Hacker News Reader

Can you please identify exactly what part of Hitman "rewards sexist and racist" behavior? I assume you've played the games?

You can kill women in Hitman, but this is not in itself sexist. You can kill men too, with a penalty if they're not an armed guard. There's no difference between killing a homeless man or woman that just happens to be in the way of your plans.

It seems to me that this line of criticism is actually that the game is too violent in general. It's just that sexism is used as the tip of the spear, because we as a society are significantly more likely to be outraged - because we are sexist - by violence against innocent women in games than violence against innocent men. Against the ultra powerful player character, both are just as defenseless.

If any gender is dehumanized by Hitman, it would surely be men - more than 95% of who you kill in an average play through are male guards that are simply there to be a gameplay element, like ghosts in Pac Man. You violently kill them, dump their bodies and forget it seconds later. The female opponents are highly powerful assassins with names and unique faces.

There is plenty of low hanging fruit for criticizing Hitman. It's quite a disturbing game (and it happens to be one of my favorites). I'm all for deconstructing and analyzing the games we play, but doing it in an intellectually lazy way does nobody any favors.

(I can't speak to the other games, as I haven't played them)

>The problem is that games like Red Dead Redemption, Hitman, and Grand Theft Auto systematically reward sexist and racist behavior (tying a woman to train tracks, brutalizing prostitutes, etc.).

This sort of dishonesty is precisely what causes the backlash. No, those games do nothing of the sort.

So, here's something funny, I thought to myself "is there anybody that isn't familiar with the woman tied to the railroad tracks cliche so they wouldn't get the reference? It's gotta be like a hundred years old by now." So I Googled "woman tied to railroad tracks." The first link that I got was an article by a silent film enthusiast about "silent film myths." I click on it and he references an Anita Sarkeesian video!

With a cautious disclaimer that she's usually reliable, he points out that she brings up this cliche as being a common silent film trope and she includes a short clip from a 1913 silent film using it. But here's the problem: the gag wasn't common in silent films at all, that's the myth the rest of the article debunks; and in the clip she was using, by 1913 it was already a gag scenario only suitable for making fun of, not seriously presented, yet this is how she describes it. In the span of two minutes I accidentally found somebody in a completely different hobby who called out a video of Sarkeesian making a incorrect claim she couldn't possibly have actually researched (that the trope was common in silent films,) and taking a video clip out of context either because she didn't really watch it, or on purpose because it made her point better.

I know that the trope can be presented ironically and still be part of a cultural pattern of objectifying women. That is not my point. It is just about accidentally finding the same sort of thing that gamers say she does about specific games in a completely different medium she has commented on. Noticing these things, if they keep happening, could be considered "honest criticism" of her videos that some people insist doesn't exist.

> The problem is that games like Red Dead Redemption, Hitman, and Grand Theft Auto systematically reward sexist and racist behavior (tying a woman to train tracks, brutalizing prostitutes, etc.).

In a sense, yes. For example, Grand Theft Auto rewards players for brutalizing prostitutes because it rewards players for brutalizing NPCs full stop. It turns out that including female characters in your game and applying the same generic mechanics to them as male charcters is a really good way of producing a misogynistic game. That's... odd, to say the least.

(Also, it doesn't even matter if the game encourages violence against them. Just having female NPCs that can be the receipient of violence is enough, even if it's penalized by the game mechanics. If you don't want to be accused of encouraging misogyny it's probably safest and easiest just not to include any women in your game.)

These games have a right to exist as free speech regardless of what they portray or how the player is rewarded. Banning media or forcing them to conform to your political beliefs because you don't agree with it is nothing short of fascism.

I don't see people out there arguing to rewrite Bukowski for being sexist.

I tripped up over this many times when I first discovered online dating profiles of girls who called themselves 'feminists'-Now I put that in quotes because it was before I became exposed to online-radical-feminists, or the extreme feminist types.

Anyway, I'd see the profiles of these 'feminists' and would list among their favorite writers 'I LOVE Bukowski'.

Every single time I'd cock my head to the side, utterly confused. I still do.

To each her own I guess...k

No-one is suggesting these games are banned. Free speech goes both ways, the games can be made, I can critise them.

These games reward violent behaviour against all kinds of people, all of the GTA games I played involved killing many more men than women and probably more whites than blacks.

> The problem is that games like Red Dead Redemption, Hitman, and Grand Theft Auto systematically reward sexist and racist behavior (tying a woman to train tracks, brutalizing prostitutes, etc.).

A game is a work of fiction.FICTION.it doesnt mean developpers fantasize on rape or that it will turn player into sex offenders.When did COD turn players into mass murderers ? never. When did GTA turn players into car jackers ? or thugs ? I remember new york city being pretty violent in the early 80's.GTA didnt exist... Game X or Y didnt make the nazi kill jews... or made Ted Bundy be what he was ...

Reminds me Resident Evil 5 c"ontroversy" when "people" were outraged because players were killing blacks ... What the hell ? the game is set up in Africa, for christ sake...there will be some black people there ... RE5 didnt make the US south racist or lynch negros ...did it ?

> Many refute the idea that video games can affect a player's long-term behavior, and as far as I know both sides of that argument are difficult to study and prove.

Because people CAN tell the difference between reality and fiction.For those who cant , videogames are not to blame.They have issues at first place.

So yes,let's continue to have violence against women,objectified women in video games,just like men are objectified and raped and killed in videogames.

If only women were brutalized,you may have had a point,but that's not the case,at all.

that's why all this social justice warfare against videogames is silly.These are just game and do not turn people into monsters,trolls,racists,rapists,killers or whatever.

I want game artists to be able to express themself without fear of finger pointing by people totally unrelated to gaming.

If players dont like it,then they will not buy it.Let the market work...

So enough with all this already.A few people made a quick buck out of social justice warfare,good for them, but let us not fall for all that crap.

>When did GTA turn players into car jackers ?

I explicitly addressed and rejected this conversation in the post you responded to. No one other than Jack Thompson and a few crazed parents are suggesting your hyperbole.

>A few people made a quick buck out of social justice warfare

I am constantly upset by this notion. There are very real social problems in this world, regardless of who you think profits off of them. This is insanely dismissive.

Violence is a very real social problem. I'd even say that Thompson's heart was arguably in the right place.

Now, why are Thompson's arguments widely dismissed as invalid even though they have the same logical construction as the SJWs arguments, and they receive much more credibility?

Thompson's argument boiled down to its base is that violence in games perpetuates a culture that has real negative impacts on the real world.

The average SJW's argument, take Thompson's postulate, replace "violence" with any random "-ism", and it's literally the same argument with the same striking lack of anything other than emotion to back it up.

The average "SJW's" argument, perhaps. Academia is all up in this problem, though[1].

[1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=video+games+sexism

I'd argue that the difference is that we tend to see violence, especially the extreme sort found in most games, as "obviously wrong." Performing the action in a game isn't likely to cause someone to change their behaviors about something that has been ingrained in them as obviously wrong. But sexism, racism, etc. and general exclusionary tendencies are much more subtle and less obvious; I'm not saying that games do necessarily influence people on these topics, but there is a definite qualitative difference between how people feel about violence and how people feel about sexism, etc., to the point that the arguments are not parallel. The evidence against Thompson's argument doesn't preclude cultural media from influencing us on other vectors.

> "Let the market work."

The market includes feedback mechanisms. Game criticism is one of said feedback mechanisms. If people are criticising a game, that is an element of the market at work.

Is it worse that those games reward sexist and/or racist behavior or extremely violent behavior?

Good question; I don't know. There's definitely a calm conversation worth being had about violence in video games.

In general: I would predict that if every parent strictly followed ESRB guidelines there wouldn't need to be a conversation.

I agree with your second sentence an unbelievable amount. As the parent of a child, with friends who play violent, sexist, racist, terribly entertaining popular games, I wish every person who had spawn would follow ESRB guides.

To your first - is there really a conversation about violence in video games that is substantive? It always boils down to, "I don't like it," "I do like it". I think it's just too hard to control for all the variables in someone's life to actually see if violent video games have an impact at all.

>To your first - is there really a conversation about violence in video games that is substantive?

I effectively agree. I suppose the extent of my conversation is my second sentence, and only then because of anecdotal evidence.

Still, I'm sure there are psychology and sociology students who would love to step forward with their studies. It's not often you encounter a bunch of those sorts talking about this issue on the internet, though. Especially on Hacker News.