New Lara, New Issues

This morning the Internet made me angry.

I checked my Twitter feed to discover that quite a ruckus was being made over the new Tomb Raider reboot. Since I am looking forward to the game I took notice and then saw that the controversy was over a supposed attempted rape scene.

What now?

Yup, apparently Lara Croft is kidnapped by men on the island she crash lands on and is forced to fight them off under threat of rape.

I’m sure I don’t need to explain why this upsets me but I will anyway.

Here we have this new vision for Tomb Raider, a series that infamously stars a ridiculous caricature of a woman who pretends to be rough and tough all the while wearing next to nothing – sometimes even high heels. Yet, in all those games Lara is allowed to be as she is; we know she’s there as a sexual object.

In the new game we get a new Lara – a strong, more realistic Lara. She gets her ass kicked by Mother Nature and suffers for it. She is covered in blood and dirt and cries out in pain. She wears pants and a tank top. Although her appearance is definitely still an ideal, she seems like the type of person you could possibly, maybe run into.

So now this new Lara is confronted with rape, a very real, serous issue. Almost as a reminder that she is still a sexual object. Lest we forget.

But I did just say that this is a more realistic Lara, in a more realistic environment and rape is a reality. The creators of the game mean for Tomb Raider to be taken seriously and in this new world, potential sexual assault fits in. What's more is that there is certainly no hint of the rape myth; Lara does not get persuaded. She fights the man off and eventually puts a bullet in his face.

That all being said, I am still bothered by it though admittedly not nearly as upset as when I first heard about it. In a response to the controversy Darrell Gallagher, of Crystal Dynamics, said that there is a threatening undertone to the scene but it goes no further than what is shown in the new trailer and that, friends, you can see here:

He goes on to say that he finds that players often do not see themselves as Lara herself but rather as her protector : "[the player is] more like 'I want to protect [Lara].' There's this sort of dynamic of 'I'm going to this adventure with her and [try] to protect her. She's definitely the hero but you're kind of like her helper. When you see her have to face these challenges, you start to root for her in a way that you might not root for a male character."

Quite honestly . . . I think his response bothers me more than the actual scene. Like I said before, sadly, a sequence like the one above fits within the world of the game. It’s tragically realistic. However, the idea that it would help endear players to Lara . . . what? Because she fights off a rapist male players will be more moved to help her? What about the women who play Tomb Raider games? As a girl I sought them out just so I could play as a woman and accordingly pretend I was Lara. Now in addition to looking over my shoulder when I walk home alone at night I have to confront those same fears with the only female video game character I remember from childhood.

Basically, I’m upset that Lara has to deal with what millions of women deal with every day, but it is a reality. I can’t argue with reality and because of that I can’t really fault the developers for including this scene but I still really just don't see the necessity. Why not just beat the hell out of her like you would a man? Why must we be reminded that for women to be tormented they must be sexually assaulted? 

So I guess I get it but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.  

Boys and Girls

Well, Friends, the time has come again: PAX East is upon us.

I tore myself away from the disappointment that was Silent Hill: Downpour (I know, I know) and headed out to the Boston Convention Center Friday to surround myself with likeminded enthusiasts and to get a glimpse of some upcoming titles.

That’s all well and good but it’s really not what I’m going to talk about here. Instead, I’d rather focus on an issue that’s been floating around in my mind for a while now and that was exacerbated by the panel I attended that first day called, “Press X Y: Transgender Issues in Gaming”. While on the whole I found the panel to be very interesting what really stuck me was the conversation on games wherein the player is given the choice to play as a male or female character.

More specifically, it made me think of the people who play female characters when given the choice and why. Personally, I will always choose to play a female in a game if the playing field (see what I did there?) remains constant and equal with the male choice. To elaborate, if I play a woman I expect her stats to be equal to that of a man and I also expect the world around her to react the same as it would around him.

Given that the above it true, I play a female character whenever I can because it’s not an opportunity I’m often afforded. It made me think of when I was in high school and my mother walked by me playing Silent Hill 2 and she glanced at the TV, stopped walking, and asked, “why are you a man?”. Knowing nothing of video games, my mother found it strange that I was manipulating a male avatar. She naturally assumed that her daughter would play a digital version of herself.

What’s even more interesting to me though are the number of men I’ve met who say they also play female characters when given the chance. When I ask them why though, I almost always get the same response: “if I’m gonna spend 40-something hours playing a game, I wanna stare at a nice ass.”

Really, guys?

Really?

I’m not a man and I don’t know what it’s like to be a man but I’m calling bullshit on that.

I’ve played hundreds of games with male avatars and cannot remember ever thinking, “thank God this dude has a nice ass or this game would be a total bore”. Well, except for when Cole got his “hawkshaw” vest and holster in LA Noire. That was pretty nice to look at from behind but you get my point, right?

The jaded sociologist in me thinks that men who say that do so as a sort of socially trained response, as if playing a female character for anything other than sexual enticement makes them less of a man. Going further, it could even been suggested that if given the chance to stare at a man or woman the seasoned male gamer would select a woman out of a need to objectify her in order to refute the possibility of homosexuality.

A stretch? Meh, probably.

Hopefully.

And so, dear gentlemen who have found their way here, I ask you to please think on this and tell me: do you play female characters when given the opportunity to choose? Why? Really . . . why? Think about it.

UPDATE: Not 10 minutes after posting this on Facebook, a male friend of mine (who hadn't actually read the post yet) responded with: "Female. If I'm going to be staring at the backside of a character for hours, I better make the most of it."

I do get this stuff from somewhere, folks.

Once Upon a Time

I know you’ve probably heard by now.

Honestly, I’m surprised that it took my roommate telling me for me to find out: a writer from Gizmodo went on a blind date with someone she met on OkCupid who turned out to be Jon Finkel, current world champion of Magic: The Gathering. As it happens, Ms Gizmodo wasn’t too impressed by that. In fact, it was quite the opposite.

She’s rather annoyed. Seems “just like you’re obligated to mention you’re divorced or have a kid in your online profile” (are you?) someone should also be required to disclose any geeky world championship titles. Just like that, Jon had gone from being a charming, handsome professional to a geek. Just a geek. And that’s a bad thing, you know.

She then advises people to Google the hell out of their next on-line date.

Who would have thought that such a thing, posted on a technology blog, wouldn’t have gone over well.

We’ll ignore the was-it-right-for-her-to-call-him-out-by-name question and jump right to the next: should one disclose their geeky interests outright? Is it something to be ashamed of? Are you your hobby?

Here’s a confession: I’m single and I’m a geek. Furthermore, I’ve used on-line dating sites and on those sites I've made it pretty damn clear what my idea of a fun Friday night in entails. To me, since gaming is a big part of my life I feel that it is indeed fair to put that out in the open but this article got me thinking - if I were a man, would I be so transparent? Because women are still considered a minority within the gaming community I have found that letting my geek flag fly hasn’t really been a hindrance. At least, not when you consider the type of men I'm attracted to.

Men, on the other hand, still live with the stigma of “gamer”. It’s that image of the pale, overweight man sitting alone in his parents' basement playing World of Warcraft or the table full of nerds playing Magic drinking Mountain Dew and eating Cheetos. That’s an image that male gamers have been fighting for ages and it seems to be the one stereotype that has worked in favor of female gamers.

That certainly doesn’t make this any less of a shitty situation for Mr. Finkel and other gamers who find their dates running to the door when they find out they’d rather spend the evening at home with a game than at a bar.

That being said, should you read this Jon, I think you’re pretty badass.

Too Busy Gaming To Game?

It’s been quiet around here lately.

I’m not really sure what’s been going on, whether it’s starting a new job and attempting to have more of a social life or a lack of games that have really been compelling me to dedicate more than a few hours to them, I just haven’t really been in the mood to play lately.

Which is why this article on why most players don’t finish games is rather perfectly timed.

Turns out, I’m not the only gamer who feels this way. In fact, it would appear that upwards of 90% of players who start a game never see the end of it. Considering how long some games are I suppose that’s not really a surprise but what I did find a little shocking is that it’s not always the quality of the title that stops people from playing. For example, “Red Dead Redemption” which was named “Game of the Year” by dozens of reviewers (including myself) only had about 10% of the people who started it complete the final mission.

The article goes on to list three main as to why gamers are having a tough time getting the digital credits to roll: other electronic distractions, a plethora of games to choose from, and a desire for more multiplayer.

The first two really stood out to me. For example, I remember playing Fallout: New Vegas and while the game would be loading I would be on my phone checking Facebook or Twitter; it was like I couldn’t not be actively doing something. Hell, as I type this I’ve got the Netflix streaming in the background. It’s as if we’ve gotten so accustomed to multitasking that we don’t know how to just focus on one thing anymore.

The second point I also found to be true (which is somewhat ironic considering I haven’t played a console game in a while) but it reminded me of how “Red Dead Redemption” and “Alan Wake” were released on the same day and how in the next few months Dead Island, Skyrim, and Arkham City are all coming out. Not to mention Tomb Raider, Silent Hill: Downpour, and Bioshock: Infinite will follow next year. With so many games to choose from, how can we possibly find time (not to mention money) for all of them?

Finally, there’s the issue of multiplayer and while at first I disregarded it since I’m generally a single-player gal I soon remembered that the last time I played a game it was a round of Left 4 Dead 2 with a friend and before that it was a replay of Resident Evil 5, again with a friend.

So what do you all think? Do you have a hard time finishing games? If so, why? Did this article ring true or are they missing the mark?

This Dead Horse is Starting to Smell

Since Duke Nukem Forever was released I’ve found myself doing a bit of thinking on it. I downloaded the demo, played it through, read some on-line reviews to get snippets of what I was missing by forgoing playing the entire game and at the end of it all I came to a conclusion that somewhat surprised me.

I don’t think the game is offensive. At least, not in the way you’d probably expect.

In the sense that it looks terrible, controls poorly and seems shockingly unpolished for a title that’s been in development for 12 years then hell yeah, Duke Nukem Forever is an offensive game. But in terms of its flat-out portrayal of women, I remain unconvinced. At least, in the more traditional sense.

Hear me out.

Duke Nukem Forever seems just as distasteful in its treatment of men as it does for women. In the moments I spent with Duke in the demo I watched him kick a field goal with an alien’s eyeball, piss in a urinal while making references to his penis size, and sat back while two women performed fellatio on him.

Sports. Penis. Sex.

Kinda sounds like a typical “all American” male prototype doesn’t it?

Just as the women in this game are reduced to their most stereotypical elements, Duke himself is nothing more than walking, talking testosterone. But I’ve discussed this here before. The question remains then, what’s the problem? If both genders are equally lampooned, why all the fuss?

Because the male typecast revolves around power, strength, and dominance while the female stereotype equates femininity with helplessness, weakness, and submission we aren’t as rattled when we come across a character like Duke. After all, ridiculous though he is, at the end of the day he’s still a red-blooded American man. Duke isn’t punished for his masculinity; where he gets to save the day, the women in the game are terrorized. This is why it's different.

Probably the most infamous are the alien rape scenes. Women in the game are abducted, forcibility impregnated, and then die “giving birth” (all the while moaning in pain) should Duke choose not to execute them himself.

But doesn’t that sound an awful lot like the Alien franchise? And I would dare anyone to call that series sexist.

And so, my friends, I think I’ve pinpointed exactly what it is about Duke Nukem Forever that’s pissing so many people off, myself included: it’s not funny.

Yeah, it’s not funny.

This game is obviously meant as a satire but in the hands of poor writing it comes off as heartless and cold.

Remember that scene from Seinfeld when Jerry’s dentist converts to Judaism so he can make Jewish jokes? Jerry, upset, goes to a Catholic confessional to vent. The priest concludes that Jerry is offended as a Jewish man but he responds that no, he’s offended as a comedian.

When jokes fail it’s never good but when we attempt to make light of serious issues and fail, it’s ten times worse. Duke Nukem Forever attempts to make fun of issues like rape and fails miserably.

Then again, I’ve never heard a joke about rape that’s made me laugh.

Long story short, this game is offensive for a plethora of reasons. It's immature, badly designed, and humorless. It's a bad game, folks. Does it piss me off? Yeah. Should it? Probably. But it's not like it's being hailed as game of the year:

And She'll Scream, and She'll Shout, and She'll Pray

Video games, like other forms of media, often comment on the nature of society. In fact one could argue that that is the very nature of media: to comment on society, the good, the bad, the ugly, the confusing and the complicated.

Kotaku recently published an article concerning the nature of the relationship between Elizabeth, a woman from the highly anticipated (read OMFG IS IT HERE YET?!) Bioshock: Infinite and Songbird, her mechanical captor. When she first appeared in the teaser trailer Elizabeth was shown as nothing more than a beautiful face, trapped high in a tower, being held against her will by something lurking and monstrous. She seemed to be a very real princess trapped in a very real tower waiting on a man to come to her rescue.

Needless to say, I wasn’t terribly impressed with her.

Then the 10-minute demo footage was released. Here, I saw this woman in the midst of the fight, more than holding her own. She didn’t seem to need any help or protection which in addition to giving her more of a unique personality put my fears of escort missions aside.

What also caught my attention was the fact that Elizabeth spent a fair amount of time in the demo struggling to breathe as she raced through the chaotic streets of Columbia in a corset. I know it may seem strange that such a thing really stuck with me but I think it speaks volumes in the developer’s quest to make her a real person. Society demands that she forcefully constrict her body to accentuate her hips and bust while making her waist seem impossibly small all in the name of what’s considered beautiful and appealing – never mind that it also compresses her lungs, ribs, and organs. Elizabeth is a woman restricted by her environment and is now being revealed as a woman fleeing an abusive relationship.

In the article, Kevin Levine describes how Elizabeth pleads to the protagonist – you – not to let Songbird take her back, implying she’d rather die than fall back into his mechanical hands. Yet, when the synthetic beast catches up with her she tearfully apologizes for running away and asks it to take her back home.

She is strong and clearly capable but still frightened, made weak by her fear and inability to keep the hopelessness of her situation out of her mind. She resigns herself back into captivity to save your life, as abused women often do for the sake of their children.

I find it brave of Irrational Games to explore this type of relationship. I truly do.

Elizabeth seems damaged, trapped, strong, intelligent, and real.

I can’t wait to get to know her better and find out how her story ends.

Break Out Your Tiny Violin

It’s certainly a regular thing for upset fanboys and girls to go on forums of their supposed favorite games and bitch and moan about certain aspects of the experience that they didn’t like. It seems that no matter how good a game is or how much someone claims to love it something always has to rub them so hard the wrong way that they feel the need to express their disapproval on the game’s official forums.

99% of the time I totally and completely ignore it. Haters gonna hate.

Truth be told, I would never have even known about forum poster Bastal’s complaint about the Dragon Age 2 romance options had lead writer David Gaider not taken the time to personally respond.

So what was so horrible about Dragon Age 2 that Mr. Bastal felt he needed to vent? In his own words, “Bioware neglected their main demographic: the straight male gamer”. He feels that because the majority of RPG gamers are straight and male and that the small amount of women who game stick to casual titles like The Sims the development team should have been much more concerned with making the straight men who play Dragon Age 2 happy. And how does one do this, you ask? Put in more hot, white, blonde, buxom chicks that want to rip your armor off it seems.

He feels that because Fenris and Anders can be romanced by both male and female Hawke that they were created specifically for female players and “the gays” which he estimates make up a staggering 5% of Bioware’s total fanbase. In addition, the two female romance options (which can also be pursued by both male and female Hawke) are “too exotic” and therefore were not created with the desires of the “straight, male gamer” in mind. I continue to be confused as to what he exactly meant by this. I guess Merrill’s tattoos and Isabela’s . . . erm, tan skin are intimidating? Honestly though, how anyone could think that Isabela wasn’t created purely to satisfy drooling adolescent boys is beyond me:

Whatever. I’m not going to say much in response to what is obviously a homophobic male teenager’s refusal (or lack of desire) to acknowledge the world around him. I did want to point out a few erroneous assumptions and hypocrisies in his argument however:

1.) His statistics. Yeah, it’s an easy one to go after but it’s just so damned irritating. The fact that this guy thinks the estimations he admittedly pulled out of his head are fact is just hilarious.

2.) He claims that the vast majority of women who game spend their time with pick up and go games like The Sims and yet he believes that Aveline was specifically created for women “given the lack of strong female characters in games”. If you think women don’t game, why would you possibly think this about Aveline? Also, why not mention Hawke as a strong woman that female players can identify with?

3.) He argues that there should be a “no homosexuality” option to prevent Anders and Fenris from making passes at male Hawke as that’s awkward. Somehow I have a feeling however that if he played as female Hawke and Isabela or Merrill hit on him he would not only not find it awkward but would probably peruse the relationship. After all, we as a society generally don’t have a problem with the idea of lesbianism so long as the chicks are hot and we can watch; it’s just the idea of dude’s kissing that’s offensive, right? Being a straight woman, I was not interested in pursuing a relationship with Isabela so guess what I did when she hit on me? I told her no thank you and we moved on. Shocking.

Urgh. Sorry. I know I just said I wasn’t going to spend too much time on a response to this doofus but my fingers got away from me. The level of entitlement and ignorance in this post infuriated me, especially the admission of being uncomfortable with a male character hitting on him while claiming he’s not homophobic. This was a recurring theme in the comments as well. Lots of players claiming, “I’m no homophobe but” and then proceeding to say something along the lines of it breaks Hawke’s badass persona to have him jumping into bed with Anders and/or Fenris. Gentlemen, once again, just like you would do in real life if a woman you weren’t interested in hit on you, just walk away. Don’t get all pissy that gay people can exist in your fantasy game and pretend it’s not your homophobia breaking your immersion.

Breaking your immersion. Oh yeah, this entire post is about a game. A GAME. A fantasy, role-playing game which is meant to allow people to explore and do things they never would in real life. Guys, it doesn’t make you any less butch to love on these fine assortments of pixels:

They’re not going to come out of the TV and change your orientation and as soon as you're done with Dragon Age 2 you can go back to ogling women in order to re-affirm your masculinity.

Okay, okay. I’m done now.

The entire reason I started this post was to share Mr. Gaider’s response to this guy. It’s a rather lengthy post so allow me to paraphrase here while pointing out my favorite points in bold:

"The romances in the game are not for 'the straight male gamer'. They're for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don't need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant... and that's ignoring the idea that they don't have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The 'rights' of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent 'right' to get more options than anyone else.

"More than that, I would question anyone deciding they speak for 'the straight male gamer' just as much as someone claiming they speak for 'all RPG fans', 'all female fans' or even 'all gay fans'. You don't. If you wish to express your personal desires, then do so. I have no doubt that any opinion expressed on these forums is shared by many others, but since none of them have elected a spokesperson you're better off not trying to be one. If your attempt is to convince BioWare developers, I can tell you that you do in fact make your opinion less convincing by doing so.



"And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as 'political correctness' if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want”

Thank you, David Gaider.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this absurdity while simultaneously renewing my faith in the gaming industry as an entertainment outlet that deserves to be taken seriously.

To Chew Gum and Slap Asses

An interesting bit of news came out today regarding a previously unannounced multi-player mode for the upcoming (and long awaited) Duke Nukem Forever. It would appear that the developers have taken a new spin on the classic "capture the flag" and replaced it with "capture the babe".

Players will run around and attempt to capture a woman who "will sometimes freak out while you’re carrying her (somewhat understandable we’d say) at which point you have to hit a button to gently give her a reassuring slap.”

That didn't go over too well.

So the game's PR reps clarified toady that Duke wouldn't be slapping the women in the face. Oh, good. Rather, he'd be hitting them in the ass to get them to calm down, presumably as they're being carried over his shoulder. Now, when I first read this I literally rolled my eyes and said a few choice words outloud. Then I remembered what game I was reading about:

If any game on the face of this earth could get away with something like this, it's Duke Nukem. I've never played any of the games in the series but I know enough about the franchise to understand it was originally created as a satire to the action movie heros of the late 80s and early 90s. I also think it's incredibly obvious that it remains a gargantuan parody of hyper masculinity and machoism. Whether it's effective or not (read stupid) is a matter of personal opinion.

Does that make this any less in poor taste? No, not really.

To be honest, I'm really not sure how I feel about this. It reminded me of the Bioshock 2 multi-player "capture the sister" mode where you ran around trying to grab screaming little girls. More specifically, I remember thinking that it was funny but that an outsider would probably think I was playing a seriously sick and demented game.

Is that applicable with our buddy, Duke? Did the developers cross a line or is it all the name of parody? Just because a game like this can get away with it, should it?

PAX East, Day 2

So day two at PAX east ended up going a little differently than we intended.

We arrived back at the convention center a little before noon and after finding out that the wait time for L.A. Noire was about an hour and a half with the demonstration itself being 30 minutes we decided to kill some time in the freeplay areas since the “Females on Female Characters” panel was at 3. After an always-pleasing game of Left 4 Dead 2 we headed over to the theater only to find an enormous line waiting to get it.

I’m talking, HUGE.

While we were pretty bummed that we couldn’t get into the theater we were also pretty excited that such a topic would elicit the response it did. I’m curious to see if similar amounts of people show up for the “One of Us” panel tomorrow, which has a similar theme – gamers who break the gamer stereotype. Regardless, perhaps we’ll be treated to more “minority” panels at future conventions considering how well the one today did.

Slightly downtrodden, we headed back to Rockstar’s booth and got in line for the L.A. Noire demonstration. After waiting for 90 minutes we walked into their closed off booth and were treated to a fantastic preview of the game’s mechanics, plot devices, graphics and overall theme.

The level of detail in this game looks incredible. We watched the protagonist kneel over a dead body and meticulously examine it – from a head wound to broken fingernails to a cut on the arm – and the surrounding crime scene. A flick of the analog stick would cause you to turn the victim’s head to the side or even gently move a bloodied wrist. Every little action is put in control of the player.

We saw the main character interrogate suspects: asking them questions and judging the truth behind the answers from the way the character acted and spoke. I really enjoyed that in order to successfully accuse someone of something malicious you had to have hard evidence - not just a hunch - or things could go quite bad for your character.

Overall, the demo left the kind of impression that we’ve all come to expect from Rockstar: I went in knowing little about L.A. Noire and left thinking that I’m probably now going to pick it up day one.

Shortly after we left Rockstar’s booth (with two free posters and two t-shirts) we decided to head out to appease our growling stomachs but not before we caught a good long look at the Duke Nukem Forever booth and its rather interesting promotional tools:

Enter the booth babes.

What I find the most curious about this is that following PAX East last year the guys from Penny Arcade decided to enact a ban on scantily clad models at their conventions and that this ban was met with overwhelming support from the 6,313 attendees surveyed. It would appear as though a large amount of men as well as women didn’t really care for watching half-naked women who know nothing about the product their bodies are advertising prance around. However, it would also appear that despite the ban on these types of models being used to promote games, Gearbox got under the wire.

Which, yeah, on one hand it’s obnoxious and sexist. I mean, why not have a shirtless butch dude who resembles Duke standing there to take pictures with people?

But on the other hand, I saw plenty of female attendees cosplaying in less than what these women were wearing and those women were dressed the way they were because they were pulling from the female characters currently appearing in video games. Hell, I’ve put in about 10 hours so far with a Dragon Age 2 with a main character looks like this:

So while at first I was pretty annoyed with the Duke Nukem booth, I have to say that on reflection I find that the majority of my irritation stems from what has always bothered me about video games and that’s that female characters generally aren’t taken seriously and are hardly ever presented as a character first and an attractive, sexual woman second.

Man . . . I really wish I had been able to attend that panel.

What If Ellen Ripley Was My Mom?

I love advertising.

No really, I love advertising.

In my time spent studying sociology in school I quickly learned just how fascinating advertisements could be. Beyond the obvious “what are they selling?” question there are multiple other factors to consider such as, “who are they trying to sell this to” and “what type of lifestyles and values are they promoting?”. All good advertising takes this into consideration when they try to sell a product and if you sit and both really listen to and watch the 30-second shtick flashing on your screen you’ll be surprised at what you find.

If you’ve ever studied film then you know exactly what I’m talking about.

Now, I’ve brought up video game advertisements on this blog before but until now they’ve always been focused on Sony. I’m happy to say that as of today I’m shifting my critical eye to EA.

This ad for “Dead Space 2” was just released:

So, what exactly is this commercial suggesting?

One, moms hate violence. Moms especially hate violent video games. And two, children and adolescents are the primary consumers of video games.

No Now, while I do think the bulk of this commercial is playing into humanity’s desire for what is deemed verboten, there is a lot more to think about here in terms of how gamers and non-gamers are being represented.

First, there is the obvious: mothers – women – are repulsed by violence and are appalled that anyone would feel the urge to play such a violent game. Think that’s a stretch? Imagine that same commercial with a group of fathers reacting. It’s difficult to picture isn’t it? It’s not easy to imagine because a man who would disapprove of violence would then be failing to properly perform his gender. Think about the expression “be a man” and “man up” for a moment. You probably wouldn’t associate that with, “be a man and stop playing Dead Space 2!”.

Then, there is the idea that gamers are young people who are generally more apprehensive of their mother’s opinions. I love my mother but as a 25-year-old I’m really not terribly concerned if she knows I love Dead Space or Grand Theft Auto and my mother, likewise, knows I’m an adult woman. However, by saying “it’s violent, it’s repulsive, your mom’s gonna hate it” the advertisers are implying that there is no way your old, conservative mother would approve of this game but you, hip young fellow, are gonna love slicing off necromorpth limbs. You kids like violence right?”

Ironic considering this is an “M” rated game, huh?

All of this is despite the fact that as of 2008 60% of gamers were male and 40% were female with 72% percent of gamers ranging in age from 10 to 44 with the average player being in their mid 20s.

As for the violence of the game being a selling point well, yeah, we do love violence. But understand that when I say “we” I mean people, not gamers. Violent music, violent film and violent video games have always sold well and made their producers lots of money. Our love of violence is why we’ve had a new Saw movie out every year for the last 700 years (that seems around right). As such, it’s not really fair for me to critique this commercial for its enticing use of violence but I will anyway because, damn it, it’s cheap.

Come on, EA! Dead Space was a gem in the survival horror genre. It was horrifying and effective both in its clever use of sound and shadow and its systematic use of hostility. It got your spine tingling with its creepy use of lullabies and overwhelming sense of isolation. Now you’re telling me I’ll like the sequel because my mom won’t.

Cheap.

If the comments on this video are any indication though, it appears I’m not the only one who thinks so.

An Experiment in Social Awareness

Awhile back I posted my irritation at a certain Playstation 3 commercial playing off the stereotype of the hot, dumb girlfriend who can't tell the difference between a video game and a movie. Yes, yes, it's all fun and games (pun!) and not meant to be taken seriously. It was never the surface of that commercial that bothered me however, rather it was the the underlying messages it was projecting: men play lots of games and women probably can't figure out how to turn a gaming system on.

Well, that idea must have gotten some positive feedback (albeit not from me) because a similar type of ad has been released by Sony promoting "God of War 3":

Seems they've now replaced the hot, stupid girlfriend with the whiney, needy one. This ad bothers me just like the other one did but for different reasons; while we have the pouty girlfriend who just can't get attention from her boyfriend while he plays his big, butch (i.e. repetitive, button mashing, snorefest. Yeah, I said it) game, you've got the boyfriend himself who is so consumed with his game he fails to notice those around him.

I'm honestly a little more offended for the male gamers here. What this commercial is feeding off of is the idea that men are in fact video game addicts. Not just any games either - graphically violent ones. Even the Sony representative can't tear himself away from the carnage to acknowledge the woman who doesn't know anything about God of War except for that "Kratos guy".

Wait, wait, wait - come back over here and sit down. No rolling your eyes either! I saw that.

Don't take this as me being a crazy, uber liberal feminazi. My actual operational definition of feminism is one of total egalitarianism. I do not think men are above women and I do not think women are above men. I'm not going to go into more of that here but I feel that's important to stress in this situation.

This ad is playing off both gender stereotypes. It is absolutely not meant to be taken seriously but I'm asking you to think about why this ad is funny. What exactly makes the joke come together?

Now, is this all of this a bad thing? I think so, yes. Not "evil" bad, however, but rather a "bad" in that I believe it prevents people from discovering their true potential at times for fear of violating perceived gender normalcy. If I have any one diabolical plan behind this blog it's that I want people to be more aware of ads like this. Really look at your games and gaming media and ask yourself what these things are saying about you and your gender.

You may be surprised to find out how far down the blue and pink rabbit holes go.

A Breast is a Breast is a Breast

There are a couple of aspects about society that will, from time to time, confuse the hell out of me. People cramming together to walk in the door of a building when there is another perfectly good door right next to it. The need people feel to make small talk to avoid a perceived uncomfortable silence. Our ability to forget about catastrophic disasters a month after the entire world rallies around those effected. My favorite however, is our obsession and simultaneous repulsion with nudity and sex – mostly the former.

I’ve recently gotten wind of something interesting going on over at Justin.tv. It seems that those who stream video of themselves playing the recently released “Dante’s Inferno” have been permanently banned without any type of warning. The reason? They violated the terms of service. Which terms you ask? No nudity is allowed on the site even if the specific page has placed a mature content warning on the feed. There is, however, nothing in Justin.tv’s terms of service which define what exactly nudity is. It is a bare backside? A bare female chest? Exposed breasts with the nipples covered? There is no way to know.

What we do know however is that the image of nude bodies – both male and female – appear quite frequently in Dante’s Inferno. I myself have not played the game yet but I certainly saw my share of pixilated breasts in the demo, which is what ties in nicely to one of my points: are animated breasts really as “offensive” as real ones?

I, of course, use those quotation marks with intense sarcasm. Call me a crazy, liberal hippe but I do not, in any way, shape, or form, find the naked human body even remotely offensive. I’m not referring here to explicit sexual imagery or pornography here, but rather the naked human form as designed by nature. Plain and simple.

Now, Dante’s Inferno does provide a unique problem because again, while I have not played it, I have read the poem and have very vivid memories of the fun to be found within the lust circle which I’m sure Visceral has taken advantage of. Basically, the images within Dante’s Inferno certainly have the potential to be offensive. It is not the content found offensive by Justin.tv though – it’s the nudity. What’s interesting to me are two underlying issues: one, that the naked human body is automatically offensive and two, that this nudity is far more damaging than the brutal and graphic violence so often found in games today.

To me, Justin.tv might as well come out and say, “yeah, play your Modern Warware and Bioshock and have fun graphically gunning down enemies and boring holes into them with giant drills but don’t you dare show a woman’s breast.” The reason for this fear of female nudity is of course the result of years and years of society taking an essential body part for which nearly all of use owe our lives and reducing it to a sexual object.

My more relevant musings (this is a video game blog after all) come from the backlash again nudity in general in video games, such as the fiasco over the Mass Effect “nude” scene. Is nudity in video games “worse” than nudity in film or in paintings? Personally, I tend to think that it is perceived as such not because it is, of course, any worse but rather because non-gamers remain increasingly hesitant to regard video games as art forms which they without question can be. Not all of them certainly (just like not all other forms of media are art) and for sure in a less traditional sense but I will absolutely argue that Dead Space was one of the most beautiful and artful games to come out in recent years. Is it beautiful like Michelangelo’s “David”? No. But is it any less of an art form? I don’t think so.

You know . . . when I started this post I had a goal in mind. I fear it’s gone into a potentially pointless ramble. I suppose I’ll just end with this question: do you think video games are judged more harshly for nudity than the average show or film? If so, why is this?

It Was The Hot Coffee, Wasn't It?

There’s no question that we are a generation of technological obsession. When was the last time you left your house without your cell phone? How about the last time you went 24-hours without logging on to the Internet? You’d probably have to struggle to imagine such a time and, yet, a decade ago, most of us didn’t even have either of the two pieces of wonder above.

Now, we worry about overexposure. How much is too much? According to a new study media usage (television, Internet, video games) among 8 -18 year olds has increased to an average of seven hours and thirty-eight minutes per day. That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is just about the same as having a full-time job.

That’s a lot.

No one is questioning that and no one is saying that's okay.

What I am questioning however, is the unfair spin I feel that video games receive. While watching HLN report on these findings tonight I repeatedly heard the host single out video games as the Great Destroyer of Young Minds. Furthermore, even though the host would occasionally mention television and Internet usage as part of the sphere of “media”, all the images in the background were of children playing video games.

I think an underlying issue that bothers me more than anything is the idea that video games are an isolating experience. More than the phone or e-mail, I use Xbox Live to keep in touch with friends these days. Together we’ll shoot zombies, venture through Africa, or play trivia – sometimes for hours – but certainly not alone in our rooms. Yes, I know that I am not the demographic being referred to in this study but I find myself becoming increasingly frustrated by this idea that video games are the worst of the worst of entertainment.

Here’s an example I heard from the folks over at Analog Hole Gaming: imagine telling a friend that your partner spent all day Saturday and all day Sunday watching baseball. More than likely, your friend who say something along the lines of, “wow, that’s a lot of baseball”. However, if you told that same friend that your partner spent all day Saturday and all day Sunday playing video games, chances are that they would be appalled.

You know it’s true.

I’m just trying to figure out why that is; when did video games really get such a bad rap?