2013-03-09, 02:28 PM
I completely understand the issue of the imbalance of gender representation and the desire to see both genders play protagonist.
However, i have a huge problem with the criticism, and the reason it probably garners hate is because it only sees this trope for its negative characteristics.
I too have also grown up on games, a media i've used more than TV and music itself, I pretty much had little influence outside of it aside from my few friends. Even through all of this, i still don't see women as objects, and as a fledgling artist, I still have several female protagonist concepts that I'm fond of and hope to use in some form in the future. So i see this whole 'point of influence' thing as almost as absurd as the blaming games for violence. How can the same logic fall flat in one instance, but not another?
The video bothers me because as a guy (yes i pointed it out, don't pomgranate me for doing so cause... its kinda part of the subject...?) I know that the mere fact that its a 'female that needs help' wasn't why all those old SNES and PS1 games engaged me. It was the element of caring about someone and trying to help them... succeeding, and ultimately being appreciated for it. In real life: 1 or both of those elements don't always happen.
Are there games that really do objectify women enough by dumbing them down to warrant being sexist? Yes. Do they sometimes make intentional design choices to make the female in distress look more desirable? Yes, however, we have to at least acknowledge these influences may come from a time when the ability to tell story was limited. The easiest way to interest the player without developing an emotional backstory between protagonists was simply that: Make them pretty. That's a concept that's kinda unfair to... either gender, not just feminism. How frequently its imposed on either gender doesn't change that.
This element of trying to save someone you care about doesn't even require the protagonist being male to engage the player: my favorite game of all time is Secret of Mana, and one of the main characters in the game was the princess. She was in love with the knight dyluck but the power of his body drew the attention of the main antagonist as a new host, he ended up being whisked away and became the girl's reason for joining you in the quest. This aspect of the story hit me hard because...
The game itself is also a good example of a pro feminist game because she actually resisted her father's wishes of an arranged marriage to someone else because she wanted to be with that knight. Making her life choices hers and she was willing to fight for her choice in life. If she isn't aware of this character. Then i do in fact question her researching skills because SoM was not only a Square game, but a well known, very GOOD one at that.
But back to my main criticism about the video: It at no point considers the CORE reason why the trope is used so much. Which is engaging the desire to help someone and tapping into the desire of being appreciated for it. Focusing on the external elements like this, is much like bashing a FPS and saying people only play it because people just wanna shoot each other and enjoy it for the violence and desire to kill solely, not for the intense and sometimes strategic action it presents. It's this... disregard of the core purpose which is probably why it irks so many people.
Another HUGE thing i have with it is PERSONALLY, Is the idea that people need to change their creativity to suit others: If a writer wants to use the damsel in distress trope because its what they're inspired to do. Then they should do it. I'm not going to bash Miyamoto for making Peach a consistently dainty character cause that's how she was always designed. She's not particularly aggressive. Mario's the selfless hero that will always be there for her and succeeds at doing so. Peach appreciates it. Forced changes are not fun for creators and odds are you will end up making something flat and uninspired if you do. Which is why I do find bashing Miyamoto for the changes to StarFox Adventures on the other hand, valid. It's blindingly apparent just how forced Fox's interest was in Krystal in that game. I'm not going to enjoy a Zelda protagonist if the game is sloppily and awkwardly written because no one's heart is actually in it.
Don't tell someone to change their imagination: if you want to see more strong female protagonists, get into the field yourself and contribute rather than charge someone else.
Also, there's a slight implication that something is wrong with being a more daintly, not powerful woman. That's almost as bad as telling women they SHOULD be dainty and passive. Some girls have a personality that's naturally like that: they shouldn't feel as if something is wrong with them just as much as independent women shouldn't feel something is wrong with them. Heck, if it were up to me, I'd even like to see guys being accepted if they happen to timid or passive, but they still get scornful tags such as 'beta males'. But in any case, I believe choice to be who you want comes first. Don't move from demoralizing one end of the scale to a demoralizing the other. That's not an improvement.
However, i have a huge problem with the criticism, and the reason it probably garners hate is because it only sees this trope for its negative characteristics.
I too have also grown up on games, a media i've used more than TV and music itself, I pretty much had little influence outside of it aside from my few friends. Even through all of this, i still don't see women as objects, and as a fledgling artist, I still have several female protagonist concepts that I'm fond of and hope to use in some form in the future. So i see this whole 'point of influence' thing as almost as absurd as the blaming games for violence. How can the same logic fall flat in one instance, but not another?
The video bothers me because as a guy (yes i pointed it out, don't pomgranate me for doing so cause... its kinda part of the subject...?) I know that the mere fact that its a 'female that needs help' wasn't why all those old SNES and PS1 games engaged me. It was the element of caring about someone and trying to help them... succeeding, and ultimately being appreciated for it. In real life: 1 or both of those elements don't always happen.
Are there games that really do objectify women enough by dumbing them down to warrant being sexist? Yes. Do they sometimes make intentional design choices to make the female in distress look more desirable? Yes, however, we have to at least acknowledge these influences may come from a time when the ability to tell story was limited. The easiest way to interest the player without developing an emotional backstory between protagonists was simply that: Make them pretty. That's a concept that's kinda unfair to... either gender, not just feminism. How frequently its imposed on either gender doesn't change that.
This element of trying to save someone you care about doesn't even require the protagonist being male to engage the player: my favorite game of all time is Secret of Mana, and one of the main characters in the game was the princess. She was in love with the knight dyluck but the power of his body drew the attention of the main antagonist as a new host, he ended up being whisked away and became the girl's reason for joining you in the quest. This aspect of the story hit me hard because...
Spoiler
The game itself is also a good example of a pro feminist game because she actually resisted her father's wishes of an arranged marriage to someone else because she wanted to be with that knight. Making her life choices hers and she was willing to fight for her choice in life. If she isn't aware of this character. Then i do in fact question her researching skills because SoM was not only a Square game, but a well known, very GOOD one at that.
But back to my main criticism about the video: It at no point considers the CORE reason why the trope is used so much. Which is engaging the desire to help someone and tapping into the desire of being appreciated for it. Focusing on the external elements like this, is much like bashing a FPS and saying people only play it because people just wanna shoot each other and enjoy it for the violence and desire to kill solely, not for the intense and sometimes strategic action it presents. It's this... disregard of the core purpose which is probably why it irks so many people.
Another HUGE thing i have with it is PERSONALLY, Is the idea that people need to change their creativity to suit others: If a writer wants to use the damsel in distress trope because its what they're inspired to do. Then they should do it. I'm not going to bash Miyamoto for making Peach a consistently dainty character cause that's how she was always designed. She's not particularly aggressive. Mario's the selfless hero that will always be there for her and succeeds at doing so. Peach appreciates it. Forced changes are not fun for creators and odds are you will end up making something flat and uninspired if you do. Which is why I do find bashing Miyamoto for the changes to StarFox Adventures on the other hand, valid. It's blindingly apparent just how forced Fox's interest was in Krystal in that game. I'm not going to enjoy a Zelda protagonist if the game is sloppily and awkwardly written because no one's heart is actually in it.
Don't tell someone to change their imagination: if you want to see more strong female protagonists, get into the field yourself and contribute rather than charge someone else.
Also, there's a slight implication that something is wrong with being a more daintly, not powerful woman. That's almost as bad as telling women they SHOULD be dainty and passive. Some girls have a personality that's naturally like that: they shouldn't feel as if something is wrong with them just as much as independent women shouldn't feel something is wrong with them. Heck, if it were up to me, I'd even like to see guys being accepted if they happen to timid or passive, but they still get scornful tags such as 'beta males'. But in any case, I believe choice to be who you want comes first. Don't move from demoralizing one end of the scale to a demoralizing the other. That's not an improvement.