0°

Misrepresenting While Female Part 3

Alright, so this is Part 3 of my blog series examining the "Internetting While Female" panel at the GaymerX2 convention.

Part 1: http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Part 2: http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Video being discussed: https://www.youtube.com/wat...

At the end I'll post yet another reward video for your patience. Let's continue from where I left off.

22:35 - 26:30
================
This begins a question segment of the panel. For the most part, unless the questions deal specifically about games, the gaming community, or development in general, I won't touch too much on what are likely to be personal answers. The question of "How do you cope with harassment" was asked and Carolyne started first. I'm not interested in much of her answer except for the part where she applauds how there was a controversy surrounding the lack of a female playable character in Assassin's Creed Unity. I've touched on this several times, but I'll do so again. Ladies, when you complain that games announced at E3 don't showcase a female protagonist, when you complain that there wasn't a controversy created about such a thing at passed E3's but are proud of the fact that it's happening now, you're on the wrong side of the fence and are the problem.

Ubisoft wasn't wrong, they just gave the wrong answer. AC Unity CAN'T have a playable female character because of the multiplayer design used in the game. Modeled after the Watch Dogs multiplayer, you will always see yourself as the protagonist and the multiplayer is seamless in at least one respect. This means there is no separate campaign in which you choose an avatar as in previous AC games. You're playing as Arno, and when you want people to co-op with you, they come into your game to help you so you're still playing as Arno. The co-op partners you have are also playing as Arno in their own respective games, the difference is in what you, and they see. You will see yourself as Arno, and them as generic Assassin models based around Arno's model. They will see themselves as Arno, and you as that same generic Assassin model. So to have a playable female character, a few things would need to be changed.

A)Arno would have to be changed into Arnette thereby completely undermining Ubisoft's plans for the character and the game, or...

B)Completely decentralize the story and allow for multiple protagonists, thereby undermining blah blah blah, or...

C)Change the current multiplayer system to a more generic one involving avatars and have the game be critiqued for not bringing anything new to the system, or

D)Allow for generic female assassin models that you'll never be able to see yourself as but others will be, completely eliminating the point of having the models to begin with.

Every possibility involves undoing years of work to cater to feminist approval. I'm sure Ubisoft would be willing to risk the millions of dollars and years of work though... if you ponied up the money for it of course. "The problem is that they didn't think to have a female Assassin in the first place." No, that's not a problem. That's your opinion. Ubisoft isn't in business to cater to what you approve of, they're in the business of making money. There are plenty of women who have literally no issue with AC Unity, why don't you talk to them? Like, Jessica Nigri for example. Moving on.

29:26 - 29:45
================
This particular part of Katherine's answer focuses on the energy some have spent on attacking Anita specifically and how that's creative energy that's being wasted and that we should imagine what has been robbed from the world because of how said energy was used to attack someone rather than to create something positive. I bring this up because it's incredibly ironic that someone part of a panel of people who chiefly do nothing but complain actually have the audacity to talk about energy being wasted on not creating something positive, but on attacking something with negativity. I literally want to say "You've gotta be sh*tting me" after hearing this. I, and many many others, have said that if people like these women spent more time MAKING the games they want/approve of instead of complaining about games other people make, they wouldn't have a problem to complain about at all.

31:30 - 32:27
=================
This is where Anita portrays more ignorance, and more arrogance. Her snide comment with "Brooding White Dude 568... women are damsels and killed... omg why are we doing this again and again, have we learned nothing?" begins to paint the picture that that which SHE approves of is a good game, everything else is a problem... which she confirms with "when games come out that really touch you is when you are reminded of what games can be and the vision that I have for what games can be..."

Anita, make your own games. Just do it and spare us all your arrogance. Of course, that will never happen because a game YOU make will flop and you know it, so it's much easier for you to try and steer gaming to what you want it to be instead of an environment where developers can freely make whatever the hell they want... including "Brooding White Dude 568" complete with 300 Princess Peach characters in prisons.

33:53 - 34:10
==================
This is where Anita tells everyone everywhere that her opinion should be their opinion. That what she feels is wrong, is what everyone should feel is wrong, be angry about, vent about. Again, a common feminist move to make. You have to use someone else's agency, not your own. Using your own is an indication of strength, and women aren't allowed to be strong because that may be against the cause. That leads me back to women like Jessica Nigri, whom you'll never see discussed by people like the members of this panel. Why? Because they aren't weak willed women, they play games and like to dress up in outfits they know serves no purpose other than to satisfy the visual pleasure of mostly men, and some women, and they are the antithesis of the message trying to be conveyed here at this panel discussion.

39:40 - 40:40
=================
An entire minute of Anita Sarkeesian advocating for censorship, forced inclusion, and pressure against the entire gaming media and development scene. This is where Anita shows that her brand of feminism seeks to place the feelings and desires of feminists over the rights and freedoms of the general populous and game developers in general.

40:42 - 40:45
==================
What Carolyne says in sarcasm, I repeat with conviction. The best way to make a change is to be the change yourself. You're asking people who are not a part of your group or ideology to represent your group or ideology for you. Why? Because you're unwilling to do so? Because they can do it better than you? Because your responsibility begins and ends with complaining?

42:09 - 42:35
================
So here Anita answers the question someone asked about how being told that she's not a real gamer affects her and she called it B.S.

Sorry Anita, but when you are on a video saying you don't play games, you don't like games, and you don't want to play games; when you steal the gameplay footage of other youtubers for a project you were paid to research yourself and are getting paid for via ad revenue; and when in your Kickstarter video you were playing an Xbox 360 with the controller off, then people have a legitimate reason to say you're not a real gamer. All of those pieces of evidence are things you've chosen to completely ignore and never respond to because you know you'd be exposed as the fraud and con artist you are.

At this point I have reached the end of the portion of the video I have any interest in discussing, as the rest of it has less to do with games than it does about being a feminist. I could easily go into personal opinions about the panel discussion as a whole, but I'll just keep it short.

This entire panel discussion was modern day feminists doing what the current wave of feminism does best. Using shame and sarcasm under the disguise of legitimate social commentary to try and foster what they perceive of as positive change when in reality it's merely for the advancement of their agenda. If it hasn't been clear up to this point, it's never been clearer than now, people like these women want to dictate what is and is not appropriate based on their own world view and opinions, not on what's best for anyone or the industry. The amount of misrepresentation, dismissal of legitimate criticism, and juvenile behavior should really show anyone that people like these 3 women should never be taken seriously. They don't have gaming's best interests at heart, they have their own best interests at heart. They don't have creativity at heart, they have censorship at heart.

Having the opinion of wanting to be able to play as any kind of character is fine, complaining that games are poorly done (as in the Mass Effect 3 endings for example) is also perfectly within everyone's rights. Trying to force development to suit your agenda while claiming that millions of people don't have the agency to think and feel for themselves, or trying to censor discussion and stifle creativity to those ends is NOT cool. We play games for fun, we don't play them to be told that we hate people because of the games we play.

And now, the final reward video for suffering through these blogs and the drivel coming from the panel discussion. It's a metal medley of Assassin's Creed music. I hope you enjoy it, and I thank you for being so patient with this blog series. I know it hasn't been easy. Thank you again.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...