I'm not seeing how "sexist imagery" (it's really not btw) like Senran Kagura is so much more prevalent in video games. These type of games are so niche that they have no hope in hell of affecting gaming's image whatsoever. Also, why do we care about the medium's image? Why do developers who like putting the life and the hometown in their games supposed to care about the medium's image?
EDIT: And like another poster said, you are incredibly wrong with the bolded.
It's sexist because it's misogynistic, and it's misogynistic because it objectifies girls/teens/young women/whatever. It's chained logic. If it hits a marker for one, it shoots all the way up to sexist. And the developers are supposed to care because anything that's sexist harms society, whether it was intended to or not. Broad strokes.
Senran Kagura Burst is not over the top?
I agree that there's a lot of sexism in video games but I really can't understand why games like this or Dragon's Crown are the catalyst for this discussion.
Well, game journalists are not very good at writing, and social activists are more concerned with garnering support and providing cliff notes for the stuff they advocate than actually making sure that their allies understand the ins and outs of advocacy, so occasionally you get hamfisted articles like this.
Think about it: in between the cutesy, neophyte PSA comics, scathingly sarcastic denouements and other short-and-sweet summaries of sexism, racism, classism, etc, that make the rounds on Gaming Side, Off-Topic, or most other sites, there's almost never anything in depth about what to do or what not to do to concretely deal with a societal ill. You get links to a bunch of fallacies to avoid from your opponents, and maybe some pap speech about never remaining silent while evil prospers - nothing concrete about what the reactions might be, or what fallacies you yourself might use. There's a whole ton of people who have their hearts in the right place, but who are almost completely clueless as to how to go do something about it - their only point of reference are the snarky, righteous or triumphant articles that turned them on to the social justice scene in the first place. So they emulate them while advocating, and work with what little nuance they can muster. The same almost certainly applies to journalists of Rooke's caliber, who clearly has about as much understanding of feminist theory, social media or the nature of spite as the Wikipedia pages he probably skimmed before he hammered this article out.
The page-views, despite what many in this thread may think, may be secondary. Rooke probably thinks that he's done a good job of explaining why this game should not exist, and why all games of this type should be left to wither and die. That's sad, because whatever points he could have made are undercut by his laziness and reluctance to explore how far this idea could be taken, in favor of making a pretty lackluster PSA warning. What's worse is that, because his heart is in the right place and his opposition already includes /v/ (as it invariably does), he will essentially get a pass on how shitty his article is - "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know", as the saying goes. Better to support a mediocre condemnation than to say something that could possibly be skewed or misconstrued as supporting misogyny. And the worst thing is that because articles like this get a free pass, they've already set the standard for feminist critique on video games. Anything longer than two pages is already considered "too dense, too layered" - bold statements and empty boasts of righteousness, that's the ticket nowadays. Guys like Chris Rooke and Matt Lees get to shimmy over to the right side of history with people who actually know their shit.
What is your point? I don't get it. The game is obviously pervy, but does that mean it should not be released? Can't it just...exist and cater to the people that enjoy it?
Does it harm women? If you think it does, you are insane. It's just stupid, fun. It's as harmful as any videogame/movie/book ever with a male protagonist that is bare chested with idealised proportions.
It's the logical conclusion to opposing misogynistic content. If you think something is wrong, you don't just kind of tolerate it and say "what you're doing is wrong, and I really disapprove, but I'll just let you do your thing" - no, you do whatever you can to stop it, whether it's through words or physical effort. If sexist games can cause discomfort or harm by being widespread, like spores of mold spread through visual contact, then one clear conclusion to draw from that is even a single copy of a sexist game is damaging, because it's a spore, and even a single spore can grow and eventually spread itself. Trying to soft-ban games like Senran Kagura Burst outright is just another side of trying to deal with it, and ideally it's as valid a tactic as trying to increase the number of good, wholesome, non-sexist games. It doesn't work that way outside of an intellectual vacuum, but again, Rooke is pretty shitty at this whole advocacy thing, so that's not a factor for him.
Agree with all that.There is no high ground in Platy arguments.
She clearly pointed out that there's some skeezy people who like this game. She does not like this game. Therefore, she has the high ground. That's how it works.