dev_chieftain (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-06-01 01:59 pm
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-06-01 01:59 pm
How to handle bad advertisement
First, here's a pretty good link to an article discussing the recent trailer for the new Hitman game. I'm linking it because, like me, the author considers the problem here to be the fact that the women are sexualized-- not that they're assassins, or that they're killed by the hero, or that they were disguised as nuns. It's wrong that the women are sexualized while being killed, clad in latex and whatnot, because that's where the creepy sets in. I'm all for lady assassins being around, though I'd sure like to see more examples of lady assassins who don't assassinate by using their sexuality as a weapon, and are actually successful and talented at their job.
Here's the article: 'We live in a culture that doesn't tell men not to rape; it tells women not to get raped.'
Now, on to Republique. Let's go into something this article kind of gets at, but doesn't quite say: Women are pretty much never the main character in video games.
There was recently a kickstarter for a game called Republique. The point of the game is to be available on a phone platform (which I wouldn't play), and provide a puzzle-solving thriller type of game where you act as an invisible silent protagonist who is helping out a girl who is, somewhat hokily, named Hope.
Plusses about this game: Hope is not going to be sexualised, or so they say. The game is about puzzle-solving and aiding Hope in the adventure. Hope is the main visible character. Key word, visible. I have some problems with this. You, as the Kickstarter explained, represent Hope's ally on the inside of the Big Brother, 1984-style conspiracy or whatnot:
"You receive a desperate phone call from Hope, a young woman trapped within a shadowy totalitarian state. Using a stolen phone, she calls and begs you to hack into the nation’s surveillance system, assume control, and help her escape from the clutches of the omnipresent Overseer."
For me, this feels like the following:
Hope is the Princess. She's trapped in a [totalitarian] castle. But hey, it's cool, we're being progressive because she's asking you for Help. (For the record, Princess Peach asks for help, too. But I shouldn't put her down because she did get at least one DS game that was all about her.)
I'm a little underwhelmed by this proposal because I have some questions. Why can't I just play as Hope? why can't Hope save herself? And damn it, why's it on the phone platform? I hate smartphone shit and I don't use it. Gragh!
To me, this proposal still boils down to: "you, the faceless hero, are saving the princess from the evil badguy". It's still the same formula, and there's not even a personality or voice to go along with the character that the player actually plays as, probably supposedly for accessibility. Since Hope's assistant is a stranger and not her sister, or something, that means that many people can just assume Hope's calling a guy who's more capable than she is to help her. I don't like that!
I can think of several other games in which the female companion exists as an assistant to the actual main character, so this is hardly revolutionary. In fact, a woman acting as a tutorial aide or mission-giver is so not new that I can point at several Zelda games that have done this (if not ALL of the 3D ones); one of the Metal Gear games involves a female contact giving her male counterpart missions, too.
However, Trudy pointed out some saving qualities of the proposal that were what inspired her to support the game when the kickstarter was running:
-here is a unique game in the sense that you can play without ever having to fire a gun. (Like Journey, or Katamari Damacy, an unusual but welcome opportunity)
-here is a woman who's not sexualised and even though you're not playing as her, she IS basically the main or even only character.
She said: I'd like to see more games like that, more games in that direction. And I thought, good point. When the problem is that you're trying to make a positive change, you have to support even the not-good-enough stuff that is just starting to make the changes you want to see in the end. (Just like if I want the Adventure Time! season boxsets, I'll probably have to prove people want Adventure Time! DVDs by buying the existing, crap collections that have been released instead. If a demand isn't shown, then a product is unlikely to get marketed.)
So, to bring this back to my original point. When the product is not trying to make a positive change, or represents a very common problem, the best solution is to refuse to support it.
Do not buy a product that is thematically offensive. Do not make excuses for the product. I don't care if the gameplay is good, or it looks like it'll be so exciting, or you're just so curious about the storyline despite the bad trailer. The point here is, they will keep sexualizing violence and making the same old games if you don't have the strength of will to deny yourself.
So deny yourself. If it's the status quo + sexual violence, don't put your money into its making. Demand products that are 100% awesome. 75% is just not good enough.
Edited to add: Also, I do need to say that as of today I'm not reading Penny Arcade anymore. I didn't follow the Dickwolves debacle actively, I don't really read their blogs (especially not after multiple instances of them internet bullying someone and being proud of it), but I was reading the comic.
For a hit or miss comic that was sometimes funny, it had been getting stale for a while. Today, we have a comic about a man wailing about how sexist the Hitman trailer is. In the second panel, he tries to critique some unrelated game by the name of Quantum Conundrum, which has a non-sexist trailer. He then falsely concludes that the problem (sexism and sexualised violence against women in video games) has apparently been solved.
Look. I actually thought the dickwolves joke was funny. It wasn't triggery for me. The handling of the backlash, however? That was fucked up. And if this isn't yet another flipping of the bird against women and people who give a shit about women's rights on the internet, then I'm a unicorn.
Just to be clear, I'm not a unicorn, that was hyperbole. Anyway, the message is clear: "wah wah, you're whining about something that's not broken." This is simply untrue. So why should I keep reading an unfunny comic that gets unfunnier as it goes, or support people who are going out of their way to dismiss the concerns that I hold personally important?
Here's the article: 'We live in a culture that doesn't tell men not to rape; it tells women not to get raped.'
Now, on to Republique. Let's go into something this article kind of gets at, but doesn't quite say: Women are pretty much never the main character in video games.
There was recently a kickstarter for a game called Republique. The point of the game is to be available on a phone platform (which I wouldn't play), and provide a puzzle-solving thriller type of game where you act as an invisible silent protagonist who is helping out a girl who is, somewhat hokily, named Hope.
Plusses about this game: Hope is not going to be sexualised, or so they say. The game is about puzzle-solving and aiding Hope in the adventure. Hope is the main visible character. Key word, visible. I have some problems with this. You, as the Kickstarter explained, represent Hope's ally on the inside of the Big Brother, 1984-style conspiracy or whatnot:
"You receive a desperate phone call from Hope, a young woman trapped within a shadowy totalitarian state. Using a stolen phone, she calls and begs you to hack into the nation’s surveillance system, assume control, and help her escape from the clutches of the omnipresent Overseer."
For me, this feels like the following:
Hope is the Princess. She's trapped in a [totalitarian] castle. But hey, it's cool, we're being progressive because she's asking you for Help. (For the record, Princess Peach asks for help, too. But I shouldn't put her down because she did get at least one DS game that was all about her.)
I'm a little underwhelmed by this proposal because I have some questions. Why can't I just play as Hope? why can't Hope save herself? And damn it, why's it on the phone platform? I hate smartphone shit and I don't use it. Gragh!
To me, this proposal still boils down to: "you, the faceless hero, are saving the princess from the evil badguy". It's still the same formula, and there's not even a personality or voice to go along with the character that the player actually plays as, probably supposedly for accessibility. Since Hope's assistant is a stranger and not her sister, or something, that means that many people can just assume Hope's calling a guy who's more capable than she is to help her. I don't like that!
I can think of several other games in which the female companion exists as an assistant to the actual main character, so this is hardly revolutionary. In fact, a woman acting as a tutorial aide or mission-giver is so not new that I can point at several Zelda games that have done this (if not ALL of the 3D ones); one of the Metal Gear games involves a female contact giving her male counterpart missions, too.
However, Trudy pointed out some saving qualities of the proposal that were what inspired her to support the game when the kickstarter was running:
-here is a unique game in the sense that you can play without ever having to fire a gun. (Like Journey, or Katamari Damacy, an unusual but welcome opportunity)
-here is a woman who's not sexualised and even though you're not playing as her, she IS basically the main or even only character.
She said: I'd like to see more games like that, more games in that direction. And I thought, good point. When the problem is that you're trying to make a positive change, you have to support even the not-good-enough stuff that is just starting to make the changes you want to see in the end. (Just like if I want the Adventure Time! season boxsets, I'll probably have to prove people want Adventure Time! DVDs by buying the existing, crap collections that have been released instead. If a demand isn't shown, then a product is unlikely to get marketed.)
So, to bring this back to my original point. When the product is not trying to make a positive change, or represents a very common problem, the best solution is to refuse to support it.
Do not buy a product that is thematically offensive. Do not make excuses for the product. I don't care if the gameplay is good, or it looks like it'll be so exciting, or you're just so curious about the storyline despite the bad trailer. The point here is, they will keep sexualizing violence and making the same old games if you don't have the strength of will to deny yourself.
So deny yourself. If it's the status quo + sexual violence, don't put your money into its making. Demand products that are 100% awesome. 75% is just not good enough.
Edited to add: Also, I do need to say that as of today I'm not reading Penny Arcade anymore. I didn't follow the Dickwolves debacle actively, I don't really read their blogs (especially not after multiple instances of them internet bullying someone and being proud of it), but I was reading the comic.
For a hit or miss comic that was sometimes funny, it had been getting stale for a while. Today, we have a comic about a man wailing about how sexist the Hitman trailer is. In the second panel, he tries to critique some unrelated game by the name of Quantum Conundrum, which has a non-sexist trailer. He then falsely concludes that the problem (sexism and sexualised violence against women in video games) has apparently been solved.
Look. I actually thought the dickwolves joke was funny. It wasn't triggery for me. The handling of the backlash, however? That was fucked up. And if this isn't yet another flipping of the bird against women and people who give a shit about women's rights on the internet, then I'm a unicorn.
Just to be clear, I'm not a unicorn, that was hyperbole. Anyway, the message is clear: "wah wah, you're whining about something that's not broken." This is simply untrue. So why should I keep reading an unfunny comic that gets unfunnier as it goes, or support people who are going out of their way to dismiss the concerns that I hold personally important?