Kickstarter "Tropes vs Women in Videogames"

[Ack]

It exists. That is enough for some people to critique it. And it is close enough that some people can find the realism within it without looking very hard, such as in this article:

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/on-livi ... l-de-santa

Ultimately, GTA is exploitation. Crappy, unsubtle exploitation. But it's exploiting the reality of the situation. Do you really need a banner on the game telling you "Hey, this shit exists!"? No, it's easy enough to see it any time you turn on the news.

As for the quality of the satire, yes, that can be debated. But it's not the debate we're having here.

[dsheinem]

to put it another way, E_T, that Spectator article you cited says:

To the untrained eye, they seem like your average book-devouring, ideas-discussing, H&M-adorned youth, but anyone who’s spent more than five minutes in their company will know that these students are far more interested in shutting debate down than opening it up.

I think that, quite explicitly, Campbell is trying to provoke debate and discussion. If anyone if looking to shut it down, it is Rockstar.

[dsheinem]

Ultimately, GTA is exploitation. Crappy, unsubtle exploitation. But it's exploiting the reality of the situation. Do you really need a banner on the game telling you "Hey, this shit exists!"? No, it's easy enough to see it any time you turn on the news.

As for the quality of the satire, yes, that can be debated. But it's not the debate we're having here.

I think I concur with you on all this. The problem with GTA, to the extent it has one, is that satire is meant to critique social problems and GTA seems to mostly celebrate them. Probably, again, because of the poor quality of the satire...and in part because of the way the player interacts with the world.

[Erik_Twice]

Other than the "conservative trend" bit....Agreed!

Keep in mind that what I regard as conservative is not what Americans would regard as conservative! Democrats are far more conservative than any party in the Spanish parliament. I also don't see "conservative" as an insult, even if the comparison with the Church is not a favourable one.

Still, it's true that it's perhaps a good idea not to lean too much in that angle.

That's not "punishment" or "excommunication", that is a statement that it should be reasonable to expect that, when creators choose to comment on their own ideological position vis-a-vis their work and address their critics on the subject, they do so with more than a "fuck off".

You know, I don't think Take Two stance of "If you don't like it, don't buy but let others decide for themselves" is the best defense ever made, but I think them telling the people who are trying to censor them to "fuck off" is perfectly understandable.

I mean, what are they supposed to do? Side with the people thinking their game is harmful after a group managed to pressure a store into not selling it? It's not here nor there as I see it.

I think that, quite explicitly, Campbell is trying to provoke debate and discussion. If anyone if looking to shut it down, it is Rockstar.

No, no, I don't agree with that at all. First, his rethoric and the way he frames Rockstar as an evil corporation and the way he sides with the protesters that forced a product out of a store is not conductive to discussion and debate. I don't think one can play the debate card after someone has already received a shot.

And despite what he says, I doubt he is interested in a discussion. If he were, he wouldn't have framed the issue the game he did and the article wouldn't be titled "Grand Theft Auto 5's misogyny is a problem its creators must finally address". As I see it saying a discussion must be had is rethoric for "They must accept they are wrong".

No, it isn't nasty - it is all a pretty well documented reality

I just think it's very nasty to trott out the "Sex workers are not educated" line when you are trying to defend sex workers.

But yeah, that's a nitpick compared to what I see as a very harmful attitude towards sex workers in the article. (I'm, for some reason, pretty serious about the topic of sex work. Not sure why, since I'm not at all interested in the trade itself)

But the game doesn't induce that understanding, it doesn't expect us to see anything as realistic, it doesn't encourage empathy or critique, and it doesn't really even do a very good job of satirizing what it purports to satirize.

Well, I don't think that's wrong but there are several issues rolled in one.

The first is that, well, whether it encourages empathy or critique depends on your interpretation of the work. And the "moral value" of the work will chance a lot depending on what your understanding of the game is.

The second is that most critics and people think GTA V's satire is, well, incredible. People have praised the writing and characterization and so I think it's kind of weird to see people react so poorly to the themes of masculinity, chauvinism and misogyny present through them. I kind of think it's weird to praise one and not the other, I think that many critics are seeing those themes as not being intentional or driven by other things that satire.

The third is that, well, even if the game is awful at it, I don't think it's fair to say it's celebrating the things it satirizes. I think it's fair to say it goes against its own message, that it's hypocritical and such but I don't think it's fair to asign an intent that is not there.

[dsheinem]

Keep in mind that what I regard as conservative is not what Americans would regard as conservative!

I realize that, but I've seen you previously frame the larger debate over games and gender in terms of American political arguments, so I assumed as much here. In any case, there's nothing "conservative" about asking Rockstar to engage in a more sincere dialogue with those who critique their games.

I mean, what are they supposed to do? Side with the people thinking their game is harmful after a group managed to pressure a store into not selling it? It's not here nor there as I see it.

No, but if Rockstar want to use "free speech" as a defense against groups like those in Australia (which they should), they also need to recognize that the opposition is employing the same argument in doing their petitioning. Rather than flippant dismissal, a more constructive answer is to have a dialogue, which is what Campbell is suggesting.

And despite what he says, I doubt he is interested in a discussion. If he were, he wouldn't have framed the issue the game he did and the article wouldn't be titled "Grand Theft Auto 5's misogyny is a problem its creators must finally address". As I see it saying a discussion must be had is rethoric for "They must accept they are wrong".

I think he takes their unwillingness to defend their work (e.g. as satire) as a poor strategy that makes it appear as if they believe that their own game is exploitative in all the worst ways that people accuse it of being so...and to which they don't wish to admit. I don't think that is actually true of the games nor do I think it is their intent in making them, but Campbell's just asking for them to explain as much when they choose to engage people who critique GTA instead of just telling them to "fuck off". He is not calling for censorship, he is not agreeing wholesale with the protestors, etc. - he is asking Rockstar to engage in a way that would clear the air, explain how they view the critical/satirical function of games, etc. If anything, Rockstar is making the problem MUCH WORSE for proponents of free speech by NOT engaging those who are calling for their game to be banned. I see nothing offensive about an editorial asking Rockstar to defend themselves...

I just think it's very nasty to trott out the "Sex workers are not educated" line when you are trying to defend sex workers. But yeah, that's a nitpick compared to what I see as a very harmful attitude towards sex workers in the article. (I'm, for some reason, pretty serious about the topic of sex work. Not sure why, since I'm not at all interested in the trade itself)

He was making the point that this group in Australia, which is concerned about representations of sex workers in the game, is trying to speak for a group of people which has traditionally been unable or unwilling to speak for themselves due to, yes, a lack of resources (including education) and access to the public. I don't see the "nastiness" here. They see the representation of sex-work in the game as contributing to a culture of condoning abuse against them, and Rockstar hasn't offered any kind of response to suggest otherwise.

Even if the game is awful at it, I don't think it's fair to say it's celebrating the things it satirizes. I think it's fair to say it goes against its own message, that it's hypocritical and such but I don't think it's fair to asign an intent that is not there.

Again, all Campbell is really asking is that Rockstar speak up on this so that we don't have to keep playing the guessing game...at least I think that's the gist of things here.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Wow this is blowing up.

One thing I've always seen and considered is the idea that the negative actions in the game are "glorified". I think that's part of the satire. The US does glorify these actions, and by doing so in the game, is part of the joke in my eyes. Being an asshole, being violent, being racist, being misogynistic- they are, in fact, things we promote. Not as a whole mind you, but in portions. The idea of the outlaw is legendary and integral to America in and of itself, and we see multiple shades of it in GTA V. Money is like a god in many people's eyes, so doing anything to get it, including this horrible violence, is something American's promote. Look at the popularity of shows such as Sons of Anarchy, or Moonshiners, or the huge amount of music full of violence we listen to. Rock, rap, pop-country, all of these are full of violence. Misogyny? We have TV, Movies, and music promoting that, let alone video games. How much party music breaks down to getting laid and talking about a woman's ass? How many movies have topless women without ever showing a nude man? How many TV shows are about sex and look at the women as either a sex object, or views her negatively because of how much sex she has?

I think Rockstar missed making a satire, and ended up just making a representation of the real thing. Michael is a character I can really understand, and I have very mixed feelings about that idea.

[Erik_Twice]

I see nothing offensive about an editorial asking Rockstar to defend themselves...

I think it's preposterious to demand someone justify their artistic choices while praising a group attempting to squash them and more so to do it after painting them as an evil corporation whose products have no artistic value.

Take Two are more than entitled to tell the group to sod off. They do not have an obligation to answer to anyone, much less to a handful of game critics or an incredibly small group engaged in the censorship of their products.

I mean, we are asking the censored to justify why they shouldn't be censored. That's fucked up, the onus is not on them.

Even if the game is awful at it, I don't think it's fair to say it's celebrating the things it satirizes. I think it's fair to say it goes against its own message, that it's hypocritical and such but I don't think it's fair to asign an intent that is not there.

Again, all Campbell is really asking is that Rockstar speak up on this so that we don't have to keep playing the guessing game...at least I think that's the gist of things here.

Here I was responding at what you responded to Ack, not to Campbell's thoughts.

Wow this is blowing up.

One thing I've always seen and considered is the idea that the negative actions in the game are "glorified". I think that's part of the satire. The US does glorify these actions, and by doing so in the game, is part of the joke in my eyes. Being an asshole, being violent, being racist, being misogynistic- they are, in fact, things we promote. Not as a whole mind you, but in portions.

I think this is a very good interpretation of the game.

[dsheinem]

I see nothing offensive about an editorial asking Rockstar to defend themselves...

I think it's preposterious to demand someone justify their artistic choices while praising a group attempting to squash them and more so to do it after painting them as an evil corporation whose products have no artistic value.

Take Two are more than entitled to tell the group to sod off. They do not have an obligation to answer to anyone, much less to a handful of game critics or an incredibly small group engaged in the censorship of their products.

I mean, we are asking the censored to justify why they shouldn't be censored. That's fucked up, the onus is not on them.

First, no one is calling for censorship. Period. Drop that nonsense.

Second, I agree that no artist should be forced to defend their work - but the pretext for the article is that Rockstar already chose to engage the group and to defend their game. They did so poorly. They dismissed them by claiming that what was at issue was freedom of expression. Slatoff said of the group that "if these folks had their way, none of those people would be able to buy Grand Theft Auto...that really just flies in the face of everything that free society is based on. It's the freedom of expression, and to try to squelch that is a dangerous and slippery slope to go down." That ignores the fact that the group hasn't called for this measure and the fact that both the petition group and Rockstar are invested in a concept of free speech. Rockstar is pretending that "free speech" means "speech that you have to abide". They aren't the same thing.

Campbell is asking Rockstar to do a better job engaging the group and their concerns instead of pretending that they are after something that they have never said they are. Instead of pretending the controversy is about freedom of expression, Rockstar should instead tackle the group's concerns (perhaps proving they are unwarranted, if they are).

[MrPopo]

Polygon had another article up written by an Australian that gives a much more complete perspective on things:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/11/73762 ... lia-target

A lot of good points brought up in there. It really is a different cultural point of view, and while I might still disagree with the decision by Target the reasoning is much more understandable now.

[dsheinem]

Polygon had another article up written by an Australian that gives a much more complete perspective on things:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/11/73762 ... lia-target

A lot of good points brought up in there. It really is a different cultural point of view, and while I might still disagree with the decision by Target the reasoning is much more understandable now.

I had debated linking to that one, too. Thanks for doing so.