Feminist or Camgirl?

[LadyLuna]

The difference, I think, is the glee that people seem to take in watching her die.

Two words for you: crash bandicoot

I don't understand the reference. I've never played Crash Bandicoot.

Crash Bandicoot Death Animations

My introduction to crash was watching my brother play it, and exclaiming over the death animations, and saying "It's almost as much fun to watch him die!"

 

[emptiedglass]

Crash Bandicoot Death Animations

My introduction to crash was watching my brother play it, and exclaiming over the death animations, and saying "It's almost as much fun to watch him die!"

I think I know what game I may be buying next.

 

[LadyLuna]

Crash Bandicoot Death Animations

My introduction to crash was watching my brother play it, and exclaiming over the death animations, and saying "It's almost as much fun to watch him die!"

I think I know what game I may be buying next.

I watched my brother play it on the PS2, and I played it on the GameBoy Advance, so you can probably find it for whatever flavor of console you like. ^_^

 

[bob]

No, see, that's where the "casual" part comes in. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It is certainly enough that the dynamic is structured in a way that caused people to just not look around at what they're doing and say, "Hey, you guys think that maybe gutting our heroin while she moans and pants is a bit over the top?" It is enough that the dynamic is structured in a way that when it's pointed out, the first statements of defense are either "don't look at it, then!" or "there's worse out there." Gaming is not exclusively a geeky boys' club, anymore. People need to stop pretending like it is.

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about. She is pretty and she dies, its been reasonably well handled.

thanks for the visual aide......i haven't played a video game in a long time....the direction they were taking sorta objectified everybody, for the sake of the player, imo

my personal choice was "no thanks".....
but i can certainly appreciate the zing of suspending belief and getting into it

anyway....i tend to agree with you.....this discussion wouldn't exist if our heroin was a hero, would it?
so that's one thing....why can't a woman warrior die the same death as a male warrior?....because she forgot to go to the grocery shopping and put her makeup on?...because it was a guy who created her? (if that's true...i dunno)

to me, this entire question speaks to whether or not video games promote violence.....towards anybody.....i don't think they do

still....i think the woman who raises the concern fills a role that needs to be filled....so she's both + she's making money at it.
good for her

 

[zippypinhead]

I guess my contention is that it wouldn't have been executed this way in the first place if it had been a male protagonist. When male protagonists die, it seems a lot more matter-of-fact. There's a lot less arched backs and corpse molesting when Nathan Drake dies. I'm not an oversensitive gamer. I understand that violence, sometimes extreme violence, is popular media's milieu, and that gaming especially jumps into the blood and guts with glee. And I partake. I could go into eroticized violence and all that, but I think I've made my position about as clear as I can. I simply don't think the way women protagonists are kill is the same as the way male protagonists are killed, and that's why it's a bother, and that's I think the "we wouldn't be talking about it if it was a man" argument is both true and not actually evidence for the defense of games.

I think you bring up a good point, bob, but I'm not talking about promotion of violence against women. I'm talking about the reflection of prevailing attitudes about women coming out in the products. It's subtle, yes -- subtle enough that a person could dismiss it because it ruins their sense of fun. But I think it's definitely there, and I'm clearly not the only one -- even if I happen to be in a minority with this position. The people who are so vitriolic against Anita Sarkeesian's project or #1ReasonWhy is that they do point it out and ruin people's fun. People don't want to know that the world behind their favorite pastime is ugly. I think it's telling that the primary attitude is not one of denial, but rather one of indifference. People aren't tending to deny that this stuff is happening. Instead, their response is "so what?" or "get over it."

 

[bob]

I guess my contention is that it wouldn't have been executed this way in the first place if it had been a male protagonist. When male protagonists die, it seems a lot more matter-of-fact. There's a lot less arched backs and corpse molesting when Nathan Drake dies. I'm not an oversensitive gamer. I understand that violence, sometimes extreme violence, is popular media's milieu, and that gaming especially jumps into the blood and guts with glee. And I partake. I could go into eroticized violence and all that, but I think I've made my position about as clear as I can. I simply don't think the way women protagonists are kill is the same as the way male protagonists are killed, and that's why it's a bother, and that's I think the "we wouldn't be talking about it if it was a man" argument is both true and not actually evidence for the defense of games.

I think you bring up a good point, bob, but I'm not talking about promotion of violence against women. I'm talking about the reflection of prevailing attitudes about women coming out in the products. It's subtle, yes -- subtle enough that a person could dismiss it because it ruins their sense of fun. But I think it's definitely there, and I'm clearly not the only one -- even if I happen to be in a minority with this position. The people who are so vitriolic against Anita Sarkeesian's project or #1ReasonWhy is that they do point it out and ruin people's fun. People don't want to know that the world behind their favorite pastime is ugly. I think it's telling that the primary attitude is not one of denial, but rather one of indifference. People aren't tending to deny that this stuff is happening. Instead, their response is "so what?" or "get over it."

and i'd be a fool not to agree....i'm glad you stuck to your guns.....the "sexualization" of video games is an inevitable development in the evolution of video games, imo.....and there certainly ARE lines there, both already existing and yet to be explored....yet another reason this woman is speaking up at the right time.

but i'd suggest that 'indifference' is a form of violence....it allows for the denial of understanding and compassion....the two primary aspects of being a social animal.

but you are right to point it out, in whatever context has meaning for you.....because of course there will be guys (of all ages) who are eager to suspend belief and play more sexualized games....if i was into it, i'd likely be right along side them- my sexual proclivities run towards domination in real life.
but i'm older, and i consider myself to be a real grown up with a clear (or at least acceptable...in context) understanding of the boundaries between fantasy and reality.

thing is...domination is a game played between two people, and both you and this woman are right to question what it is that a sexualized video game (however subtle) is "teaching" about sexuality, because they already objectify us pretty thoroughly (ender's game and all that)

it can certainly be seen be a form of violence (and is by many in RL), but that component in RL is easily dismissed because it's only the extreme (aberrrant) cases where physical violence is a result of that kind of domination.....in a virtual world tho, the line need not be so obvious....and it won't be, because it's accepted by creators and players alike that you have to suspend reality to be a successful participant.

the focus here is rightfully on adolescents...is physical violence the same as sexual domination (aka "indifference" as you see it) for them?....it's not even a question that's gonna have meaning to most of them, is it?....the only experience they have in that regard (speaking generally) is separated only by day dreams about the girl sitting close to them in their government class (that's me, looking back, and trying to "relate" :lol: )

bottom line....i've got no problem with your argument....in stuff like this, we have to be responsible adults: i think the question then is about the reality you are expecting your audience to suspend....and the vast majority of adolescents have no reality about a sexualized woman to suspend

next step is to admit you're not gonna find a way to deny kids access to a sexualized video game....and THEN -and only then- do you come to face to face with the real problem

who is it that brings social responsibility to capitalism?

this woman is one answer, imo

 

[zippypinhead]

An incredibly timely Jimquisition piece posted yesterday.

 

[mynameisbob84]

An incredibly timely Jimquisition piece posted yesterday.

There are exceptions, but generally games are marketed to males in their teens to early twenties, because that's the industry's biggest market. It all boils down to money, and any implied sexism is a consequence of publishers not wanting to risk their investment. Publishers know that teenage boys want to play games that put them in control of the bad-ass, cool-as-fuck, ruggedly-handsome, gun-toting, beer-drinking hero who the bad guys fear and the hot women want to fuck. That's an easy sell. It makes them money.

Publishers don't know if a game with a female protagonist, with feminine desires and motivations, would sell as well to their predominantly male demographic. It's a shame, but they probably wouldn't.

The larger problem with all of that is that the gaming industry promotes a culture wherein women are marginalised and used primarily for their sex appeal (not unlike large portions of the film industry). There's no real end to that in sight. Not unless publishers and game developers are willing to sacrifice profits.

That said, there are exceptions to the above (Tomb Raider, Heavenly Sword, Bayonetta, et al) and more and more games are giving the player the opportunity to choose whether they want their gaming world to revolve around a male or female protagonist (Mass Effect, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Borderlands, and Resident Evil all spring to mind).

 

[zippypinhead]

The larger problem with all of that is that the gaming industry promotes a culture wherein women are marginalised and used primarily for their sex appeal (not unlike large portions of the film industry). There's no real end to that in sight. Not unless publishers and game developers are willing to sacrifice profits.

Certainly that's the by-line, but I can't understand how opening up the opportunity to appeal to a much larger segment of the general population could possibly be seen as a sacrifice in profits. As this tweet by Ian Schreiber quoted in the Huffington Post article I'd linked put it: "Someone explain to me why 50% of world population is a "niche" market, while 18-25 year old males (~5% population) are "core"? To me, it's laziness on the part of an industry that doesn't wish to traverse into a new content frontier, and complacency on the part of an audience that's already getting what they want.

The sad part is that, should this not change, and games continue to be treated as a market that's only viable when sold to young men, then stagnation will inevitably begin to take place. You can see that in any form of media, where the money hems in creativity and keeps it in a conservative stasis. Innovation doesn't come about from playing the odds. Laziness and complacency doesn't make good work, especially when it's derived from some silly notion that only teenage boys are willing to buy stuff like games.

I can't help but draw a comparison between the current attitudes of the gaming industry and the prevailing attitudes of the American comic book industry. For decades, the Big Two of American comics had been banking on the "boys' club" philosophy, and they felt safe in that. Then, the internet happened, and suddenly, comics that weren't available through Diamond Distribution could be found. And what happened? Manga exploded. Graphic novels exploded. Both were fueled by an opening of the market due to a wider array of narrative, which appealed to a greater breadth people. Oddly, when comics weren't just made to appeal to the power fantasies of horny teenaged boys, girls and women began to read comics. Go figure! And what has happened to Marvel and DC? Continual decline in market share and profits, because they failed -- and still fail -- to understand the trend, to understand that it's alright to expand your base and innovate. Once they're done serving their current role as an IP farm for Hollywood, things aren't going to be looking so hot for superhero comics, since (surprise!) there isn't much crossover from movie audiences to comic books. So, the question is, do we really want to look forward to nothing but shooters from the big industry players who are unwilling to change for the sake of their own future, in the same way that comics from the big industry players are nothing but superheroes because they were unwilling to change? That doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.

 

[Rebecca Buck]

I would like to comment on the 'boys will be boys' comment...

Say a little boy, aged 5 or so, pulls a little girl's hair and pushes her down. She cries, runs to the teacher or her parents. Teacher/parents say "oh, boys will be boys, it just means he likes you!"

Same boy, now 10, pushes the girl down and laughs at her. Teacher this time says "Boys will be boys. He just likes you and doesn't know how to say it!"

Same at 13.

Suddenly, around 15-16 years of age, it's not okay for boys to hit girls. Even though 'boys will be boys'. So, what changed? Why is it suddenly not okay for a little boy to pick on a little girl just because he's a boy, and boys are just NATURALLY violent and NATURALLY have problems talking about their feelings?

Answer: Nothing. It is not okay because that shit ain't true. The only reason 'boys will be boys' is because we've been told since infancy that that is the case. Maybe that wouldn't be the problem, if both genders were taught how to express their feelings and not push each other in the mud for fun.

Now, when it comes to video games, I don't much appreciate the whole idea that the market is aimed primarily at adolescent men aged 12-15 or whatever the demographic is. I don't know many girls my age who DON'T play a form of video game, console, mobile or otherwise. It's incredibly naive to assume that this very tiny demographic is REALLY where *all* that money is coming from. Considering women make up 51% of the earth's total population.

Less, than what the demographic is, I think there needs to be more responsibility put on the producers of games to create fantasies that appeal to more than just those with testosterone coursing through their veins. If we, as consumers, don't complain and/or \hold the creators of our content responsible for their creations, they're just going to continue to think the same thing. That the only games that are worth making are Call of Duty and Madden and Killzone and whatever other violent, bloody horror there is.

Don't get me wrong, I like bloody violence as much as any red-blooded american. Most of my teenage bonding years with my dad were over the original Halo trilogy. If it weren't for Halo and Halflife and Prince of Persia, I wouldn't have known what to do with my life. Video games gave me a goal to aim for in Highschool. I still want to be a concept artist. But I'm not going to just sit by and let the industry continue to disrespect my gender.

Yaaaaay, feminism and video games! My favorite topic! Apologies for the weird ramblings. This is something my boy and I talk about a lot.

 

[mynameisbob84]

The larger problem with all of that is that the gaming industry promotes a culture wherein women are marginalised and used primarily for their sex appeal (not unlike large portions of the film industry). There's no real end to that in sight. Not unless publishers and game developers are willing to sacrifice profits.

Certainly that's the by-line, but I can't understand how opening up the opportunity to appeal to a much larger segment of the general population could possibly be seen as a sacrifice in profits. As this tweet by Ian Schreiber quoted in the Huffington Post article I'd linked put it: "Someone explain to me why 50% of world population is a "niche" market, while 18-25 year old males (~5% population) are "core"? To me, it's laziness on the part of an industry that doesn't wish to traverse into a new content frontier, and complacency on the part of an audience that's already getting what they want.

The sad part is that, should this not change, and games continue to be treated as a market that's only viable when sold to young men, then stagnation will inevitably begin to take place. You can see that in any form of media, where the money hems in creativity and keeps it in a conservative stasis. Innovation doesn't come about from playing the odds. Laziness and complacency doesn't make good work, especially when it's derived from some silly notion that only teenage boys are willing to buy stuff like games.

I can't help but draw a comparison between the current attitudes of the gaming industry and the prevailing attitudes of the American comic book industry. For decades, the Big Two of American comics had been banking on the "boys' club" philosophy, and they felt safe in that. Then, the internet happened, and suddenly, comics that weren't available through Diamond Distribution could be found. And what happened? Manga exploded. Graphic novels exploded. Both were fueled by an opening of the market due to a wider array of narrative, which appealed to a greater breadth people. Oddly, when comics weren't just made to appeal to the power fantasies of horny teenaged boys, girls and women began to read comics. Go figure! And what has happened to Marvel and DC? Continual decline in market share and profits, because they failed -- and still fail -- to understand the trend, to understand that it's alright to expand your base and innovate. Once they're done serving their current role as an IP farm for Hollywood, things aren't going to be looking so hot for superhero comics, since (surprise!) there isn't much crossover from movie audiences to comic books. So, the question is, do we really want to look forward to nothing but shooters from the big industry players who are unwilling to change for the sake of their own future, in the same way that comics from the big industry players are nothing but superheroes because they were unwilling to change? That doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.

I agree with you, I just don't see things changing. With anything - be it computer games, films, television, books, whatever - there's a core audience. For games, that core audience is teenaged/early 20s males, so games will naturally be geared towards that market. If there's a shift in the market, and females come to represent a larger percentage of that market, then gaming tropes will come to reflect that. But until that happens (if it ever happens at all), I don't envision any change. There will always be games that go against the grain and do things differently to the mainstream though, so it's not all doom and gloom.

 

[mynameisbob84]

Now, when it comes to video games, I don't much appreciate the whole idea that the market is aimed primarily at adolescent men aged 12-15 or whatever the demographic is. I don't know many girls my age who DON'T play a form of video game, console, mobile or otherwise. It's incredibly naive to assume that this very tiny demographic is REALLY where *all* that money is coming from. Considering women make up 51% of the earth's total population.

It's not where all the money comes from but it is where most of the money comes from. Hence things being the way they are. And yes, 51% of the population are female, but how many of them are gamers?

Things might change eventually, if enough females pump enough money into the industry, and if they vote with their wallets by buying what few games are implementing strong female leads. But as it stands, those games sell decidely less well than games that are firmly aimed at a male audience.

Computers games, since their inception, have been traditionally synonymous with boys. It's going to take a lot to change that. Publishers aren't concerned with being progressive or fair or even ethical; they're concerned with money. Like anyone else in the free market. It's a shame, but it is what it is :twocents-02cents:

 

[Rebecca Buck]

Now, when it comes to video games, I don't much appreciate the whole idea that the market is aimed primarily at adolescent men aged 12-15 or whatever the demographic is. I don't know many girls my age who DON'T play a form of video game, console, mobile or otherwise. It's incredibly naive to assume that this very tiny demographic is REALLY where *all* that money is coming from. Considering women make up 51% of the earth's total population.

It's not where all the money comes from but it is where most of the money comes from. Hence things being the way they are. And yes, 51% of the population are female, but how many of them are gamers?

Things might change eventually, if enough females pump enough money into the industry, and if they vote with their wallets by buying what few games are implementing strong female leads. But as it stands, those games sell decidely less well than games that are firmly aimed at a male audience.

Computers games, since their inception, have been traditionally synonymous with boys. It's going to take a lot to change that. Publishers aren't concerned with being progressive or fair or even ethical; they're concerned with money. Like anyone else in the free market. It's a shame, but it is what it is :twocents-02cents:

... Which is exactly why my friends and I hope to band together and start up a studio like Santa Monica or Moby Dick or Oddworld. To fuck the free market up. You are 100% right, the only way anything will change is if we do anything about it, and sometimes I think even more effective than voting with your wallet is going in there and getting your hands dirty yourself

 

[Brad]

I (48 year old child) mostly play Madden, racing games, or COD type action games. I wanted to point out that the average age of gamers is in the 30s. This is right from the ESA site. I know it's just stats but from my experience they seem very probable.

4) The average game player is 30 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.
5) The average age of the most frequent game purchaser is 35 years old.
6) Forty-seven percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent).

http://www.theesa.com/facts/

 

[mynameisbob84]

Now, when it comes to video games, I don't much appreciate the whole idea that the market is aimed primarily at adolescent men aged 12-15 or whatever the demographic is. I don't know many girls my age who DON'T play a form of video game, console, mobile or otherwise. It's incredibly naive to assume that this very tiny demographic is REALLY where *all* that money is coming from. Considering women make up 51% of the earth's total population.

It's not where all the money comes from but it is where most of the money comes from. Hence things being the way they are. And yes, 51% of the population are female, but how many of them are gamers?

Things might change eventually, if enough females pump enough money into the industry, and if they vote with their wallets by buying what few games are implementing strong female leads. But as it stands, those games sell decidely less well than games that are firmly aimed at a male audience.

Computers games, since their inception, have been traditionally synonymous with boys. It's going to take a lot to change that. Publishers aren't concerned with being progressive or fair or even ethical; they're concerned with money. Like anyone else in the free market. It's a shame, but it is what it is :twocents-02cents:

... Which is exactly why my friends and I hope to band together and start up a studio like Santa Monica or Moby Dick or Oddworld. To fuck the free market up. You are 100% right, the only way anything will change is if we do anything about it, and sometimes I think even more effective than voting with your wallet is going in there and getting your hands dirty yourself

I wish you well, ma'am and who knows? In a few years time, I could be buying one of your games

 

[bob]

The larger problem with all of that is that the gaming industry promotes a culture wherein women are marginalised and used primarily for their sex appeal (not unlike large portions of the film industry). There's no real end to that in sight. Not unless publishers and game developers are willing to sacrifice profits.

Certainly that's the by-line, but I can't understand how opening up the opportunity to appeal to a much larger segment of the general population could possibly be seen as a sacrifice in profits. As this tweet by Ian Schreiber quoted in the Huffington Post article I'd linked put it: "Someone explain to me why 50% of world population is a "niche" market, while 18-25 year old males (~5% population) are "core"? To me, it's laziness on the part of an industry that doesn't wish to traverse into a new content frontier, and complacency on the part of an audience that's already getting what they want.

The sad part is that, should this not change, and games continue to be treated as a market that's only viable when sold to young men, then stagnation will inevitably begin to take place. You can see that in any form of media, where the money hems in creativity and keeps it in a conservative stasis. Innovation doesn't come about from playing the odds. Laziness and complacency doesn't make good work, especially when it's derived from some silly notion that only teenage boys are willing to buy stuff like games.

I can't help but draw a comparison between the current attitudes of the gaming industry and the prevailing attitudes of the American comic book industry. For decades, the Big Two of American comics had been banking on the "boys' club" philosophy, and they felt safe in that. Then, the internet happened, and suddenly, comics that weren't available through Diamond Distribution could be found. And what happened? Manga exploded. Graphic novels exploded. Both were fueled by an opening of the market due to a wider array of narrative, which appealed to a greater breadth people. Oddly, when comics weren't just made to appeal to the power fantasies of horny teenaged boys, girls and women began to read comics. Go figure! And what has happened to Marvel and DC? Continual decline in market share and profits, because they failed -- and still fail -- to understand the trend, to understand that it's alright to expand your base and innovate. Once they're done serving their current role as an IP farm for Hollywood, things aren't going to be looking so hot for superhero comics, since (surprise!) there isn't much crossover from movie audiences to comic books. So, the question is, do we really want to look forward to nothing but shooters from the big industry players who are unwilling to change for the sake of their own future, in the same way that comics from the big industry players are nothing but superheroes because they were unwilling to change? That doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.

yeah....and these last few posts have certainly caught me with the pants of my i down :lol:....i completely ignored the fact that a woman protagonist would be the "guy" that the industry is afraid it's target audience won't wanna be.

there's probably an undeniable truth to that....but innovation IS what will keep video games fresh and appealing to successive generations of adolescents, as well as expand the market into the other 95% who (like me) are astounded by the technical progress over the last decade, and intrigued by the parallel complexity of character development.

so as a casual observer, the one innovation that strikes me a perhaps relevant to all this is the growth of multiplayer games....never played one, of course, but the format seems like a natural for virtual collaboration and a variety of protagonists, where many of these concerns can be explored by the risk takers of game development. :dontknow:

 

[mynameisbob84]

6) Forty-seven percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent).

This is surprising. I can only assume that this takes into account mobile games too (Angry Birds and the like). I've worked in a store that sells video games for seven years now, and the people buying computer games are overwhelmingly male (in that store).

 

[Rebecca Buck]

6) Forty-seven percent of all game players are women. In fact, women over the age of 18 represent a significantly greater portion of the game-playing population (30 percent) than boys age 17 or younger (18 percent).

This is surprising. I can only assume that this takes into account mobile games too (Angry Birds and the like). I've worked in a store that sells video games for seven years now, and the people buying computer games are overwhelmingly male (in that store).

I also like this statistic and it has also surprised me. Thank you Brad!

I don't buy games in store anymore because every time I went in the store to get my copy, I'd get asked "So are you buying this for your boyfriend?"



(Last time I did that, I was buying Red Dead. I just told them John Marston IS my boyfriend.)

 

[Brad]

I know quite a few female gamers. In fact I usually don't think about it in terms of gender. More in terms of hard core gamer vs novice like myself. I've met plenty of both in each gender. But I also have never played Tomb Raider so I can't speak to any of that.
:dontknow:

 

[zippypinhead]

That brings me to another peeve. When I'm referring to the "industry", I'm generally talking about the so-called "AAA" titles, upon which hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to develop, and which are aimed decidedly toward this mythical "hardcore" crowd of heterosexual males aged between 18-35. Anything that isn't shooters or sports seems to be saddled with the term "casual" in a derisive tone, as if casually gaming is a bad thing. The problem is, these "casual" games are HUGE money makers. Wii Fit, Wii Play, Mario Kart, and Guitar Hero consistently top sales records lists. So do the open-world games that focus on building one's own experience. So do time-wasters and social networking games.

It's odd to me, then, that these are somehow lesser forms of gaming, and not worthy of consideration. One thing I think about it is that the vocal crowd is not the casual crowd, even though casual gaming draws incredible amounts of revenue. By its very definition, though, casual gaming isn't going to inspire a lot of passionate online discourse. So, the "industry" guys with the billions of dollars to spend developing big titles are going to listen to the people who DO speak out, which happens to be the "hardcore" minority, and they're apparently scared of girls.

Luckily, there's a strong and growing indie market that's filling gaps and helping a lot more people get what they want beyond Call of Duty. I can't help but be wary, though, of the fact that heaps of money are being shoveled in the service of such a small and vocal group, while the number tell us that so many others are willing to spend plenty of money to get a fun gaming experience. That's where my comparison to superhero comics comes in. Those who control the market drive the direction of that market. Gaming is at a threshold where they could go through into a more inclusive sensibility, or they could stay the course, fight progression, continue to act as though a growing "casual" market is the enemy of gaming.

 

[Red7227]

I know quite a few female gamers. In fact I usually don't think about it in terms of gender. More in terms of hard core gamer vs novice like myself. I've met plenty of both in each gender. But I also have never played Tomb Raider so I can't speak to any of that.
:dontknow:

Tomb raider is weird. It has an extremely dedicated following including a lot of girls. A the moment over on http://www.tombraiderchronicles.com/ there is some discussion about realism and the lack of women in the game, but the death scenes are being deemed added realism, which was part of the designers intention in pre releases. TR is remaking itself in the same way that the 007 franchise did. That's the argument anyway.

 

[zippypinhead]

Maybe this is hypocritical of me, but I don't have a big problem seeing earlier Lara Croft getting eaten by dinosaurs. Maybe it goes in toward the difference between violence depicted via highly-rendered realism and fantastical violence via cartoonish characters and situations. Which is why, by the way, the Krash Bandicoot videos supplied by LadyLuna just don't bother me at all. Cartoon violence (and sex) lies on a different, less serious, part of the spectrum for me.

 

[Red7227]

Maybe this is hypocritical of me, but I don't have a big problem seeing earlier Lara Croft getting eaten by dinosaurs. Maybe it goes in toward the difference between violence depicted via highly-rendered realism and fantastical violence via cartoonish characters and situations. Which is why, by the way, the Krash Bandicoot videos supplied by LadyLuna just don't bother me at all. Cartoon violence (and sex) lies on a different, less serious, part of the spectrum for me.

That just comes down to suspension of disbelief. "Its only a game" is a fairly valid argument a lot of the time. People can't be shot 90 times and walk away from it, not all women are beautiful hookers. Drawing the line between what people can gloss over in a game and what they can't gloss over is always open to interpretation.

The Swedish Teen movie "Show me love" (called "Fucking Alma" in the Swedish release) addresses bulling, peer pressure, sexuality and parent child relationships. It will never be popular in the west because the main protagonists are a pair of 13 year olds who discover they are lesbians.

I've been alive for 52 years, and in that time I have seen the changes in society regarding the place of women. It have never been stronger. TV shows like castle and buffy have strong female leads, Oprah and Ellen have, or had their own shows. Movies and computer games still expect a level of suspension of disbelief but their messages are drowned out by the media and magazines telling girls how to think and feel.

 

[Rebecca Buck]

I honestly don't see that being the norm for too much longer though. With the way that the video game industry is growing, and the opportunities for more independent developers becoming more numerous, I predict that in about 20 or so years things will be so different it'll be near unrecognizable.

But then, I tend to be pretty optimistic about my first passion :T