It's possible to play through without using guns like Julian did, but it's really difficult, not very fun, and the game isn't made well for it. Many if not most of the encounters and levels are designed as such that getting through an area without direct confrontation as well as without weapons is impossible or reliant on luck and brute force retrying. Getting into hand to hand combat is necessary at some point in pretty much every level I can remember, and although it's possible to not use weapons throughout the game the encounters aren't designed for it, it's simply a technicality that you can. It's been a long time and I'm sure there's been plenty of post-op and brainstorming on the team by now I'd suspect, so I hope that they cooked up a lot of ideas to make Mirror's Edge 2's levels and encounters to be designed for the various playstyles. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that they will appreciate and provide non-lethal mechanics in ME2 and even some non-confrontational gameplay so that I'm not being forced into karate too often that it becomes stale, but at the same time I'm slightly worried and hoping the next Mirror's Edge game doesn't turn out to be the Splinter Cell Conviction of the Mirror's Edge games.
I'm not going to say I'm a feminist because in the current gaming climate it seems like white knighting, but feminists and myself are on the same page in many ways if not most. I've seen the tropes vs. women in games videos Anita has produced so far and I don't really get where all the rage against her comes from. She received a lot of money and it doesn't seem like she's put it to as good of use as she could, and some of her observations and critical thinking are only skin deep on some games, but I honestly don't see why people hate her so much. People complain that she disables comments, the fact is most people don't have to deal with regular death and rape threats and harassment like she's become a lightning rod for. Online harassment and hate speech is a problem and people shouldn't have to "just deal with it, it's da internet bro." Most humans are quite sensitive and can't sustain a life, work, or project that opens them up to that kind of treatment. Disagreeing with her is fine, but there seems to be very little of that going on in the gaming world, many people are either putting their heads in the sand to avoid it, or they're flinging hate speech (which I don't consider disagreement, it's more just psychotic), or they're white-knighting her and coming across pretentious.
Now that we've seen women in games become a front page topic across gaming sites for months now and all the debates and rage that come along with it, I think she had a lot of guts diving right into this topic in this kind of environment. It's clear very few people actually wanted to talk about women in games, and once it started gaining traction people either swelled with rage, hid away hoping for it to pass, or occasionally very few people have even made good discussions and arguments about it. Some of the arguments I've seen against Anita from men seem to boil down to, "HEY NOW, I'M A MALE AND WOMEN HAVE BEEN ASSHOLES TO ME BEFORE, AND IN GENERAL MY LIFE HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN PEACHY, SO THEREFORE FEMINISM IS BULLSHIT! ANITA IS FULL OF SHIT AND I CAN'T STAND ALL THIS!" Reading some of the counter-arguments has been more like a sad window into lives of some angry men. It's quite a mess on all sides. That's why I feel sympathy for her, people forget she's a human being, they just she her as a symbol and she becomes a lightning rod for hate and treatment that respectable people would never exhibit in a face to face setting. I'm not sure she knew what she was biting off when she came to the women in games dinner table, and it's possible all that hate and harassment could affect the quality of her analysis and her overall disposition towards the topics, that's another part that makes me sad about this whole thing. She isn't perfect and she's not supposed to be, ever since the beginning her arguments have sometimes been thin and her focus on the negative representations instead of a more balanced show hasn't been great, but the net might have only served to poison her and make her more down on this whole project.
Part of my disappointment in her work has been at the skin-deep analysis she's offered to some of the games she covers. When she covers games it's more like a lightning round and she blankets a lot of games with criticisms that aren't always well wrought. Her production is good, she's good in front of the camera, she speaks clearly, her tone is cool headed and calm, it's only the arguments that can get thin at times. I've seen feminazis before and she doesn't come across as one, it's possible she had a feminazi women's studies professor in school, but Anita herself seems much more approachable than actual feminazis. She'll bring up points about the tropes, but in the end she brings up the fact she doesn't think her suggestions should be law and she doesn't think that developers are out to stage an anti-women conspiracy, by simply watching the videos you can tell she's not crazy, she just thinks people don't often think enough about the stories they write, and don't see them from diverse points of view. Which is all true. When I watched her videos I knew well that they had a focus on the representation of women in gaming, but in the end the videos made me think in general about the poor writing in video game stories and the need for more diversity of portrayals and new ideas. I have yet to really be offended or upset by any of her stuff yet. It's not perfect and she's not the person I'd prefer to be the face of these issues, but her work has made me think about storytelling in general.
Comments