Hitman Trailer & Feminism in Video Games

[androkguz]

To both Sonic and lykin:
Aren't you guys getting a little off topic? I mean, I actually feel that you are on the tangent of the tangent topic.
Please don't take it the wrong way, I like the tangent, and I want to jump in, but I feel like it might deserve a new conversation.

As for enjoying fictional violence:
I think that most people like fictional danger and extreme emotions (fear, love, hatred, etc.) in general. Fictional violence often contains a lot of that. It can serve as way to evoke a variety of feelings in a safe environment.
Furthermore, I'm really not worried about "ridiculous violence" creating real world violence. By "ridiculous violence" I mean anything that 90%+ of the adult population would never believe a real person could do, or anything where the context is clearly fictitious.
I'm not worried about agent 47 inspiring anyone (sane) to shot women or whatever. Virtually none of the murderers and kidnappers in my country sees much TV or plays video games. They learn violence from the real world.
I'm worried, however, when violence (or any other negative behavior) is shown on media (including video games) as if it was a normal condonable thing in the real world, usually implicitly. For instance, I kind of worry when anime shows people punching the crap out of each other each time someone does something wrong or speaks too loud or makes someone else uncomfortable. That particular behavior my school friends did pick up and it was not fun for me at all.

[lillerina]

Around four different threads were merged into this one thread on video games. This is why there are multiple conversations going on and also why it might look like someone double posted when in fact they didn't.

[lykin005]

Your right I can't. But I can look at past behavior, and in the past they have committed terrible wrongs. These actions must be punished and the person cannot be permitted to continue in that behavior. To spend time rehabilitating someone who has committed terrible acts will not necessarily yield any good results other than stopping the behavior and is in fact, not certain to work. Killing the offender is guaranteed to prevent the destructive habits they have exhibited. Upon reflection I can see taking mercy and giving a second chance, but if they are given a second chance and they offend again. You dun goofed asshole! (To be clear this is directed at the offender.)
I believe tragedy happens when someone suffers unjustly. So if a person loses all their money to a lying, thieving accountant, that is tragic. If someone breaks into someone else's house and try's to steal valuables and the dog of the house rips the mans leg open forcing the man to get an amputation. That is not a tragedy. That could be said to be cosmic justice, though I would call it merely amusing.
That is a strawman argument. I'm not arguing for murder of a possible criminal. I'm arguing for murder of someone who has demonstrated destructive behavior in the past. Destructive behavior which cannot be tolerated. A second chance? Maybe, it would depend on their attitude upon being taken into custody and the interrogation afterward. I don't appreciate effectively being called an evil or murderous person. I would kill only to protect, not for personal gain or to further my own ambitions or because I would enjoy it. In fact killing for an unjust reason would be highly distasteful to me despite the fact that violence in itself can be enjoyable. I do not gloss over violence or the seriousness of it's effects. I have thought about this for a while and have come to a conclusion already, thus giving the appearance that I make this decision casually or with little thought. I understand that murder of even a rapist would have negative repercussions for the family or friends etc. I wouldn't make this decision lightly or with joyous abandon.
You missed the point. I was trying to illustrate that my rage though extreme and animalistic has not damaged my ability to feel compassion or sensitivity. I have heard the argument that violence deadens the soul and makes a person less human or less able to feel compassion and empathy. This has not happened to me and this was the point I was trying to make.

To Androkguz: Indeed we are I think. If this should be made another thread, then so be it.
I agree violence like that should be drastically reduced in presence. I mean sure I laugh when Sunohara gets kicked in the nose for being pervy but it should be more limited in it's portrayal.

[Rainbow Dolphins]

When people say violence makes it harder to feel compassion and empathy, they mean violence that you have committed, not just contemplated. Like, soldiers who have had to kill in a war might have trouble feeling empathic toward people afterwards. (This is especially true if there is war propoganda convincing soldiers and civilians alike that the enemy are "non-people"- that is actually a main purpose of the propaganda, to make it easier for the soldiers to kill.)

I guess the point I'm trying to make is, thinking about committing violence and logically deducing that it would be a net gain for the world to kill someone is very, very different from actually doing it. I mean, I have never killed or seriously hurt someone (I mean I've smacked people but not really HURT them) but I know people who have, who are war veterans. I think it DOES change people. (I'm not trying to say war veterans turn into Bad People after they have killed, I'm saying it has a negative affect on their psyche, and that it's hard for them to deal with, to be absolutely clear. PTSD and all that.)

I have a really short temper and get the urge to beat someone pretty much every day, but I like to think I would never act on it. Yeah, I think there are some people who deserve to be hurt and I think there are some people who deserve to die, but I also don't think anyone should be beat up or killed just because I think they deserve it. I, as only one person, shouldn't have the power of life and death over another human being. I honestly don't support capital punishment, either, because I don't trust our justice system to sort out when it's justified and when it's not. What I'm trying to say is the belief that some crimes are punishable by death in theory is much different from that same belief in practice. There are too many variables to be able to actually implement it.

[lillerina]

According to Eurogamer, the newest Tomb Raider game will involve an attempted rape of Lara Croft as a lazy shorthand for character development. The Executive Producer of the studio which produced this game said that people don't root for Lara Croft the way they do with male characters (implication: male gamers can't empathise with a female main character) and that gamers don't project themselves into the character but rather want to protect her. This sounds suspiciously like sexist bullshit to me. Apparently by beating her up, having her kidnapped and then having her be subject to an attempted rape, they are 'humanizing' Lara Croft. I think we can pretty clearly see "putting her in her place" for that, because of course they're implying that a strong, smart woman capable of looking after herself isn't human. Apparently the only way for a woman to be sexy is to make her vulnerable. Because making Lara Croft sexy and vulnerable is the main aim of the game, not shooting things in the face and doing cool stuff on screen.

Ugh. I used to think that Lara Croft was kinda cool, but this is just sickening. It's the same bullshit as everywhere else in video games. I hate it.

[lykin005]

To RainbowDolphins: I've not personally killed anyone, but I have tried. I've choked people (Including my dad.) and beaten people and thrown people into walls. I've knocked the teeth out of people. I've done this since childhood and I don't feel bad about it really. I mean I understand it was wrong and I haven't done it in a long time cuz I purposefully changed. But I didn't have much of a reaction to it honestly.
I can definetly see the government being untrustworthy. Sadly. But as far as one person deciding someone should die. Someone who yields massive destruction such as serial rape or killing, honestly why is it so hard to understand they need to die? I'm not talking about thieves or speeders or something.

To Lillerina: It is stupid their reasoning behind it all. I was looking forward to it because I thought they were trying to make her a badass role model for people. (OK let's not give them too much credit. For girls.) But instead they are trying to "Break the cutie." Or in other words make you feel empathy for someone by having go through a ton of terrible shit. I was hoping it would be about her surviving against the odds. Which it is kinda but that's not their primary motive. Oh well at least it looks fun to play. And maybe they'll handle it well. And maybe Shenmue 3 will come out soon and mirrors edge 2 will be preorderable soon!

[Butterfly North]

Someone who yields massive destruction such as serial rape or killing, honestly why is it so hard to understand they need to die?

Firstly, I have never heard an argument that convinces me that someone 'needs' to die. Why would they? Revenge? It doesn't help anyone. Prevention? Lock them up.

Secondly, the point is that the law has to state that you or I do not have the power to determine who does and does not warrant killing. If it didn't then this would leave me open to being murdered and then the killer saying that I deserved it for some arbitrary reason, or for some mistake. So they might kill me for looking at them a bit funny and say it was justified. OR they might believe that I am a serial killer erroneously. Even if I supported capital punishment, which I do not, I could not support extending the power to use it to the population at large. Those are different things - so just to be clear, are you advocating capital punishment as enacted only when sanctioned by a jury? Or capital punishment enacted whenever any individual wants to?

[lillerina]

To Lillerina: It is stupid their reasoning behind it all. I was looking forward to it because I thought they were trying to make her a badass role model for people. (OK let's not give them too much credit. For girls.) But instead they are trying to "Break the cutie." Or in other words make you feel empathy for someone by having go through a ton of terrible shit. I was hoping it would be about her surviving against the odds. Which it is kinda but that's not their primary motive. Oh well at least it looks fun to play. And maybe they'll handle it well. And maybe Shenmue 3 will come out soon and mirrors edge 2 will be preorderable soon!

Okay, but she was already a badass and to some extent a role model for people. I don't see why someone would be a role model for girls/women but not boys/men. I don't think that what they're doing is breaking the cutie because I don't think she was ever a cutie to be broken*, I think that they're trying to deny the strength that she's previously had by making her backstory all 'oh well she was broken anyway.' And I can't say "Oh well at least it looks fun to play" because the presence of rape makes it not fun to play automatically for me, and I don't trust them to handle it well because so far they've already handled it horribly.

*Break the cutie specifically describes a scenario where a character is introduced as completely lovable and innocent whereas Lara Croft was a badass smart woman who could handle herself right from the start.

Mod Note: Also this thread is for video game discussion. Discussions of general morality can go elsewhere. Try random weirdos.

[lykin005]

To Butterfly North: Seeing as how this is offtopic I'll only say. No I advocate lethal actions in self defense or defense of others only. I do also believe in capital punishment in cases of repeated rape/murder/molestation/kidnapping etc.

To Lillierina: She could be a role model for people of both genders. But when was the last time you heard a guy unashamedly claim wonderwomen was his role model? I'm saying it's considered by society unhealthy or odd for a man to look up to a woman.
About Tomb Raider. This being the first game in a while and a reboot I consider this character to be different. I think they are trying to make Lara more relateable to more people. They claim that over the course of the game she will become the character we knew before as a badass and an explorer/adventurer. This could be cool if handled well.
As for the prescence of rape. It likely would be hard to play that scene for any rape survivor. Is there any way to avoid it? Will they allow people to skip that scene? They should if you ask me.
Basically if done well they could actually make this interesting and cool. As far as gameplay, I meant gameplay in the strictest sense. The crafting, the RPG element's, the platforming etc.

[lykin005]

Sorry for double posting but I have another comment or two on this topic and I thought it would be worse to make a new one altogether.

Before in this thread we discussed the presence of an attempted sexual assault on Lara in the new Tomb Raider. For the life of me I can't find the site again but I read that the scene with the "sexual assault" has been according to the developers misinterpreted and or exaggerated. Here another article that discusses the trailer or more specifically the media reaction to it. http://ladygeekgirl.wordpress.com/2012/ ... t-problem/

Also are there any games you consider to be feminist or at least feminist friendly? I managed to find a failed attempt to use kickstarter to fund a TTRPG that claimed to be feminist. Also a game that is very similar to postal in which you run around killing guys who are "catcalling" and such. While kinda funny I don't think it's very constructive or good. But still it's noteworthy.

[Ama]

Off the top of my head - Drakan, Spellforce, lemmings, zoombinis, spore, and unreal tournament. I would say these are all examples of feminist-friendly games, but not necessarily feminist games.

[Butterfly North]

The Portal games are at a minimun feminist-friendly, but I have heard them called feminist.

[flashfact]

The Portal games are at a minimun feminist-friendly, but I have heard them called feminist.

Portal is a pretty feminist game when you really think about. There are a bizarre number of symbols that can be interpreted as at least relating to women. Glados, when looking at her shape, looks much like a feminine figure suspended upside down in complete bondage, making her a symbol for the constricted role of women/repressed sexuality (whichever theory is better suited for you). And, as probably pointed out multiple times, your portals do form ovals which could be interpreted as a symbolic representation of female genitalia. Also the turrets, the frequent obstacles in your way, form a phallic shape, possibly symbolizing patriarchy.

You can read many more articles about it by looking up "portal is for lesbians" on google. And of course, I could easily be reading way too much into this, but isn't the symbolism a bit fascinating?

[Ama]

Yeah when you start talking about portals and turrets resembling genitalia, that's rather a stretch. That's a bit like saying that doors and tunnels resemble genitalia, and your progression through the level is the player character's rapist journey to climax, whereupon reaching the end he violently murders GLADOS after violating her. You can say that but it's ridiculous, a map designer can create a door or a hallway without ever comparing it to anyone's genitals.

[Sonic#]

^ The player character in Portal is a woman.

[lykin005]

I had heard about the feminist interpretation of portal before, being a big portal fan myself! But the others are new ones for me. Thanks for the examples! As for my take on portal. I'm very reluctant to give too much credit to most game company's at least in regards to subtle storytelling. That time is long past, though hopefully it will come full circle soon. So I just take portal at face value. It's about a girl who could just as easily be a guy overcoming many obstacles using high tech and her smarts. It's also stated in the comics that she possess nearly superhuman levels of perseverance. One could argue that chell doesn't speak and thus conforms to certain sexist concepts. But given everything else I would say it's more likely that she just prefers actions over words. Although personally I prefer to think she is mute, cuz I know if I was in her shoes I would be cursing up a storm the likes of which have never been heard! Also she is dressed in a realistic fashion, which is always good. So in my opinion portal is at the very least a pretty good example of how to include a female protagonist, and at the most a great example of feminist storytelling. Although I'm not yet convinced that was their intent. Does anyone have any proof the designers intended the feminist angle?

[Ama]

Personally I was for some reason under the impression the character was a robot. I dunno why. The sex of the protagonist doesn't necessarily matter though. I would say that rape is a fairly "masculine" concept, if anything, so it could still work. And obviously females are capable of committing rapes too. My point anyway is that you can interpret every single little thing as having some sort of meaning but that doesn't mean that it's there. A portal is pretty much by definition just a passageway from one place to another, typically oval or circular in shape. There is no specific characteristic that directly correlates to that of female genitalia. So unless someone involved in the project specifically states that it's supposed to have that symbolism, it is very much not an obvious correlation. For one thing the only way you can interact with a portal is by going through it. Clearly if portals were supposed to hint at some relation, they would be a lot more... versatile

[Butterfly North]

^In the second game there is a co-op mode that involves you and a friend both playing robots so maybe you got it from that.

Anyway, so what I meant by my post was that in Portal there are two characters, a goody and a baddy, and they're both female. That in of itself isn't what I call feminist, although I'd challenge you to find any misogyny in there. What could be feminist about it is if the game developers made a conscious choice to make a point about female characters in games. We know next to nothing about the main character because the game is entirely in first person and they never speak but we identify ourselves strongly with them because of that viewpoint. I don't buy that she doesn't speak because she's a woman - Valve also develop the Half Life games, and the protaginist there is male and also mute. They do it for immersive purposes. See also Link from the Legend of Zelda games.

In game if you look at yourself (is it a mirror or through a series of portals? I forget) you will notice that the character is female. The sex of the main character is irrelevant to the enjoyment of the gameplay and the story because being plucky, intelligent and brave are not affected by your sex. It seems likely to me that the developers might have developed the game with a man in mind and then thought 'wait, there's no need to assume that...' but I don't know.

I didn't pick up anything about portals symbolising other stuff.

[octarineoboe]

For one thing the only way you can interact with a portal is by going through it. Clearly if portals were supposed to hint at some relation, they would be a lot more... versatile

Not sure about that; certainly I'd hope that to be true, but think about the emphasis society places on penetrative sex over all other kinds.

That being said, I tend to agree with you that such symbolism isn't actually there.

also, off-topic: I am sooo stuck in my very slow game of Portal right now.