- One of the side quests in Arkham Knight has you trying to save Catwoman from the Riddler, who has strapped an explosive collar to her neck. After completing one of the eight trials Batman and Catwoman are talking. Batman says “You must be honored.” Catwoman replies “At being what? Your motivation?” This exchange reads like a subconscious acknowledgement on the part of Rocksteady at the role of women in Arkham Knight: motivation for the player.
"After that I put the controller down and turned my PS4 off. I didn’t want to play anymore. I couldn’t believe Rocksteady would do such a thing. I still had a hint of doubt that they actually did it. I was so pulled out of the experience that I barely cared about the game anymore, so I went online and saw if Barbara actually was dead or if she came back later on. I found out that that scene was a hallucination caused by the fear toxin used on Batman. However, this is more of a plot convenience and doesn’t change much. For all intents and purposes regarding the player, Barbara was kidnapped and murdered and was “dead” for the majority of the game. Rocksteady wanted to have their misogynist cake and eat it too in the sense that they wanted to kill a female character to motivate the player to want revenge against Scarecrow but they didn’t want Barbara to actually be dead so that the player could feel the empowerment of saving her later on."
Seriously... I don't get articles like this. If you want to write about issues with female representation in video games why not use examples and rhetoric that isn't setting up the video game for failure in any way. First he is upset they kill her off, then he is upset they didn't kill her off. Also, the whole time he is talking about damsels in distress and the issue of a man saving them. You are playing as Batman. Literally the entire city and everyone who isn't the villain (or thugs) you are going after is the damsel in distress in this game. It's like the author of this article and many others I've been seeing are just reaching for anything they can spin into a social issue in gaming. They are out there, you don't need to write sensational stuff to prove it. You can argue that female representation is not adequate in gaming, and I would also. But the way I see it is that representation isn't representative of the consumer demographic (there are more female gamers than games with female leads). However, I would also argue that gaming is a form of art and expression and the game devs are going to use this medium to express themselves, and that becomes an issue of the developer demographic not matching the gamer (the ratio of female gamers to female developers isn't equal). But that is definitely a speculation on my part and I don't know if that is the reality.
I don't think you understood what our complaint with AK actually is (?) When every single female character in your game is portrayed as a Damsel, even ones who've shown great power and capability in all other mediums, you are most definitely perpetuating a very negative trope against women. It's not that Barbra was (or wasn't) killed off, it's that she had no purpose apart from plot device. And not just her, but every other female character. And, yeah, Batman is the hero and savior in the game. But many of the women are heroes too; they're strong, determined, and self-motivating characters who've been disempowered for the purpose of fitting the Damsel trope. I'd also like to address that the sexism in a gaming industry which produces these woman-negative tropes is the same sexism that keeps female game devs on the outskirts.First he is upset they kill her off, then he is upset they didn't kill her off. Also, the whole time he is talking about damsels in distress and the issue of a man saving them. You are playing as Batman.
Could you explain gamergate to me. I've been reading up on GG and anti-GG the past couple weeks and it seems to be an ethics in journalism discussion (or so that is what GG claims). There have been harassers on both sides from what I've gathered but I don't know if it's fair to paint either GG or anti-GG as a harassment group when, from what I gathered, it wasn't organized on either side. That's like saying all Muslims are bad because of the Muslim extremists. I don't really know how any of this stuff happened but it seems to have happened in the past year where I was keeping away from gaming news and such to focus on school. Now that I have some more time to read up on new games I started finding out about this whole mess.
This is going to be long, rambling, and unsourced, so take it with a gain of salt, but here's the gist of it: Zoe Quin is a female indie game maker who focuses on experimental games that explore very non mainstream topics. The game that seemed to thrust her into the spot light is a browser game about depression. It got favourable reviews, which seemed to have seriously annoyed the part of the internet that thinks death threats are a valid way of expressing dissent. Then her ex posted a rambling essay that accused her of having a relationship with one of the game journalists that gave her a good review. This was proven to be false, but gave the trolls that hated her a convenient rallying cry "ethics in game journalism." Others became targets and polarizing figures joined, probably making it worse, unintendedly. It rapidly grew to become extremely misogynistic and escalated to scum from all sides to treat it like a holy war and just generally make a mess of the gaming community. I'm sure there are people in the gamergate side that really thought it was about ethics, but digging deeper it really seems to be misogynistic in nature and an attempt to silence nonstandard games, those that make them, and those that support it.
Thanks for the response. I'm not saying any of what you have said is wrong but my quick searches revealed stuff that painted gamergate in a better light than what you have and you didn't mention any harassing from the anti-gg side which seemed to be present also. HOWEVER, I haven't done any actual digging into it. Just scratching the surface. I definitely did see stuff about Zoe Quinn being harassed and something about disclosure. I'll start looking more into it and educating myself on both sides of the story. Seems like you know about certain figures involved. I hope this isn't too much to ask but I was wondering if you could you tell me about who Randi Harper, Jack Thompson, Arthur Chu, Brainna Wu and TotalBiscuit are? I don't know what is a legit and unbaised source for this information. Everything I've been finding on my own is clearly on one side or the other and they all have a different version of the story but those seem to be people I should be starting with (along with Zoe Quinn). I would start with Anita Sarkeesian but from what I've seen as far as her track record goes, seems like she was doing really well in the beginning supporting feminism in gaming and shedding light on issues, then asked for money to do FeministFrequency and never really delivered with the promises she collected money for. Now, to me at least, it seems like she has been using feminism and this whole ordeal for personal gains. Also, after watching some of her videos and comments I was kind of turned off to her rhetoric. Probably cause she so strongly anti-violence in video games. I grew up playing violent video games with my cousins and friends (I definitely had a very broad videogame library and that wasn't all I played but I played a lot of it) and none of us are the violent and vile people she portrays and argues enjoy those games. Again, that's definitely a lot to ask but if you are bored and want to give me a quick break down I'd appreciate it. I'll definitely still do my own research.
Oh, and who is milo yiannopoulos. Again, if you have the time and energy to explain this all to me lol
I mostly glossed over the later part, where both sides were harassing, only dedicating one line to it. I know that the rad SJW side of the internet is very experienced with doxxing and definitely did it through out gamergate, but I wanted to make it clear that it was in retaliation and that neither side was innocent once it started to blow up. Unfortunately I'm not super familiar with most of the figures that took part, but I'm pretty sure that Brianna Wu is another indie game developer who came out in support of Quin, saying that she had also been othered by the gaming community, which lead to death threats and her being almost as much of a focus as Quin. As far as Anita Sarkeesian goes, as much as I dislike her as a critic and a person, she actually did deliver on those review videos, it just took her a year longer than she said it would, and was silent to the criticism that she took the money and ran. They're up on her YouTube channel if you're interested in seeing what she has to say.
I don't know if you still want to discuss this any further or enlighten me. But honestly, the more I'm looking into this the more I am siding with gamergate. The anti-GG side, or at least whoever has been vocal on it and the journalists writing for that side, has been using more online attacks and ad-hominem instead of facts and examples to get their points across. And it seems like they attack anything and everything in gaming that wasn't produced by a certain type of developer and don't care for gaming for the playability of the games and the entertainment/hobby value, only if it is sending a message they agreee with. On the other hand, I do feel that the GG side is not letting some of the issues in gaming be highlighted and has been very defensive in protecting their hobby and what they believe gaming is. But, for them, I will at least say that they are consistent with exposing unethical journalism in gaming. I don't know who struck first, I haven't gone that far back yet (I'm looking mostly at recent articles and summaries/breakdowns from both sides), if the harassing was greater on the GG side in the beginning, which knowing what the video game culture was like and how it hates large scale change, I can believe it. But, I feel like, at least from what I've read, that the anti-GG side is now doing more of the harassing and automatically dismissing any opinions/writers that align themselves with GG regardless of what they have to say. Whoever decided that GG was the bad guys has been very efficient in spreading that message and making sure people are extremely hesitant to really look into them and give them a chance to explain their side. Lat note, and this is just a personal viewpoint. Anytime the media is quick to jump the gun on stories and 'news' in favor of one side of an argument, without fact checking or waiting for the situation to fully present itself, I become skeptical of the side they support, and the media is very very anti-GG and gamers at it has always been. This ties in to the media claiming gaming causes violence even when studies have shown that to not be true and continue to do so over the years. I feel as though the media tries its best to damage gaming and discourage it as a hobby and if they are supporting the anti-GG side in this argument that makes me skeptical of the arguments the anti-GG has, that's just a personal thing though. In the end, I'm not aligning myself with either, I'm going to play the games I like to play. Pushing for a better gaming environment for women and decreasing the sexualization of women is a positive thing in my eyes. If that's all that anti-GG was doing and all that GG was fighting against I would definitely be on the anti-GG side.
Certainly, though at this point you're probably better informed on it that I am, as I thought the dust had pretty much settled, and like most internet scandals nothing really happened. And honestly, the fact that I'm coming down on the anti-GG side is surprising, as I don't like the vast majority of their large figureheads. I don't doubt that both sides are doing unethical things and that GG thinks they're protecting gaming, but in the end they're being misogynistic and doing everything right to make sure that gaming stays a small, socially unacceptable niche interest. As far as misbehaving gos on the anti-GG side of things, the fact that doxxing is common as is poorly thought out arguments shouldn't really be a surprise, given the following that Sarkeesian and others draw, aka the Tumblr feminists. These are the people that make SJW a slur and just generally make an ass out of themselves and any movement they think they're trying to help. So I guess why I'm more pro anti-GG instead of sticking to the GG gamer side is as follows: A) Their stated cause is BS. There isn't really this vast conspiracy of buying off video game journalists and the fact that they still claim it's an ethics fight just shows that it's an excuse at this point.
So both sides are filled with horrible people that I don't like, but one is effectively a fight for greater egalitarianism in games, while the other is a fight for the status quo. B) While I think a lot of the complaints about sexism in video games is fairly shallow and especially in Sarkeesian's case is finding evidence to fit a hypothesis there is rampant misogyny in and around video games. Things have definitely come a long way, but there is still a massive amount of work that needs to be done. This goes double for the communities. It's an unfortunate fact that the female portion of gamers is a much smaller percentage of total gamers, but they're very often the most likely to receive both "negative" harassment (what you normally think of) and "positive" harassment ("ZOMG you're a girl?! Wanna go out?! I didn't think girls exist on the internet!" and that sort of thing).
I absolutely don't know enough about point A to argue it but if I were to venture a guess I'd say you are correct as far as people not buying reviews. Maybe reviewers are helping out friends or certain games with positive reviews for whatever reason/agenda (which seems to be a complaint) and I can understand the complaints and GG if there truly is such lack of ethics in journalism. I personally (and the group of friends I have that game) all look to trailers, gameplay videos and twitch to figure out whether we are interest in a game or not. I read reviews and articles on games when those other sources don't do enough. So that anger I can't really relate to much but I can understand. If the issues is how the journalists and media is painting the culture in a 'more' negative light than the reality (not to say it's some utopia were everyone is welcome and will have a great time, or anything close to equal enjoyment for all participants; male vs female specifically) and they are upset about being represented as what they truly feel they aren't, I can definitely empathize with that more. As far as point B. I absolutely agree with everything you said. Gamers definitely need to do some more introspection on the culture. It is better, but it still has a lot of room for improvement. I think you make a great point with this though "but in the end they're being misogynistic and doing everything right to make sure that gaming stays a small, socially unacceptable niche interest." I don't know if I'd say misogyny is the root cause, more of an unfortunate means to keep gaming the special unique hobby of a few people and a place they probably feel they can escape too and feel 'safe' (clearly at the expense of others feeling that way at times). Lol reading into this stuff is exhausting and also upsetting how some hobby I have equated to just being an escape and a different way to experience and immerse myself in stories and arts is being turned into another political or social battle. So I guess I don't really like either side, but if I had to I'd support whoever is most honest to the art form and allows for the creation of both better games and a better community.
Thanks for the info! will look into it and check out Anita's other videos out of curiosity.
I don't know either really. "Ethics in games journalism" gets thrown around a lot but I haven't bothered to find out more about it. The major effect is that game publishers that do sexist shit come under fire more. Now every game company has to fix their image and therefore their content.
I can understand your issue with damsels in distress in gaming and I agree that it is too common of a theme. But I also think that since the start of gaming, as the gaming demographic changed, views of gamers changed and just people getting tired of the same old story, that portrayal has decreasing and strong female characters are being portrayed more (that's not to take away from female leads from the earlier days like Samus and Lara Croft and it's also not to say that there is still a ways to go to make in further improvements). I just think if that is really your argument, which is one I can agree with in a broad sense, then this was a bad choice of game. In the world of Batman, he does the saving. Seldom is he ever saved. Male or female, in this universe if you are in trouble you are the 'damsel' in distress that batman is going to save. In all video games of this type, you are playing the hero who is out to save innocents and other heroes who are in trouble and being threatened by the villains (who are mostly male but that doesn't seem to be a problem for the author). It wouldn't make much sense if the other characters in a game such as this are self-sufficient and don't need your saving when they get in trouble, IMO. This is regardless of whether the person you are saving is male or female and regardless of if you are playing a character that is male or female. You are playing someone who is the savior of the city. You are supposed to be saving anyone in trouble. However, this is my perspective. I clearly don't deal with the same frustrations you do but I try my best to see the issues and be open minded about the faults of my perspective. So please clarify further if my criticism as far as this specific article/example is misplaced. Also, I was wondering if you had any evidence of your last claim. I do believe that sexism in the gaming industry (which I do still feel is there but exaggerated by the media and gaming journalists) and the boys club image of gaming is an issue for inspiring women to become game devs (the same as pushing women away from STEM fields). I just figured that what you said would motivate women to become gave devs instead of push them away. The woman-negative tropes as something they want to fight against so develop games that don't show that instead of seeing this misrepresentation and allowing it to continue or grow by stepping out of the industry. Once again, this is just my perspective and I would like to understand the frustrations of female gamers and developers better.