Ok but how isn't the love of the character and the resultant repurcusions in society (within the model of that game and and externally) a philosophical discussion?
And this is what makes the above mention so relevant. If you are experiencing the majority of your life through games, thats how you see the world. It trains your brain to respond to the reaction forces present in games, if those are "beat women: get money" then that is the correlation your brain develops.
My problem with these is that they totally ignore schemas. Schemas = Our understanding of how things link to each other, essentially.
Gamers don't see a physical link between a real life prostitute and a game one. They use their knowledge to disseminate that:
A) The GAME is giving me a UI hint that this character, a prostitute, serves an in-game function
B) love is usually seen as good/healthy && Powerups are usually seen as good/healthy
C) Prostitutes are about providing love && I'm currently playing a video game
D) Therefore, these "prostitutes" are actually equal to a powerup
That's at least how, in my player psychology tests (I admit I haven't trialled GTA, but I've done games that have close enough logic loops) I've seen players work out how things work in the game world.
Very few players treat things in the game world as the same as the real world. They actually see behind the graphics, and look for specific patterns in behaviour. Even though players will conciously discuss story and graphics, subconsciously their actions are inclined towards challenge and creating/solving puzzles. When it comes to a real life scenario, they don't see the same set up, and as such they don't come to the same conclusions.
Yes I was distressed in some of these comparisons, however the concept of the "smurfette" is very much ingrained into our society. The female is only accepted if she is the exclusion within her own populace, maintaining her identity as the outlyer and thus distancing the presented social "norm" from that girls can do stuff too.
I'm not quite sure what you mean with this, if you could clarify.
As far as I know from the girls in my area, as well as girls I've seen in video games, that doesn't ring true at all, in the way I understand it.
Good, this is acutally an interesting point of debate because it brings into question whether publically presented media has a duty to the public or a catered individual. When you try to make games more public then you have to accept your roles in society. If you want to release your game targeted only at hardcore masculine whitesupremacists, all the more power to you, just understand that people in society do not like white supremists...
You're making a horrible assumption that my lessons == lessons currently in gaming.
I want to teach players to open their minds and expose them to things they've never tried or seen before, such as psychology and how the brain/mind works. When I consider characters in my stories, I don't think of them as characters until the very end; during production, I see them as tools to convey meaning and the plot, and as such I give them the appropriate traits to fit the role I intend for them.
Nobody has to accept their "role" in society, because realistically none exist. They are fictional and applied to people because our brain loves to simplify and optimise everything.
Most of the people I know who are most vocal about this are game developers and players themselves, because it affects them. I don't know who you are referring to that is butting in, if you mean Sarkeesian because she didn't play games as much before?
A lot of commentators on Twitter and Tumblr that I've looked into, since they are the most vocal components of this whole debate.
Regaurdless of their affiliation with a good or service, it is important to get varied opinions on that good or service as it will help you identify trends that people within the industry may be too entrenched to see.
I believe in the right to criticism and free speech, but that goes for both sides. It is unfair to force opinions on others without taking their position into consideration.
These "mysognists" (as you believe they are) are more than welcome to keep doing as they're doing, but they have a right to take on the fair criticism of the anti-GamerGame critics. The opposite goes as well.
*There is still ongoing discussion about the equality of gender in organized sports.
One that seems to be far more civilised.
I hadn't seen a single pair of boobs plastered on a box to cater to my loveual whims enticing me to buy a product wherin I simulate the injustices placed upon women with complete disregaurd to their realworld consequences. Maybe I just havent looked hard enough
Because the people making board games are making them for a very different audience; specifically the market is usually family based or for "intellectuals".
You seem to be of the belief that it's just women who are discriminated against, whereas I would say that, to some degree, every developer has at some point been disadvantaged for any number of reasons. We shouldn't be focusing on one specific area as is currently been done.
***While there hasnt been as much recent debate I remember hearing stuffstorms about how much loveual imagrey is perpetuated in modern fantasy card games, but I honostly would like to hear more about this, yes
Why do you believe that this loveualisation is only a problem since it's involved in games? It literally happens in all marketing. That's why we have such an issue with women-specific magazines and products/advertising that discuss beauty. This whole society is built around the premise of trying to making things appear better than they really are.
Blame not the game developers, but the marketers and publishers who make assumptions and stereotypes out of the audiences for these products.
