Tropes vs the Recently Released

they were dabbling with the idea back in 2009 but nothing ever came of it. Weirdly, valve never said why*

*I use weirdly in the most sarcastic way possible, because Valve.

pyxistyx wrote:

*I use weirdly in the most sarcastic way possible, because Valve.

Oh for sure. I mean, I figured that the reason was because Valve initially, I was just wondering if there was anything "on the record" for an explanation. I suspect there was nothing specifically stated.

I do seem to remember some discussion, prior to the introduction of hats, that they wanted to maintain some level of simplicity in having as few "silhouettes" as possible for players to need to "remember" when playing the game... then they added hats to change all of them anyway.

On the Injustice 2 stuff... I remember having the same thought about the game's female characters. The only characters who costume choices approach borderline were basically the expected...

-Poison Ivy (where most gear actually makes her more dressed than her base appearance).
-Harley Quinn where there's a pretty wide variety between the original Animated Series appearance to very Suicide Squad movie levels of skimpy, but nothing egregiously bad like most fighting games.
-Catwoman, basically the same as Harley, there's some meh options, but not many.

My biggest negative from a Trope perspective is Wonder Woman so consistently being turned into emotional support for Superman. It's a role she consistently plays in big Superman stories anyway, but in the "evil" Superman stories, it sticks out way more as her pushing him to greater levels of villainy. All of Wonder Woman's morally gray moments happen in the tie-in comics, in the game... she really does just come off (especially seeing her fears from Scarecrow popping up) as the "reason" Superman is the way he is... removing some of his agency in his choices and making her out to be the like temptress who took him off the right path.

Link won't work because there's a swear word in it, but I suspect you should be able to figure out how to fix it.

Intro of the article gives a pretty strong Content Warning, just FYI...

I'm going to spoil the hell out of the first twenty minutes of Wolfenstein: The New Colossus. You've been warned. I'm also adding a content warning for, well, everything related to nazi behavior, including racism, homophobia, anti-semitism.

I know a few folks on the boards were getting this in spite of it not being their type of game because Bethesda/Machine Games has been awesome on the advertising front dealing with idiot altright Nazis getting upset about the game...

So figured you miiiiiiight want to know what you're getting yourself into with the first 20 minutes or so.

What's interesting now is the blind spots I'm picking up in a lot of other writers' descriptions of how the opening affected them. Mentions of the homophobia didn't come up in a couple of reviews I've seen so far.

This game is definitely going on my want list for the Xbox One!

Yikes! :O

Pretty much sort of what I'd expect from playing the first one but still, yikes!

I do slightly worry whenever Nazis are portrayed as scenery chewing ultra-evil abominations due to the risk of making the "regular" modern day vanilla nazis seem more "reasonable" and "acceptable" in comparison.

...but in general, as far as the game is concerned, so long as I then get to spend the rest of the game shoving their homophobia and bigotry down their throat with the barrels of an over-sized sci-fi shotgun then I think I'll live!

*from RPS's opening blurb on their review (which is as far as I dare read for fear of more spoilers) but I thought it worth adding...

Early in the game a returning villain asks, “is this what a hero looks like?” She’s mocking and threatening a wounded, degraded and broken woman. She’s about to execute that woman.

Wolfenstein’s answer is a defiant “yes”. Its heroes don’t look like any one thing because they are many and they are diverse. They are survivors and fighters and thinkers, black, white, American Jewish, British, German, male, female, disabled, disfigured and powerful. They’re also flawed – sometimes too angry, sometimes too selfish, sometimes too afraid to face up to reality – but they are the kind of people you’d want in your corner if the world went wrong.

..actually I couldn't resist reading further, here's a couple more relevant snippets...

Even the imagined horrors aren’t too far from reality, of course, and one of the questions I was asking myself going into the game was about its place in today’s world. The marketing hasn’t shied away from drawing parallels with the politics and language of today, and I was half-convinced the game would pull its punches in that regard, if nowhere else. It doesn’t. It shoves its fist right through the skull of questions around white privilege, machismo, racism, feminism and a whole lot more. You’re getting all that and toilet humour too.
Given that the game makes clear he could well be a man in need of a strong father figure, it’s surely intentional that our hero learns more from the women around him than from the men. In Sister Grace, Anya and other members of the resistance, Wolfenstein 2 is home to some beautifully take-no-bullsh*t women.
pyxistyx wrote:

Yikes! :O

Pretty much sort of what I'd expect from playing the first one but still, yikes!

I do slightly worry whenever Nazis are portrayed as scenery chewing ultra-evil abominations due to the risk of making the "regular" modern day vanilla nazis seem more "reasonable" and "acceptable" in comparison.

...but in general, as far as the game is concerned, so long as I then get to spend the rest of the game shoving their homophobia and bigotry down their throat with the barrels of an over-sized sci-fi shotgun then I think I'll live!

Spoilers, but I suspect you might appreciate this Pyxi...

Spoiler:

I dunno exactly HOW it goes down, but the Frau's daughter definitely ends up on BJ's side somehow. She's been in a couple trailers and I'm assuming she's bi- as one of the trailers does have her ummmm... enjoying some time with, if I remember seeing it correctly, a black, male rebel.

But, I suspect they're going in on showing the collaboration of "normal" folks too. Part of the game has shown Southern KKK members trying to learn German because "this is the greatest!"

So, I suspect there will be a mix of evil Nazi killing and more "normally" portrayed racist collaborators who will also be killable. Really bouncing back and forth between trying to hit 20 in Destiny 2, Assassin's Creed, and this this weekend. Thing I may give myself an extra long weekend next weekend just to play more of all three. XD

Yeah I saw that in one of the trailers too!

Argh...kinda want to really play this quite badly but (a) it's still downloading and (b) it's not going to unlock until around about my bedtime and (c) I've got homework to do! BAH! (also (d) I'm crossing everything my laptop is capable of running it!)

Instead, I shall re-watch Tekla's scenes from the first game which were probably one of my favourite things in it.

I'm a little bit more bummed out by the fact that that game will be overshadowed by a platformer where your girlfriend and your hat's girlfriend both get kidnapped then maybe I should be.

Or maybe I'm not bummed out enough?

I'm finishing a move on Saturday...

...So I intend to get Wolfenstein Saturday night.

Agreed on your Wonder Woman issues, Demo. I have some more thoughts, but I'll save them for when they won't take mindshare from:
IMAGE(http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Inglourious-Basterds-quotes-1.gif)

Such good TF2 designs.

South Park Article wrote:

They'd occasionally remark that I was a feminine boy, but never made so much as a nod toward my trans identity.

How would they do this without having the same identity? I mean, there seems to be consensus that Andromeda tried and didn't do it well at all for their trans character.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

Battlechasers: Nightwar is interesting sounding in description. It sounded like something both my wife and I might enjoy. And then I took one look at the trailer and... Nope.

You think ridiculous outfits on female characters would be over by now.

Geez I hope not. The feminine form is inherently* aesthetically pleasing.

*eye of the beholder and all that.

Roland, this is a thread for reviews of tropes, not refutations of said reviews or people’s views.

Read the original post. Thanks!

RolandofGilead wrote:

Such good TF2 designs.

South Park Article wrote:

They'd occasionally remark that I was a feminine boy, but never made so much as a nod toward my trans identity.

How would they do this without having the same identity? I mean, there seems to be consensus that Andromeda tried and didn't do it well at all for their trans character.
.

Just to answer this one quickly... If the writer is not trans then You talk to and consult with actual Trans people when making your game.

This is what happened when bioware wrote krem's stuff for dragon age and it's generally considered one of the better implementations of a trans experience in a mainstream AAA game. Andromeda did not do this - the writer just assumed he ( it was probably a he, I haven't double checked) knew best. South Park's writer(s) Clearly thought the same.

'Own voice' stuff would certainly be better, but until studios start hiring more trans folk, that's going to be even rarer.

South Park is, simply put, a franchise I won't go near. I didn't find it funny despite my peers' opinions back in the 90s and now even less. Ugh.

RolandofGilead wrote:

The feminine form is inherently* aesthetically pleasing.
*eye of the beholder and all that.

"Inherently" and "eye of the beholder". Does not compute
Marriam Webster's definition for inherent is "involved in the constitution or essential character of something, belonging by nature or habit." So basically, a contradiction in terms.
So no, the feminine form is not inherently aesthetically pleasing, mostly to het men and lesbian women.
Give me finely chiseled pecs any day of the week.

Eleima wrote:

"Inherently" and "eye of the beholder". Does not compute
... So basically, a contradiction in terms.

Yes indeed, as most anyone with a moderate proficiency in English would agree. A proficiency which I assumed we all thought I had, thereby emphasizing the mistake with an asterisk would make it known to be deliberate. I thought that by highlighting this contradiction it would emphasize that my statement was borne purely of my own perception of reality since if someone shares their emotional reaction to content in a game, this is not a place to argue with them about whether or not the content is actually problematic.
Because

Certis wrote:

Roland, this is a thread for reviews of tropes, not refutations of said reviews or people’s views.

Read the original post. Thanks!

I didn't refute anything; I know the ground rules of the thread; each is entitled to their opinion, or is that not right? I didn't say TheHarpoMarxist was wrong, or that he should feel remorse, or that he should stop having his opinion. I expressed my own opinion that was the opposite of TheHarpoMarxist's.

*mod hat*

Spirit of the law, my dude. You're entitled to any opinion you like, but in this particular thread the discussion is:

This is a space specifically dedicated to reviewing games through the lens of problematic tropes.

So when your contribution is "but the female form is inherently beautiful" it's nice you appreciate beauty, but in this context it reads as argument and refutation. Going back through the history of this thread I can see we keep running up against this with you so I'm going to ask you to refrain from participating further in this discussion.

With all due respect (And I genuinely and sincerely mean that), I have often been confused at the scope of most of these "Discuss but don't discuss" type threads. And this has been weighing heavily on me for some time now. Taken from the original post:

"The purpose of reviews in this thread is going to be to take current games and hold them up to the microscope. Does this game utilize retrograde / destructive tropes? If so, what is the full context and how bad is it? Is the development team diverse? Does the game have or allow for protagonists who aren't male, and does it go beyond binary gender options? "

The confusion is this: How can you hold something up to a microscope and not have a difference in opinion? There are questions asked in the topics original statement. Are different viewpoints on said questions not accepted? The inherent nature of the rules for this topic seem to allow for discussion and thus a difference in opinion.

"Does this game utilize retrograde/destructive tropes?" - "Yes I believe it does" should also welcome a "No I believe it does not". And then discussion should ensue, an idea could/should be agreed upon and then you move on.

Often I see:

"Does this game utilize retrograde/destructive tropes?" - Individual 1 "Yes I believe it does" ......
Individual 2 "No I believe it doesn't"

Individual 1&3,4,5,6,7 - "You are mistaken, this topic about discussions is not the place to discuss this"

I had my wife read through this to make sure I'm not coming from some far left field point of view and, like myself, she honestly doesn't see what the purpose of these discussions are unless your just looking for topic with people that agree with you and nothing else. Which hey, that's fine, but at least come out and say in the topic title that "no opposing opinions are welcome" *shrugs*. I apologize if I'm mistaken in my viewpoint, just seen a lot of that around these parts.

I understand the confusion, I'll do my best to clarify my thinking on the matter. It may not be perfectly satisfying, but here we go.

The confusion is this: How can you hold something up to a microscope and not have a difference in opinion? There are questions asked in the topics original statement. Are different viewpoints on said questions not accepted? The inherent nature of the rules for this topic seem to allow for discussion and thus a difference in opinion.

*mod hat*

If you read the original post, I think it does a good job outlining the basic assumptions at play to facilitate the purpose of the thread; which is that games do a poor job representing women and this is a thread to review games under that assumption.

This is a space specifically dedicated to reviewing games through the lens of problematic tropes.

Roland's contributions have largely been to argue against the basic assumption in various ways, often by extolling the virtues of the female form and attempting to minimize the problems with how games represent women. He's viewing games through a different lens altogether. This is fine if arguing about the basic assumption is what the thread is intended for. It's not a question of differences of opinion, it's a question of the context they're being offered in.

In 2015 I had to step in and now, in 2017, I'm seeing the same issue cropping up so the best approach is to ask the user in question to move on since I'm not seeing any shift in behaviour or understanding what the thread is for. I've suggested in the past he's welcome to make a new thread in the debate section if he'd like to question the basic fundamentals, but so far I haven't seen one.

That's about as much time as I can spare for offering my reasoning. Further questions directed to PM, please, so the thread can get back on topic.

Certis wrote:

I understand the confusion, I'll do my best to clarify my thinking on the matter. It may not be perfectly satisfying, but here we go.

The confusion is this: How can you hold something up to a microscope and not have a difference in opinion? There are questions asked in the topics original statement. Are different viewpoints on said questions not accepted? The inherent nature of the rules for this topic seem to allow for discussion and thus a difference in opinion.

*mod hat*

If you read the original post, I think it does a good job outlining the basic assumptions at play to facilitate the purpose of the thread; which is that games do a poor job representing women and this is a thread to review games under that assumption.

This is a space specifically dedicated to reviewing games through the lens of problematic tropes.

Roland's contributions have largely been to argue against the basic assumption in various ways, often by extolling the virtues of the female form and attempting to minimize the problems with how games represent women. He's viewing games through a different lens altogether. This is fine if arguing about the basic assumption is what the thread is intended for. It's not a question of differences of opinion, it's a question of the context they're being offered in.

In 2015 I had to step in and now, in 2017, I'm seeing the same issue cropping up so the best approach is to ask the user in question to move on since I'm not seeing any shift in behaviour or understanding what the thread is for. I've suggested in the past he's welcome to make a new thread in the debate section if he'd like to question the basic fundamentals, but so far I haven't seen one.

That's about as much time as I can spare for offering my reasoning. Further questions directed to PM, please, so the thread can get back on topic.

Nope. No further questioning needed, and very succinctly put. I didn't realize the same approach was made numerous times before. I know you're busy, so thank you for taking the time to answer. Sorry for the slight derailment, but I just had one of those "I need to get this off my back" moments.

Peach's Tiny Taste of Freedom.

I mean, look. In a series that has been relying on gendered tropes for decades, if we’re gonna go so far as to gender the hats, couldn’t we at least switch things up and have the female hat (Hattie, perhaps?) ride along with Mario on a quest to rescue her brother? But no, Odyssey does damseling twice over, delivering a one-two punch of reinforcing those good ol’-fashioned video game gender norms.

I don't need to spoiler tag the ending of a mario game, do I? I'll redact the location where this takes place just in case. I guess skip the rest of the post if you don't want to know specifics.

The final battle takes place as Mario literally crashes Bowser’s wedding ceremony. Once the battle with Bowser is at an end, Mario, Peach and the Koopa King are together on [redacted]. Bowser, not entirely out of steam, charges up to Peach with an offering of a piranha plant, still trying to win her over. And here’s where things really got weird for me. Mario also crowds Peach, holding a flower, engaging in a moment of “pick-me!” rivalry with the Koopa King. For a few seconds, the two dudes elbow and jostle each other, pushing their respective flowers in Peach’s face.
Now, this is a really messed-up thing for Mario to do, a vile position to put Peach in. Furthermore, until this point in the series, it’s remained plausible that Mario’s motives for rescuing the princess were mostly selfless. One could say that he simply objected to her freedom being infringed upon, and didn’t want a brute like Bowser getting away with his dastardly schemes.

However, this moment suggests that it’s not that at all, that the real reason he’s rescued Peach so many times is because he wants her for himself. I’ve made countless jokes with friends over the years about how the surprise plot twist of the Mario games will someday be that Mario was the villain all along, but this game was the first that kinda made me believe it. It was impossible for me not to think about the twist ending of the Mario-influenced game Braid, in which the protagonist Tim is revealed to be a stalker, not a hero. Peach has long served as a reward for players in these games, but this scene made me think that Mario, too, sees Peach more as a prize than a person.

To her credit, Peach doesn’t deign to give Mario so much as a kiss on the cheek, but instead gives both of these jerks the cold shoulder and walks off, at which point Mario and Bowser take some solace in their shared rejection. I guess at the end of the day, Bowser is really just another one of the Bros., and, well, you know what they say about Bros.

* * *

However, a pleasant surprise in Odyssey’s endgame provides a tiny bit of promise, in a game that up to this point has been as regressive as can be.

When Mario visits the Mushroom Kingdom after completing his quest, he’s told that Princess Peach is missing yet again! It’s clear, though, that for once it’s not the result of some nefarious plot. She just decided to do something for herself for once in her goddamn life, packed her suitcase, and went on an adventure of her own.

After that, you can find Peach vacationing in each of the game’s other kingdoms; traveling the world with Tiara, taking in the sights, and wearing some pretty fabulous outfits, the likes of which we’ve never seen her in before.

As much as I enjoy seeing Peach finally do something for herself, I wish it were more than a footnote in a game that’s all about Mario. Her globe-hopping adventure could have been the basis for its own wonderful game. After all this time, she certainly deserves it.

This isn't really about that article but I really hate when games do something crappy for 20+ hours and then do something vaguely subversive at the very end as though that matters. I hate it so much

On a better note, I just finished Holy Potatoes We're in Space?! and there was no hint of any sexism or problematic tropes; there are two protagonists who are 'potato' sisters and whilst there are incredibly meta call backs and puns, it simply portrays two characters on a journey to find their missing grandpa. The plot, while simple, wasn't littered with trash usually found in Japanese manga/anime/ Muricansuperhero influenced games. Worth a checkin for any fans of FTL.

Has Skyrim's Modding Community Become a Mysoginistic Nightmare?

Become? It's been like that for quite some time as far as I've seen.

pyxistyx wrote:

Become? It's been like that for quite some time as far as I've seen.

And I don't think it is specific to just Skyrim. Modding in general usually has a very misogynistic section, I'd think.

Don't forget occasionally racist with stuff like making Isabella white in DA2.

Demosthenes wrote:

Don't forget occasionally racist with stuff like making Isabella white in DA2.

To say nothing of the deeply nationalistic racism that's often found its way into Paradox game mods:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/stellaris/w...

Demosthenes wrote:

Don't forget occasionally racist with stuff like making Isabella white in DA2.

Whaaaaaaaat the fudge? That's not Isabella anymore!

pyxistyx wrote:

Has Skyrim's Modding Community Become a Mysoginistic Nightmare?
Become? It's been like that for quite some time as far as I've seen.

Agreed, it always has been.

Eleima wrote:

Whaaaaaaaat the fudge? That's not Isabella anymore!

Yup. I get modding in like new clothes so you're not wearing the worst outfit ever at home, or uprezzing the crap out of everything...

Actually changing a character's ethnicity? What the absolute heck.

Skyrim tends to have some notoriously ugly character models, so I can understand people wanting to pretty them up just a bit (males included), but the glossy, porn model look looks very out of place in the game to me. So then I imagine the guards saying to the character, "I used to be an adventuresome porn star like you, but then I took an arrow to the ______."