• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

New Tropes vs Women video is out (Women as Background Decoration pt. 2)

swoon

Member
So you just ignore history?

And your mind is certainly failing you if you think "only a few" used them. Deadwood, High Noon, Lonesome Dove, The Magnificent Seven, True Grit, The Searchers, Unforgiven all had prostitutes as major or minor characters.

I'm not saying "two wrongs make a right," but it's just completely fallacious to claim "only a few" Westerns feature them.


who is the prositute in the searchers? even as background character? generally the feminist discussion around the searchers is about natlie wood being stripped of her decsion making abaility and which is different trope.

RDR for better or worse doesn't really look at transgressive westerns like forty guns, johnny guitar and ignores the revivalist (post-searchers, post-western, acid) westerns of new hollywood.
 
Try to watch the actual video. She addresses your "historical accuracy" argument towards the end. Here's the quote:

Sorry but... who are exactly we?

We do not have to accept them as some kind of necessary cultural backdrop in our media stories…

If I don't have any issues with those (hand picked) historical accurate representations, am I suddenly a mysoginist pig?
 

Lime

Member
The crux of the video also feels off, because honestly, the same issues or the introduction of new issues would be there if these background decorations had actual meaningful characterization.

Uhm yeah, meaningful characterization and proper depiction & contextualization of violence towards (sexualized) women is automatically much more preferable than surface-level and superficial "background decoration" of the same situation.

Obviously the same issues wouldn't be there if victimhood was given the proper respect and weight that the topic demands. See her example of Papo Y Yo as a suggestion on how there wouldn't be an issue if victimhood and sexualized violence were given "meaningful characterization".
 

inkls

Member
Weirdos who want a very specific type of selective realism that reproduces certain negative aspects of history and/or present day problems in a setting that's otherwise very stylized.

It's sort of like a dungeon master who insists that female characters take a penalty to their strength score in a world with hit points, dragons, magical swords, and heroes who potentially lay the smackdown on gods and demons.

That sounds pretty stupid.
 

PK Gaming

Member
Re: Historical integrity

Honestly? I don't think it's absolutely necessary for developers to adhere to it. I'd rather they strive to create something unique and thought provoking to further their ideas, rather than rely on sexist and outdated notions.
 

Lime

Member
Sorry but... who are exactly we?

Players. Consumers. Audiences. Citizens. Human beings. I suppose.

We do not have to accept them as some kind of necessary cultural backdrop in our media stories…

If I don't have any issues with those (hand picked) historical accurate representations, am I suddenly a mysoginist pig?

I think you're being way too insecure and projecting something onto the argument that's being made with that last comment of yours.

Examples like RDR's procedurally generated encounters with outlaws murdering prostitutes are superficially treated and included just for the sake of simplistic worldbuilding. If you're going to include something like that, at least give the topic it properly deserves.

Moreover, it's not like RDR prides itself of historical accuracy. I'm sure that random outlaws didn't murder random prostitutes at random bars every 4th in-game hour, so I don't think those instances make the game more believable and "historically accurate".
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Seems basically to be the same point as the previous video, and I don't think she's pointing out the right problems.

Her argument being that casual violence against women is ok in games is a sound one, but once again, the same is applied to EVERYONE in games. Everybody is just randomly killed or ran over, all for the "side show attraction" she kept bringing up. It seems her argument is more centered around violence more so than "sexual violence".

And for her historical accuracy point at the end, the idea of dragons or super powers are exciting because they are extraordinary in an ordinary world. It makes those things things more special/more exciting. Her argument is that because john marston can hold 30 guns in an invisible back-pack, it should not be unreasonable for him to then also fly. Why yes in a virtual video game world no it shouldn't, but there is a certain balance between striking fun and believeablity in game worlds, and having everything break the rules of reality means that nothing is exciting, as breaking the rules is the norm.
 

Conan-san

Member
Yes and it, bundled with the insistence that sexual violence was the standard for the premodern world is what led to crazy stupid misogynistic games like FATAL.

I read the 1d4Chan page on that. A barrel of laughs untill you realise that it's an actual thing they're taking about and not some hypothetical madman's dream of how D&D Works.

Though I will not forget the phrase "read: removes the magical armour that turns the wearer into an ethnic stereotype" in a hurry.
 

Nairume

Banned
Sorry but... who are exactly we?

We do not have to accept them as some kind of necessary cultural backdrop in our media stories…

If I don't have any issues with those (hand picked) historical accurate representations, am I suddenly a mysoginist pig?
No, it doesn't make you a pig, but whether you think that or not is irrelevant to this discussion.

What she's saying is that we don't have to accept that as the standard because of "historical accuracy" because they aren't being historically accurate. Devs can still be free to develop their games with that shit in it, but they can't keep relying on the defense that they are being historically accurate because they aren't.
 

Lime

Member
I really liked this quote from her video:

"There’s a clear difference between replicating something and critiquing it. It’s not enough to simply present misery as miserable and exploitation as exploitative. Reproduction is not, in and of itself, a critical commentary. A critique must actually center on characters exploring, challenging, changing or struggling with oppressive social systems. But the game stories we’ve been discussing in this episode do not center on or focus on women’s struggles, women’s perseverance, or women’s survival in the face of oppression, nor are these narratives seriously interested in any sort of critical analysis or exploration of the emotional ramifications of violence against women on either a cultural or interpersonal level. The truth is that these games do not expose some kind of gritty reality of women’s lives, or sexual trauma, but instead sanitize violence against women and make it comfortably consumable."
 

Foggy

Member
Uhm yeah, meaningful characterization and proper depiction & contextualization of violence towards (sexualized) women is automatically much more preferable than surface-level and superficial "background decoration" of the same situation.

Obviously the same issues wouldn't be there if victimhood was given the proper respect and weight that the topic demands. See her example of Papo Y Yo as a suggestion on how there wouldn't be an issue if victimhood and sexualized violence were given "meaningful characterization".

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Personally, I'd think it's much more heinous and damaging if a character like Black Widow is sexually assaulted than a random woman getting sexually assaulted in an urban crime film. If both are treated callously then I would think transition from fully-realized character -> victim is worse than background character -> victim.

I agree, up to a point, that victimhood(sexual or otherwise) is a tool that should only be used when you actually have a point to make or treat it with the respect it deserves. Sometimes though it can be used to build a world that the viewer can understand, even in the broadest sense. Not that the examples she gave are shining examples of world-building. Most of those were laughably juvenile.
 

MacNille

Banned
I read the 1d4Chan page on that. A barrel of laughs untill you realise that it's an actual thing they're taking about and not some hypothetical madman's dream of how D&D Works.

Though I will not forget the phrase "read: removes the magical armour that turns the wearer into an ethnic stereotype" in a hurry.

FATAL is that game that has "Anal circumcision" in it. That is all you need to know.
 
Try to watch the actual video. She addresses your "historical accuracy" argument towards the end. Here's the quote:

While I see her point, I refute it on the basis that suspension of disbelief is not all encompassing. There are things the mind is willing to accept in fiction, and things it isn't. Not saying that a lot of people would think it was weird if a western didn't have prostitutes, but you get my meaning.

Its the reason everyone is okay with Superman being able to fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, but take issue with his impractical disguise of merely putting on glasses. I read a paper on it once, I just tried to find it but I was unsuccessful.
 

Lime

Member
Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Personally, I'd think it's much more heinous and damaging if a character like Black Widow is sexually assaulted than a random woman getting sexually assaulted in an urban crime film. If both are treated callously then I would think transition from fully-realized character -> victim is worse than background character -> victim.

You're misunderstanding. It's not only about simply having violence against a full-fledged character take place. It's about treating the topic of such a grievous thing with the care, weight and thought that it deserves. You have to contextualize it, motivate it, reflect on it, give it flesh so to speak.

I agree, up to a point, that victimhood(sexual or otherwise) is a tool that should only be used when you actually have a point to make or treat it with the respect it deserves. Sometimes though it can be used to build a world that the viewer can understand, even in the broadest sense. Not that the examples she gave are shining examples of world-building. Most of those were laughably juvenile.

And that's her point! These examples are laughably juvenile and immature, which is what she is criticizing. It seems to me that you agree with the video's main point then.
 

Maffis

Member
Just saw the clip on God of War 3 (never played it before) but lol, I really see where she's coming from. The "poseidon princess" is just a horrible mess.
 

inkls

Member
Re: Historical integrity

Honestly? I don't think it's absolutely necessary for developers to adhere to it. I'd rather they strive to create something unique and thought provoking to further their ideas, rather than rely on sexist and outdated notions.

Well why do we have museums or archives then? I understand not every game needs to include these details or make claims of historical accuracy while still including these details, but I still think its important to remind people of realities of the time even if not every writer can depict it well. I'm not a fan of many parts of history but I still think we should remember this.

Yes and it, bundled with the insistence that sexual violence was the standard for the premodern world is what led to crazy stupid misogynistic games like FATAL.

Any info on the game? First time I've heard of it and closest hit google gives me is fatal frame, is that what you are referring to? Any info on why the game is misogynist?

Women have minus 4 strength

In what version? Or are you quoting something?
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Just saw the clip on God of War 3 (never played it before) but lol, I really see where she's coming from. The "poseidon princess" is just a horrible mess.

I think that's probably one of the very few actual examples she's shown where it's irrefutably sexist and flat out nasty. I can only guess it's in the game to show how just how few fucks Kratos gives about anything, but it's so ridiculous and random that it's genuinely horrible.
 

Lime

Member
While I see her point, I refute it on the basis that suspension of disbelief is not all encompassing. There are things the mind is willing to accept in fiction, and things it isn't. Not saying that a lot of people would think it was weird if a western didn't have prostitutes, but you get my meaning.

Its the reason everyone is okay with Superman being able to fly and shoot laser beams from his eyes, but take issue with his impractical disguise of merely putting on glasses. I read a paper on it once, I just tried to find it but I was unsuccessful.

Yeah, but you're arguing that the juvenile examples we see in the video (RDR, Darkness 2, Far Cry 3, Hitman, Watch Dogs, and on and on) are necessary for the worldbuilding or the believability in these games. To me, and hopefully many others, they don't seem important or necessary, given their juvenile and arbitrary representation.

When these instances of sexualized violence are simply superficial and arbitrary in their representation in the game, I don't see why they would be considered to be imperative for anyone to believe in the fiction or simulation of the game. Their insignificance and carelessness to which they are included in the game render them unnecessary and conditional.

Developers and producers should ask themselves what the point of their inclusion is and at least attempt to treat such topics with the care that they require.
 
I feel like I probably agree with most of what she's saying.

She seems to leave out female aggressors all together when she talks about domestic violence though, even though 30-40% of domestic violence victims are male, so that's a bit dishonest. Domestic Violence is not as much a gendered issue as she seems to make it out to be.

As for the part about suspension of disbelief and people saying a world without sexual violence is unrealistic even though it is a fantasy setting? I think that's just the difference between creating a believable human society (harsh as it may be) and creating a believable fantasy world, you can change a lot about the world itself and maintain its believability but humans have a strongly ingrained idea of what human society looks like, for better or for worse.

She says that the "system of patriarchy" has not always existed and that therefor it is entirely possible to depict worlds where sexual violence is not inevitable, but I wish she would have named some of the cultures where this patriarchy has never existed / cultures where sexual violence was never a problem. As far as I'm aware, sexual violence has been a problem for as long as human society has existed.
 
What she's saying is that we don't have to accept that as the standard because of "historical accuracy" because they aren't being historically accurate. Devs can still be free to develop their games with that shit in it, but they can't keep relying on the defense that they are being historically accurate because they aren't.

They aren't? Oh right. You mean with Bonnie and Mrs. Marston, right? Strong women in an age where women were treated like shit?
Please... You people only see what you want to see.
 

Foggy

Member
You're misunderstanding. It's not only about simply having violence against a full-fledged character take place. It's about treating the topic of such a grievous thing with the care, weight and thought that it deserves. You have to contextualize it, motivate it, reflect on it, give it flesh so to speak.

No, I'm with you and I definitely agree. I'm more talking about this notion that heinous acts against background characters are in some way fundamentally different than heinous acts against primary characters. She only focused on background characters, because well, that's what the vast majority of female characters in videogames are. The central problems that these depictions raise are the same whether they're background or primary. Constantly calling to the fact that they're background/anonymous characters only adds color to the argument, but it doesn't really provide much meaning.

This is the crux of her argument.

It's part of her argument, but definitely not the only major point she's making. It's what kills me about a lot of these arguments. Half the time, it's the sheer proliferation that is the problem, because in the end the proliferation means that the context doesn't matter. Then half the time, nuanced treatment is what matters but catchy videos and blog posts don't really spend the time to fully examine what works and what doesn't work. It just speaks in the broadest strokes and ends up as coming across as, "if you're gonna use this tool, only use it this way because any other way is off limits"
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
Yeah, but you're arguing that the juvenile examples we see in the video (RDR, Darkness 2, Far Cry 3, Hitman, Watch Dogs, and on and on) are necessary for the worldbuilding or the believability in these games.

When these instances of sexualized violence are simply superficial and arbitrary in their representation in the game, I don't see why they would be considered to be imperative for anyone to believe in the fiction or simulation of the game. Their insignificance and carelessness to which they are included in the game render them unnecessary and conditional.

Developers and producers should ask themselves what the point of their inclusion is and at least attempt to treat such topics with the care that they require.

Maybe less for believeability (depends) but certainly for world building. Like it or not, and she brings up the point, it's to show off cruelty and overall evil, that it's a nasty world. It's about the combination of little details. And again, it's never just towards women.
 
Yeah, but you're arguing that the juvenile examples we see in the video (RDR, Darkness 2, Far Cry 3, Hitman, Watch Dogs, and on and on) are necessary for the worldbuilding or the believability in these games.

When these instances of sexualized violence are simply superficial and arbitrary in their representation in the game, I don't see why they would be considered to be imperative for anyone to believe in the fiction or simulation of the game. Their insignificance and carelessness to which they are included in the game render them unnecessary and conditional.

Developers and producers should ask themselves what the point of their inclusion is and at least attempt to treat such topics with the care that they require.

Well no, actually I was only addressing what you quoted from her on the matter of suspension of disbelief. I agree with the larger point of it not being used in a mature manner.

"What does it say about our culture when games routinely bend or break the laws of physics and no one bats an eye, when dragons, ogres, and magic are inserted into historically influenced settings without objection? We’re perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief when it comes to multiple lives, superpowers, health regeneration, and the ability to carry dozens of weapons in a massive invisible backpack. But somehow, the idea of a world without sexual violence and exploitation is deemed too strange and too bizarre to be believable.

The truth is that objectification and sexual violence are neither normal nor inevitable. We do not have to accept them as some kind of necessary cultural backdrop in our media stories…When we see fictional universes challenging or even transcending systemic gender oppression, it subverts the dominant paradigm within our collective consciousness, and helps make a more just society feel possible, tangible, and within reach.”
 

Orayn

Member
In what version? Or are you quoting something?

It's a meme from 4chan's /tg/ (traditional/tabletop games) board, quoting from someone who was making an impassioned argument that an average adult human woman should have a STR score of 6 in the third edition of D&D.
 

Nairume

Banned
Any info on the game? First time I've heard of it and closest hit google gives me is fatal frame, is that what you are referring to? Any info on why the game is misogynist?
FATAL is a tabletop RPG that has a reputation for placing too much emphasis on sex and sexual violence due to the developer's insistence on trying to be "historically accurate" when building his fantasy setting and system. As noted in other posts, it does things like having character generation rules based around a character's anal circumference to later pair up with the game's own rules for anal rape.

It's also unrelentingly misogynistic in its portrayal of women, resulting in rules where women are universally weaker than men and virtually ever example of a woman in the rules involves sex or sexual violence.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!
I feel like I probably agree with most of what she's saying.

She seems to leave out female aggressors all together when she talks about domestic violence though, even though 30-40% of domestic violence victims are male, so that's a bit dishonest. Domestic Violence is not as much a gendered issue as she seems to make it out to be.

As for the part about suspension of disbelief and people saying a world without sexual violence is unrealistic even though it is a fantasy setting? I think that's just the difference between creating a believable human society (harsh as it may be) and creating a believable fantasy world, you can change a lot about the world itself and maintain its believability but humans have a strongly ingrained idea of what human society looks like, for better or for worse.

She says that the "system of patriarchy" has not always existed and that therefor it is entirely possible to depict worlds where sexual violence is not inevitable, but I wish she would have named some of the cultures where this patriarchy has never existed / cultures where sexual violence was never a problem. As far as I'm aware, sexual violence has been a problem for as long as human society has existed.

Is there a quote/source for this?

Yeah. It tells is she's expecting serious social commentary from a medium which wants to entertain people for a couple of hours, not educate them.

Well there's nothing wrong with doing either, not everything has to be serious and not everything has to be silly.
 

Garjon

Member
You could say this about virtually any game and title in existance that has any sort of violence in it. It, of course, would make you fall into the jaded catagory, but it wouldn't be inaccurate since all games which employ simplistic means at the core to move the player to the end as a measure to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

In a whole bunch of games, there is very often a peaceful solution to a problem or a way to go through a game/mission without killing anyone. There is often some level of discourse to just killing someone. Even in RDR, you get the option to retrieve someone alive. However, I am struggling to think of a game where you dish out such a solution to someone who attacks a sex worker.
 

Orayn

Member
Yeah. It tells is she's expecting serious social commentary from a medium which wants to entertain people for a couple of hours, not educate them.

I think the message is that if games want to claim that they're critiquing, satirizing, or deconstructing a certain concept is not a catch-all excuse. If game developers claim they're critiquing something, they should be held to the same standards as other media when doing so.

You are right in that most games that feature "satirical" use of racist, sexist, and other prejudice-related tropes fail pretty spectacularly as presenting any kind of real critique.
 
Watch Dogs' writing in particular is so bad on so many levels that it almost seems unfair to only call out the problematic portrayals of women in it.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
She had a good point about how people will accept many different things that are unrealistic in games, but try to remove these depictions and people cry "unrealistic!"

You were just shot 35 times and hid behind a box for five seconds to get better, and that's where it breaks for you? You can't accept not seeing a prostitute get her throat sliced?
 

inkls

Member
It's a meme from 4chan's /tg/ (traditional/tabletop games) board, quoting from someone who was making an impassioned argument that an average adult human woman should have a STR score of 6 in the third edition of D&D.

oh wow.

FATAL is a tabletop RPG that has a reputation for placing too much emphasis on sex and sexual violence due to the developer's insistence on trying to be "historically accurate" when building his fantasy setting and system. As noted in other posts, it does things like having character generation rules based around a character's anal circumference to later pair up with the game's own rules for anal rape.

It's also unrelentingly misogynistic in its portrayal of women, resulting in rules where women are universally weaker than men and virtually ever example of a woman in the rules involves sex or sexual violence.

I'm not sure if I should be happy I never heard of it before haha. I'm guessing its not very popular.
 

Togbis

Banned
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.
 

Phades

Member
She says that the "system of patriarchy" has not always existed and that therefor it is entirely possible to depict worlds where sexual violence is not inevitable, but I wish she would have named some of the cultures where this patriarchy has never existed / cultures where sexual violence was never a problem. As far as I'm aware, sexual violence has been a problem for as long as human society has existed.
Basically in any instance where a law exists, it was forced into creation as a result of what was considered a heinous act.

In short, you pose a question for which there will be effectively no exception
not going to address any instances of hypocrisy where act is ok because X but not because Y. Hypocrisy has its own problems.
. What I find weird is trying to make the connection between portrayal and acceptance of bad acts opposed to acknowledgement that bad things happen seems to be a re-occuring theme with many arguments for no good reason.

In a whole bunch of games, there is very often a peaceful solution to a problem or a way to go through a game/mission without killing anyone. There is often some level of discourse to just killing someone. Even in RDR, you get the option to retrieve someone alive. However, I am struggling to think of a game where you dish out such a solution to someone who attacks a sex worker.

Violent does not always mean killing.
 

stufte

Member
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

I disagree with parts of the video, but you're going to have a real bad time with a post like this.
 

Brakke

Banned
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

I give your reading comprehension a D-, see me after class.

By all means, offer a different, even incompatible, reading of any of her examples.
 

Orayn

Member
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

To me, most of the rules in the OP look like warnings against specious arguments and attacking the creator of the videos rather than their content.

I must need new contacts.
 

Zaku

Member
I'm not sure if I should be happy I never heard of it before haha. I'm guessing its not very popular.

Google Jason Sartin and Darren MacLennan if you want to dig up a pretty lengthy overview of it by people who really, really hate it.
 
She had a good point about how people will accept many different things that are unrealistic in games, but try to remove these depictions and people cry "unrealistic!"

You were just shot 35 times and hid behind a box for five seconds to get better, and that's where it breaks for you? You can't accept not seeing a prostitute get her throat sliced?

But, if I don't see rape in my power fantasy that involves tattooing myself to gain mystical powers and punching a shark, the illusion is ruined!
 

Nexas

Member
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

Maybe you should reread the OP...if you're still around long enough.
 

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

Reading is fundamental, bro.
 
Yeah. It tells is she's expecting serious social commentary from a medium which wants to entertain people for a couple of hours, not educate them.

Most games are centered around the elimination, destruction, killing, removal, stopping, controlling someone or something, and this goes from Tetris all the way to Call of Duty. Many games have other agendas (get to the end of the level, but has this basic principle as part of the gameplay. Super Mario is a good example. You jump on things to make them go away).


We haven't figured out how to mass market games that are about other things. Think about Lost in Translation would work as a game? How do you make gameplay out of that? Outside of story/interactive cut scenes/talking heads, but actual skill based gameplay that can lead to mastery? To think about it in terms that does not revolve any of these destructive premises that most video games are build off.

There are lots of things you could do; Puzzle, exploration, time based, point based, goal based. It's absolutely possible, but I think it's hard to mass market. It would be hard to make.
Killing in video game is a gold mine for developers. For almost 40 years developers have tried creating scenarios that facilitate this, and like brain dead action movies in hollywood they think that the solution is to throw more action and explosions after the audience in the hope of captivating them.
Hayao Miyazaki has some wonderful interviews about why his films captures children and why so many japanese and western cartoon creators are failing with their hyper crazy ADHD attention span shit shows.
 

ChawlieTheFair

pip pip cheerio you slags!

Wow never knew.

Guys, didn't you read the rules in the OP`? You are not allowed to criticize the video or its content. So stop doing that. Praise only.

Man if only all content producers could make threads like this. Games journalism could be taken to a whole new level.

This thread is for discussing this particular video, discussing the things behind the video should prob be done in a seperate thread.
 

Garjon

Member
Yeah. It tells is she's expecting serious social commentary from a medium which wants to entertain people for a couple of hours, not educate them.

Yes because watching a sex worker getting brutally attacked is entertaining. Why have it in the game if all you are going for is entertainment?
 
We haven't figured out how to mass market games that are about other things. Think about Lost in Translation would work as a game? How do you make gameplay out of that? Outside of story/interactive cut scenes/talking heads, but actual skill based gameplay that can lead to mastery? To think about it in terms that does not revolve any of these destructive premises that most video games are build off.

And plus, as we seen with games like Gone Home, many of the same people would claim such a game wasn't a "real game" anyway.

Yeah. It tells is she's expecting serious social commentary from a medium which wants to entertain people for a couple of hours, not educate them.

If it's just a way to kill a couple of hours, why is having rape and whores everywhere there were actual rape and whores so important?
 
Top Bottom