Feminism

[Cordeos]

The only MGS game I played was MGS 4 and it was a pretty good game as far as gameplay is concerned. That being said, I don't get what the big fuss is over Kojima's legacy and he just comes across as a gross pervert to me. It's really hard to respect a person's work when they put such a big emphasis on boobies, even when it clashes really hard with everything else that is going on. I mean, boobies are fine and all but Jesus, the last thing I need when everything is going to shit in a game and there's all these life or death scenarios is for a half naked woman to come into the scene just to sexy everything up. It's so childish.

 

I kind of feel like its worse in MSG than in a game like God of War. Its just so out of place in an otherwise gritty war, stealth game, it feels shoehorned in. In God of War the game was all about violence and sex so the occasional topless monster or woman felt perfectly normal.

[Patrick R]

I kind of feel like its worse in MSG than in a game like God of War. Its just so out of place in an otherwise gritty war, stealth game, it feels shoehorned in. In God of War the game was all about violence and sex so the occasional topless monster or woman felt perfectly normal.

 

I'm no fan of the pervy elements of the MGS games (of which I've only played the first 3), but I will say a big part of the series' appeal is it's tonal dissonance. I don't think Kojima is half the artist that someone like David Lynch is, but those MGS games at their best captured a similar kind of pleasurable disorientation of his films. They feel like really personal idiosyncratic works, with a strong authorial voice, which I think is so rare in video games of that scale. 

 

The downside of that can be you see the gross fucked up parts of the artist as well. It goes back to the Robert Crumb conversation that was going on in the Ms. Petman thread. Not that that necessarily justifies anything (what I heard about Ground Zeroes certainly seems beyond the pale) but I think the sex in God of War feels grosser because it feels more callous and calculated.

[Argobot]

That's a good segue to this Medium piece that was making the rounds yesterday by Sady Doyle: https://t.co/vwba3UPX2m

 

The argument seems to be that a good person can create bad art that can then influence an already bad person to do a bad thing (the example given is a Beastie Boys rape joke that a teenage boy copied when he raped a young girl). Doyle argues that by making a rape joke, the Beastie Boys didn't create a rapist, but they did provide inspiration to a young man who likely would have attempted rape with or without the joke. I don't agree with everything in this article, especially the idea that if an artist creates a work with disturbing content that they are then culpable for every negative action that is inspired by that content, but it's good food for thought in this MGSV discussion.

[jennegatron]

I really liked that Medium piece. It's very hard to read, but it pokes fun at Patton Oswalt & Jerry Seinfeld which I am very much in favor of.

[Cordeos]

I'm no fan of the pervy elements of the MGS games (of which I've only played the first 3), but I will say a big part of the series' appeal is it's tonal dissonance. I don't think Kojima is half the artist that someone like David Lynch is, but those MGS games at their best captured a similar kind of pleasurable disorientation of his films. They feel like really personal idiosyncratic works, with a strong authorial voice, which I think is so rare in video games of that scale. 

 

The downside of that can be you see the gross fucked up parts of the artist as well. It goes back to the Robert Crumb conversation that was going on in the Ms. Petman thread. Not that that necessarily justifies anything (what I heard about Ground Zeroes certainly seems beyond the pale) but I think the sex in God of War feels grosser because it feels more callous and calculated.

 

Looking at it that way I guess there is no difference between intentional and incidental perviness. 

[Twig]

I'm no fan of the pervy elements of the MGS games (of which I've only played the first 3), but I will say a big part of the series' appeal is it's tonal dissonance. I don't think Kojima is half the artist that someone like David Lynch is, but those MGS games at their best captured a similar kind of pleasurable disorientation of his films. They feel like really personal idiosyncratic works, with a strong authorial voice, which I think is so rare in video games of that scale. 

 

The downside of that can be you see the gross fucked up parts of the artist as well. It goes back to the Robert Crumb conversation that was going on in the Ms. Petman thread. Not that that necessarily justifies anything (what I heard about Ground Zeroes certainly seems beyond the pale) but I think the sex in God of War feels grosser because it feels more callous and calculated.

This describes how I feel about MGS better than I think I ever could. I don't have anything to add, just kinda, "thanks for spelling out my own feelings for me". Heh.

[osmosisch]

That's a good segue to this Medium piece that was making the rounds yesterday by Sady Doyle: https://t.co/vwba3UPX2m

 

The argument seems to be that a good person can create bad art that can then influence an already bad person to do a bad thing (the example given is a Beastie Boys rape joke that a teenage boy copied when he raped a young girl). Doyle argues that by making a rape joke, the Beastie Boys didn't create a rapist, but they did provide inspiration to a young man who likely would have attempted rape with or without the joke. I don't agree with everything in this article, especially the idea that if an artist creates a work with disturbing content that they are then culpable for every negative action that is inspired by that content, but it's good food for thought in this MGSV discussion.

Lovely article.

I didn't take the argument from it that disturbing content is culpable, but rather that it removes barriers or creates impetus that otherwise wouldn't be there. Culpability seems like too strong a term for that to me.

[Dewar]

I haven't heard any word on what gross stuff there is in Phantom Pain at least concerning violent storylines towards women. Is there anything else going on besides how Quiet looks?

I want to think it's just doing missions with puppies.

 

As you might have noticed if you were looking at the MGS thread, but I ended up buying it. I'm 15 hours in and it's been pretty non-offensive besides Quiet so far. She's also optional, so if she were to die then you wouldn't have to deal with that either. (Of course, that's a whole different weird argument of sex versus violence.)

 

There really hasn't been a ton of story really, it's been mostly open world stealth action.

[ewokskick]

I had to take a break twice while reading that article.  It's a rough ride, but a brilliant piece.

[Patrick R]

Looking at it that way I guess there is no difference between intentional and incidental perviness. 

 

Do you mind expanding that thought a little bit? I don't think I agree with you, or that that was what I was saying, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting this post.

[namman siggins]

As you might have noticed if you were looking at the MGS thread, but I ended up buying it. I'm 15 hours in and it's been pretty non-offensive besides Quiet so far. She's also optional, so if she were to die then you wouldn't have to deal with that either. (Of course, that's a whole different weird argument of sex versus violence.)

 

There really hasn't been a ton of story really, it's been mostly open world stealth action.

The story is in the tapes: they're the codecs.

[Cordeos]

Do you mind expanding that thought a little bit? I don't think I agree with you, or that that was what I was saying, but maybe I'm just misinterpreting this post.

 

The sexual content in GoW was very planned out and created by a team as a theme of the game, where as a lot of the sexual content in MGS feels out of place with the theme. It's part of the "tonal dissonance". I don't see a difference between "Lets have sexual content because our game is hardcore and for adults." and "Lets have sexual content because boobies."

[Patrick R]

The sexual content in GoW was very planned out and created by a team as a theme of the game, where as a lot of the sexual content in MGS feels out of place with the theme. It's part of the "tonal dissonance". I don't see a difference between "Lets have sexual content because our game is hardcore and for adults." and "Lets have sexual content because boobies."

 

Oh man, I just made a very long post and then accidentally hit the back button, erasing it all. It was so good, I looked so smart. Brilliant. YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME.

 

I will nutshell it:

 

1. I disagee with your take.
2. I see the difference between GoW and MGS as "Let's have sexual content because we want our game to appeal to 16-year-olds and those with the maturity of 16-year-olds" and "Let's have sexual content in our game because it is what Kojima wants."
3. I do not think intent matters much either way. I am a Death of the Author kind of guy.
4. I think part of the MGS series' charm is that it takes anime tropes and bends over backwards to ground them in current events and broad observations about the military industrial complex.
5. I think the "Quiet has to have her boobs out because nano-machines!" angle is both gross and also totally part of that approach that also applies to nonsexual things, like Ninja robots and transplanted arms possessing evil dudes.
6. I have only played the first three MGS games, so these opinions may be out of date.
7. I think the sex in GoW games (of which I only played the first two, and not nearly as much as the MGS games, so I might be completely wrong) feels less integral to the actual gameplay and world building and more something that someone thought would drum up publicity/get the hormones of 16-year-old boys raging.
8. All of this is based on my reading of the games themselves, not any behind the scenes stuff of the authorial intent.

[namman siggins]

You're not out of date: as much as its gameplay changes, its tropes, quirks, and ticks stays the same.

Kojima. Kojima never changes.

[Cordeos]

Oh man, I just made a very long post and then accidentally hit the back button, erasing it all. It was so good, I looked so smart. Brilliant. YOU GOTTA BELIEVE ME.

 

I will nutshell it:

 

1. I disagee with your take.
2. I see the difference between GoW and MGS as "Let's have sexual content because we want our game to appeal to 16-year-olds and those with the maturity of 16-year-olds" and "Let's have sexual content in our game because it is what Kojima wants."
3. I do not think intent matters much either way. I am a Death of the Author kind of guy.
4. I think part of the MGS series' charm is that it takes anime tropes and bends over backwards to ground them in current events and broad observations about the military industrial complex.
5. I think the "Quiet has to have her boobs out because nano-machines!" angle is both gross and also totally part of that approach that also applies to nonsexual things, like Ninja robots and transplanted arms possessing evil dudes.
6. I have only played the first three MGS games, so these opinions may be out of date.
7. I think the sex in GoW games (of which I only played the first two, and not nearly as much as the MGS games, so I might be completely wrong) feels less integral to the actual gameplay and world building and more something that someone thought would drum up publicity/get the hormones of 16-year-old boys raging.
8. All of this is based on my reading of the games themselves, not any behind the scenes stuff of the authorial intent.

 

I just don't see a difference between pandering to 16 year olds in general and appealing to one creepy mans desires and (accidentally?) appealing to those same 16 year olds. Both have the same level of intent, the intent just comes from different sources.

[syntheticgerbil]

That's a good segue to this Medium piece that was making the rounds yesterday by Sady Doyle: https://t.co/vwba3UPX2m

Oh geez, big Beastie Boys fan, I never knew of that incident, but it being a part of the major chance in tone and attitude moving on to Paul's Boutique makes total sense. They tend to speak of the mid 80s with a lot of regret, sexism and fights, etc.

[Patrick R]

I just don't see a difference between pandering to 16 year olds in general and appealing to one creepy mans desires and (accidentally?) appealing to those same 16 year olds. Both have the same level of intent, the intent just comes from different sources.

 

Because one is a capitalist choice and one an artistic choice. One adds to the artistic intent and one adds to the capitalist intent. I have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more sympathy towards one than the other, even if I don't condone of either.

 

EDIT: I should rephrase that: I find one way more compelling than the other. It's a common thing in the world of exploitation films. There are the Jim Wynorskis of the world, who are only interested in packing their films with as many busty blondes as possible, and there are the Russ Meyers of the world who genuinely seem to be working out some kind of deeply personal deviant sexual philosophy in their films*. Both are exploitative and sexist, but I only find one compelling**.

 

*Not that I find the sexuality in Kojima's work to be that interesting or deviant (his taste tends to run pretty mainstream anime babe-y), just that the deviancy seems to be part of a larger whole.

 

EDIT EDIT:

**And also completely understand anyone who does not want to engage with either.

[Cordeos]

Because one is a capitalist choice and one an artistic choice. One adds to the artistic intent and one adds to the capitalist intent. I have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more sympathy towards one than the other, even if I don't condone of either.

 

So an artist opening a strip club because he artistically likes strip clubs is better than someone just opening one as a business? I just don't see how art makes skeezy behavior more sympathetic. 

[Patrick R]

Your example is rather broad (what does it mean for an artist to "artistically like strip clubs"?), and I wouldn't use the word better. More compelling, sure. More interesting, sure.

[Cordeos]

Your example is rather broad (what does it mean for an artist to "artistically like strip clubs"?), and I wouldn't use the word better. More compelling, sure. More interesting, sure.

 

 What does it mean for Kojima to "artistically" decide to put unnecessary bikini clad characters in his games? 

[ewokskick]

I don't get the difference.  The reason it is in the game has no impact on how it supports the culture of misogyny.

[Gormongous]

I don't get the difference.  The reason it is in the game has no impact on how it supports the culture of misogyny.

 

I agree. There's a slightly better narrative to sexist garbage getting put in a game because a single identifiable human wants it in there, as opposed to a group of executives deciding that their target audience wants it in there, but the actual upshot is indistinguishable to me.

[Ninety-Three]

That's a good segue to this Medium piece that was making the rounds yesterday by Sady Doyle: https://t.co/vwba3UPX2m

 

The argument seems to be that a good person can create bad art that can then influence an already bad person to do a bad thing (the example given is a Beastie Boys rape joke that a teenage boy copied when he raped a young girl). Doyle argues that by making a rape joke, the Beastie Boys didn't create a rapist, but they did provide inspiration to a young man who likely would have attempted rape with or without the joke. I don't agree with everything in this article, especially the idea that if an artist creates a work with disturbing content that they are then culpable for every negative action that is inspired by that content, but it's good food for thought in this MGSV discussion.

 

That article had the opposite of its intended effect on me. What it reminded me of was the fact that Charles Manson claimed to have taken inspiration from Beatles songs. Obviously (even moreso than with the Beastie Boys case) nothing in Helter Skelter incited murder. At some point you have to acknowledge that wrongheaded people will do unreasonable things with a message and that anything could set someone off.

 

If some psychopath shoots a man in Reno just to watch him die, while it may be technically true that Johnny Cash's lyrics inspired that, I can't see any sort of reasonable argument that the lyrics were harmful. I can't imagine that anyone would say that Cash's lyric contributes to a culture of violence and murder, so it seems silly to say that the Beastie Boys lyric contributes to rape culture. Folsom Prison Blues isn't wrong, and neither is Paul Revere.

[Apple Cider]

There's no 1:1 link. There never going to be. However, you know what rape jokes do? They normalize a culture that already has rape problem. Sure, we are all against rape, but quite a few men can't even tell what rape is if you don't call it that, have issues with consent across the board, think violence against women and sex are interlinked. Telling rape jokes provides a situation where we're laughing at something and that just contributes to continuing attitude that it doesn't matter as much as it should. All of these things have a cumulative effect when you see it on TV, in movies, when victim's narratives aren't centered, when we laugh at those jokes while those of us who have suffered through it have to suffer quietly as we see people we know laughing at something that is a horrible part of our lives. 

 

If you want to argue about the cultural impact of other shit like violence or whatever, be my guest, but don't come into this thread and argue about how you don't think rape jokes and related content don't have a cultural impact. Just don't. I'm asking you now. I don't want your pedantry on this subject in particular. 

[Reyturner]

That article had the opposite of its intended effect on me. What it reminded me of was the fact that Charles Manson claimed to have taken inspiration from Beatles songs. Obviously (even moreso than with the Beastie Boys case) nothing in Helter Skelter incited murder. At some point you have to acknowledge that wrongheaded people will do unreasonable things with a message and that anything could set someone off.

She does mention Manson and Helter Skelter though I didn't find her reasoning for why that was totally different very convincing.