TvW Episode 1 Close Look

I do appreciate the spoiler tags for the side bar discussion, but let's try and keep focused! Does anyone have anything else to add to beat 3? I'll give people some time, then we'll move on to beat 4.

In the meantime, would like to flag two of the main complaints about Sarkeesian that we can track as we go through this:

1) She advocates for censorship of games
2) She actively disrespects "nerd/gamer culture"

So far I think we all agree that neither of these things have come up yet (and the disclaimer in beat one even suggests that she likes / enjoys games.) Going forward, after every beat I'll update where we are on these fronts.

On beat 3, I'll just note that things like publishers asking developers to switch female protagonists to male happens a lot. It just usually happens soon enough in the development cycle that it doesn't make the news unless the devs talk about it. Life is Strange and Remember Me being two recent examples where the devs did talk about it.

Beat 4 wrote:

The tale of how Krystal went from protagonist of her own epic adventure to passive victim in someone else’s game illustrates how the Damsel in Distress trope disempowers female characters and robs them of the chance to be heroes in their own rite.

The term “damsel in distress” is a translation of the French “demoiselle en détresse”. Demoiselle simply means “young lady” while détresse means roughly “Anxiety or despair caused by a sense of abandonment, helplessness or danger.”

As a trope the damsel in distress is a plot device in which a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own and must be rescued by a male character, usually providing a core incentive or motivation for the protagonist’s quest.

Kind of amusing, in a sad way, that she was Damseled in development AND the game.

Yeah, I think that's why she makes for a good opening choice for this particular topic. She's not a well known character, but the dev story (which is fairly common, as Gremlin points out) definitely helps underline the definitions and what we're exploring in this video.

We're continuing on in set up mode, as there still isn't an awful lot that seems controversial here. She's basically explaining her reason for using Krystal - ground we've covered - and then giving us a little background on where the term "Damsel in Distress" comes from.

Then she defines how the term works as a trope, and what falls under that particular umbrella. Anytime a female character is placed in a perilous situation from which she cannot escape on her own, she falls under the "Damsel in Distress" umbrella. We're also alerted that this damselling will often be the motivation for the game's protagonist.

That seems pretty straightforward to me. We're defining terms and setting up here.

EDIT TO ADD: This beat ends at 3:39. The total video length is 23:34, if anyone is interested in tracking progress.

Seems it's also a solid case to study, since as I recall that Star Fox game was received very poorly.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Seems it's also a solid case to study, since as I recall that Star Fox game was received very poorly.

Yeah, W&N made reference to it being pretty bad and posted a review of it.

Happy to see the thread and participate as we go forward!

Agreed that this is still 'defining terms' territory, and nothing strikes as controversial or questionable so far.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Seems it's also a solid case to study, since as I recall that Star Fox game was received very poorly.

It's not so much that the game itself was bad, but that the Star Fox elements were clearly shoehorned into what was intended to be a different game.

Had they released Dinosaur Planet as its own IP and with Krystal as the heroine, I have no doubt that it would have been better reviewed, though likely it would have achieved lower sales numbers with the loss of a recognizable IP. We'll never know if it would have been successful enough to build a bigger audience with a sequel.

Farscry wrote:
SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Seems it's also a solid case to study, since as I recall that Star Fox game was received very poorly.

It's not so much that the game itself was bad, but that the Star Fox elements were clearly shoehorned into what was intended to be a different game.

Had they released Dinosaur Planet as its own IP and with Krystal as the heroine, I have no doubt that it would have been better reviewed, though likely it would have achieved lower sales numbers with the loss of a recognizable IP. We'll never know if it would have been successful enough to build a bigger audience with a sequel.

My recollection of playing it is that it was a very mediocre 3D platformer, with a Starfox coat of paint. I wasn't upset about the Star Foxiness of it as much as I was that it sucked compared to Jet Force Gemini, Rare's previous 3D platformer.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

I do appreciate the spoiler tags for the side bar discussion, but let's try and keep focused! Does anyone have anything else to add to beat 3? I'll give people some time, then we'll move on to beat 4.

In the meantime, would like to flag two of the main complaints about Sarkeesian that we can track as we go through this:

1) She advocates for censorship of games
2) She actively disrespects "nerd/gamer culture"

So far I think we all agree that neither of these things have come up yet (and the disclaimer in beat one even suggests that she likes / enjoys games.) Going forward, after every beat I'll update where we are on these fronts.

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there. Surely the material could speak for itself. I think this is there so she can complain the entire episode without ever having to provide positive counterexamples of a trope done right.

So the other thing I'd like tracked is that. Does she ever provide examples of the trope being done right? And or does she ever say this trope would be fine if it were not used so often.

If you're committed to assuming the worst with no evidence to prove that intention about Anita, this is never going to go anywhere.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there. Surely the material could speak for itself. I think this is there so she can complain the entire episode without ever having to provide positive counterexamples of a trope done right.

So the other thing I'd like tracked is that. Does she ever provide examples of the trope being done right? And or does she ever say this trope would be fine if it were not used so often.

Hold on to that thought! She does address that question down the road, and since you brought it up we should definitely talk about it then.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there.

This feels like a wonderful example of a bad faith interpretation.

What could she possibly have done differently, given how far we are into discussing the first video? If the disclaimer was not there, I feel reasonably confident based on our interactions thus far that you would already be pointing to its absence as evidence that Anita Sarkeesian wanted to ban games for having problematic content.

WideAndNerdy wrote:

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there. Surely the material could speak for itself. I think this is there so she can complain the entire episode without ever having to provide positive counterexamples of a trope done right.

Why is it unusual for the disclaimer to be there? The typical format for a research paper is to open with an introduction centered around a hypothesis. This falls pretty squarely into introduction territory. These may be videos, but they're academic in nature.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

What could she possibly have done differently, given how far we are into discussing the first video? If the disclaimer was not there, I feel reasonably confident based on our interactions thus far that you would already be pointing to its absence as evidence that Anita Sarkeesian wanted to ban games for having problematic content.

Part of the reason she put the disclaimer there was that people attacked her during the Kickstarter with that exact argument about her other videos and so on. I don't think speculating about what other people might argue helps much, though: it really isn't required.

EDIT:

complexmath wrote:

Why is it unusual for the disclaimer to be there? The typical format for a research paper is to open with an introduction centered around a hypothesis. This falls pretty squarely into introduction territory. These may be videos, but they're academic in nature.

Well, from an academic standpoint they're unusual because it's usually taken as a given that research was done in good faith. You don't need to spell it out. Plus, most academics who talk about games love them deeply, so they don't really go around accusing each other of hating their research topic. But yeah, we're still in the introductions phase and are segueing into the definitions-and-prior-history part.

Remember everyone - this is examination is meant to happen with fresh eyes. This means putting aside whatever your previous conceptions might be, to the best of your abilities.

With fresh eyes, we have to take the disclaimer at face value until we have strong reason to think otherwise. Right now the disclaimer says it is possible to enjoy / like something and simultaneously be critical of it.

I think, empirically, that is 100% true. I can think of PLENTY of things I enjoy that I also have criticisms of, sometimes even strong criticisms. There are things I *love* that have severe flaws.

If you feel otherwise, please let me know and we'll talk it out. But otherwise, I'll advance to the next beat if we're done with this one and nobody has any particular things they want to go into with it.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there.

This feels like a wonderful example of a bad faith interpretation.

What could she possibly have done differently, given how far we are into discussing the first video? If the disclaimer was not there, I feel reasonably confident based on our interactions thus far that you would already be pointing to its absence as evidence that Anita Sarkeesian wanted to ban games for having problematic content.

I'm only saying it could be that. It happens. Still depends on the content.

Demosthenes wrote:

If you're committed to assuming the worst with no evidence to prove that intention about Anita, this is never going to go anywhere.

This is not my first debate about this. Some, myself included, have argued that the sheer preponderance of complaining points to her never wanting to see a trope.

One of the defenses I've seen is that she lists so many examples to show that it's a widespread problem and/or that she's only objecting to it being used so often. However, even looking at the example we already have, she clearly has problems with damseling beyond its overuse.

So it's best to track this up front.

W&N, I'm going to ask you to remember that this is supposed to be academic. Academics and critics do not "complain." They critique. Part of criticism is gathering evidence, especially when your up front stated goal is the exploration of a particular pattern. You can't establish a pattern without a lot of examples. I feel as though when you use the word "complain" you are allowing outside influences to come in here. I want to stress, again, that the purpose of the exercise is to look at this video with fresh eyes.

Let's please try and keep it focused on the content, and let's please try not to look at this as a debate. This is a discussion.

Cool?

WideAndNerdy wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
WideAndNerdy wrote:

Or the disclaimer could easily mean she's been doing this long enough to know to put that in to deflect criticism. It's interesting in fact that it's there.

This feels like a wonderful example of a bad faith interpretation.

What could she possibly have done differently, given how far we are into discussing the first video? If the disclaimer was not there, I feel reasonably confident based on our interactions thus far that you would already be pointing to its absence as evidence that Anita Sarkeesian wanted to ban games for having problematic content.

I'm only saying it could be that. It happens. Still depends on the content.

Demosthenes wrote:

If you're committed to assuming the worst with no evidence to prove that intention about Anita, this is never going to go anywhere.

This is not my first debate about this. Some, myself included, have argued that the sheer preponderance of complaining points to her never wanting to see a trope.

One of the defenses I've seen is that she lists so many examples to show that it's a widespread problem and/or that she's only objecting to it being used so often. However, even looking at the example we already have, she clearly has problems with damseling beyond its overuse.

So it's best to track this up front.

Saying that tropes are bad and we should stop using them so much for a multitude of reasons is not saying that they should be banned. It's not. It really is just that simple.

Personally, given that she was getting accusations of wanting to ban games and limit devs before this first video even released, I suspect she was speaking to you and folks like you. Reminding you from the start that that isn't her intention.

That it was then taken to be a smokescreen by folks already making those complaints just strikes me as confirmation bias in action.

I really want everyone to take a deep breath here and stay focused on the content. As we discuss this video, please try and not to attack each other. I promise we'll continue to track whether or not she calls for banning games, limiting devs, or putting down nerd culture.

Obviously the dialogue around Sarkeesian is incredibly charged, but let's try not to talk about the dialogue around Sarkeesian, or what her supporters or detractors think. Let's try and look at what she is actually saying.

We are currently on this beat.

We went over the first beat, including the disclaimer. Currently we are taking it in good faith until there is a compelling reason not to. Everyone cool with that? Does anyone have anything else to add about Beat 4, or are we ready to advance to Beat 5?

So far I don't think I've seen an explicit statement from Sarkeesian that the damsel trope is overused, much less banned. She seems to just be stating its existence with one example as an introduction the concept. Only thing I'd say about the latest beat is that I think she could have left the Damsel in Distress origin story out, since the original french is essentially identical to the English, adding little to my understanding of it. Small potatoes.

Harpo think you could number the beats from here on out? I think it might helpful to have that as a short hand when we start having a larger number of older beats to refer back to.

Onwards to Beat 5, and my apologies for contributing to the derail.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

So far I don't think I've seen an explicit statement from Sarkeesian that the damsel trope is overused, much less banned. She seems to just be stating its existence with one example as an introduction the concept. Only thing I'd say about the latest beat is that I think she could have left the Damsel in Distress origin story out, since the original french is essentially identical to the English, adding little to my understanding of it. Small potatoes.

Harpo think you could number the beats from here on out? I think it might helpful to have that as a short hand when we start having a larger number of older beats to refer back to.

Sure thing, I'll title the beats on the comment they appear in. I've linked everything up at the top and included the words in the beat under a spoiler tag if anyone needs to look for a reference back to an earlier moment.

Beat 5 wrote:

In video games this is most often accomplished via kidnapping but it can also take the form of petrification or demon possession for example.

Traditionally the woman in distress is a family member or a love interest of the hero; princesses, wives, girlfriends and sisters are all commonly used to fill the role.

Of course the Damsel in Distress predates the invention of video games by several thousand years. The trope can be traced back to ancient greek mythology with the tale of Perseus.

According to the myth, Andromeda is about to be devoured by a sea monster after being chained naked to a rock as a human sacrifice. Perseus slays the beast, rescues the princess and then claims her as his wife.

(What constitutes a 'beat'? I ask only because they seem to be of variable length, and don't necessarily include much content.)
(I love that this thread exists, and Harpo, I really appreciate your efforts to keep it clean, so to speak. *respek knuckles*)

Thanks, Chumpy! I'm basically defining a beat the way I would in a theater or a film script. So largely I'm feeling it out and see where the thoughts shift slightly and where the breaks between one idea and the next occur.

I'm trying to keep it to two or three short paragraphs, and trying to split it at moment where it transitions to a new thought. I could have made this beat just two paragraphs, honestly, but the following beat is larger so I thought it made sense to include the two paragraphs and a chunk of the next thought in this instance. Sometimes I'll lump what would technically be two "quick beats" together, and sometimes I'll divide up what could be argued to be a long beat to present it in smaller pieces.

If anyone feels that I'm off in where I'm cutting the line, and that being off is inadvertantly getting in the way of an interesting line of thought, please let me know via PM and I'll fix it. I'm playing this a bit by ear, and I'm trying not to look too far ahead in the transcript in the interests of keeping this a "fresh eyes" reading for everyone - including myself.

EDIT TO ADD - Please let me know if you feel ready to move on. I'm trying to go via taking the temperature, but it'll work better if you add a GTG (good to go) abbreviation at the bottom of a post or as its own post. So for example:

I don't have anything to add here.
GTG.

or

Point A is interesting because X, Y, Z. Not SO SURE about X, but we'll assume good faith for now.
GTG.

EDIT: Not the thread for this.

Here's my take on Beat 5.

In video games this is most often accomplished via kidnapping but it can also take the form of petrification or demon possession for example.

Traditionally the woman in distress is a family member or a love interest of the hero; princesses, wives, girlfriends and sisters are all commonly used to fill the role.

This stuff seems pretty true to me, and none of it seems particularly controversial. She's just setting up a few more common details about how the trope is employed. I presume, at this juncture, that the video will go from here into some examples at some point to illustrate that this is a common phenomenon.

Of course the Damsel in Distress predates the invention of video games by several thousand years. The trope can be traced back to ancient greek mythology with the tale of Perseus.

According to the myth, Andromeda is about to be devoured by a sea monster after being chained naked to a rock as a human sacrifice. Perseus slays the beast, rescues the princess and then claims her as his wife.

Now we're getting some background info on earlier uses of the trope. I don't see any particular judgment calls here, and I think it is useful to bear in mind that this trope has been around for a long time.

Overall, we're still very much setting up, though I'm starting to get the feeling that we're getting near the end of the introduction and background section.

GTG.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:

In the meantime, would like to flag two of the main complaints about Sarkeesian that we can track as we go through this:

1) She advocates for censorship of games
2) She actively disrespects "nerd/gamer culture"

So far I think we all agree that neither of these things have come up yet (and the disclaimer in beat one even suggests that she likes / enjoys games.) Going forward, after every beat I'll update where we are on these fronts.

This is what I don't get about her critics. She's never advocated censoring or banning any games. Her main points seem to be:

1) Holy sh*t, storytelling in games is lazy and falls back on the same old patterns.
2) These tropes may turn off women, who have money and want to be your customers. Here's how to avoid losing that potential income.

Gamergate and /pol/ treat it like women having opinions and purchasing power is the first step to white genocide.

Not the thread for this, TBH.

TheHarpoMarxist wrote:
Beat 5 wrote:

In video games this is most often accomplished via kidnapping but it can also take the form of petrification or demon possession for example.

Traditionally the woman in distress is a family member or a love interest of the hero; princesses, wives, girlfriends and sisters are all commonly used to fill the role.

Of course the Damsel in Distress predates the invention of video games by several thousand years. The trope can be traced back to ancient greek mythology with the tale of Perseus.

According to the myth, Andromeda is about to be devoured by a sea monster after being chained naked to a rock as a human sacrifice. Perseus slays the beast, rescues the princess and then claims her as his wife.

I think her assertion that kidnapping is the most often method is reasonable, as is who she states are the most common types of women to be in distress. Her context setting with the Perseus myth is also an important insight because it shows she is aware of the trope's ubiquity across time and mediums, and is not just in singling it out in video games.

GTG.