Let’s talk about this video, because I’m finding it harder and harder to believe that Thunderf00t has even watched any of this series. He completely misses crucial context:
"I should note that this kind of misogynistic isn’t always mandatory, often times it’s player directed, but it is always implicitly encouraged. in order to understand how this works lets take a moment to understand how video game systems operate as playgrounds for player engagement. Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules, and then within those rules we’re invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do and what we cant do. we are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the game space.
"So in many of the titles we’ve been discussing the game makers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving vulnerable, eroticized female characters. [This is the sentence when the Hitman clip starts. Notice that she isn’t saying these things specifically about Hitman, just about these games in general] Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play though. The Player can not help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that singular purpose. Players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters. Its a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality."
Sarkeesian is commenting on a running trend in which sexualized women are placed in a game’s sandbox and allowed to be experimented with by the player. It’s not about Hitman specifically, but rather about how Hitman follows that trope.
"The Player can not help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that singular purpose." This is the basic concept of an NPC. The point of Sarkeesian’s ‘Women and Background Character’ videos is that NPC women characters that you can act violently towards are often either sexualized or prone to violence in ways that male characters are not (or both). In Hitman’s case, it’s the former.
Thunderf00t has been employing the same creationist tactics that he’s railed against.
Sarkeesian is commenting on a running trend in which sexualized women are placed in a game’s sandbox and allowed to be experimented with by the player.
just like every other NPC. Male or female….sexualized women are placed in games like this when there is a strip club or something having to do with sex because….you know…thats how it is in real life….
Strip clubs exist in real life, yeah. You know what else exists in real life? Law firms. Yet, GTA and other games have a severe shortage of law firm levels or sections that you can explore these kind of areas. What they do have is buildings full of scantily-clad women. This choice doesn’t come out of nowhere— it exists in order to appeal to a (perceived) straight male audience.
Adhering to real-world structures is a poor argument when we’re talking about these issues, as Sarkeesian herself states:
What does it say about our culture when games routinely bend or break the laws of physics and no one bats an eye? When dragons, ogres and magic are inserted into historically influenced settings without objection. We are perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief when it comes to multiple lives, superpowers, health regeneration and the ability to carry dozens of weapons and items in a massive invisible backpack. But somehow the idea of a world without sexual violence and exploitation is deemed too strange and too bizarre to be believable.
Areas that designers implement into their games are conscious decisions.
It’s not about Hitman specifically, but rather about how Hitman follows that trope.
nobody said it was a bout hitman. but she used hitman as the main example so he defended hitman.
Not really. Hitman was one example among many.
"The Player can not help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon,
the fact that she thinks the player “cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon” sais more about her then anyone else. i can easily walk by them and do nothing to them…because..you know…the game ENCOURAGES you to do so….
You’re misinterpreting this line. The point is that sandbox-styled level design encourages experimentation and exploration in accomplishing specific goals, and violence against sexualized women is one such tool in a player’s arsenal. It’s a tool that the player receives a minor penalty for utilizing, but not one that results in a game over or anything of major consequence.
…because they were designed, constructed, and placed in the environment for that singular purpose.”
they were designed as an obstacle that youre SUPPOSED to get passed without drawing attention to yourself. but you also have the freedom of attacking them if you want…..like every other NPC in a game……should it be different with these NPCs because theyre women? just to make sure we dont hurt anyones feels?
The point isn’t that the game allows you to attack women, the point is that specific women that the game allows to use are sexualized in ways that none of the male NPC’s in the game are.
This is the basic concept of an NPC.
exactly. and thats where it shouldve stayed.
There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the use of NPC’s in games.
The point of Sarkeesian’s ‘Women and Background Character’ videos is that NPC women characters that you can act violently towards are often either sexualized or prone to violence in ways that male characters are not (or both). In Hitman’s case, it’s the former.
in what ways are they prone to violence in ways male NPCS are not?
Did you watch the video or just Thunderf00t’s response? If you watched it, you would have your answer. Here’s one example:
When the victims are men, sexual objectification and sexual or domestic violence are almost never ingredients in the scenario. Even the countless male thugs and henchmen the player mows down in these games are depicted as active aggressors, not characterized as passive victims.
the only good point here is that they’re “sexualized” and thats because THEY’RE IN A FUCKING STRIP CLUB! would it make her happy if every game that had a strip club, also had a male strip club? and truly, who the fuck cares?the kind of people that think this matters are t he people who think GTA makes people get in cars and run over pedestrians. and if were gonna start adopting that mentality, then we might as well get rid of any game that isn’t rated “E” .
As I’ve said before, the implementation of interactive strip clubs are a conscious decision from the developer and subject to critique just as much as anything else in the game.
Also, yes, there are many sexualized in video games (funny that a movement thats all about women expressing their sexuality gets so fed up with sexualized VIRTUAL women…but whatever)
There’s a difference between how real women wish to portray themselves and how characters are portrayed by other people in media. The portrayal of women in these games, as you say in a few sentences, exist in order to cater to a male demographic. I’d hope you’d say that’s not the case for actual women.
bc guess what? video games, especially video games like this, are mainly aimed at males. why? bc theyre the vast majority of gamers. its business. they’re gonna do what they gotta do to sell games.
You’re right. But the fact that something is done to make money doesn’t mean that thing isn’t also sexist.
not to mention the fact that there are also sexualized men in games, but i wont lie, it seems like there are more sexualized women then men. either way, that argument stands.
You answered your own objection. Not only that, but "sexualized" men often exist as power fantasies.
IN THE END, all this bitching from feminists about video games could be easily fixed if more women joined the video game industry and made your own games or got in a position of game development. but no, all feminists want to do is tell creators what to do with THEIR work.
Since when is criticism “telling people what to do with their work”? Only when feminists do it, right?
bc getting in the game industry takes work…..and work is HARD! thats the equivalent of demanding that J.K. ROWLING make ron black…bc there arent enough black ppl in harry potter…like…
I haven’t seen this. I’ve seen fanart of a black Ron, but that’s another thing entirely.
fuck off. its their creation. their vision. make your own game if it bothers you so much. or hell, stop buying these games. if there is a significant drop in sales, theyyll do what they have to do to get it back up. bc, like i said, theyre a business….they’re amoral. they dont care what i want or what you want, they care about what will sell games.
Do you say all of that to people who criticize video games for other reasons?
"Man, the combat in this game is clunky."
"Well, make your own game then! They’re a business! They don’t care. Just stop buying them. What’s the point of complaining?"
with all of that being said, anita is still a filthy liar and scam artist.