[This week, our partnership with game criticism site Critical Distance brings us picks from Kris Ligman on topics including race representation in RPGs, and boycotting Atlus over its representation of transgender characters.]
Dog days may or may not be over, but the waiting is! It's time for This Week in Video Game Criticism!
"Last week, Raph Koster and Anna Anthropy had a disagreement, which was taken to Twitter, about whether Anthropy's very personal work dys4ia is actually a game. Well, I say it is. dys4ia, as a work, is covered nicely by the broad [Bernard] Suits definition of a game: It is a series of unnecessary obstacles (maneuvering pieces across a screen for example) which I approach totally voluntarily, for the sake of learning about a personal story. It's evident that Koster believes creating a more exclusive definition of what counts as a game is somehow valuable. I disagree, and believe that an inclusive definition is more valuable, and, makes us as designers more open-minded with regard to how we can approach the design of new games."
"You could argue for some games, like Mass Effect, that it's because a setting thing. 'Shepard is a military woman so it doesn't make sense for her to have an afro.' Ashley and numerous other human females can walk around with a full head of hair longer than most other women in the game though and no one bats an eye. The difference is their hair is straight.
The real reason has to do with how natural curly hair is seen as unprofessional, unkempt, dirty, unacceptable, undesirable, etc., etc.. Chris Rock's 'Good Hair' that addresses this in part as do many other works detailing the specifics of hair politics, but the long and short is that the hair of those of afro-descent is very much tied in to feelings and expressions of worth and acceptance, especially in places of business. The history of how hair is treated among those of afro-descent is rooted in assimilating and conforming to a white standard of beauty. Intentional or not, by denying players the option to play characters who don't look like their European counterparts these games are promoting and reinforcing that same assimilation."
Switching gears to narrative genre and the RPG, Nightmare Mode's Bill Coberly has a different bone to pick with Bioware, on the order of fantasy games and why magic is difficult to model:
"Magic, as a narrative device, resists systematization. In most fantasy settings, magic is all about the manipulation of forces beyond human understanding in order to accomplish things you shouldn't be able to do. It's about breaking the rules, and thus doesn't do very well when it's forced to strictly abide by them.
For this reason, magic systems in games have a tendency to become bland and boring, placing all of their hope for luster or wonder in whatever spectacular visual effects accompany them. You do not gain a feeling of wonder or mystery from Elika's ability to rescue the Prince, or from Morrigan flinging fireballs, or even from Yuna's summoning magic. You always know exactly how these things are going to work."
"It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see that, in light of death, association with the human species, and self-identification as but a singular individual therein, is a threat. To feel special, unique (in a significant sense, alone) is a basic human need. We all must strive to become heroes in our cultural environments: our schools, jobs, religious organizations, hobby communities. Not least, we also need this sense of heroism in our imaginative play."
Death, certainly, is on the minds of many game bloggers. It was clearly on the mind of Gus Mastrapa this week at the newly-minted Bit Creature, where he shares with us his DayZ diaries. I just eat DayZ adventures up with a spoon, don't you?
Premise: I just eat DayZ adventures up with a spoon, don't you?
Zooming out to figure in not just gaming but the larger sphere of geekdom, my hat is off to Amanda Marcotte, whose response to Joe Peacock's ill-advised CNN opinion piece deserves to be quoted at some length:
"The fact of the matter is [Ryan Perez] who went on a rampage against Felicia Day is just a sexist who doesn't accept that woman have anything to offer other than their bodies, full stop. No need to make excuses for him. Again, that type exists in all sorts of fandoms, and not just geek ones. [...] I can't tell you how many times I've heard men say that women only listen to music in order to be more appealing to male music fans. I honestly don't know what guys like this think women do with all our spare time that we're not working, fucking someone, or trying to get fucked. As Perez's non-apology showed, dudes who believe this of women are usually impervious to the piles of evidence that exist that show we have internal lives and actual interests outside of being as fuckable as we can be. Gosh, some of us even have interests that our boyfriends don't share, and we pursue them anyway! Mind-boggling, I'm sure.
Peacock puts pretty much all the blame on women for confusing men about who is there because she's paid, who's there because she's a geek, and who's there because she's a conniving bitch who has no interests outside of creating elaborate, time-consuming scenarios where men give her attention and she has a reason to live. (Hint: This last group doesn't exist.) Because of this, the inevitable conclusion you get from reading his piece is that he believes that geek culture is rightfully owned by men, but he thinks he's a big hero because he'll let women in on a case-by-case basis, and only if they prove themselves in ways that men aren't expected to do. Sorry, but cookie not granted. Women want in because they have a right to be there. They don't have to prove themselves to you or anyone."
We run a lot of epic takedowns of other writers' gaffs here on TWIVGB, but Marcotte's definitely sets a new standard. A highly recommended read.
That's it for this week's short-but-sweet round-up! Remember to submit your recommendations to us by email or Twitter, and join us next week for more of the best of what video game blogging has to offer!
On "is it a game": I have read an article about 15 years ago in an academic publication about game theory (mind you, the 'real' game theory - not 'video games') which gave one possible definition on (video) games and gaming:
1. You need a world.
2. You need a set of rules within this world.
3. You need individual entities.
That's it. I love this short definition, leaving out all the details people like to argue about
... which brings me to 'hair' and 'gender politics'. Hilarious. We have come a long way from 8-bit sprites & the need to quickly communicate something visually distinguishable (hence old-school games were not 'racist' in my mind, but necessarily had to try to quickly make sense of the pixels on screen), to this elaborate post-college creative writing academy. At least, that is what I see in these meaningless debates about gender & video games.
When people used to read books and/or play text adventures, they had to use their own imagination. Today, everyone has very specific needs, he/she/it wants to see reflected ... in the work of others. Again - hilarious.
It hacks me right off when people dismiss a criticism of an argument with "you're a white man", it's condescending and insulting. White men are not some homogeneous group. There are cultures that are white who are NOT American or the descendants of colonial European powers that are commonly represented in games. There are plenty of white peoples who are barely represented in games and even more rarely positively represented.
Their needs are not being reflected "in everybodys work" and they have to contend with being marginalised as part of the dominant Anglo American representations in games. It's assimilation pressure from the dominant culture and dismissal of not just their issues but their opinions by those involved in the critical discourse of the medium because of the colour of their skin. Lets face it not only has the entire medium be Americanised but so too has the entire discussion surrounding race, sexuality and representation in the medium.
Regardless, his point is not invalidated by the colour of his skin.
When did it get to the point that art is expected to satisfy and equally reflect every member of society? And why is it you can still violently murder countless people in a video game in cold blood, and not a single argument is raised, yet hair styles and sexuality are angrily debated? It's art - it's not meant to be nor should it be politically correct. I think metrics like rating systems and content descriptions help to keep you informed about what you're getting into before you purchase it, so YOU can make the decision if you want your ideals offended/challenged. Instead, we have people carving out entire careers on complaining that they're shocked that 'Tits and Guns 3' has too many tits and guns.
The problem at this point is that kind of rhetoric has already evolved into it's own meta-game with teams on both sides. Whatever kernels of legit issues there may (or may not) have been at the roots of it are now buried under knee-jerk 'Us Vs. Them' mindsets. Think of the kind of patterns you've seen in the discourse in any inernet flamewar (Casual vs. hardcore, Console Vs. PC, Democrat Vs Republican, etc.) and compare it to those that come up with this topic.
Heck, look at Ligman's boasting RE: "epic takedowns" or Steckly's immediate attack on Covic in the comments. It's not actually about learning anything or reaching any kind of agreement or consensus so much as it is 'hurray for our team; down with your team' (whether or not the intended target is even really ON a team). It's all about their game and as long as they think they have another team to attack, mock, and vilify they will do so regardless of conditions on the ground. And not because they truly think/care they're accomplishing anything but because they ENJOY it.
1. You need a world.
2. You need a set of rules within this world.
3. You need individual entities.
That's it. I love this short definition, leaving out all the details people like to argue about
... which brings me to 'hair' and 'gender politics'. Hilarious. We have come a long way from 8-bit sprites & the need to quickly communicate something visually distinguishable (hence old-school games were not 'racist' in my mind, but necessarily had to try to quickly make sense of the pixels on screen), to this elaborate post-college creative writing academy. At least, that is what I see in these meaningless debates about gender & video games.
When people used to read books and/or play text adventures, they had to use their own imagination. Today, everyone has very specific needs, he/she/it wants to see reflected ... in the work of others. Again - hilarious.
Their needs are not being reflected "in everybodys work" and they have to contend with being marginalised as part of the dominant Anglo American representations in games. It's assimilation pressure from the dominant culture and dismissal of not just their issues but their opinions by those involved in the critical discourse of the medium because of the colour of their skin. Lets face it not only has the entire medium be Americanised but so too has the entire discussion surrounding race, sexuality and representation in the medium.
Regardless, his point is not invalidated by the colour of his skin.
"Um, dude, Bayonetta's not a trannie. She's a chick."
She is?
"Yeah."
Really?
"Yup."
Well, in my imagination she'll always be a pre-op transexual who used to be named Harold.
"Knock yourself out, dude."
Heck, look at Ligman's boasting RE: "epic takedowns" or Steckly's immediate attack on Covic in the comments. It's not actually about learning anything or reaching any kind of agreement or consensus so much as it is 'hurray for our team; down with your team' (whether or not the intended target is even really ON a team). It's all about their game and as long as they think they have another team to attack, mock, and vilify they will do so regardless of conditions on the ground. And not because they truly think/care they're accomplishing anything but because they ENJOY it.