Vivian James is the product of 4chan's /v/ board, which is for videogames and gaming subculture. Members of /v/ decided to collectively donate to The Fine Young Capitalists Indiegogo Campaign to support women in gaming, and when they noticed that they had donated enough money to hit the $2000 backer reward, which was getting to design a character who would appear in whichever game wins the game jam they're holding, they started talking about and holding polls for the character design.
The Know Your Meme page on Vivian James has the full story.
Apologies, I wasn't aware of the Indiegogo element of this, I thought it was a competition to design a character and /v/ was the one who produced something that the campaign decided was close enough to their feminist message and decided to use her. I was aware that she was designed by /v/ though, I should have mentioned.
Kunoichi already replied to the meat of what you said, but l-o-l how do you get "evil" from anything I said?
Also lmao "i don't remember the details but you're probably lying"
Also also her being "a girl who just plays games and isn't bothered by anything" (read: "doesn't make a fuss when we say sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. shit or engage in weeks-long harassment campaigns against people because omg sjws sleeping around") is kind of the point I was making?
Well, you seemed to be implying that /v/ and 4chan directly paid off the developers to force them to include Vivian whereas it was simply a reward that any potential backer of the Game Jam could have obtained. And also, I said I didn't know the full story but I feel I was a little closer to the truth than your description of both how the character was submitted and how she is portrayed (even though, with the former we were both wrong really).
And you appear to still be missing the point about that. She doesn't make a fuss when there is no fuss to make. She doesn't care about politics. It's all about the games.
Plus this is a Game Jam that is all about getting women into developing video games, it's a feminist campaign designed in the spirit of going against sexism. There have been a fair amount of articles that I've read that seem to show how this feminist agenda has been attacked by other so-called feminists because they accepted donations from a group of "cis men"... Essentially.
But yes, this has gotten a little off-topic now and so I'm going to refrain from any further defence of Vivian and the Game Jam here.
But that's exactly the point, Assassini. That is the problem: assuming the majority of gamers are male and want this kind of sexist content. Devs make this assumption, so they cater to that market, so that market buys their product, encouraging them to further cater to that market, and thus the cycle of women being exploited in games.
They have to break that assumption-based cycle of thinking only guys play games if they ever want to have a broader audience buying and playing their games en masse. If the culture is male-dominated, it's because the games are encouraging male dominance in their market.
(I'm pretty sure there's been coverage on the gender balance of gamers in the "casual" games market to back this up with the number of female gamers buying and playing these games that aren't so gender exploitative, but it's late and I'm tired and don't feel like doing the research right now. z.z)
This is true I suppose. And I've tried to make my stance clear that I am aware that sexism does exist and that there is still progress to be made. More female protagonists would always be a better start. Plus, I'm certain you are right about the casual games market. All that said... I want to go back to an original point I made that I feel that any "hardcore" female gamers out there would maybe be on my side in this, in that I feel they would argue about games not based upon the genitals of the protagonist but about whether it is a good game or not. Or about whether the protagonist is a good/believable character.
So... to sum up, your argument appears to be "Murdering those strippers in Hitman is totally optional, it shouldn't count. But doing this totally optional thing in Portal totally counts as demonstrating a strong female lead, as does this game where even being female is completely optional." Am I getting this right?
I'm confused. How are these in any way linked? Also... What optional thing in Portal? Nothing in Portal is optional... It's an entirely linear game... And my point about Mass Effect was that she was a strong protagonist in spite of being optional... So. Yes? You're getting it right? Sort of?
There's a big difference between "almost bested" and "killed off to give the (pretty much always male) protagonist a motivation". Guess which of these happens overwhelmingly to female characters? Guess which one you're completely ignoring here like it's not even a thing?
Hey, I made it clear that I didn't understand her point not that I was ignoring it. I've never played Injustice and so I had no idea what she was talking about. Also the phrase "women in the fridge" is something I've never heard of and still don't particularly understand... Although I feel like I'm getting a picture now.
I have a new response then to the original argument, though I suspect like you aren't going to like it. This still feels irrelevant. Superman is simply a more recognisable character than Wonder Woman. Obviously people know Wonder Woman and you don't even have to know much about Marvel to know much about her. BUT Superman is the more popular character (I don't think that's too unrealistic to assume that is the case) especially as Wonder Woman did pretty much start off as a female Superman (as far as I'm aware). So perhaps in this case they wanted to use Superman because he is the more recognisable of the two... Although I am aware that this feels very much like an argument to make in retrospect and not one they actually had at the time.
Yes, it absolutely could have. Which should be raising the very important question: Why isn't it? Like, damn near ever in any story?
The point you seem to be missing in all these examples is that there is an extremely strong trend of making it female characters who get killed off, or raped, or otherwise rendered helpless, so a male character can come in and rescue them, even when the female characters are supposed to be equal in capability. In this context, yeah, gender kinda matters.
The problem here, and I can't believe this needs pointing out, is not "one-night stands", but "reducing women to literal collectible eye-candy trophies".
Um. You do realise that the topic of discussion in this thread is a video series about the extreme prevalence of elements that push women away in video games, right?
And why does it have to be male then? Is that the future of gaming? You will have a team of 4 soldiers: Jim, Bob, Necessary Female One, Necessary Female Two? Otherwise everybody loses their minds that there are more men than women in the game (like this whole bloody kerfuffle over the "bro-op" in Assassin's Creed Unity).
I understand what you mean, and you know it is something that could do with changing. I can't even count the number of games where you are out to avenge your wife/sister/mother or some other helpless woman who had no strong man to protect her. I get that. However, I also feel like too big an issue is made of it. Maybe that's because I'm male, but maybe that's also because I'm judging the games/characters based on the merit of the games/characters and not their genitals (my favourite point you may see, because I've made it twice now).
I would also point out that games in which the character is motivated by revenge, all too often aren't too great on their own merits. Vengeance is all well and good, but it's done to death and is something of an easy excuse for developers who can't write. "Why does he have to kill him?" "Oh... Erm... Dunno... Vengeance! Yeah Vengeance!" It's lazy and boring.
I also feel I ought to point out that in many of the examples used previously the females wouldn't have an equal capability (take Dishonored as an example there, which is set in a Victorian style era where women were considered inferior to me and definitely would have had fewer opportunities, including the opportunity to learn how to fight).
As to the Witcher thing. I actually don't have an argument against that. I suppose I can see why you feel this is derogatory and sexist. And I feel very reluctant saying that because I'm aware the Witcher is a fantastic game and one I really want. Can you at least collect cards for sleeping with men as well (I don't know if you have the option of being gay in the game)?