Walking Dead Final episode.

The Walking Dead was an amazingly successful interactive gaming experience that involved players in making the tough decisions, instead of making it for them as seen in many other video games. Though the decisions made did not overly effect the direction of the story, it did affect the main character Lee. In his article over the Walking Dead Kirk Hamilton stated: “But on a deeper level, throughout the series, we made decisions about what kind of a man Lee was, and how Clementine would see him. Our choices may not have affected the story outcome or averted his death, but they certainly affected his life—they made him the character we got to know and care about.” So though players may not have seen drastic changes in the story that was wanted, the decisions they made still had an affect. The decisions made affected relationships with other characters, which did have a slight affect on how the out come of the final episode was reached. Walking Dead perhaps takes the gaming experience a bit further than other games have traditionally. It is more than a simple set of actions to reach a certain goal. Instead Walking Dead uses a combination of actions, and variables that change depending on the choices made by players. Like in the instance between choosing to let Ben go, or save him would later affect on Kenny’s willingness to continue to help the group.

1.     If the decisions made only affected Lee majorly, how would the outcome turn out if you made all the bad decisions on purpose?

2.     Could the video game be considered the ultimate form of medium because of its interactivity with users?

3.     Is there a downside to having a high level of interactivity in a video game?

Save the Princess

I watched Damsel in Distress parts 1 and 2. They were done well and the narrator used very good clear language to describe the problem. She did make me realize subtle things I hadn't thought much of before. The idea of the Princess being an object like a ball, and mario and bowser are playing a game of controlling the ball like other sports, is not that appealing but I see how it makes sense. Watching this made me consider and become a little concerned about the state of video games now. I haven't played that many video games since the 90's and they weren't as bad back then. Seeing all the clips of the violent and strange games that are out now and the fact a lot more kids play these games for more time is maybe not great. The games where the character has to kill the female to advance really there's too many of those. I do worry that all the desensitizing of people today will come back to haunt us if our society's situation becomes more dire.

I think she is right to make the point that video game writers aren't nefarious conspirators trying to make things bad for women. I bet that the guy who made mario and donkey kong had no idea how world famous they would become and just went for a simple storytelling device. I think a lot of video game writers and creators today are probably guys who grew up playing video games a lot, and some are a little immature and write stuff that is simple and effective.

 I think the problem with video games is the same problem with other tv and media, is that people who create and distribute a product don't always perceive its' cultural implications, even if they do care. A lot of stuff goes out to millions of people and it's hard to justify that some of it won't find it's way to children and influence them. If something exists in a culture and people don't get rid of it, that's like saying it's culturally acceptable and kids grow up thinking that. So I think there is a lot of violence and insensitivity that exists in the media because the people creating it have become so desensitized that they forget, or don't care, that people who are still sensitive especially younger people can be influenced by it.

damsel in distress

After watching parts one and two of the damsel in distress trope videos, I have come to recognize a few problems with her argumentation as well as a great deal of really solid and well-spoken points. I think one of the best conclusions she makes throughout the videos is the realization that a great deal of games are based in the premise that the male main character must regain his masculinity throughout the game with the use of violent force. I think that this holds true in the majority of video games and although it may not have directly influenced people to take on similar actions, the notion being implemented into our culture so subtly has undoubtedly had at least some effect on the minds of  young men. That's another thing that I felt was really important to realize, that although games may (and most definitely do) include a ton of awful misogynistic messages, most of them will go unnoticed by the public. I think the negative effect that they have is more of an environmental kind of thing. When kids grow up playing games where male characters are consistently forced to rescue female characters they get the idea subconsciously planted into their heads that females are weaker. While the strength of this internal message on a person's actions/beliefs may vary greatly from one individual to another, we can conclude that they certainly don't provide any benefits to the feminist movement or even to the societal view of women in general.

Damsel in distress...or not.

After watching all three of Anita's video's on the damsel in distress trope (and yes, I did take it one step further than needed), I have to say that I do like some of the things that she has to say, but I am still on the edge about a few things.
To start off, lets look at her argument about using the whole "damsel in distress" troupe.  For one thing, I do agree that it would be cool if there were a game where the damsel in question were to save herself, but on the other hand, she makes it sound as if using the trope in general is purely misogynistic.  While yes, it is probably something that has been overused a lot, this trope has existed for a long time before video games were created and will most likely be used for a long time to come in other various forms of media and literature.  I highly doubt that the writers were intentionally trying to bash on women and were probably just using a formula that has worked in the past.
On the other hand, I do agree with her on how the trope of being forced to kill the damsel you were trying to save is just wrong.  You can argue that the trope of damsel in distress does enforce the idea that anyone should be willing to endure any sort of suffering, even going through hell and back (sometimes literally in video games) to keep their loved ones safe, but what does killing them off do?  While violence is a major feature in the majority of video games, there is no need to turn everything into a violent act, especially if the main character is supposed to have feelings for the damsel.
Hopefully, with the rise of female gamers and games involving a female protagonist, tropes like this will start to become less common.  However, I don't see the trope going away anytime soon and there is also no need to automatically claim that the game and/or it's developers are misogynistic if they use it.  I'm not saying that you should just accept it, instead, if you really want things to change, you should take an active role and seek to make changes on your own.             

Damsel in Distress

The Damsel in Distress method has been used and will continue to be used in our heteronormative, misogynist society. Most men do not even see this as an issue, just a part of life, but what they do not know is that objectifying women harms our society. Women make up more than half the population but are underrepresent in just about every field. Women are expected to uphold certain jobs and duties  that are acceptable for their gender and are never supposed to step outside the box. When we objectify women this is the first step to justifying violence against women. 11, 766 American women have been killed by their husbands or their boyfriends. She even brings up that main characters in the games have to kill the women they are supposed to love and care for to advance in the game. So when these acts of violence happen in the real world can we really be that surprised? Women in video games are never the protagonist, they are objects and accessories to the male lead. They have no importance or no relevance to the game, they are only there to fulfill the male ego.

Women are not the opposing team, they're the ball.

Watching this feminist video on the role women play in video games was pretty eye opening. I mean I have played Mario brothers thousands of times and I never one thought of the role princess peach played. In the video, she gives us the shocking numbers that princess peach has been kidnapped in 13 out of the 17 games ( I think I remembered that correctly) and had only been a mainstream player in one. This is a joke right? Like, honestly I was applaud. I get that gender roles are a big deal in are a big deal in our society, for whatever reason, but if your playing a good game, why does it matter if the protagonist is a girl or a boy? And even if it does matter, why not make it a equal paying field for everyone. But the key statement that stuck out to me was "Women are not the opposing team, they are the ball." I instantly thought, " this sums up the entire video!" Society perpetuates this idea that women are weaker than men and need to be saved. Society has this idea that a women, in no shape or from can do what I man does, and it is totally not cool. I mean Honestly, what's the big deal? I'm sure krystal could handle the magic staff just as well as the Fox guy.

Sarkeesian's Promotion of Western Feminism

Sarkeesian's blogs narrow in on the negative aspects of female character tropes in video games, advancing the movement of 'western feminism'. While several gender issues remain in the hopeful transitional period of humanity towards an equality for all people, locking into issues based on human emotion rather than sexuality does not help this cause.
Sarkeesian opens with the story of what Star Fox Adventures could have been, overly simplifying the reasoning of a transition away from a standalone title. This was a purely economic motive, unrelated to gender roles. It is simply easier to continue a successful franchise in an era where games haven't reached their current status as a booming medium of entertainment. Similarly, narrowing into the fact that Peach was an unintended character in Super Mario Bros. 2 is warping reality towards her favor. In reality, being the game was overhauled, literally every character wasn't originally intended to be a character within the Mario universe.
Subject object dichotomy is present in video games for a reason, its what separates them from every other medium. Once again, Sarkeesian narrowed the observation down to men being the subjects, and women being the objects. In reality, every character other than the protagonist is an object, guiding the story onwards for the player's enjoyment.
The trope of a damsel in distress isn't due to the 'damsel's' gender at all. Mario doesn't fight Bowser for ownership of the 'Ball', as Sarkeesian calls Peach, he fights because it is in his good nature to save the woman he loves. This isn't an act to reestablish dominance or machismo, it is in our very human nature to help those we care about, regardless of gender.
Sarkeesian states games from the early 80's and 90's served to target young straight males, inducing 'early adolescent power fantasies'. These fantasies are not at all central to this population. Every individual wants control over their life, this is safely achieved by taking on the leading role of a story where you can truly be a hero.
Comparing the damsel in distress to male protagonists when both are imprisoned is a moot observation. These imprisoned men do not escape because they are males, they escape because the story would be over if they didn't.
The belief that women need to be protected is instinctual. Not long ago, our survival was dependent on physical prowess and ability to reproduce. Through a biological standpoint, women being a weaker sex in physical matters cannot be argued against. Simply put, men are bigger, faster, and stronger on average. Now though, in the modern age, both sexes have equal footing as our intellect drives our civilization forward as a whole.
Sarkeesian's arguments serve only to evoke emotions of western radical feminists. The devices she recognized in video games are narrowed down, failing to express all sides of the story. She reverts to ad hominem, making jokes at the games she uses to justify her debate. As a whole, Sarkeesian fails to urge advancement for society and the equality of humanity, narrowing her interpretation to concoct an idea that the creators of video games act out on malicious gender-targeting tropes. When, in reality, these elements are found to be expressed through human emotion and action regardless of gender.