tegan

I Had a Random Thought (About Video Games)

Recommended Posts

I think it's fucked up to say this is ableist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit odd to say that this thing has spoilers but it doesn't really matter if you experienced it, as though I'm supposed to take the interpretation of this article and adopt it as my general view of Telltale. Especially considering a lot about Telltale's games have to do with choice, if not substantively than at least in terms of tone which can really dictate how earnest their supposed ableism may seem to me if I had actually played the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fucked up to say this is ableist.

I think it's a bit odd to say that this thing has spoilers but it doesn't really matter if you experienced it, as though I'm supposed to take the interpretation of this article and adopt it as my general view of Telltale. Especially considering a lot about Telltale's games have to do with choice, if not substantively than at least in terms of tone which can really dictate how earnest their supposed ableism may seem to me if I had actually played the game.

 

I'm not sure either of you guys read the whole post? It's saying that two developers from Telltale expressed joy and anticipation when asked about their feelings on killing off a disabled character who they called "not normal" and "useless". Like one of the Tumblr responses said, "so post-apocalyptic stories continue to be an outlet for shitty manbaby fanboys and their huge boners for eugenics and violent hatred for people who arent Normal? luv it." That's the problem here, not whether or not it was okay to kill a given character off.

 

It's one thing to have the black friend die in your movie, it's another to say in an interview that you were looking forward to killing him off because of who he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fucked up to say this is ableist.

 

I think it's fucked up to give an opinion on a situation without actually understanding what the situation is.

 

This isn't only "Telltale mishandled a young, non-white disabled girl in a story". This is Telltale expressing GLEE in how they ended up treating this character and admitting to being subservient to a shitty vocal fan base. They admitted that a character they created, a disabled young girl, was "annoying" because of how she always holds back the survivors (a common narrative trope in survival stories featuring disabled or vulnerable people, particularly women) and thus, SPOILERS killed her off because of that END GROSS ASS SPOILERS (and cuz shitty fans wanted that as well) and agree with Greg Miller's disgusting remarks of how she was annoying and how "not normal" she was.

 

I'm not sure either of you guys read the whole post? It's saying that two developers from Telltale expressed joy and anticipation when asked about their feelings on killing off a disabled character who they called "not normal" and "useless". Like one of the Tumblr responses said, "so post-apocalyptic stories continue to be an outlet for shitty manbaby fanboys and their huge boners for eugenics and violent hatred for people who arent Normal? luv it." That's the problem here, not whether or not it was okay to kill a given character off.

 

It's one thing to have the black friend die in your movie, it's another to say in an interview that you were looking forward to killing him off because of who he was.

 
This. Only that they specify that Telltale in general seemed to share that joy and anticipation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I actually read the article and then proceeded to watch that part of the interview because I wanted the full context. Don't get me wrong, I don't think they handled that interview incredibly well. However, the tone of the interview that was being led by Greg Miller was sophomoric so they kind of laughed along with him a couple times where I felt they didn't seem incredibly comfortable with what he was asserting. I didn't see "glee" at any point discussing that character in that interview. They seemed excited at the choice itself in an almost mechanical sense, even going as far as to cite the statistics that 50% went one way and 50% went the other. Those statistics seem to mean a lot to Telltale, despite the fact that the choice itself may not be particularly tasteful or profound but ooh look it's balanced so there must be a meaningful decision there.

 

I don't know, it doesn't seem as black and white as that article or you guys are making it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure either of you guys read the whole post? It's saying that two developers from Telltale expressed joy and anticipation when asked about their feelings on killing off a disabled character who they called "not normal" and "useless". Like one of the Tumblr responses said, "so post-apocalyptic stories continue to be an outlet for shitty manbaby fanboys and their huge boners for eugenics and violent hatred for people who arent Normal? luv it." That's the problem here, not whether or not it was okay to kill a given character off.

 

It's one thing to have the black friend die in your movie, it's another to say in an interview that you were looking forward to killing him off because of who he was.

I did read it, and I don't agree. I'm with joncole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did read it, and I don't agree. I'm with joncole.

 

No, you aren't. JonCole says it's not black and white. You're saying that it is, just in the other direction.

 

Personally, I think that, if a developer chooses to create a minority or disabled character and chooses to put them in a situation where they will be the object of criticism or hatred, then they should take responsibility for championing the right of that character to exist, even against the opinions of their own fanbase. I find it distasteful, to the point of implicit ableism, to go along with toxic comments like Miller's for the sake of a better and more convivial interview. I can't say I wouldn't have done the same, but it's something I'm aware of and working on. I hope those two are doing the same, at least.

 

I think there's room to disagree on this, but that is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said I think it's fucked up to call this ableist; I didn't say it was black and white! I can certainly understand the miscommunication there, though, and so I will retract that allegedly black or white statement.

 

Let me repeat: I'm with joncole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's weird to me, because I'm considering on dropping my support of Idle Thumbs, knowing that it features two ex-Telltale employees and one Telltale employee that only still works there, but even wrote for one of the episodes. This is all around really shitty, and I am dead certain that by tomorrow, everyone will forget this. And that's fucked up.

 

Obviously everyone can choose to support or not support whoever they want for whatever reason, but I'm not really sure how this bit is relevant to the larger issue. No one associated with Idle Thumbs actually wrote this particular episode (as far as I'm aware) and were definitely not part of the interview that is being criticized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they should have championed the right for that character to exist. I think the real fucked up thing is creating a universe that excuses the only choice being dragging a vulnerable character through the dirt or letting her die. I like TWD, but I don't think that the grimness of those choices are compelling in any way. It's part of the reason I don't really enjoy the show; if every eventuality leads to everyone being a dead man walking, then how is that really interesting at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that they should have championed the right for that character to exist. I think the real fucked up thing is creating a universe that excuses the only choice being dragging a vulnerable character through the dirt or letting her die. I like TWD, but I don't think that the grimness of those choices are compelling in any way. It's part of the reason I don't really enjoy the show; if every eventuality leads to everyone being a dead man walking, then how is that really interesting at all?

 

I think you've described the reasons for which the zombie craze is doomed eventually to die out. I agree completely about the show and liked the games specifically for their more human touches. I like zombie fiction that reveals the universality of human bonds rather than celebrating the grim calculus of survival, but I don't like being reminded that both don't look kindly on people who are too different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both types of zombie fiction. Sometimes I... "enjoy" seeing the multitude of ways in which life fails. It's fascinating and disgusting, and that's why it's great.

 

I don't think the zombie craze is likely to "die out" because of this. If anything, it'll just be zombie fatigue. Then again, people were saying that before TWD got both a game and a TV show, so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone skip/forget this part:

 

“…there’s just so many people like in the office, on the internet who were just like y’know, ‘Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, I can’t wait to get rid of her.’”

 

"‘Sarah, Sarah, Sarah, I can’t wait to get rid of her.’”

 

"'I can’t wait to get rid of her.’"

 

Um, yeah. that may be the biggest problem here. The admission that Telltale, or at least these two twats, wanted to kill off this already abused, badly treated disabled character cuz LOL, SHE'S ANNOYING, AMIRITE GUYS? GUYS is probably the most fucked up and main problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much does she actually read as being neurodivergent, though? I know Greg Miller posted in response to this that he had never considered that she was anything other than capable of normal function, but unlike Clem hadn't accepted the reality of the world they'd found themselves in.

 

I haven't played any TWD so I honestly don't know.

 

I gotta say it'd be pretty funny if Telltale always meant to make a hateable character and had accidentally made a disabled one instead. I just imagine Alan Moore getting really fucking frustrated at all the fans of Rorschach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never knew she was disabled. But i assume I must have missed some clue for it to be a widely believed thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played Season 2 yet, but this got my curiosity up enough to spoil this much.  Reading through the comments in that IGN article Merus linked, there's this comment that calls into question the entire premise about 1) whether or not she's useless and 2) whether there's something about the way she's presented that causes people to view her as more of a liability than other characters who take actions that are just as detrimental to the group.  Spoilered for its length.

 

SyberiaWinx on IGN wrote:

Sarah isn't "on board"? She's a fifteen-year-old girl who saw her only family—and probably the only person she has a truly close relationship with—suddenly gunned down and then torn apart in front of her. Both of her possible deaths take place not even a day after this. Even without her anxiety issues, it makes perfect sense for her to still be grieving and in shock.

Clem put the group in danger plenty of times, even with her newfound survival skills. She froze up when Lee was being attacked in the station. She recklessly crawled through that doggy door and into a potentially dangerous situation. She left the house TWICE, despite us telling her to stay put and despite her knowing how dangerous it was. She was talking with the Stranger and telling him stuff in secret for weeks.

Other people have done the same thing. Lily and Kenny both react the same way as Sarah when they suddenly and brutally lose their loved ones, and they're both adults—the latter even has military training. Yet no one calls them "liabilities" for this.

Despite what Carlos thinks, Sarah is not clueless. She knows how bad the world is. That's why she tries to get Clem to teach her how to use a gun. She knows about Clem's bite situation, despite the group trying to hide it from her. And she also calls Clem out if Clem tries to lie to her about her dad's whereabouts.

Sarah doesn't help Clem? How about when she goes against her dad's wishes and doesn't rat Clem out when she sneaks into the house, allowing her to get the stuff she needs to fix her arm? How about when she gives you the most important item—the disinfectant? How about when, if you try and take the blame for the picture, Sarah takes the blame herself? How about when she backs you up to the others if you tell them you didn't let Carver into the house? How about when Carver smacks you, potentially, and she yells at him, even if you were never nice to her—do you even know how big a deal it is for someone with anxiety to stand up to a man like that?

 

If that's even mostly accurate, it does seem reasonable to question what it is about this character that is creating the hate, particularly if that hate is in many ways derived from her being considered "different" in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That does sound quite gross, and makes me want to play The Walking Dead 2 less (even if I have already bought the game). But:

 

And it's weird to me, because I'm considering on dropping my support of Idle Thumbs, knowing that it features two ex-Telltale employees and one Telltale employee that only still works there, but even wrote for one of the episodes.

 

I'm equal parts intrigued and confused by this, not least because I find the idea that decisions relating to me might be based on my (former) colleagues' views or actions sort of unnerving.
 
What is the fear here? That by supporting Idle Thumbs, you are also supporting Telltale Games' (alleged) views? Or that the alleged (I keep saying alleged because I find it hard to consider the two guys’ opinions representative of the whole office, even if they keep talking about ”the office”) poisonous work environment (can’t find the correct term at the moment) has somehow contaminated the two former and one current Telltale Games employees* in the Idle Thumbs podcast? If the latter is true, do you think the views Sean, Jake, and Nick have expressed in the podcast echo those of the two Telltale Games guys in the interview? Like at all?
 
Will this also affect the decisions relating to Campo Santo?
 
I’m not trying to be an asshole here, even if I might come across as one (I find it hard know these days). I genuinely want to know what is the reasoning here. As Sarah already pointed out, you are of course free to make your decisions based on whatever. I’m just curious.
 
 
* Sean and Jake were only involved in the first season of The Walking Dead (which, as a whole, was nothing like the scene you described here, if I remember correctly), while Nick did in fact work for The Walking Dead Season 2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of Sarah being disabled is odd to me, she seemed perfectly normal just not capable of adapting to the zombie world as well as Clementine. I imagine it's the direct comparison to Clem that made for this anti Sarah sentiment. The overall sentiment is pretty gross and I didn't read the scene when it happened aa

her wanting to die, I actually read it as she was now trying to survive but it wasn't possible to save her. I thought the whole episode was playing off whether you should be impersonal in order to survive better or should you try your best to help everyone no matter what the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me start by saying that I have not played any of the Walking Dead games, season 1 or season 2.

 

It seemed to me that the interview was mostly Greg Miller talking crap (which is fairly typical) and the developers staying fairly silent and trying their best to stay out of it. The comment that some people in the office wanted to get rid of her seems to me to be the same thing that could be said of any number of characters for tons of different reasons. There's a lot additional editorial added on that tumblr site which may or may not be implied by the actual conversation, which is strange for a site that has "No Opinion Zone" emblazoned on the header (which I confess made me predisposed to dislike the content before I even started.)

 

The slap part was wierd in that the concept of slapping some sense into somone is such a dumb movie thing that should have gone away a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The slap part was wierd in that the concept of slapping some sense into somone is such a dumb movie thing that should have gone away a long time ago.

 

Mythbusters found that slapping someone in an impaired state improved measurable performance versus the non-slapped impaired state.  It's MythBusters, so it's not like it's perfect research, but there may be something to it.  Of course the trope is mostly used to slap women it seems, so that's gross.  I can't think of slapping someone without the clip from Airplane: The Movie playing through my head.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the trope is mostly used to slap women it seems, so that's gross.

Huh. You know in my head I'd mostly pictured it being done to guys (usually in freak-out-in-a-battle type situations), but now that you say this I'm questioning my imagination x memory. I can't even remember the last time I encountered the trope besides TWD, which I'd forgotten about until I watched the video, probably because it's such a throwaway common trope. I'll have to keep a closer eye on the trope when I see it in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same thought, Twig. Most the scenes I can think of involve someone slapping an hysterical man in a sitcom (specifically when Homer continues to slap Ned Flanders while stranded at sea on the father-son rafting vacation). Not really a great representation of occurrences of the trope though, so I could easily be wrong. Maybe in the 60-80s it was something that happened mostly to women in TV, but I think it's progressed to be rather ubiquitous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't give a definitive answer, I just know in my head it's associated with slapping a hysterical woman.  Could well be that it's be a relatively non-gendered trope over the years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't give a definitive answer, I just know in my head it's associated with slapping a hysterical woman.  Could well be that it's be a relatively non-gendered trope over the years. 

 

I think it's just a case of a trope that originally was exclusive to women, but in modern time has undergone a kind of retro-sexism reversal where men are the ones being slapped but with the subtext of "this is funny because a man is acting hysterical like a women and he got slapped." At least that's how I often read it when it's used for humor.

 

(This is so widely off-topic from what is being discussed, sorry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that slapping hysterical women was used alot in popular media during the 70s and 80s, so much so that that modern jokes are based around the implication that slapping a man is likening them to a hysterical woman.

 

Edit: And I was beat while typing this. At least I'm not completely off base :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now