It’s interesting to me when activism, whose short-term goal is often starting a conversation on a topic, uses rhetoric that is so effective at stifling conversation. I feel like the coverage on RPS is sorely lacking in perspective, which I think is what Tom is highlighting here, but what bothers me is that I think things get that way because any challenge to the orthodoxy is immediately written off as boys-club misogyny.
Posting a video (on RPS), likely originally intended to start conversations, and then closing the comments section, complete with a handy guide to why you’re wrong (and probably also a jerk) if you disagree with any of the points made, seemed like such a weird move. Who is that for? The faithful don’t need to be convinced, the angry misogynists aren’t going to be, so writing off the undecided as part of the problem sort of limits your audience.
I get that there are legitimate jerks out there who say incendiary things, and people who just defend the status quo without thinking, but it’s probably disingenuous to suggest that’s the majority.
Long time reader of Qt3. Jumped on this week eager to read what I've missed over the holidays and this is what I find? Fuck. I actually thought this was a good place. Utterly disappointing, though perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. "Weeping Nathan Greysons"? Jesus H Motherfucking Christ. If you had written this article straight, rather than as snark, e.g. "Greyson is perhaps overstating somewhat. Here are some ways the gaming community is more inclusive than ever", this article could be a legitimate celebration of what's right with our favorite hobby. As it stands, it's too sharp to read like anything but MRA polemic. If we care about inclusion, we don't fucking try to shoot our allies' kneecaps out. Fuck. Jesus. Fuck.
I think you are missing Tom's point. He seems to be saying that how you approach the issue does matter, not just where you stand on the issue.
To approach it from a hyperbolic 'games are sexist till proven otherwise' means you miss out on the great developments in the video game industry over the past years.
Please read Greyson's post again ( http://www.rockpapershotgun.co... and tell me where he said "games are sexist until proven otherwise." The whole post is specifically responding to the whole "games are just games bruh, so who cares" mentality, e.g. Browder's specific statement that "We're not running for President" and the fact that he clearly had no way to answer a simple question like "MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters; how are you planning to address that?"
Tom's post doesn't even address Greyson's critique at all; it totally sidesteps it. (In fact, to a certain extent, Tom is exemplifying the very behaviors that Greyson is critiquing.) I suspect that Tom's post is actually responding more to this RPS post from April: http://www.rockpapershotgun.co...
So basically, Tom Chick is joining the chorus of folks who would like RPS to just shut up already about misogyny in the gaming community because, hey, Tomb Raider, right? Fuck.
I wont speak for Tom. As someone who agrees with his article what I would like is for RPS to approach the issue in an intelligent and knowledgeable way. Not knee jerk reactions to certain aesthetics.
Tom isn't sidestepping the issue at all. What he's saying, at least as I understand it, is that the way RPS approaches the issue is shrill and ignorant of the larger trends in the video game industry.
He doesn't just point out Tom Raider but shows how many of the supporting female characters in games this year have been stronger and more interesting then the stated male protagonists. Tom didn't even mention Telltale's Walking Dead, which has a female main character even if she isn't the one controlled by the player.
The fact is that the video game industry has been maturing over the years. For a journalist to ignore those trends is either ignorant or being dogmatic, neither are good characteristics in a journalist.
You think I'm telling RPS -- or anyone else -- to shut up? How absurd. I'm glad people are speaking about the issue. I just wish the folks speaking about the issue had more context, a sense of proportion, and didn't rend their garments so much. Jesus. Fuck. Jesus. Fuck. Fuck. You know?
And again, I'd like to remind you that this article isn't about misogyny in the gaming community. It's about the portrayal of women in videogames. I'll probably wail and gnash my teeth with the best of them when it comes to the exclusionary dude-bro mentality of many gaming communities. Those guys really suck. But I maintain that the portrayal of women in videogames is, at this point, something we should be proud of. Videogame developers may not be running for President, but if they were, they'd be doing an admirable job representing women.
But, Nathan Greyson's article WAS specifically about misogyny in the gaming community. He makes zero statements about the gaming industry as a whole. The whole article was about this one specific attitude: "games are games, so quit talking about this political stuff."
And I'll submit that there are certainly some excellent portrayals of women and female characters in videogames (though precious few that are actually written by women -- Tomb Raider being a notable one.) Gaming is, without doubt, evolving often in good directions on this issue -- like pop culture in general. But, did you pay attention to the #1ReasonWhy discussion at all? This was women, themselves, talking about their experiences in the gaming industry. Have you noted the continued absolutely shocking vitriol Sarkeesian continues to receive for what is a pretty garden variety feminist media critique of video games? Polygon just published an article where AAA marketing folks revealed how and why game marketing is aimed primarily at men: http://www.polygon.com/feature...
I, like you, think the fact that these articles exist and that discussion continues around them is great and hopeful. And it's great that you've highlighting the good parts here. It's a shame that you had to simultaneously try to undermine the good work that others are trying to do.
Argh. And RPS highlights the maturation of the video game industry all the time... more than any other game site they do this. Again, please give me specific examples of where you think RPS is being "shrill." My continued suspicion is that you don't regularly read RPS and haven't read the articles in question. They provide in-depth coverage -- many posts per day -- of everything related to PC gaming, for which there is no more comprehensive and knowledgeable site on the internet. The Walking Dead... RPS loved The Walking Dead; I believe it was their game of the year last year.
Question: Why, if the female supporting characters are so much more interesting than the male main characters, are they the supporting characters?
Now you're shifting the goalposts, Matt. I'm happy to discuss the issues you're raising and, as I mentioned, you'll find that I'm already in that particular choir. There are a lot of idiots saying a lot of dumb things in videogaming circles, and it's embarrassing to men, women, cats, dogs, elfs, etc. Fortunately, it's not representative of the people who make videogames, marketing dipwaddery excepted. By and large, videogame creators have grown up and they're doing an admirable job behaving as if they've grown up. It's encouraging.
And that's the point of this article. It's important to highlight the stuff videogames do right, the stuff that gets glossed over when you wring some poorly wrought screed from outrage over Blizzard's fantasy cartoon art, when you should probably instead go tilt at the usual Japanese windmills and chainmail bikini options.
As for me undermining anyone else's "good work", it's a shame that's your reaction to the introduction of a little perspective. Jesus fuck, indeed.
To answer you questions: for narrative purposes. It's a pretty common technique throughout mediums to have a POV character that is either there as a means for exploring other interesting characters or are upstaged by supporting characters. Gatsby isn't the POV character but the novel is certainly in large parts about him.
As for you claim about reading RPS, you could just ask me. As it turns out it's one of the top four game sites I visit daily, along with QT3, Polygon, and PCGamesN. So I'm pretty familiar with their content. As an aside, I particular like their coverage of Mandate, which looks awesome.
They certain did love The Walking Dead, but that has nothing to do with me bringing up the game in the context of our discussion. While they love The Walking Dead, Clementine never seems to factor into their account of women in games. Nor do many other examples of strong female characters in video games.
Maybe you're right. Probably the one overwrought sin Greyson is guilty of is preaching to the choir. God knows he's not going to sway any MRAs (just read the comment section of any RPS article that even obliquely mentions sexism) and maybe something like your post would/will.
Note that his 'screed' wasn't about Blizzard's art; it was about Browder's pathetic response to a fairly innocuous question, and the awkward way the interview was cut off by Blizzard PR. It ties right into the Polygon article: the female characters look the way they do in order to market to a specific demographic. (In Browder's words, they 'look cool' and use comic art for inspiration.) Greyson's larger point was that this kind of marketing is exclusionary and gives rise to toxic communities, which is precisely why it matters. "We're not running for President" is a statement that Blizzard is just trying to make a buck (and one wonders why MOBAs shouldn't be a genre with universal appeal) and doesn't care about the type of communities they engender nor the exclusionary messages they send. It's basically "Dudebros Welcome! Oh and girls too I guess, but only if you hang with the dudebros." Blizzard isn't some little indy shop; they're a significant fraction of the whole gaming industry.
Is it really a surprise that games are marketed to different demographics just like every other product? Is there really anything wrong with that?
There is the recent controversy around the appropriation of a Beastie Boys song to market female-centric toys. Copyright concerns aside,should the company not be marketing to young girls in a way that is directly exclusionary to young boys?
To say that companies shouldn't market based on demographic lines is to essentially say marketing should disappear. Its whole purpose is to identify and target the sections of society that would purchase the product being sold.
How the industry and the video game player base give less and less about what Tom Chick thinks misses the target or some other dopey longwinded pseudoprovocative title tldr zzzzzz......
What percentage of the industry do women represent? What percentage of mainstream titles are women the leads? Is it even possible to ask questions about why female characters might be in a game but developers can't be bothered to change the pronoun (looking at you Tropico) or they are an MP option but can't be a lead (Warhorse), are available for story but have fewer less interest romance choices (Dragon Age), or available as tanks and heavy armor type characters but those are almost never going to be an story arch (SOE), forced to wear ridiculous underwear armor (Final Fantasy).
Improvement does not mean the journey is over, discussion over, not allowed to bring it up without being ridiculed and belittled, mocked. A handful of titles in one year doesn't mean the vs. fighting community will not sexually harrass the next woman who tries to be a visibly part of the community. Improvement does not mean I am able to speak into a mic during a game with strangers and not be told I am going to be raped... and yes, I think some, not all, of the behavior of the professionals in the industry reinforce that behavior. Treat female characters, and some of those men will treat women like objects. That's the truth. I've experienced it. You can mock me. Call me a liberal, but the gaming community is hostile towards women and the industry not exactly caring about the problem.
