Dear Internet: Grow Up

[Remy]

To be fair...that's not proof she didn't play the gae, it's just proof she didn't capture the footage herself.

 

Though, given her complete lack of understanding of some of the games she's given, yeah...I'm thinking she probably hasn't played them, at least beyond picking it up, seeing a woman getting kidnapped and throwing the controller away in a rage

Yes, clearly, considering the  points in Part 3 where she praised both Beyond Good and Evil and Zelda OoT/MM.

 

Clearly, very much so. Very clearly. That ridiculous woman not understanding the games of men and getting angry over having her gender marginalized. Clearly.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

You know, considering she's talking more about a predominantly storytelling element, I don't think it's unreasonable to just look at videos of people playing games and make a hypothesis there either.

 

I'm pretty sure some of you guys have done it yourselves, 'cuz I know I have.

Edited August 6, 2013 by ChaosSupremeSonîc

[Remy]

My only problem with this series is that a lot of the arguments she comes up with are very basic, while the majority of the videos are filled up with examples rather than constructive ideas on how this problem can be fixed.

Yeah, totally agree with you on this. It's basically a "don't do this" list of games with poorly executed cliches and little else. The game suggested in Part 3 took some steps to fix this, but overly it's still a pretty hella negative series.

 

You know, considering she's talking more about a predominantly storytelling element, I don't think it's unreasonable to just look at videos of people playing games and make a hypothesis there either.

 

I'm pretty sure some of you guys have done it yourselves, 'cuz I know I have.

Mmmm. This is pretty much exactly what I think. She's not really talking about combat mechanics or gameplay, merely plots. Videos is fine. It never claimed to be a lets paly, and you can make a video about a game without recording your own damn footage.

[Badnik Mechanic]

I don't think it's a big deal that she is using other videos instead of playing them all herself. I mean, it doesn't matter considering it is going to be mostly the same footage regardless.

 

She claimed in her original kickstarter, that she needed the money to go and do a lot of research and that this would as a result take a lot of time.

 

Now by that, I would assume that means actually playing the games and actually recording what you are doing, in other words recording your findings.

 

She hasn't done that.

 

She has an agenda, she went to TV tropes and then to youtube and decided to steal other peoples videos and the money that was donated to her.

 

She's a con artist.

 

If you are going to make a video or an argument that supports your claims, you should be providing material from your own findings that supports it, not reading out your own agenda and then stealing other peoples work and pretending it's your own.

 

Why do some people still support this woman? She's a fraud in every sense.

 

 

To be fair...that's not proof she didn't play the gae, it's just proof she didn't capture the footage herself.

 

It's quite evident from her second video is quite evident that she didn't play most of the games she's moaning about.

[Remy]

She claimed in her original kickstarter, that she needed the money to go and do a lot of research and that this would as a result take a lot of time.

 

Now by that, I would assume that means actually playing the games and actually recording what you are doing, in other words recording your findings.

 

She hasn't done that.

 

Well! I guess you'd better call for a refund on your Kickstarter donation, then!

 

So apparently watching a game doesn't count as research now? For a discussion based around the use of the damsel in distress trope in games, there's maybe... one game that you can't grasp how shittily it's story is presented just by watching a cutscene/dialogue reel. ICO. And that's a maybe.

 

Why exactly does watching a game not count as research now? Hell, just because she didn't record her own footage, which would be a massive fucking waste of time with some of the longer games, provided that someone hadn't prepared saves prior at crucial points, doesn't mean that the game wasn't at one point in time played by her.

 

People are complaining that these videos are slow as is. God knows how long it'd take if the footage wasn't sourced elsewhere.

 

And in addition to that- game stories are so dumb, and gameplay as a method of communicating plot points to the player so tragically underutilized the original point stands- you don't need to record mountains of your own footage to understand and communicate ideas about how these games are sexist to other people.

 

 

It's quite evident from her second video is quite evident that she didn't play most of the games she's moaning about.

Is it, now?

 

What games do you take an issue with her misunderstanding, Hogfather? Or should we just dismiss her entirely based on a strawman?

 

Women, always "moaning" aren't they?

[SuperLink]

Remz is totally right, when you're studying game tropes you only really need to study them on an aesthetic level unless they are on the level that a player has significant control over those tropes in which case I'm sure she would do them decent justice. And even then.. those selections are usually text or voice based with text prompts. There isn't a whole lot that can only be understood by playing the game unless you're studying game design and she's... not studying game design nor is she intending to.

 

However one thing I will say about her videos is that though she has a lot of good points (and not as good points) the presentation is pretty poor because she doesn't present herself as a really sound or likeable individual. Even ignoring her tacky outfit, "gamers" know her as someone who did some dumb stuff and caused drama way back and then went and complained about gamers (WE MUST DEFEND OUR ILK!!11) to the world. Not just that, but even when her points are good what she's really doing is victimising female characters and.. females in general, thus far, at least.

She's kinda failing at rhetoric 101. She's not really using many rhetoric techniques with any efforts to change peoples minds or get people to care. If they didn't care before, I kinda doubt these videos will make them care. And of course it's possible, a basic political method is to get people to love your speech so much that they support it even if they don't understand what you're talking about. Even if people understand her, she's not getting them on her side, and that's critical.

 

It's a huge shame she's (as of yet) not making the most of what could be a really good thing, but hopefully better will emerge in the future.

Edited August 6, 2013 by SuperLink

[Remy]

I agree she could be a better speaker, but It think being a woman talking about video-games in a negative sense... and not only video-games but, gasp, feminism and sexism has given her a pretty uphill battle to fight here! In terms of being liked by gamers that is.

 

She's clashing in the realm of men! Talking negatively about them too! I think this video series would need someone with godlike charisma, or oodles of pandering to be taken seriously by the neanderthal gaming community at large.

[SuperLink]

That's true, but coming from someone who is feminist and also gets pretty angry at this shit (which you probably saw first hand if you've been in the Doctor Who thread lately) I still find her kind of grating as an individual and I really think she could gain support easier if she did a better job at presenting herself as an advocate for the growth and improvement of gaming so hopefully less people will assume she's here to ruin man's territory, and speaking in a more rhetoric way.

 

What I'd also really like to hear about is what critics from outside gaming think of her. Respected, well-grounded feminists and critics etc.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Well! I guess you'd better call for a refund on your Kickstarter donation, then!

If anyone was stupid enough to actually donate to this they probably should since lately her own videos draw serious questions over if she's actually played the bulk of these games and the revelations that most of the footage in them is from other sources which are not referenced would suggest fraud. 

 

So apparently watching a game doesn't count as research now? For a discussion based around the use of the damsel in distress trope in games, there's maybe... one game that you can't grasp how shittily it's story is presented. ICO. And that's a maybe.

No it doesn't because you are only experiencing the journey of one game and their path through the game based on the experience they either want to have or what they want to give to their audience.

For example. If I played Uncharted 3 and decided to skip out all the uncessesary side conversations, you miss out on a lot of character traits from several main protagonists.

If I play Fallout 3 or any RPG that has a main storyline and skip out all the side quests you miss out on tons of stuff both from the world it creates and the treatment of it's character. Especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas where one of the sidequests delves into the charming area of child slaves and sex slaves, but you will never see or have any indication this is going on if you stuck to the main path of the story.

Even in a game like the Last of Us, if you engage in the side conversations, Joel comes off as a much more sympathetic character than he does if you ignore them. He appears to actually care about Ellie and take an interest in her life.

But if you are watching a person play the game who choses to ignore these, or doesn't do them all, Joel, Ellie, and to an extent Tess and several other characters come off VERY differently. Even stuff like reading/picking up artifacts and in game text files.

This game has a really good example of why watching a game isn't a good idea when it comes to studying a subject. The leader of the fireflies at the end of this game, does something which paints her as a villain. But if you find the artifacts and her dairies in the final section, your views on her will change since you realise the sturggle she's been going through and that she's not come to this decision easilly.

But if you watch a person playing a game and they miss those parts... you will never see this... so any conclusion you make on that character or their impact on the world can't be sound since it lacks actual evidence and research.

So unless the person playing the game went into these areas, your research is not full and is lacking. Therefore your conclusions on certain subjects can be wrong.

What games do you take an issue with her misunderstanding, Hogfather? Or should we just dismiss her entirely based on a strawman?

How long have we got exactly?

Lets take one example for now... She complains about Double Dragon being sexist and that the women in that game are weak and that the males are typical male characters for doing what they do.

Well... wait... if she'd played that game, wouldn't she know that the girls at the start are attacked without any warning? And that at the very end of the game you see one of the girls more or less destroy the huge boss thing with an uppercut to it's crotch? How is that a weak female character in distress?

Then her complaints about the male protagonists themselves... what exactly does she want them to do? Not rescue their girlfriends? Just sit in the garage all day and continue working on the cars?

 

Women, always "moaning" aren't they?

Yeah right, I dislike her because she's a woman... yeah... has nothing to do with everything I've said so far in this topic, about how her conclusions are wrong and that she's being very selective in her choices of stuff to support her well established agenda thats very well documented...

Or are we all still ignoring that wonderful conclusion she made ages ago... that because she got nasty comments on youtube.... it was proof that there was sexism in the videogame industry.

Funny how her supporters ignore that one.

[SuperLink]

For example. If I played Uncharted 3 and decided to skip out all the uncessesary side conversations, you miss out on a lot of character traits from several main protagonists.

If I play Fallout 3 or any RPG that has a main storyline and skip out all the side quests you miss out on tons of stuff both from the world it creates and the treatment of it's character. Especially in Fallout 3/New Vegas where one of the sidequests delves into the charming area of child slaves and sex slaves, but you will never see or have any indication this is going on if you stuck to the main path of the story.

Even in a game like the Last of Us, if you engage in the side conversations, Joel comes off as a much more sympathetic character than he does if you ignore them. He appears to actually care about Ellie and take an interest in her life.

She's not an idiot.. I'm sure she can at least research which games have more than just main dialogue, jesus christ.

 

I'm not sure where this huge assumption has come from or why you're so convinced that just because she didn't film her own footage of a game when the footage needed to examine her point was readily available online, proves without any doubt that she's taken footage from EVERY game under examination and not a SINGLE one has been played by herself.

 

That's a reaaaally biiiig jump of logic. Far bigger than any logic jump she herself uses.

[Badnik Mechanic]

I'm not sure where this huge assumption has come from or why you're so convinced that just because she didn't film her own footage of a game when the footage needed to examine her point was readily available online, proves without any doubt that she's taken footage from EVERY game under examination and not a SINGLE one has been played by herself.

Because like I said, it casts doubt on her whole argument as she's only using information from what someone has either wanted to experience or wanted to show to their audience over actually looking into a game for evidence as to what you are trying to prove.

[Solkia]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be taking the current discussion seriously or not, so instead I'll just throw this out here:

 

Yeah, watching videos can be considered research, but since when does using KeepVid cost so much money that a Kickstarter is needed? Other than video editing stuff, What is the money going to exactly? 

[iDEATH]

Yes, clearly, considering the  points in Part 3 where she praised both Beyond Good and Evil and Zelda OoT/MM.

 

Clearly, very much so. Very clearly. That ridiculous woman not understanding the games of men and getting angry over having her gender marginalized. Clearly.

 

More to do with the games that she doesn't even discuss other than the fact that they have a DiD, the lists she just rattles off without bothering about things like plots, context, characterisation.....nah those things aren't important. If there's a damsel in distress then it's sexist. case closed.

[Remy]

Well... wait... if she'd played that game, wouldn't she know that the girls at the start are attacked without any warning? And that at the very end of the game you see one of the girls more or less destroy the huge boss thing with an uppercut to it's crotch? How is that a weak female character in distress?

Haha! If you had actually watched the video you'd know that was pointed out!

 

Then her complaints about the male protagonists themselves... what exactly does she want them to do? Not rescue their girlfriends? Just sit in the garage all day and continue working on the cars?

I think the core of the argument here is that we should be making games about situations in which men aren't required to rescue their girlfriends from peril to begin with! And perhaps where stories aren't dependant on males retrieving their lovers as property! Maybe!

That stuff about fallout 3... you could in theory watch, or read a script of all that optional dialogue just as easy as you could play it. If it was readily available somewhere.

 

Oh but you cry- you'd miss it ! Not every player recording video would see all these things! Not really. Just watch a video of someone who didn't miss it. Problem solved. You still don't need to play it.

 

It's a good thing that neither Fallout 3, The Last Of Us, or Uncharted are being grilled here due to optional dialogue leading her to misunderstand plot points, anyway! So this whole discussion about them is kind of irrelevant.

 

[SuperLink]

Because like I said, it casts doubt on her whole argument as she's only using information from what someone has either wanted to experience or wanted to show to their audience over actually looking into a game for evidence as to what you are trying to prove.

But I'm pretty sure she is looking into games for evidence. It casts doubt, but using some examples of footage from other places does not mean she hasn't done these things.

 

If anything it just adds more to her unprofessional and un-rhetoric vibe, it's something she needs to work on because it is a bit careless.

 

And coming from someone who knows how costly media can be;

 

Yeah, watching videos can be considered research, but since when does using KeepVid cost so much money that a Kickstarter is needed? Other than video editing stuff, What is the money going to exactly?

I still don't really know why a Kickstarter was needed, besides marketing herself which I don't think has gone fantastically well either.

 

Maybe she needed the money to buy games, and I'd like to think she used the money to buy some proper tuition in academic feminism and game design, but it's a shame she's been anything but transparent.

 

EDIT:

I think the core of the argument here is that we should be making games about situations in which men aren't required to rescue their girlfriends from peril to begin with! And perhaps where stories aren't dependant on males retrieving their lovers as property! Maybe!

A thousand times this. There is nothing about game design that inherently requires a character to be kidnapped for a game to be enjoyable, least of all for said kidnapped character to be a girl treated like a "trophy" and rescuer to be a man. You can say "yeah but what makes it any better if it's a girl saving a girl or a girl saving a guy?"

 

The entire problem about the first place is that it's 99% of the time a girl who gets kidnapped. And saved by a guy. How can people not see that this pattern isn't necessary at all?

Edited August 6, 2013 by SuperLink

[Badnik Mechanic]

 

Oh but you cry- you'd miss it ! Not every player recording video would see all these things! Not really. Just watch a video of someone who didn't miss it. Problem solved. You still don't need to play it.

 

I see... thank god then lets players always say before hand what they will/won't be showing... oh...

[Remy]

I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be taking the current discussion seriously or not, so instead I'll just throw this out here:

 

Yeah, watching videos can be considered research, but since when does using KeepVid cost so much money that a Kickstarter is needed? Other than video editing stuff, What is the money going to exactly? 

#1- Who cares. I don't think she expected to have as much money donated as she did, therefore probably had no plans for extra cash

#2. I don't think money is the issue. Moreso time. It seems inefficient to arbitrarily play and replay stupid games just because people donated a lot of money to you.

More to do with the games that she doesn't even discuss other than the fact that they have a DiD, the lists she just rattles off without bothering about things like plots, context, characterisation.....nah those things aren't important. If there's a damsel in distress then it's sexist. case closed.

LOL. The most obvious lists were of 90s era games, whose whole plots, characterization and context for their women is usually either a.) nonexistant or b.) portrayed in the opening cutscene. The exceptions, like... er Double Dragon, Earthworm Jim are usually pointed out. Although some games might be missed that are otherwise innoffensive, I don't know, I haven't played every game ever, by large there's no point discussing each and every game in depth other than to appease information hungry obsessive nitpicky gamers. Most of these games have the depth of a pond, and I think she's giving the ones that differ from the norm a fair amount of time. Focusing on in depth discussion on a stupid trope and it's use in every single game is a waste of everyone's time.

 

Why do people presume the games in her lists are hiding some deep pro lady message or something.

 

The whole point of those massive lists is to show how ridiculously prevalent the trope is, rather than to individual paint every single game on the list as some sort of woman hating devil game. In that, I think it's successful.

[iDEATH]

I think the core of the argument here is that we should be making games about situations in which men aren't required to rescue their girlfriends from peril to begin with! And perhaps where stories aren't dependant on males retrieving their lovers as property! Maybe!

 

 

Of course, this again brings up the argument that they aren't going after these women because they're their "property". More because they....love them? Don't want them to be hurt? Feel guilty for having her dragged in to this situation?

In the case of Mario or Zelda where it's the aim to rescue a princess, they're rescuing them because they're royalty. Thery do so because she's responsible for the mushroom kingdom/hyrule. she's a massivly important character in the greater mythology, not just a trophy to be recalimed.

 

#2. I don't think money is the issue. Moreso time. It seems inefficient to arbitrarily play and replay stupid games just because people donated a lot of money to you.

 

 

Unless they're paying you specifically to do so.....

 

The whole point of those massive lists is to show how ridiculously prevalent the trope is, rather than to individual paint every single game on the list as some sort of woman hating devil game. In that, I think it's successful.

 

 

Just because it's prevelent doesn't mean it's sexist in every occurence. She doesn't think it's sexist in BG&E......

Edited August 6, 2013 by Jake Bird

[Remy]

I see... thank god then lets players always say before hand what they will/won't be showing... oh...

Lol. Such a vapid point to make. I love how people bring stuff like this up but can't ever actually point out a game that's been misrepresented. If the key to the game that makes it not sexist is buried that deep isn't that a problem in the game itself?

 

And, oh hey the one game ever that had a deeper meaning to it's plot- Braid actually had it's real story and the implications of gender roles/damsel stuff talked about in one of her videos. Hmm.

 

but anyway stop talking about bad trope usage in games guys. You might miss out on a tiny point in a game that proves you wrong. hell stop talking about games in general unless you 100% every title you mention. unless you are the grand game master of the universe stay away from our titles

[SuperLink]

Of course, this again brings up the argument that they aren't going after these women because they're their "property". More because they....love them? Don't want them to be hurt? Feel guilty for having her dragged in to this situation?

In the case of Mario or Zelda where it's the aim to rescue a princess, they're rescuing them because they're royalty. Thery do so because she's responsible for the mushroom kingdom/hyrule. she's a massivly important character in the greater mythology, not just a trophy to be recalimed.

You're missin the point though, it's 500% possible to design a game in which these characters aren't being kidnapped at all.

 

And you're also not looking at it in player and game designer terms. While in the game's mythology, Peach may not be a "trophy" to Mario, Zelda may not be a "trophy" to Link, they are a trophy to the player. They are deliberately designed to be something the player feels a sense of reward for for rescuing, this is the main reason the trophy metaphor is even brought up, it's not about relation to the game world, it's about relation to the player. They are the goal of the game. They are objectified. This is the very meaning of objectification.

Edited August 6, 2013 by SuperLink

[Solkia]

#1- Who cares. I don't think she expected to have as much money donated as she did, therefore probably had no plans for extra cash

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall hearing that she more than met her original goal, and then raised said goal afterwards. 

[Remy]

Of course, this again brings up the argument that they aren't going after these women because they're their "property". More because they....love them? Don't want them to be hurt? Feel guilty for having her dragged in to this situation?

In the case of Mario or Zelda where it's the aim to rescue a princess, they're rescuing them because they're royalty. Thery do so because she's responsible for the mushroom kingdom/hyrule. she's a massivly important character in the greater mythology, not just a trophy to be recalimed.

 

Unless they're paying you specifically to do so.....

I don't think anywhere on the kickstarter did it say GIVE ME MONEY SO I CAN BUY, PURCHASE AND RECORD MYSELF PLAYING THESE GAMES. If it did she's a fucking criminal goddamnit and if she didn't people should stop expecting things they were never promised just because someone gave them money.

 

If Princess Peach isn't a trophy I'd like to see a game where she isn't portrayed as one! If she's an important monarch why is the only person that goes to her rescue, her boyfriend? Why do we never see her doing anything Monarch like? Oh right, male power fantasy. Dumbass writing. The fact this trope is so ingrained in fiction that people think it's the only way these stories can play out says a lot about humanities history of stagnant writing.

 

Have you played the Secret Of Monkey Island?

 

Of course, humor can also be a powerful tool with which to challenge or break down harmful gender myths, but that is much harder to pull off and must be done with careful intentionality.

There is a clear difference between sexist parody and parody of sexism. Sexist parody encourages the players to mock and trivialize gender issues while parody of sexism disrupts the status quo and undermines regressive gender conventions.

 

Clip- The Secret of Monkey Island

“I’ve come to stop you from marrying Governor Marley”

So for instance when wannabe pirate Guybrush Threepwood finally reaches the kidnapped Elaine Marley in the 1990 adventure game The Secret of Monkey Island, she already has a plan to escape and he ruins it with his attempt to rescue her.

 

Clip- The Secret of Monkey Island

“Oh, Guybrush, you mad fool! I’m impressed you came to rescue me, but it really wasn’t necessary. I had everything well in hand”

 

The joke ends up being directed at the protagonist, rather than making fun the damsel’ed woman.

You don't see Peach pulling anything like that in Mario, though. Because Peach isn't a character most of the time, she's barely a person. She's a prize. The End Goal. The Final Stage. She's objectified. Superlink said it way better, whatever

 

 

Just because it's prevelent doesn't mean it's sexist in every occurence. She doesn't think it's sexist in BG&E......

Amazingly, pointed out in the video, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

[Solkia]

On the case of Peach, since Super Princess Peach happened, I'm pretty sure her constant role as damsel in distress is laziness more than anything.  

 

Not that that makes it any less shitty.

[Red Cap]

If Princess Peach isn't a trophy I'd like to see a game where she isn't portrayed as one!

You don't have to look too far to see that. Newest game in the series makes her a playable character!

i mean i get the point but thats just silly remz

(NOTE: I'm not being serious. I saw that and just felt like making a bad joke, lol.) Edited August 6, 2013 by Red Cap-Blue Spikes

[Remy]

You don't have to look to far to see that. Newest game in the series makes her a playable character!

i mean i get the point but thats just silly remz

i was really reaching there i admit