Jaicee said:
First of all, thanks for taking the time to share your opinion at-length. There's a lot to respond to there and a lot that seems incoherent to me, and honestly I just don't have the have the energy to go through this in an itemized way, but I do get and want to respond to the crux of your argument, which is that "games and entertainment in general needs to be free from politics". It's an old argument you won't be surprised to learn that I've seen many times before. It just strikes me as naive. You cite "games like GTA" as examples of what a games "free from politics" look like. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can play through a game like Grand Theft Auto V, for instance, and conclude that no political statements were made therein; that no social commentary has been offered. And the reality of the matter is that this includes some pretty definite gender politics too, not just rather blatant statements about public policy. There is a worldview being advanced here, both wittingly and perhaps sometimes otherwise. Not seeing the demographic politics in games (or other media) is a luxury that I haven't enjoyed. It's a luxury that stems from a sense of entitlement begotten by a long history of self-reinforcing special treatment. For example, you go on to complain about the fact that Ariel is black in Disney's new live-action version of The Little Mermaid and don't see how you've just contradicted your case by insisting that she should be white instead because it's just natural or traditional or something for a fictional mermaid to have white skin or because the Little Mermaid fan base supposedly skews overwhelmingly white and objects to the change (which is an assessment perhaps contradicted by the opening-weekend surveys of its audience). Yes, the decision to cast Ariel as non-white this time around was likely a deliberate one. The reasons why one would object are no less political though; they are just differently political. And I think I've got more respect for the motivations behind that casting here than I do for the sorts of ugly reasons why you'd object. What your case ultimately boils down to is the same circular argument that I've been seeing since back in the days when these gender-role debates between mostly male and mostly female gamers would play out in the letters pages of gaming magazines instead of online because nobody had the internet. Namely, the "winning" contention that games have to broadly be sexist because most creators and consumers of video games alike are male and no questions can be asked about why that is or whether that lopsidedness a good thing. To ask these questions is to be objectionably political, apparently in contrast to the status quo from which one group of people benefits a whole lot more than others, has seen themselves more favorably reflected, etc. Supposedly, gaming culture exists in a vacuum. Supposedly it is naturally free of politics and only feminist killjoys introduce them. That all is a rather convenient way of looking at these debates. Reality is more complicated than that. |
First my apologies, I was drunk writing that so it's really messy. I'll try to keep it simple and easy in this response.
1. I've only played GTA online so that was naive from me to use it as an example. My point was that I wanted games to keep stuff you can't really do in real life. Entertainment is fun because it's filled with imagination, and real life issues only restricts that. To be clear, I think it's fine to have politics in games, like maybe the setting takes place on Earth and there's politics in that universe as well. It's also fine if the game is centered around politics and it's clear, like a visual novel of some sort. However, most games shouldn't be a form of message to real life political issues, cuz more often than not politics are hugely controversial. I'm sure nobody wants a Mario game talking about gun laws or see Call of Duty used as an example for gun law related stuff. After all, games are meant to take a break and "escape" from reality.
2. I never said mermaids needed to be white did I? I just stated my distaste how Ariel did not look like the character that represented her in the original without any particular reasons other than "inclusion" and "representation" in modern society, from what I've gathered. I would've disliked it if Ariel was blonde for example and I assume most people would be too. Furthermore, it's not just the looks, but the characteristics. I wouldn't like it if the personality changed in a character either. Chris Pratt voicing Mario had a huge negative reaction for the same reasons. Communication is key however. Change is accepted in the community IF there's a logical/reasonable explanation that makes sense to the audience. Like a character turning into an adult, it may still leave fans in distraught but at least it makes sense.
3. All of this is difficult. I never implied that games are meant for boys because majority of creators and consumers were boys. I meant it as, it's natural that boys would make games for boys as they know what they want. Since majority interested in game creation were boys, it makes sense that content were "male oriented". Anyways there's no such thing as complete freedom. Just because games can express someone's thoughts doesn't mean it should. There is a line of common sense as to what is okay and what isn't usually decided by majority rules. Anita's claims tried to change that line on how much is acceptable and people didn't like it. It would be much less controversial if her stance was simply "I want different types of female characters in future games", but the narrative was more like blaming existing games and developers for the lack of intentions to. Hence restricting creator's freedom of choice making it seem like they needed to take those into consideration, or they're sexist. It doesn't cross the "line" if the game doesn't explicitly convey discrimination, but looks like to me Anita and her followers thought the tropes mentioned were. Although she probably played a role in the future of gaming, it was bound to come as society change and video games became more mainstream. Her claim would be far more valuable if she had claimed the gaming industry was preventing female characters or female devs to succeed (as there are probably lots examples like Activision Blizzard) but that wasn't the case. There were plenty of dependable female characters and main characters even at that time so her narrative was almost out of place. It was just a selfish request to push her opinion and poor narrative that gaming is sexist. Her intentions could be seemed like she wanted to restrict the gaming industry to how she wanted even if that wasn't the case, which cycles back to my statement on how the way things are presented is very important. To conclude, it's obvious that there needs to be a balance of both restriction and freedom. I value freedom as I want games to be imaginative as much as possible. Instead of changing what already exists, make a change with something new.
