Poison's legacy: Newest God of War won't have female enemies

[isiolia]

@threetoed, actually, have you even played GOW? Because if you haven't, if a mythological female baddie comes at you with a sword, Kratos is okay to "dispatch" her much like he's okay to annihilate a dude with a sword.

The scene mentioned in the article, as an example of the kind of thing they aren't planning to do, is not along that line at all.

Here is the segment that the article mentions. Free topless princess that's begging for help and mercy, shove her along, and eventually use her to stop a gear from spinning. Something the developers could have let him do with the giant club from one of the enemies instead (or one of their corpses).

I mean, I know Kratos is meant to have, uh, issues, but still.

[Ivo]

Here is the segment that the article mentions. Free topless princess that's begging for help and mercy, shove her along, and eventually use her to stop a gear from spinning. Something the developers could have let him do with the giant club from one of the enemies instead (or one of their corpses).

In this situation, the princess is not a "female enemy" because she isn't an enemy.
So either the OP misworded it or the devs did, or this is not the issue that is being discussed.

This is a bit off-topic here but anyway:
In a different thread I remember there was a comment about hitting a girl in self-defence being frowned upon. I commented that surely that was not really the case if it was in self-defence (right?), but from some comments in this thread I think some people may actually frown upon that.

I'll make it clear that IMO hitting someone after they are subdued or escaping is not self-defence (in case anyone cares).

Ivo.

[Forlorn Drifter]

Here is the segment that the article mentions. Free topless princess that's begging for help and mercy, shove her along, and eventually use her to stop a gear from spinning. Something the developers could have let him do with the giant club from one of the enemies instead (or one of their corpses).

In this situation, the princess is not a "female enemy" because she isn't an enemy.
So either the OP misworded it or the devs did, or this is not the issue that is being discussed.

This is a bit off-topic here but anyway:
In a different thread I remember there was a comment about hitting a girl in self-defence being frowned upon. I commented that surely that was not really the case if it was in self-defence (right?), but from some comments in this thread I think some people may actually frown upon that.

I'll make it clear that IMO hitting someone after they are subdued or escaping is not self-defence (in case anyone cares).

Ivo.

In response to bolded area...

My friend had a longtime girlfriend from 4th-8th grade. It was too serious, but they were almost always together, and they knew eachothers families well, etcetera. At many times, I had to be a third wheel or just generally around her. Around 6th grade or so, she started getting mean towards me. Verbal abuse, bad looks, demeaning me in front of others. I ignored it for my friend. Seeing that didn't work, she move to physical. She hit me, pinched me, slapped me, hair pulling (not to big of a deal, but I keep pretty long hair), and a couple of occasions biting hard enough to cause me to bleed. I did nothing, seeing as she was my friend's girlfriend and was a girl. I couldn't defend myself on a physical level. One day, come late in 8th grade, I snapped. She had hit me and slapped me that day. By lunch, I was pissed. Someone jokingly took my food, and gave it back quickly after they learned how angry I was. She said, "Quit being such a fatass, you can afford to go without a bit of food." I snapped. I walked around the table behind her, and slapped the back of her head twice. She told, I got in school suspension, and a big mark on my permanent record.

Yet, besides the school administration, nobody was mad. The guys all tried to be stand up men. "You hit a girl?!"
"Yeah, so-and-so's girlfriend."
"Nevermind, she's a bitch, she deserved it."

Her Dad even said she probably deserved it. Her brother thought it was funny. So I dunno... just thought I'd mention it, get it out of the system.

[isiolia]

In this situation, the princess is not a "female enemy" because she isn't an enemy.
So either the OP misworded it or the devs did, or this is not the issue that is being discussed.

The article that the OP linked to says absolutely nothing about female enemies in general. That, and the thread title, seem to be rather significant extrapolations on the actual source.

It's basically taking part of a developer interview on IGN (which it links to), and reporting on part of the answer to one question:

IGN: Do you have an internal line of what kind of violence you won’t show in the game? Is there a line that you wouldn’t cross with Kratos?

David Hewitt: We do. In fact the team has a set of rules that define those sorts of things very clearly. Where it shows itself is how the combat designers and animators have designed Kratos’ moves. He’s always leaning forward, he’s always moving forward. He’s seeking revenge and he’s after his ultimate objective and he will tear through enemies -- rip them in half -- as quickly as he can. But there’s not a lot of flourishes, there’s not any kind of enjoying the moment. There’s nothing about this that he’s enjoying.

There are some things we’ve pulled back from. I think where this has been an issue is with violence against women -- the team’s pulled back from some of that and assessed that a little more carefully. There are certain things that carry has a different kind of resonance that we don’t want to get into. This isn’t about statement-making in that regard. It’s about fleshing out this character.

The few sentences that Gameranx added to that to form an article explained what he was likely talking about (the princess segment), along with a summary/extrapolation.

Which is not to say that the rest of the conversation going on here is irrelevant per se...just that it's rooted in a very sensationalist spin on what was actually said.

[threetoed]

What is the specific context that you believe justifies the claim that the Sony Dev Team voluntarily removing sexualized violence against women is a bad thing?

I NEVER said NOR do I believe that removing sexualized violence against women in GOW is a bad thing. In fact, I said it makes sense as a way to evolve the character and his story.

What I said in my last post before you posted the first time was (speaking about the developer's free choice):

It's not about removing female enemies, it's about getting rid of the sexualized violence that is done almost always to women (or other minorities).

using scene that the original article mentioned as an example. You can find it linked to in both one of my posts and isiola's post.

Then you say:

threetoed: However, the violence in God of War is a very poor target for outrage on this issue, as any basic understanding of the series (or the violence as it takes place in the context of the games) would quickly undercut any serious objections one could make. I get the sense that you have seen some videos of violence and claim to know what's going on. It seems obvious to me that you have guessed incorrectly.

Since my serious objection that the dev team is correct to remove sexualized violence against women, it seems disingenuous to argue that you never said that you were opposed to that idea. What are you opposed to then, the claim that the scene with the topless woman thrown into the gate mechanism is not sexualized? That it's not violent? You still haven't made your argument about context any more specific. Maybe that would help us understand your objection?

[MrPopo]

Since my serious objection that the dev team is correct to remove sexualized violence against women, it seems disingenuous to argue that you never said that you were opposed to that idea.

I think he is opposed to the notion that it is "correct" to remove the violence you keep bringing up (and stop saying against women!). It is neither correct for them to remove it or to leave it in.

[dsheinem]

Look, threetoedd, get this through your head.

Here are the basics:

1) Almost no one "likes" "sexualized violence" and I agree with you that, when shown in media, it can lead to people becoming more accepting of some pretty bad stuff. However, I STRONGLY disagree with your assertion that God of War features sexualized violence. It features sexuality, it features violence, but it does NOT sexualize the violence.

Here's a definition of sexualized violence from Canada's Women's Sexual Assault Center:

Sexualized violence is an overarching term used to describe any violence, physical or psychological, carried out through sexual means or by targeting sexuality. Sexualized violence encompasses all forms of unwanted sexual contact as well as name calling, sexual humiliation, and sexual targeting.

The Anti-Violence Project adds to that:

Sexualized violence is a crime of power. It is an act of violence performed in a sexualized way. It is about control, hostility and assertion of power— it is not about sex.

Those definitions most assuredly do NOT fit the scene you included in the video nor any other scene in the God of War games. They DO fit some of the scenes in the GTA games, the game which that academic study you cited was actually using to test its subjects.


2) The developers of the God of War games or any other game are free to do whatever they wish with their story and characters and should of course face any and all public scrutiny for doing so. I am personally glad they will feature less violence against women in the new game but ONLY becasue it is the result of a character development, something which the series could use. I am glad they aren't doing it becasue people like you have lobbed idiotic complaints based on false assumptions about the series based on poor research and little to no understanding aside from a few screenshots and videos of the games themselves.

3) Finally: stop talking about games that you haven't played, claiming to know something about research you haven't read, and fabricating straw man arguments that no one ever made. You obviously have the ability to write reasonably well and to consider interesting topics, but you aren't very good at actually putting your ideas out into a public forum yet. My suggestion: spend more time reading and lurking, figure out how people make resonant and well-respected arguments on this particular site, and don't bother chiming in until you can do the same.

[Erik_Twice]

Which is not to say that the rest of the conversation going on here is irrelevant per se...just that it's rooted in a very sensationalist spin on what was actually said.

More than a spin, it's my understanding of what the developer finds objectionable, which may very well be wrong based on the difficulty I had reading the article, it isn't particularly insightful and there's deliberate misinformation around the depth of Kratos' character, which is poorly linked to the main topic and headline.

However, I think the line under the headline is quite direct:
"Sony Santa Monica says that its upcoming prequel to the God of War series will not contain any violence against women."

Obviously this precludes having women as enemies, and sensationalism aside, I think the developer is conveying this by saying that they are "conveying" sexualized violence is okey. In fact, you will find Poison's case to use very similar wording, which is why I mentioned it.

So yeah, sorry if I jumped to conclusions

[threetoed]

Look, threetoedd, get this through your head.

Here are the basics:

1) Almost no one "likes" "sexualized violence" and I agree with you that, when shown in media, it can lead to people becoming more accepting of some pretty bad stuff. However, I STRONGLY disagree with your assertion that God of War features sexualized violence. It features sexuality, it features violence, but it does NOT sexualize the violence.

So you're argument is that a topless woman is not sexual?

The Anti-Violence Project adds to that:

Sexualized violence is a crime of power. It is an act of violence performed in a sexualized way. It is about control, hostility and assertion of power— it is not about sex.

Those definitions most assuredly do NOT fit the scene you included in the video nor any other scene in the God of War games.

How does this not fit the scene in the video?
1. Control - You are literally throwing her around by the hair to make her go in the direction that you want.
2. Hostility - You kill her.
3. Assertion of power - She is begging you for her life, and you turn her down showing that you have power over her.

And it's sexualized because she is topless and meant to look sexually appealing.

2) The developers of the God of War games or any other game are free to do whatever they wish with their story and characters and should of course face any and all public scrutiny for doing so. I am personally glad they will feature less violence against women in the new game but ONLY becasue it is the result of a character development, something which the series could use. I am glad they aren't doing it becasue people like you have lobbed idiotic complaints based on false assumptions about the series based on poor research and little to no understanding aside from a few screenshots and videos of the games themselves.

I'm still waiting for the context you keep citing. What false assumptions are you referring to? What understanding do you have that makes that scene ok.

3) Finally: stop talking about games that you haven't played, claiming to know something about research you haven't read, and fabricating straw man arguments that no one ever made. You obviously have the ability to write reasonably well and to consider interesting topics, but you aren't very good at actually putting your ideas out into a public forum yet. My suggestion: spend more time reading and lurking, figure out how people make resonant and well-respected arguments on this particular site, and don't bother chiming in until you can do the same.

Let's talk about that journal article shall we? First, let's note that your argument was

This wording in these claims is extremely misleading, and is indicative of the worst "scare mongering" research on games, a category into which this article clearly falls. I know a few things about qualitative research and quite a bit about game studies research - enough to know that this is a shit article in a less than highly respected journal.

Well, calling that an argument is a bit unfair, it's just an appeal to authority: your authority.

What makes you believe that it is a shit article?

What makes it an less than highly respected journal? Especially since you think "Games and Culture" is reputable, when it's impact factor (0.395) is much lower than the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1.639). For those of you who don't know, the Impact factor of a journal is a rough measure of how important the journal is, based on the number of citations. Games and Culture's is extremely low, which means that either other academics don't read it or they read it and don't think that the articles add much to ongoing conversation in the field.

Also, your only quotation from the article is near the end, when the authors are trying to link their study to the wider conversation. It has nothing to do with their experiment or the point I'm making using it. I also noticed that you excluded the citation at the end of that quotation, which makes explicit that she is responding to another academic's call for more work on primary prevention of sexual violence. An odd thing to do for someone who claims to know so much about research.

Lastly, of course, I never claimed that the article was about God of War, only that it was about sexualized violence and it's effect on men's views of real life sexual violence. I'm not sure why you think that because it's about GTA 4, it doesn't apply to God of War 3. That's the way research works, you can't do an experiment on everything, so you pick representatives and apply it to other cases. The assumption that the violence in God of War will affect people similarly to GTA4 is supported by the vast and consistent findings about violence across all forms of media, which you mention at the beginning of your post.

[dsheinem]

So you're argument is that a topless woman is not sexual?

No, my argument is that the violence itself is not sexual in any way - he isn't doing anything that can be easily construed as sexual to her. Yes she is sexual, yes she is the victim of violence. That isn't the definition of sexualized violence.

How does this not fit the scene in the video?
1. Control - You are literally throwing her around by the hair to make her go in the direction that you want.
2. Hostility - You kill her.
3. Assertion of power - She is begging you for her life, and you turn her down showing that you have power over her.

And it's sexualized because she is topless and meant to look sexually appealing.

Again, a scene that is "violent" that features someone "sexual" is not necessarily one of sexualized violence. It is a fine distinction but an important one.

I'm still waiting for the context you keep citing. What false assumptions are you referring to? What understanding do you have that makes that scene ok.

I don't know if I would say that the one particular scene is "ok" - it is still disturbing. It isn't sexualized violence, though.

As for context, the GOW games feature almost every woman in the game as half naked, as is keeping with the particular vision of ancient Greece they've chosen to utilize (one that is shared by many many other texts, I'd add). Neither Kratos nor the other characters draw attention to this characteristic of the world except in the sex scenes found in the games, which are not violent. In other words, the game clearly has moments where sexual acts are committed and defines them in a particular way (non-violent) and it also has lots of sexual imagery/attractive characters (male and female) that are defined in another way (subject to violence like everything else). You can't just conflate the two ideas and create "sexualized violence".

What makes you believe that it is a shit article?

What makes it an less than highly respected journal? Especially since you think "Games and Culture" is reputable, when it's impact factor (0.395) is much lower than the Journal of Interpersonal Violence (1.639).

Aside from the impact factor itself being a highly flawed system, the argument doesn't hold water here since we're talking about Game Studies research vs. psychological research. Games and Culture is THE preeminent journal for Game Studies scholarship (which is what we are discussing here) and is published quarterly in a field without many other journals or stand-alone academic programs. The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is a middling-to top 1/3 or so journal that sees monthly publication in a field that is saturated with many journals and programs (thus it has more articles that then get cited much more often that would ever be the case for quarterly journal in a more obscure field). So comparative the impact factor doesn't really make sense, since we aren't comparing equal publications and the scale doesn't account for the field of Game Studies.

And yes, my expertise/authority has trained me to see that it isn't a very good article for making claims about sexualized violence becasue

A) It is making generalized claims about games as a whole based on a relatively small sample of subjects who played watched a particular game (GTA IV) under particular conditions. I am probably being a bit hard on the essay becasue I do think that it is well researched and the method is fine, but all it really does is tell them how their particular set of subjects experienced the game. They are right to say they can't generalize out to the population as a whole, but they are wrong to generalize to violent video games that feature violence against women as a whole. Even more problematic, they only SHOWED some select scenes from GTA IV, they didn't let players play the game for themselves or come to understand anything about the context for violence.

B) Their own qualifying statement seems germane to our discussion.

Although the design employed in the current study resulted in robust findings, the results are still limited in terms of generalizability to other populations. Future studies may expand this area of research by attempting to obtain a more representative sample of gamers. As indicated earlier, the majority of gamers in the United States are male, with an average age of 34. The majority of the study participants were female, with an average age of 23. In addition, the video game survey required participants to rate how violent their favorite video games were, based on their opinion. Although the video game survey employed in this study has been previously used in research by others, a measure of violence based on individuals’ perceptions can certainly result in disparate ratings for the same game across individuals.

tl;dr: Asking an audience to watch a video of someone beating a hooker after having sex with them in GTA IV, a clear example of sexualized violence, will cause people to have adverse reactions - reactions that shouldn't be generalized to all games with violence against women. Playing a game in which you use one of many naked women to open a gate is not sexualized violence, but it is still pretty fucked up.