Logically Sound, Argumentively Flawed: The Triumph of Anita Sarkeesian

The name Anita Sarkeesian brings up a lot of emotion in gamers, having come to prominence of late for espousing feminist ideals in videogames. Sarkeesian is responsible for a successful video series that makes feminist critiques on videogames, and for better or worse, a backlash that has grown in scope and toxicity.

As I’ve already wrote on the matter, Sarkeesian has successfully ensconced herself in the fortified position of already taking on a subject that automatically incriminates itself. As much as videogames and its fans are resistant to change, it seems the social change pressured by Sarkeesian is going to be the change they may not need, but are likely going to get.

As she has done so in her videos and at conferences to a room full of scholars, the woman makes a good point. Sarkeesian brings up example after example of noted cases of sexism and gender disparity that pile up like a laundry hamper of full of embarrassing unmentionables. She’s got lists for days if you’ll just listen to her, and, the people are.

Sarkeesian uses very simple reasoning to make her argument. She makes a statement, say, women are always treated as damsels in distress, or women serve as sex objects in videogames and are predominantly of one body type, and follows it up with clear examples from a variety of videogames. But while this makes total sense to some academic who has lived a life of “Because A, therefore B”, but this isn’t the way that a gamer understands these games because they actually play them.

The arguments Sarkeesain makes are devoid of an appreciation of the media she is criticizing. At a recent talk, Sarkeesian asked her audience, “In the videogame The Wonderful 100, there are many protagonists differentiated by different colors. Can anyone tell me what color the female hero is?” After a short interchange with the audience, Sarkeesian replies, “Correct! Pink,” and the audience laughs a knowing laugh.

I’ve never played The Wonderful 100, nor even have a Wii U (I am totally willing to sell myself out to endorse one if I can get it for free), and so I’m not qualified to talk about the game and what it is. However, I can imagine that the developers of that game could have had several reasons for allocating the color pink to the female hero: maybe all the other colors were already used up for heroes with corresponding powers; maybe this game is an homage to the Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers.

To continue would just be making excuses for the makers of The Wonderful 100, but it seems everyone is a critic when it comes to videogames, either ones with ratings out of 10 or social. The phrase “The people who made this game are idiots” is so commonly used by everyone that it’s clear that videogames are completely taken for granted. Somehow, making a videogame is a process that anyone can do, but is just left to lonely misfits with unresolved women’s issues. It’s not always a success, but a videogame is a process made up of many decisions that often result in “no”.

What videogames do for us as gamers is to provide a working world for its gameplay. It may be antiquidated, but this “game logic” that walking over a gun refills your ammo and pushing ice blocks into lava so that you can walk across it has been consistent for us. But not to an observer.

Sarkeesian has flipped back and forth on whether or not she’s a gamer, but it’s for sure that her arguments are not based on such a role. Her arguments and evidence are basically that of a person her picks and chooses incriminating examples of sexism and gender inequality without ever having played these games, the difference being that such a person (without implying that they need to be a hardcore devoted gamer) can appreciate a videogame in the context it presents itself.

To an outside observer, there’s no lack of incriminating evidence of sexism in videogames. No one makes the claim that sexism isn’t something that doesn’t exist in videogames, nor that during its short history as a burgeoning art form has such disparaging examples of sexism occurred on a frequent basis. But videogames operate on a different level of understanding that uses violence as a dialog and sexism as a shortcut. Videogames aren’t necessarily reflective of reality, and trying to put societal limitation upon them is to constrain videogame developers into making even blander videogames than they do now.

Sarkeesian’s use of examples of videogame sexism and gender inequality shows that she is advocating her agenda with a disregard to what the videogame itself is trying to say. You can do this with any one of her numerous examples, but here I’ll list the one that bothered me the most: the ending to Grand Theft Auto III (spoilers ahead for a 15 year old game that everyone has played).

Sarkeesian shows the very end of Grand Theft Auto III after the unnamed hero has shot down the helicopter with his traitorous girlfriend onboard, and is walking away with the woman he just saved, Maria. As the credits roll, Maria continues to natter away about this and that when the silent protagonist suddenly fires a shot, implying that he killed Maria.

To Sarkeesian and her converts, this is unspeakably evil, and a clear example of violence against women. To everyone who has played Grand Theft Auto III, this is incredibly awesome.

By playing Grand Theft Auto III, a person will come to understand the anti-hero that you control is a murderous psychopath with no loyalties whatsoever. For a game in which the unofficial way to play it is to cause as much mayhem before you get killed by the cops, it’s rather light on violence towards women. As memory serves, other cases of violence towards women are performed by other characters (the dog food factory, Asuka), while this is the first time it has happened during the story of the game.

As a character who doesn’t give a fuck, the anti-hero doesn’t care for the “damsel in distress” trope that is presented at the very end of the game when ex-girlfriend Catalina kidnaps Maria, a stand-in for a “girlfriend” who goes so far as to profess her love after being rescued. In a tense stand-off at the Liberty City dam, you must brave a gauntlet of Columbian gangsters in order to get your revenge on Catalina. Even though it’s presented as a cliché, saving Maria is not the point of the climax to Grand Theft Auto III —rather, it’s there to subvert the trope. Your character is silent, but speaks with violence; by shooting Maria, he’s living up to everything he’s been so far in the game. This is awesome.

We can all agree that violence towards women is terrible, and yet to criticize Grand Theft Auto III for this is to ignore the fact that it isn’t reality. Grand Theft Auto III is not reflective of reality when players can get arrested or killed and face no repercussions except to have their weapons taken away from them and face a hit in their virtual earnings. Weapons and collectibles aren’t scattered around the city in real life, spinning in place, surrounded by a glowing orb. Instead, it’s a fantasy, no matter how life-like, in which we can indulge our curiosities, whatever they may be.

The shooting of Maria is the ending of a narrative that doesn’t reflect the majority of its audience, but is the proper ending the story needed.

However, this doesn’t make for a good academic argument. Presenting this as evidence to a room full of scholars isn’t to make for a compelling argument. So as right and as righteous Anita Sarkeesian may be, she’s presenting a weak argument that gets accepted anyways. It would be nice to hear a stronger argument from hear so that she can make as much sense as her proponents thinks so does.

Anita Sarkeesian: The Change Videogames Don’t Need, But Will Get Anyways

Imagine a perfect world. Imagine a clear, sunny day, one with a rainbow in the sky and the voice of children singing wafting in the wind. In this perfect world, there are no wars, people of all creeds and faiths get along harmoniously as equals, and it only rains long enough to make the weekly quota of rainbows.

But it’s not real. It’s a far-flung pipe dream, but for us stubborn idealists, trying to strive for a better world is the only other option than just accepting the world for the terrible state that it’s in.

One such idealist is Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist advocate who made a series of videos criticizing the portrayal of women’s characters in videogames. Sarkeesian believes that women’s roles are marginalized in video games; she thinks videogame stories show women as sexualized objects to be won as prizes, or victimized for the sake of moving the plot along. Sarkeesian wants to improve our world by righting these wrongs and bring gender equality to videogames.

If there’s an irony here, it’s that Sarkeesian is trying to bring feminist ideals to world that is at its best when it’s at its worst. The perfect world of the videogame is a world of unending war and contest, of hopelessness and bleak odds, a world removed from our own free of any real-world consequences. Above all, videogames are fantasies—immersive fantasies of an imperfect world, waiting for a hero to right it, albeit it hasn’t seen one like Sarkeesian.

This isn’t to say that sexism in videogames is necessary or even justified, but that there is a clear difference between our world and the world of videogames. What Sarkeesian is proposing are changes to videogames that should improve our experience playing them, but not actually improve the games themselves.

These may be the same thing to some people, but to gamers who actually play videogames, it isn’t. A common argument carried by hardcore gamers is “it’s not about the graphics, but the gameplay”, but in this case, Sarkeesian argues that it’s all about the graphics by proposing cosmetic changes to the way videogame characters look.

In Sarkeesian’s ideal world, the siblings of Double Dragon are a pair of squat Hispanic sisters with pear-shaped figures, or Meg from  ; Mario does not rescue the princess, not because she’s in another castle but because she’s an independent woman freed from the shackles of a male-dominated royal hierarchy; and going on the rampage in Grand Theft Auto features an overweight sexually-liberated Asian female who does a scathing impression of her mother, or Margaret Cho.

These changes could make the game into a blast to play, and may very well make videogames more accessible to marginalized minorities. People put off by the status quo of a always seeing a white protagonist may now be more receptive to the videogame pleasure of shooting people in the face. But it remains that the proposals Sarkeesian are making—to the way a videogame tells a story and its content—have historically been the weakest part of a videogame. To make superficial changes by adding gender politics isn’t to improve these stories, but just to make them acceptable to a PC crowd.

Let’s just face it—despite a few exceptions, videogames have not been the most versatile of media to tell compelling stories, and putting further demands upon it isn’t necessarily contributing to the creation of great games.

Should your onscreen persona be a black single mother of three working two jobs while trying to work out a messy divorce with a two-timing husband? Or should the protagonist of your videogame be a transgender Masters student in Medieval Slavic history? It would certainly make things more interesting, but it becomes a irrelevant point when considered to the importance of how well a game plays.

Let us consider Portal, a game that features a female protagonist. The game makes sure to make this known to the player as it is revealed during the beginning when you can see yourself; however, this isn’t of any revelance later in the game. Instead, Portal is a great game because it features innovative puzzle gameplay combined with a dark sense of humor.

Let us consider Watch_Dogs, a game that features a white male protagonist. Riding on a wave of pre-release hype, Watch_Dogs turned out to be a bland open world chorefest that did not deliver on the innovative hacking features it promised to deliver. This game could have been made more interesting by featuring another demographic other than a white guy whose defining characteristic is  “wearing a hat”, but it still remains the same sloppy game that was not well-received by its audience.

Videogames could definitely use more ethnic diversity and proper female representation, but then there are games that purposely throw these considerations out the window as its very premise. Mortal Kombat is a long-running videogame series that falls into the status quo of featuring a long-legged, blonde white woman, but also demons and monsters that aren’t necessarily representative of its Latin or South-East Asian demographic. These “Kombatants” fighting to determine the future of humanity aren’t going to look anything but the most idealized figures dreamed up for the purpose of kicking ass and tearing out spines.

Videogames should be better at telling stories, but they are what they have become because they fulfil the expectations that its audience has for them. As part of those expectations, the need to tell socially-responsible stories goes out the window just as they’ve ignored the need to restrain themselves within community standards in showing excess amounts of violence.

With its poor history, pointing out the failings of videogames as an art form is to empower your argument with evidence that already incriminates itself and to endear yourself to a room full of academics. Sarkeesian has been very successful in compiling such damning proof in her video series. And yet, these “smoking guns” feel rather superficial when they’re all taken out of context. As compelling Sarkeesian’s argument must be to a person who isn’t familiar to videogames, these short clips are not the way gamers experience videogames because they actually play them within a story that, at the very least, explains what is going on.

Instead, the biggest thing that Sarkeesian has done is to point out videogames are in need of a change, and even though the pressure she’s exerting on the industry may have an effect, it’s not the change it needs. In fact, the greatest contribution that Sarkeesian may ever have on videogames is to provoke its fanbase into admitting they are hesitant to any change whatsoever, proving themselves to be its own biggest hindrance.

Modern videogames have found themselves in a rut, and its all due to the success they’ve had with their audience. It seems nowadays every big-name videogame is a sequel of well-worn franchises helmed by some white guy. If videogame makers are being especially cautious in not upsetting the winning formula, it’s due to a fan base that is especially vocal about things they don’t like. And so, things stay the same, sequel after sequel.

After playing the same games year after year, gamers are content with teabagging each other while wearing space marine armor that looks more lifelike with each new release.

Having stagnated into an artform that can’t keep up with other mediums in the inability to tell mature and engaging stories, videogames are a slumbering beast that is just waiting for a change to happen to it since it’s not going to change on its own.

Sarkeesian is an advocate, someone whose main objective is to promotes a certain issue or cause. And what Sarkeesian is advocating aren’t games with better gameplay or innovative features, but to fit an agenda where women are better represented in videogames.

It’s not the change that videogames really need to blossom as an art form to become much more than the diversion that it is enjoyed for. However, in the absence of any openness to new forms of interactivity outside the realm of accomplishments through violent contestation, Anita Sarkeesian may represent the kind of change that is long coming to videogames.

Breast Physics—As Retro as 8-Bit: Dead or Alive

Two guys… fighting each other? I mean, what’s the point?

Dead or Alive is a 3D fighting game that offered players a breath of fresh air when it arrived in arcades in 1995. Quickly establishing itself in an already crowded market of fighting games, Dead or Alive had game play focused on timing instead of the control  combinations that were de rigeur at the time. As well, it sported a countering system with which players could soundly defeat the practice of button mashing. Short of revolutionary, Dead or Alive was a fun new way to play a fighting game without the requisite fatalities and supers.

And, it had breast physics. Almost 20 years later, the ongoing franchise still has breast physics. After spin-off games were made featuring no fighting, a little bit of volleyball and a whole lot of voyeurism, it’s fair to say that the lasting legacy of the Dead or Alive fighting franchise is jiggling boobs.

It may have a tradition behind it, but with video games continuing to bear the brunt of public criticisms, breast physics are under fire for objectifying women as sexual objects. Frankly speaking, these heaving bosoms incriminate themselves: they’re ridiculous, insulting, and not essential to the game play. However, a proper understanding of where breast physics come from is essential to properly criticize it.

As an art form, video games are usually indulgent exercises in excess that are testosterone-fueled vehicles to reward its players. As a player, I enjoy breast physics the same way I enjoy bad voice acting, bad dialog, cheese, and gratuitous violence; it’s all part of a lineage that has defined the tradition of video games for several decades now.

It probably wasn’t the first example of breast physics, but Dead of Alive’s crude implementation was an “improvement” over its peers. Due to technological and audience limitation, features had to be exaggerated to create any kind of effect. As such, Lara Croft’s boobs were cone-shaped irregularities meant to represent a woman’s breasts.

However, some guy somewhere noticed that these breasts weren’t behaving as his experience, so Dead or Alive took the extra step to make them “better” than real-life. From then on, the presentation of breasts physics in the Dead or Alive series displayed a commitment to follow this video game industry joke to its unfunny end.

If you wanted better performance, you can turn off “Bouncing Breast” in the Options to free up more computational power.

As it is, there’s not that much more room for breasts physics to get better, already having achieved hyper-realism that elicits squeals of approval from fan boys. Alternatively, there’s a whole unexplored universe of trying to depict human females as they appear in reality that is ready for the taking.

And that’s the position that we’re currently in at the moment: a refusal by the industry to start developing other kinds of games that differ greatly from its established traditions because the market of gamers isn’t interested in buying it. Video games with breast physics are currently standing on the right side of history at the moment because puerile traditions are allowed to continue because there’s no other commercial alternative to take its place.

If others have long been warning of a modern day video game industry crash like that of the 80’s, it’s clear that the artistic expression in video games have long stagnated and is headed towards a breakdown of its own. What gamers need are great games that are fun, not necessarily ones that sell, and for this to happen there needs to be a continued evolution that allows games to become something greater than they are.

I’d be sad to see breast physics disappear completely from video games, but let’s see it for what it is: a joke upheld by a insular community that has been improved upon so much that it shows how outdated it has become.

Breast physics are retro, and should take its place beside 8-bit and 16-bit.

 

* the branch of science devoted to replicating the movement of bewbs for the enjoyment of gamers

How far I got in 15 minutes: Got my ass kicked as Gen-Fu, the tutorial-less era of the 90’s is getting me down

The good: The old Chinese man speaks fluent Japanese

The bad: the brave new world of 3D polygons feels about 40 years old at this point

Will I be playing once this year is over: something tells me the countering system would be good for a fighter game novice like me, but Fatalities…

Days so far in the Year of the Play-a-DayStation: 14

Genderswap the Gritty Reboot for Maximum Effect: Duke Nukem: A Time to Kill

Point taken: Since this game came out, pole dancing has become a hot exercise trend for suburban moms.

There may be many reasons to explain why Duke Nukem Forever languished in a development cycle that lasted for 15 years, but there is one that can’t be denied: as a game, it was already hopelessly out-of-date before work on it had even begun.

Duke Nukem Forever (2011) is the sequel to Duke Nukem 3D (1996), but it wasn’t the only Duke Nukem game released in the time between these two games. These other spin-offs are significant because while they enjoyed their release at the apex of the series’ popularity, they also displayed the franchise fatigue that signalled the end of the series, long before the inevitable sequel arrived in 2011.

One of these spin-offs, Duke Nukem: A Time to Kill (1998), was not made by original makers 3D Realms. Instead, this game freshens up the franchise with third-person jumping and dodging that are liberally inspired by Tomb Raider. As kickass as it is to shoot cops dressed as pigs (or the other way around, whichever lesson you learned from Animal Farm), this game is unfortunately still limited by the fact it’s a Duke Nukem game.

That sounds weird since Duke Nukem is a character about excess, but then, part of a life of excess is being self-indulgent.

Duke Nukem is a satire on 80’s action heroes. The reason why Duke Nukem was still relevant up until the late 90’s is because it had taken that long for all these great action movies and their dialog to come out. It was okay to enjoy Duke Nukem since we were still getting over the ridiculousness of the 80s. But as the 90s were running out, so too was the tolerance for the blatant misogyny shown by this game.

That’s not to say there isn’t a place in video to enjoy the female form, especially ever since scientists have perfected the physics required to animate it. However, everything exists in a context, because that’s the way how art (which is what games are, sigh) is appreciated.

“Gritty reboot” is the way old characters and stories get updated for a modern audience because it’s an instant way to make past ideals relevant for right now. If Duke Nukem was given this treatment, he’d be a washed up has-been trying to relive his glory days—just what Duke Nukem Forever turned out to be.

As a sign of uncanny prescience, Duke Nukem: A Time to Kill features a song on its opening cinematic that contains the lyric “I won’t become the thing I hate”.

15 years is a long time to hold onto the angst, kiddo.

 

How far did I get in an half an hour: got stuck after turning off the sewer water. It’s dark down there

Would I play this game once this year is over: Sorry, too busy chewing bubble gum, and I’ve got a lot of bubble gum

Days so far in the Year of the Play-a-DayStation: 8