I’m in the process of writing (give or take) half a dozen articles on the subject of internet discourse. The idea is to give readers the vocabulary and the resources to refute some of the most irritating, non-constructive arguments that are commonly formulated in online discussions. The series is especially aimed at videogames, and double-especially aimed at the tedious oft-repeated arguments that have swelled in popularity since the #gamergate movement started late in 2014. That said, they should serve you well in any discussion of popular artworks, online or off. Each post will present the argument, explain why it’s wrong, and suggest an alternative response.



The goal of these posts is not claim that the effect of #gamergate is wholly, or even mostly, negative. I won’t pretend that I would be writing this if the hashtag didn’t exist, but that isn’t what this is about anymore. Anybody can abuse these arguments to hogtie productive discourse no matter their perspective on the issue at hand.



Part 2, let’s get going -





TWO: Most of the time, Social Justice Warriors are critical of representations of gender, race, sexuality or gender identity in the pursuit of fun, not at the expense of it.





The argument i’m talking about



Point:

The Witcher 3 portrays female characters in a way that frustrates me and pulls me out of the experience. The tired fantasy trope of clothing every female character in form-fitting fabric with ludicrous, plunging necklines transforms them from characters into objects to be gawked at. It’s far too chilly and dangerous to wander around like that.





Response:

I’m so sick of arguments like this. It’s a FANTASY game with GRIFFINS AND WRAITHS and you’re complaining about attractive women showing off their breasts? It’s called escapism. If I wanted something realistic i’d go outside. Games are the pure creative vision of a developer. Why dilute that for the sake of political correctness or inclusivity? We are adults and we can distinguish fantasy from reality. Can’t we keep the politics out of games and just talk about making them better?



Arguments like these fail utterly in every context. The obvious false premise is that Social Justice Warriors (I use the term in an attempt to reclaim it) value inclusiveness and diversity in spite of fun. Or that the goal is to compromise the objective quality or the raw enjoyability of a game for the sake of political correctness, or because they fear perpetuating stereotypes in wider society.

In fact, the aforementioned are only some of the goals of criticism. They may even be secondary or tertiary goals. The real priority, either implicit or explicit, is actually to increase enjoyment by eliminating weird, nonsensical, poorly constructed tropes.



For illustration: here are a bunch of reasons that a Social Justice Warrior might have to criticize a problematic (#gamergate’s favourite word) aspect of a game that have nothing to do with political correctness, or with broadening the audience of games, or with seeking to not cause offense, or with perpetuating harmful stereotypes:



1/ The portrayal just doesn’t make sense: Ridley Scott’s film Prometheus is famously criticized for the foolish choices made by its characters. An experienced biologist prodding and provoking an unfamiliar pale serpent alien makes no sense, even in a surreal science-fiction context. Saying “It’s a fantasy” isn’t a wildcard that automatically negates criticism of a character choice if that choice doesn’t make sense within the rules and logic that the fantasy world has established for itself. There’s nothing about Prometheus to explain the idiotic behavior of its characters.



It’s also totally valid to argue that a world full of flesh-eating ghouls and Nilfgaardian soldiers famous for sexual violence might make somebody more inclined to protect their bosom, rather than less so. Both are examples of poor writing that worsen the experience of the filmgoer.



For whatever reason, nerds are totally comfortable with this kind of discussion 95% of the time. It’s great fun to spend hours in forums unpacking the inconsistent rules for time travel in Looper. Why does an argument about plot holes or character decisions suddenly become invalid if it just so happens to also consider if aspects of the artwork might be sexist? That’s complete nonsense.

2/ We’ve seen this story before: The Rottentomatoes.com scores for the Taken franchise are 58%, 21% and 9% respectively. Stolen, a laughably blatant carbon-copy of Taken that serves as a vehicle for a financially struggling Nic Cage, sits at 16%. Peruse the reviews and the plummeting score isn’t due so much to a decline in the quality of the films considered alone, but instead because it’s just the same movie. Four times. The novelty of a middle-aged father stopping at nothing to save a family member expressed through back-to-back action scenes has evaporated. Every last fight-choreography and righteous-torture cliche is exhausted. The format has been milked to a dehydrated husk.



There’s a reason it’s called Tropes vs Women, instead of Here are a bunch of sexist games. Tropes deserve to be criticized just for being tropes because they are so often predictable and boring.



3/ It’s aesthetically unsatisfying, annoying or distracting: Once again, this is easiest to understand with a simple analogy. Why is it OK to criticize Gears of War for its boring, dishwater color palette but it isn’t OK to criticize Mortal Kombat or Dead or Alive for the absurdly sumptuous breasts flopping all over the place if they look silly to you? These are both valid, subjective aesthetic judgments. If the visual design of a game doesn’t tickle your fancy it’s valid to say so. Probably, a proportion of your audience will agree with you.



Why do aesthetic criticisms magically become invalid just because the critic just so happens to also be arguing that a costume is sexist or homophobic?



4/ It just bugs you: 2014’s jazz/thriller Whiplash is often criticized, especially by jazz musicians (most notably by the New Yorker), for the cold, clinical way it portrays learning an instrument. For the way it characterizes jazz as a set of furious, technically difficult exercises to be mastered instead of a way of expressing emotion through sound. It’s a valid subjective statement about the writing that kept many of its viewers from becoming invested in the tension of an otherwise wonderful film.



If a movie is super racist the effect is, no surprise, the same.



The key here is to recognize that messages in films or games that you are annoyed by can diminish your enjoyment of the artwork independently of whether those messages have real world consequences. The criticism of Whiplash has nothing to do, necessarily, with whether the film will actually affect societal attitudes towards the study of jazz music. Sexist or racist aspects of games genuinely affect the enjoyment of the critics that write about those things. They aren’t manufacturing outrage at negative messages.



It’s valid to say you don’t enjoy a message because it stands to reason that a proportion of your audience will not like it either. As a popular reviewer, you accumulate an audience with tastes that align with your own. You have a responsibility to stand by your own gut-reaction.



——————-



Whether you agree or disagree with a particular statement about plausibility, originality, aesthetic choices or negative messages is irrelevant. People disagree with subjective opinions about gameplay or level design all the time without being accused of besmirching the pure vision of the developer. Stop using these blithering, slobbering arguments to smother discussion and villainize reviewers or other citizens of the internet for the non-crime of having an opinion.



I implore you: express an alternative opinion. Don’t just say a subjective opinion isn’t valid to mention.



A better alternative response:



Most of the sexualised female characters in the game are sorceresses that have used magic to prevent themselves from visually aging. I’m not surprised that they might want to show off the power of their magic. Besides, they don’t need a breastplate because they use magic to shield themselves. It makes sense that they would flaunt their attractiveness to distract their mostly male foes if they don’t sacrifice physical protection in doing so.



See how that is actually constructive? How it actually adds to the discussion?



See you next time!

