Sarkeesian seems to assume that all these examples are because of sexism rather than incompetence. Sexism is the result, not the cause.
For one thing, the results are ultimately the same; for another, the logic that creates these kind of mistakes tends to be sexist. Not wildly so, but enough that it's problematic.
Also, as I pointed out before: Sarkeesian makes it pretty clear that she wouldn't be as critical of the situation if she weren't so invested in it.
I think what you have to recognise here is that criticism of what you like is not the same thing as resentment or hatred, and ultimately, it should have no bearing on your enjoyment of those things. They have problems, but so do most things.
Sarkeesian seems to assume that all these examples are because of sexism rather than incompetence. Sexism is the result, not the cause.
For one thing, the results are ultimately the same; for another, the logic that creates these kind of mistakes tends to be sexist. Not wildly so, but enough that it's problematic.
Also, as I pointed out before: Sarkeesian makes it pretty clear that she wouldn't be as critical of the situation if she weren't so invested in it.
I think what you have to recognise here is that criticism of what you like is not the same thing as resentment or hatred, and ultimately, it should have no bearing on your enjoyment of those things. They have problems, but so do most things.
But I don't recognize it as being a problem. The problem is the ubiquity, but it really isn't all that common nowadays.
In any case, while the Mario series is often comical, the damsel-in-distress concept itself is never really parodied in those games, and one of the points Sarkeesian made was that Zelda is more active, especially in later games, but still frequently gets disempowered over the course of the series.
In any case, while the Mario series is often comical, the damsel-in-distress concept itself is never really parodied in those games, and one of the points Sarkeesian made was that Zelda is more active, especially in later games, but still frequently gets disempowered over the course of the series.
It's not quite as prevalent in new material, but new franchises are a different beast, and many of the games that are being moved from old formats to new ones still retain these issues. Furthermore, saying that people not doing it as much now automatically mitigates the basic problem is pretty fatuous.
Really, you seem to be taking all of this criticism very personally rather than accepting it as another, valid position.
In any case, while the Mario series is often comical, the damsel-in-distress concept itself is never really parodied in those games, and one of the points Sarkeesian made was that Zelda is more active, especially in later games, but still frequently gets disempowered over the course of the series.
But for very logical reasons.
The fact that it's "logical" doesn't make it any less problematic, you know.
In any case, while the Mario series is often comical, the damsel-in-distress concept itself is never really parodied in those games, and one of the points Sarkeesian made was that Zelda is more active, especially in later games, but still frequently gets disempowered over the course of the series.
But for very logical reasons.
The fact that it's "logical" doesn't make it any less problematic, you know.
Have you played any of the most recent Zelda games?
Maybe, but hardly necessary ones. Nothing is really gained from them, it's just a cliché of the series in question.
i'd question logical, anyway. In theory, both Peach and Zelda are just as capable of defending themselves as Mario and Link, or very nearly so, so they shouldn't need rescuing all the time.
What I'm saying is that having the chief female character always get disempowered, even for reasons that make sense in context, is really questionable, particularly if the reasons have been back-written into the mythos late in the series to justify the earlier instances. It feels like massive hand-waving.
Maybe, but hardly necessary ones. Nothing is really gained from them, it's just a cliché of the series in question.
i'd question logical, anyway. In theory, both Peach and Zelda are just as capable of defending themselves as Mario and Link, or very nearly so, so they shouldn't need rescuing all the time.
Peach let's herself get captured out of boredom, IIRC, and Zelda is slightly less capable than Link. She is usually only captured in the recent games when caught off guard.
What I'm saying is that having the chief female character always get disempowered, even for reasons that make sense in context, is really questionable, particularly if the reasons have been back-written into the mythos late in the series to justify the earlier instances. It feels like massive hand-waving.
The main reason is that, ultimately, Link is the protagonist, and having the protagonist be disabled while another character fights the final boss is kind of silly.
Zelda is slightly less capable than Link. She is usually only captured in the recent games when caught off guard.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, regardless of how capable she might be, in practice, she gets caught off guard, in the vast majority of the games, and consequently she gets captured (or otherwise disempowered), and needs rescuing.
What I'm saying is that having the chief female character always get disempowered, even for reasons that make sense in context, is really questionable, particularly if the reasons have been back-written into the mythos late in the series to justify the earlier instances. It feels like massive hand-waving.
The main reason is that, ultimately, Link is the protagonist, and having the protagonist be disabled while another character fights the final boss is kind of silly.
That doesn't make the device any less problematic. There are other calls to adventure and other ways of putting the protagonist in that position—better ways to tell that story, in other words.
Also, just to clarify: I'm not totally clueless about video or computer games, but my main experience with them is through the Myst series, which is pretty atypical.
Zelda is slightly less capable than Link. She is usually only captured in the recent games when caught off guard.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, regardless of how capable she might be, in practice, she gets caught off guard, in the vast majority of the games, and consequently she gets captured (or otherwise disempowered), and needs rescuing.
If it's logical, then that means the individual game isn't sexist, but logical or no if too many games have that plot it is. And because the plot is so rarely used as of late, I wouldn't say it is.
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
Zelda is slightly less capable than Link. She is usually only captured in the recent games when caught off guard.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, regardless of how capable she might be, in practice, she gets caught off guard, in the vast majority of the games, and consequently she gets captured (or otherwise disempowered), and needs rescuing.
Like I said, the majority of the reason for this is because Link is the protagonist. If Zelda was the protagonist, it would definitely be Link getting captured.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
That's not the only meaningful metric for "recent", though. Sexism long predates video games, after all, and from a sociological point of view 30 years really isn't all that long.
If it's logical, then that means the individual game isn't sexist, but logical or no if too many games have that plot it is. And because the plot is so rarely used as of late, I wouldn't say it is.
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
Actually, you're wrong there. In the case of the later games, the explanation was written in to justify the (inherited) device rather than the device simply being an outgrowth of the scenario, making it just as sexist, if not intentionally then in practice. It's still disempowering the main female character as a way to make the male protagonist more important or to drive him to action.
Also, the fact that it's been so prevalent over the entire course of the history of video games is a problem in and of itself even if it is less common in recent games.
Too many games in the Mario and Zelda series use the plot, at the very least. That won't cease to be the case any time soon. And i think you're understating the prevalence of the trend, since she said she'd address more recent games in part 2.
Anyway, the Eighties and Nineties were recent enough that many games from that period are still fresh in a lot of people's memories, still influential and still being played. They're regarded as established classics of the genre, not as historical artefacts to be critically examined.
Zelda is slightly less capable than Link. She is usually only captured in the recent games when caught off guard.
You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, regardless of how capable she might be, in practice, she gets caught off guard, in the vast majority of the games, and consequently she gets captured (or otherwise disempowered), and needs rescuing.
Like I said, the majority of the reason for this is because Link is the protagonist. If Zelda was the protagonist, it would definitely be Link getting captured.
Again, there are better ways to provoke the protagonist to action. I said this before.
Too many games in the Mario and Zelda series use the plot, at the very least. That won't cease to be the case any time soon. And i think you're understating the prevalence of the trend, since she said she'd address more recent games in part 2.
Anyway, the Eighties and Nineties were recent enough that many games from that period are still fresh in a lot of people's memories, still influential and still being played. They're regarded as established classics of the genre, not as historical artefacts to be critically examined.
If it's logical, then that means the individual game isn't sexist, but logical or no if too many games have that plot it is. And because the plot is so rarely used as of late, I wouldn't say it is.
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
Actually, you're wrong there. In the case of the later games, the explanation was written in to justify the (inherited) device rather than the device simply being an outgrowth of the scenario, making it just as sexist, if not intentionally then in practice. It's still disempowering the main female character as a way to make the male protagonist more important or to drive him to action.
So what you're saying is that having a female character be overpowered is sexist?
If it's logical, then that means the individual game isn't sexist, but logical or no if too many games have that plot it is. And because the plot is so rarely used as of late, I wouldn't say it is.
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
Actually, you're wrong there. In the case of the later games, the explanation was written in to justify the (inherited) device rather than the device simply being an outgrowth of the scenario, making it just as sexist, if not intentionally then in practice. It's still disempowering the main female character as a way to make the male protagonist more important or to drive him to action.
So what you're saying is that having a female character be overpowered is sexist?
How did you come to that logic? Seriously, I'm confused.
If it's logical, then that means the individual game isn't sexist, but logical or no if too many games have that plot it is. And because the plot is so rarely used as of late, I wouldn't say it is.
Also, a8, thirty years encompasses all of the time that video games have been popular. It's not recent relative to the history of video games.
Actually, you're wrong there. In the case of the later games, the explanation was written in to justify the (inherited) device rather than the device simply being an outgrowth of the scenario, making it just as sexist, if not intentionally then in practice. It's still disempowering the main female character as a way to make the male protagonist more important or to drive him to action.
So what you're saying is that having a female character be overpowered is sexist?
How did you come to that logic? Seriously, I'm confused.
Because Zelda is (more or less) the same character throughout the entire series.
...and? I'm not seeing how this is a problem of sexism.
So she needs rescuing in almost every game, even though there are plenty of other storylines available to motivate Link.
Not necessarily. If you take into account that most of the plots revolve around someone trying to get the Triforce, then it totally makes sense for Zelda to be kidnapped.
...and? I'm not seeing how this is a problem of sexism.
So she needs rescuing in almost every game, even though there are plenty of other storylines available to motivate Link.
Not necessarily. If you take into account that most of the plots revolve around someone trying to get the Triforce, then it totally makes sense for Zelda to be kidnapped.
This doesn't change the fact that she's basically made into an object by that kind of narrative.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Not necessarily. If you take into account that most of the plots revolve around someone trying to get the Triforce, then it totally makes sense for Zelda to be kidnapped.
What you seem to not be getting here is that having an in-universe justification doesn't mean it's not sexist.
...and? I'm not seeing how this is a problem of sexism.
So she needs rescuing in almost every game, even though there are plenty of other storylines available to motivate Link.
Not necessarily. If you take into account that most of the plots revolve around someone trying to get the Triforce, then it totally makes sense for Zelda to be kidnapped.
This doesn't change the fact that she's basically made into an object by that kind of narrative.
That only works if you fail to take into account every other aspect of narrative and character.
Not necessarily. If you take into account that most of the plots revolve around someone trying to get the Triforce, then it totally makes sense for Zelda to be kidnapped.
What you seem to not be getting here is that having an in-universe justification doesn't mean it's not sexist.
Actually, that's my argument. He seems to be arguing that in-universe justifications somehow ameliorate the sexist qualities.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
Meaning it doesn't at all follow that Zelda would be kidnapped. Sure, Ganon has a reason to kidnap Zelda, but he equally has a reason to kidnap Link, and Zelda is the one who needs rescuing.
Meaning it doesn't at all follow that Zelda would be kidnapped. Sure, Ganon has a reason to kidnap Zelda, but he equally has a reason to kidnap Link, and Zelda is the one who needs rescuing.
Link isn't kidnapped because he's the protagonist.
You know, saying that an aspect of a series is sexist doesn't make the series overall sexist. What we're trying to say here is that this aspect of the series is a questionable one, not that the whole series is problematic.
We're going around in circles here. Yes, i know Link is the protagonist. That doesn't mean Zelda has to be rescued. In theory she could, for instance, successfully evade kidnapping, or successfully escape under her own steam, and Link could have some other quest to complete.
(It's also perfectly possible to have a story in which the protagonist needs rescuing, though this would presumably entail a cutscene with no direct gameplay purpose. Could be used to set the scene, though.)
Comments
How does that contradict what i said?
In any case, while the Mario series is often comical, the damsel-in-distress concept itself is never really parodied in those games, and one of the points Sarkeesian made was that Zelda is more active, especially in later games, but still frequently gets disempowered over the course of the series.
But for very logical reasons.
i'd question logical, anyway. In theory, both Peach and Zelda are just as capable of defending themselves as Mario and Link, or very nearly so, so they shouldn't need rescuing all the time.
i have. i've played every game in the series except for Spirit Tracks and Phantom Hourglass.
The main reason is that, ultimately, Link is the protagonist, and having the protagonist be disabled while another character fights the final boss is kind of silly.
In any case that sure is a weak justification. You seem to be missing the point. The fact is, regardless of how capable she might be, in practice, she gets caught off guard, in the vast majority of the games, and consequently she gets captured (or otherwise disempowered), and needs rescuing.
That doesn't make the device any less problematic. There are other calls to adventure and other ways of putting the protagonist in that position—better ways to tell that story, in other words.
Too many games in the Mario and Zelda series use the plot, at the very least. That won't cease to be the case any time soon. And i think you're understating the prevalence of the trend, since she said she'd address more recent games in part 2.
Anyway, the Eighties and Nineties were recent enough that many games from that period are still fresh in a lot of people's memories, still influential and still being played. They're regarded as established classics of the genre, not as historical artefacts to be critically examined.
Meanwhile when Link gets into danger he typically has to get himself out of it.
So what would happen 'if Zelda was the protagonist' is neither here nor there; she never is.
Even though Link has the Triforce of Courage and manages to defend himself using his own abilities?
^ Also this.
If it's annoying you i guess we could take this elsewhere.
Worth digging up that geek culture thread again?
Meaning it doesn't at all follow that Zelda would be kidnapped. Sure, Ganon has a reason to kidnap Zelda, but he equally has a reason to kidnap Link, and Zelda is the one who needs rescuing.
(It's also perfectly possible to have a story in which the protagonist needs rescuing, though this would presumably entail a cutscene with no direct gameplay purpose. Could be used to set the scene, though.)