Kickstarter "Tropes vs Women in Videogames"

[MrPopo]

The problem is that one must first determine what those fantasies in which men have power because they are men are and that inevitably degrades into spurious claims about the behaviour of men and what they supposedly fantasize over.

I don't think I have a better term for it but something like"Chauvinist fantasy" would be a more precise term at least in this area.

I think that is a better term, perhaps...but can you think of an explicitly "male power fantasy" game (as the term is typically used) that is not also a "chauvinist fantasy game" (as you mean it)?

Doom. You are a badass Marine who shoots his way into hell and back out again.

[dsheinem]

The problem is that one must first determine what those fantasies in which men have power because they are men are and that inevitably degrades into spurious claims about the behaviour of men and what they supposedly fantasize over.

I don't think I have a better term for it but something like"Chauvinist fantasy" would be a more precise term at least in this area.

I think that is a better term, perhaps...but can you think of an explicitly "male power fantasy" game (as the term is typically used) that is not also a "chauvinist fantasy game" (as you mean it)?

Doom. You are a badass Marine who shoots his way into hell and back out again.

What is explicitly "male" about it?

Here's an article on Ploygon today dealing with the discussion around sales of GTAV:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/10/73648 ... ot-ignored

Their point, which was my point, is:

Take-Two and publishing sub-brand Rockstar want to be able to say whatever they like about whomever they like, without consequence. At the same time as they reduce GTA 5 to a mere purchasing choice, they also want you to believe that the game is an essential work of art that is being stifled by a mob of censors.

But this is really about a corporation profiting from the depiction of some of the most brutalized members of our society, being further brutalized, for fun. It's about a game that displays incredibly bad taste, that has made ignorant choices, and that is happy to trade on the misery of the victims who it portrays so mercilessly.

Look, let's get one thing straight. We live in a free society. GTA 5 should be available for any adult who wants to buy it, through any retailer who wants to sell it. But that doesn't mean its makers ought to be allowed to feel comfortable dismissing its critics in the most derisory fashion imaginable.

[Opa Opa]

I bet Rockstar is loving all this free publicity.

[dsheinem]

I bet Rockstar is loving all this free publicity.

I am pretty sure that it is built into their annual market projection reports.

[Opa Opa]

I bet Rockstar is loving all this free publicity.

I am pretty sure that it is built into their annual market projection reports.

At this point, it has to be! The same "You're hurting innocent people!", "Think about the hookers!", "What about the minorities?!", et cetera... It comes up just about every single time they release the next iteration.

If these journalists are actually sincere and want there to be changes, they should start by 1) not reviewing the game, 2) don't host ads for the game, 3) and don't acknowledge its existence and promote other titles.

[dsheinem]

If these journalists are actually sincere and want there to be changes, they should start by 1) not reviewing the game, 2) don't host ads for the game, 3) and don't acknowledge its existence and promote other titles.

I don't know that one person's stance in an editorial is reflective of the views of the whole staff/management of an outlet. You are also basically making the same kind of "if you don't like it, ignore it" claim that he rightly calls the GTAV devs out on...

That said, I think that this author is sincere and I appreciate that Polygon is at least giving him a platform to make his points - one where people who do read reviews and coverage about the game likely already spend time.

[Erik_Twice]

Colin Campbell, like many game critics seems to have embraced a very conservative trend, namely the idea social harmony supercedes personal freedom and that society should not allow people to be "comfortable" with the use of those freedoms if it goes against that moral harmony society should strive for.

These critics don't argue for a ban. But they argue for consequences, for punishment for those that stick out of the line: Excommunication. Calling for society pressure on those who do not share those morals, be it through retailer pressure, boycotts or a call for firings (See: Firefox). Good people do not do this. And sure, legally a person might have rights but there will be consequences. In the author's words:

This game has made choices about what is acceptable and what is not; poor ones, in my opinion.

It's scary to see game critics advocate for the same chilling effect the Church has had on society. The justifications are not even that different and the effects and demands are exactly the same.

I'm not the first to notice this phenomenom. Here's a fairly popular article on the subject "The rise of the Stepford students"

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/937 ... mfortable/

A very poignant quote:

When I told them that at the fag-end of the last millennium I had spent my student days arguing against the very ideas they were now spouting — against the claim that gangsta rap turned black men into murderers or that Tarantino flicks made teens go wild and criminal — not so much as a flicker of reflection crossed their faces. ‘Back then, the people who were making those censorious, misanthropic arguments about culture determining behaviour weren’t youngsters like you,’ I said. ‘They were older, more conservative people, with blue rinses.’ A moment’s silence. Then one of the Stepfords piped up. ‘Maybe those people were right,’ he said. My mind filled with a vision of Mary Whitehouse cackling to herself in some corner of the cosmos.

I go on this tangent because the article itself is fairly mundane, same unsuntble one-sided rethoric of a "But this is really about a corporation profiting from [...]the most brutalized members of our society". The censors are praised, while concerns about freedom of speech dimissed. The game is "in bad taste", assures Campbell to us that takes "pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse". It has no artistic value "It is a skillful farrago of jokes, action-sequences and visual shocks. Its merits are mostly technical. It is a play-pen for violent fantasies." It's the same junk I might read on the rightmost national newspapers. You have seen this kind of rethoric from Republican congressmakers and German Demochristians, it's old hat.


Campbell also has that ugly, dehumanizing view of sex works that conservative feminists tend to hold. He thinks that "sex workers are already victims" and constantly characterizes them as helpless "Prostitutes are almost always living under the threat of violence and intimidation. They have very limited choices". He, like so many conservative feminists, has the gall to talk in defense of sex workers without having ever asked them what they think as if they were unable to or there were no organizations representing their views.

The fact that he constantly hammers the term "prostitutes" that sex workers themselves abhor is the best example of how little he knows about the topic.

I mean, have you read this shit?

Here is a game made by a company largely run by privileged, well-educated, wealthy people, and it mostly profits from portrayals of people who are none of those things.

Nasty, isn't it?

[Ack]

Wait, wait...I have always seen this as a case where GTA parodies and satirizes us and points out the flaws in our society. It is a product of Rockstar North specifically(and sometimes Rockstar Leeds), so it is a British exploitative take on the problems that exist in American society, both the reality and the perception of us. Why is it that whenever something comes out like this, that is blatantly exploitative but also directly born of the issues in society, why do we attack the presentation of the problems but do nothing to call to action against the problems themselves?

What did GTA V target: Poor treatment of sex workers? Poor treatment of minorities? The glorification of crime, particularly among the societal fringe? Torture? Overbearing government agencies operating with little oversight? Government use of mercenaries? Mental health issues? The collapse of the family into dysfunction? Drug use, glorification, and ongoing combat? Overzealous police? Misogyny? Rape?

Congrats. It pretty well covered America. The scary thing about GTA V is that it really isn't that big of a satire. It offers realistic depictions of us, warts and all. It's ok to be horrified by it, but instead of banning it, the real horror should be in understanding just how realistic it actually is.

[Erik_Twice]

The thing is, most critics don't seem to understand that the misogynist characters and their world of violence is a core part of the game's meager view of American culture. I don't know why, since I think the game is as unsubtle as a wrench to the genitals. Literally.

[dsheinem]

Colin Campbell, like many game critics seems to have embraced a very conservative trend, namely the idea social harmony supercedes personal freedom and that society should not allow people to be "comfortable" with the use of those freedoms if it goes against that moral harmony society should strive for. These critics don't argue for a ban. But they argue for consequences...

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

for punishment for those that stick out of the line: Excommunication.

But here you lose me and take the argument in a direction other than what Campbell does. He wants, to quote his final point:

for Take-Two and Rockstar to quit with the smoke-and-mirrors routine, and address the real problem here: the nature of some of the content in GTA 5 is nasty stuff that merits a more thoughtful response than "if you don't like it, don't buy it."

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".

The fact that he constantly hammers the term "prostitutes" that sex workers themselves abhor is the best example of how little he knows about the topic...

I mean, have you read this shit?

Here is a game made by a company largely run by privileged, well-educated, wealthy people, and it mostly profits from portrayals of people who are none of those things.

Nasty, isn't it?

No, it isn't nasty - it is all a pretty well documented reality. GTA is made by wealthy and educated people who are creating games about people in (mostly) poor, under-privileged contexts. The sex-workers/prostitutes in GTA games aren't unionized and working at a bunny ranch in Nevada, they are exploited on the streets of a pseudo-NYC/pseudo-LA, etc. GTA is caricatures and stereotypes, that is its bread and butter. When it loses its satricial edge and its wit (as the series has done of late), it risks doing a lot more harm (reinforcing bigotry) than good (lampooning it).

Ack, to your point on satire...

The scary thing about GTA V is that it really isn't that big of a satire. It offers realistic depictions of us, warts and all. It's ok to be horrified by it, but instead of banning it, the real horror should be in understanding just how realistic it actually is.

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.