I don't think it's important to talk about Ico as a statement of gender roles at all, when there are so many other much more important things going on in that game - such as what it does for linear narratives in games; how it creates emotional resonance; how it creates a series of puzzlebox 'test chambers' which are not only believable as real spaces but mysterious and intimidating; how it creates a story with very little dialogue; how the specifics of the fantasy world in the game are fascinating (why the curse, who's the queen, etc); and how it is living proof that the style of your art and animation is more important than your raw graphical horsepower.
Unfortunately feminist theory has become the cheapest and easiest way for pseudo-intellectuals to make themselves appear all right on and progressive. It comes at the expense of meaningful and interesting discussion about games. I'm not part of the Pat-Klepek-hating brigade, but to use him as an example: he links to gender prejudice articles all the time, but I watched my first Ryan/Patrick QL yesterday and each of the women in the game were referred to by Klepek as 'chicks'. That's an example of the useless, tail-chasing posturing that much of the feminist discourse surrounding games amounts to - unproductive, unsubstantiated right on waffle, and that's definitely all this Ico thing is.
This is an exceptionally well done response as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy I read it in this, at times, infuriating thread.
I also second this. You put it way better than I could have.
I was totally about to type:
THE GIRL YOU RESCUE IN ICO.. IS IMPRISONED BY.. A WOMAN.
Feminists can eat a dick.
@Animasta said:
@Ace829 said:
@Yummylee said:
OP is a sensationalist twat and this should probably be locked.
Despite the OP's blatant sensationalism, I do feel there is legit discussion value here as long as both sides don't start ripping each others throats out.
not especially though. He blasted her through the mud because of a 200 character tweet, so it was never to be. Best to wait until she actually releases a video and then we can attempt civil discourse (hahaha sure)
Problem with the tweet in the first place is that is that its a one sentence indictment of a game with no supporting argument put forth due to the limitations of the medium. Twitter has never, and will never be a good venue to start an intellectual discussion, not because of the authors or audience, but because of how little can be said (quite literally.) It just sadly leads to walls of masturbatory comments with a few gems hidden beneath all that muck.
@Turambar said:
@Animasta said:
@Ace829 said:
@Yummylee said:
OP is a sensationalist twat and this should probably be locked.
Despite the OP's blatant sensationalism, I do feel there is legit discussion value here as long as both sides don't start ripping each others throats out.
not especially though. He blasted her through the mud because of a 200 character tweet, so it was never to be. Best to wait until she actually releases a video and then we can attempt civil discourse (hahaha sure)
Problem with the tweet in the first place is that is that its a one sentence indictment of a game with no supporting argument put forth due to the limitations of the medium. Twitter has never, and will never be a good venue to start an intellectual discussion, not because of the authors or audience, but because of how little can be said (quite literally.) It just sadly leads to walls of masturbatory comments with a few gems hidden beneath all that muck.
Lots of dumb shit is said on twitter. She probably should have known this was going to happen but I'm not going to blame her for venting in an inopportune place. I don't agree or disagree with her statement (I have never played ico so I cannot say either way), but the OP of this topic is still a fucking idiot
Ueda has done some really (probably inadvertently) sexist things in his games, and his comments about how he was going to have a female protagonist in The Last Guardian but eventually didn't because her wearing a short skirt would make them more limited in camera angles for a while is pretty fucking ridiculous and kinda puts the final nail in the coffin.
WTF ?
@Laivasse said:
@Nicked said:@Jace said:
@stinky said:
@Jace said:
What if it was a little boy being pulled around by a girl instead? Do you think all the men would be in forums raging about a game that came out like 7 fucking years ago?
Don't you fucking people have something better to complain about?
why can't people think?
why was it not a boy? because the cliche is that women are powerless and need men to get through things.
if it was a girl leading a boy, people would assume the boy was sick, handicapped or a wimp and thus worthless.
what would be better for a woman to complain about than being thought an equal?
ugh, why do people want respect? derp.
"Why can't people think?"
Did you type that on accident or do you have trouble reading?
"Cliche is that women are powerless."
Oh, funny how the ruler of the castle they are in is a fucking QUEEN. Funny how you pick the parts that make your half-assed arguments look good on forums.
Try harder next time.
A lot of people have made the point that the Queen is powerful, but she's also totally demonic, so I don't think it's a very meaningful argument to make. She's the antagonist. The powerless girl is good and the powerful woman is evil.
I only ever played the demo, but Ico still seems like a game worth playing to me. However, I do think it's important to recognize what it is implicitly saying about women and how it might inform our culture or our ideas.
So let's break it down into components then. Ico contains one powerful, evil woman and one passive woman who is neutral (it's a stretch to call Yorda 'good'; her origins are a mystery). Are you saying that Ico contains an implicit message about how powerful women are evil and powerless girls are good? Because you definitely need to hunt out some more supporting arguments from the game if that's what you are alleging. It's a threadbare, uninteresting interpretation that ignores all the subtleties beyond 'the boy holds her hand and pulls her along'. The feminist interpretation necessarily ignores the fact that the boy is probably stronger because he's just arrived and the girl is weak from spending an unspecified amount of time in a cage.
There is barely a single room that Ico can get past without Yorda. If he doesn't bring her with him, he can't get out. As the game progresses you're given the impression that perhaps Yorda was never meant to leave the castle, which presents another facet to her passivity. By the end of the game, it isn't Ico helping Yorda escape. So is the game an indictment of male power? A statement of how men present themselves as heroes as a means to furthering their own interests? A criticism of how men use women up and throw them away? The boy is an outcast, sacrificed because he has horns - does that, along with the emphasis on light and shadow in the game, make it an allegory about prejudice and race? No, not really - that's all just masturbatory waffle. But it has as much if not more supporting evidence than 'Ico is a male chauvinist game that says women have to be evil to be powerful'.
'Recognising what a game is saying about women' includes recognising when it is saying nothing. I don't think it's important to talk about Ico as a statement of gender roles at all, when there are so many other much more important things going on in that game - such as what it does for linear narratives in games; how it creates emotional resonance; how it creates a series of puzzlebox 'test chambers' which are not only believable as real spaces but mysterious and intimidating; how it creates a story with very little dialogue; how the specifics of the fantasy world in the game are fascinating (why the curse, who's the queen, etc); and how it is living proof that the style of your art and animation is more important than your raw graphical horsepower.
Unfortunately feminist theory has become the cheapest and easiest way for pseudo-intellectuals to make themselves appear all right on and progressive. It comes at the expense of meaningful and interesting discussion about games. I'm not part of the Pat-Klepek-hating brigade, but to use him as an example: he links to gender prejudice articles all the time, but I watched my first Ryan/Patrick QL yesterday and each of the women in the game were referred to by Klepek as 'chicks'. That's an example of the useless, tail-chasing posturing that much of the feminist discourse surrounding games amounts to - unproductive, unsubstantiated right on waffle, and that's definitely all this Ico thing is.
While this is a well thought analysis it still misses a few of the bigger issues that should be addressed. Ico is not in and of itself a sexist game, Mario is not a sexist game series, etc. Hell, even the damsel in distress trope isn't somehow sexist in and of itself. Depicting some females in a narrow and arguably negative way isn't inherently an issue. In fact, I'd make the argument that never doing so is just as much of a problem as always doing it. A well constructed believable universe will likely have both strong and weak members of both genders. It also would likely have events within that universe that play on them, and sometimes tropes would happen. I'd even be willing to accept a game taking place in a universe that has systemic cultural problems involving sex as being believable, which not only would make those tropes believable, it'd make the use of them justified.
The problem is that the majority of games rely on the use of tropes so heavily that the medium at a glance appears male centric, especially AAA titles. The lack of a diverse narrative being accepted by the masses is a huge issue because it affirms gender roles and relation in a way that isn't positive for society. We're teaching future generations, through the use of media, that men are stronger and smarter. Western media reflects the idea that men should do everything. As consumers we shouldn't accept that. We should demand a more diverse representation, at least to the extent that it reflects cultural equality.
I agree with you for the most part that understanding a statement is just as much about what it isn't as it is what it is. On a broader scale of things just making another damsel in distress is contributing to the problem. I don't feel Ico specifically has done that but I'm curious to see how she follows up her claims.
I suggest developers start releasing games with the option of complete gender switch. Basically, if toggled on, it switches the genders of every living thing with a gender in the game. Also it asks you to choose what you want upon startup, as to not have a default setting which could be offensive to some people. It will be like localizing a game and making it work for a specific country, but instead making it work for a specific gender.
Did I just make the world a better place? Ahhhhh yea.
@gladspooky said:
@iAmJohn said:
@Hailinel said:
@gladspookyI don't think sexism means what you think it means.@Hailinel said:
@Astromarine said:
@Jolt92 said:
People paid money for this? Feminism used to be cool, man.
what's "this"? A woman stating a correct opinion that wouldn't be controversial outside videogamer circles?
If it's an opinion, it's not necessarily "correct."
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The game is sexist. It's based on a boy saving a helpless princess. The thing is, it's supposed to be. That's the trope they chose to use. Like how Laura Bow 2 is racist because it features a pervy Chinese laundryman with a bad accent. But do you know why he's in there? Because it's set in the 20s, and that's how you get that shit across.
Why are you even giving this extended joke character the time of day?
Neither of you guys know how to read, do you?
What does that have to do with the fact that your entire existence on this site is built around being as insultingly contrarian about everything as humanly possible? The only thing separating you from OldSchool or Buzzkill is that you don't play the fanboy lunatic angle as well.
@iAmJohn said:
@gladspooky said:
@iAmJohn said:
@Hailinel said:
@gladspookyI don't think sexism means what you think it means.@Hailinel said:
@Astromarine said:
@Jolt92 said:
People paid money for this? Feminism used to be cool, man.
what's "this"? A woman stating a correct opinion that wouldn't be controversial outside videogamer circles?
If it's an opinion, it's not necessarily "correct."
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. The game is sexist. It's based on a boy saving a helpless princess. The thing is, it's supposed to be. That's the trope they chose to use. Like how Laura Bow 2 is racist because it features a pervy Chinese laundryman with a bad accent. But do you know why he's in there? Because it's set in the 20s, and that's how you get that shit across.
Why are you even giving this extended joke character the time of day?
Neither of you guys know how to read, do you?
What does that have to do with the fact that your entire existence on this site is built around being as insultingly contrarian about everything as humanly possible? The only thing separating you from OldSchool or Buzzkill is that you don't play the fanboy lunatic angle as well.
Except my post up there is perfectly on-topic and not inflammatory in any way. You're the one who insulted me first. Better luck next time?
Any opinion of this horrible woman should be taken as seriously as religious fundementalists like members of Al-Queda or the Westboro Baptist Church. She is a terrible human being.
@Milkman:
@Sergio said:
@psylah said:
I think I can still get a Meximelt at the Taco Bell around the corner. The burrito I ordered had "meximelt" on the wrapper, but it was never on the menu. Do you think if I ask for a meximelt tthey'll make me one?
I can still get Meximelts here. The problem is they no longer have Chili Cheese Burritos. I'm not sure if it's a mid-western thing, but they don't have them in CA.
Chili cheese burritos were awesome, but a bathroom disaster waiting to happen.
I haven't had a chili cheese burrito or a meximelt in over 12 years.
@A_Talking_Donkey said:
@Laivasse said:
@Nicked said:@Jace said:
[...]@stinky said:
[...]@Jace said:
[...][...]So let's break it down into components then. Ico contains one powerful, evil woman and one passive woman who is neutral (it's a stretch to call Yorda 'good'; her origins are a mystery). Are you saying that Ico contains an implicit message about how powerful women are evil and powerless girls are good? Because you definitely need to hunt out some more supporting arguments from the game if that's what you are alleging. It's a threadbare, uninteresting interpretation that ignores all the subtleties beyond 'the boy holds her hand and pulls her along'. The feminist interpretation necessarily ignores the fact that the boy is probably stronger because he's just arrived and the girl is weak from spending an unspecified amount of time in a cage.
There is barely a single room that Ico can get past without Yorda. If he doesn't bring her with him, he can't get out. As the game progresses you're given the impression that perhaps Yorda was never meant to leave the castle, which presents another facet to her passivity. By the end of the game, it isn't Ico helping Yorda escape. So is the game an indictment of male power? A statement of how men present themselves as heroes as a means to furthering their own interests? A criticism of how men use women up and throw them away? The boy is an outcast, sacrificed because he has horns - does that, along with the emphasis on light and shadow in the game, make it an allegory about prejudice and race? No, not really - that's all just masturbatory waffle. But it has as much if not more supporting evidence than 'Ico is a male chauvinist game that says women have to be evil to be powerful'.
'Recognising what a game is saying about women' includes recognising when it is saying nothing. I don't think it's important to talk about Ico as a statement of gender roles at all, when there are so many other much more important things going on in that game - such as what it does for linear narratives in games; how it creates emotional resonance; how it creates a series of puzzlebox 'test chambers' which are not only believable as real spaces but mysterious and intimidating; how it creates a story with very little dialogue; how the specifics of the fantasy world in the game are fascinating (why the curse, who's the queen, etc); and how it is living proof that the style of your art and animation is more important than your raw graphical horsepower.
Unfortunately feminist theory has become the cheapest and easiest way for pseudo-intellectuals to make themselves appear all right on and progressive. It comes at the expense of meaningful and interesting discussion about games. I'm not part of the Pat-Klepek-hating brigade, but to use him as an example: he links to gender prejudice articles all the time, but I watched my first Ryan/Patrick QL yesterday and each of the women in the game were referred to by Klepek as 'chicks'. That's an example of the useless, tail-chasing posturing that much of the feminist discourse surrounding games amounts to - unproductive, unsubstantiated right on waffle, and that's definitely all this Ico thing is.
While this is a well thought analysis it still misses a few of the bigger issues that should be addressed. Ico is not in and of itself a sexist game, Mario is not a sexist game series, etc. Hell, even the damsel in distress trope isn't somehow sexist in and of itself. Depicting some females in a narrow and arguably negative way isn't inherently an issue. In fact, I'd make the argument that never doing so is just as much of a problem as always doing it. A well constructed believable universe will likely have both strong and weak members of both genders. It also would likely have events within that universe that play on them, and sometimes tropes would happen. I'd even be willing to accept a game taking place in a universe that has systemic cultural problems involving sex as being believable, which not only would make those tropes believable, it'd make the use of them justified.
The problem is that the majority of games rely on the use of tropes so heavily that the medium at a glance appears male centric, especially AAA titles.(1) The lack of a diverse narrative being accepted by the masses is a huge issue because it affirms gender roles and relation in a way that isn't positive for society. We're teaching future generations, through the use of media, that men are stronger and smarter.Western media reflects the idea that men should do everything. (2)As consumers we shouldn't accept that. We should demand a more diverse representation, at least to the extent that it reflects cultural equality. (3)
I agree with you for the most part that understanding a statement is just as much about what it isn't as it is what it is. On a broader scale of things just making another damsel in distress is contributing to the problem. I don't feel Ico specifically has done that but I'm curious to see how she follows up her claims.
I'm going to chime in even though I obviously didn't originate the smart piece of writing above.
1) Is that in any way different than any other medium though? I don't want to go into the wholly other dicussion if this is even true or not in general but do you actually think games are more chauvinistic/ misogynistic/ etc. than, say, movies, TV programs, magazines or books? Does the amount of money spent figure into that ('AAA titles')? Because I don't think it does. I'd like to see evidence for massively financed games to be more permissive towards gender stereotypes than other media.
2) Stronger, maybe, even certainly. But smarter? I perceive videogame dudes to be mostly dumb fucking brutes with mediocre abilities and not a shred of actual intelligence in their skulls. I don't even understand where the "do everything" or "Western" specification comes from. Especially since "Ico" isn't even part of Western video games.
3) Is being a consumer that political? Shouldn't consumers just spend money on products they enjoy and the market at large decides what kind of product is viable? Again, this could grow into a huge discussion. I mainly intend to ask: do you propose fundamental questions about capitalism or do you think buying what a particular persons enjoys is a problematic attitude and should be subdued under a feminist (or any other) agenda? Because I sure as hell exclusively buy games I want to see succeed anyway.
I'm still getting the vibe that people view a medium through the lense of a particular agenda and freak out when they inevitably see what they intended to see all along. I find the discussion to be fascinating (thus I'm contributing in the first place) but I'm not blown away by what I get out of it so far. I hope my post isn't unneccessarily inflammatory since the topic at hand has been blown out of proportion a couple of times already, even just on this particular website.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment