A major problem with games and art today is that there is a disconnected narrative.

As Niko Bellic, the game portays him as a down on his luck war immigrant struggling to make a new life with the only tools he has. During the first mission Niko is pissed: "I swore I wouldn't kill anyone in this new country!"

Which is kind of odd, because when the PLAYER is in control of Niko Bellic, he's a thug who kills women on the street ten at a time and runs around in a cowboy hat and an eye patch and drunk drives and hires sex workers and then kills them.

Which is why I frown when reviewers all crowd around to fellate Rockstar: "Oh, your narrative is so well-defined! You're so ironic! So cutting edge! Slurp."

And this is why its usually a bad idea for games to promote 'freedom of choice' - you're either restricted by the linear storyline path to some degree or your actions don't match up with your character's

I've written about sympathy for video game companies due to the fact that we are the first generation of gamers (people who grew up with a franchise and are wary of censorship rarely listen to reason, and so on and so forth...), you can find it at http://nolittlelolita.livejournal.com/ if you are so inclined.

I think that gaming and feminism totally are going to intersect - it's rapidly becoming an industry capable of racking in billions, and women are being shut out of its stories and its creation.

First - yes, thank you. Just because I want to analyze a piece of popular culture doesn't mean that I hate it, want to see it banned, etc. I had this argument with a friend last week (and my fiance on a semi-regular basis, lol) that critique/analysis =/= hatred.

As for GTA specifically, I do think we need to give the series credit where credit is do for the huge advancements in video games it has enabled. The fact that I can completely ignore the story line and just steal cars and evade the police for hours on end is pretty cool (I'm also easily entertained, obviously). I wish this expansion could have come from a less violent source, but hopefully with the technology created others will be able to adapt it for other purposes.

Great analysis! The perspective of this game is narrow. None of my fantasies are on there :(

I see that a lot over at my place. People see the word "feminist" and they see me criticizing a game and they decide that I'm trying to ban or censor a game.

People don't understand that it's possible to criticize something without wanting to "destroy" it.

The really ironic thing (and I've written about this before) is that your typical videogame is very "black/white." Good guys are absolutely good, bad guys are absolutely bad, there's very little room for moral wrangling or trying to understand what someone's motivation within their context is.

(yeah, and this isn't different from most other forms of entertainment)

But what's amusing to me is that all the people who come storming out of the woodwork the second a game like Grand Theft Auto is criticized by people who are not calling for the game to be banned or censored, only to have its content examined critically usually hoist up the banner of "this game is so much more thoughtful and well-written and complex than all those other videogames! It's a Very! Important! Piece! of! Art!" (Because, y'know, art is never criticized), and are basically acting as cludgy and intellectually lazy and facile as all of those games that GTA is supposed to "liberate us" from.

MADD is an evil, evil neo-prohibitionist organization. Do not believe anything they say. Make no mistake, their actual goal is the banning of all public alcohol consumption. They just use "drunk driving" as a bludgeon to club politicians over the head with and force the adoption of their neo-prohibitionist policies.

I actually had a fairly lengthy conversation with my brother a few days ago about this game. Part of the appeal for hime is playing the bad guy and doing things he would never do in real life. I was mildly surprised when he suggested that the game really should have an adults only rating on it. I questioned him why he thought that and he listed off a few specific examples in the game - killing the prostitutes, a strip club where you pay more and more money for increasingly suggestive lap dances.

What is interesting about the game---and shows why it's so popular, I think---is that killing and hurting women in sexualized situations is utterly optional. You not only don't have to do it to play, you have to go out of your way to do it. There's not like a command, "Fuck and kill hooker." You have the option to kill any person in the game at almost any point in time. You can shoot pedestrians for the hell of it.

The eerie thing about the prostitute-killing is that it's very lack of necessity means that a lot of men are going through the hoops to go there. Why the sexualized murder of women is such a popular fantasy---and reality---is what depresses me.

But I won't lie. The ability to get into a shoot-out with the cops from the top of a building looks pretty fun.

Here's why I don't believe that Grand Theft Auto is a piece of artwork:

The purpose of the game is to get you to sympathise with Niko Bellic, immigrant and former soldier in a European war. Wikipedia says he's a 'friendly guy' who's been 'scarred by his past' and 'is hesitant to kill again in the new world ' and just wants to scrape by a living with his cousin.

and yet you have the option in the first twenty minutes of a game to go on a shooting spree, you can kill anyone in the game, you can gun down everyone in the down town, and then the next cutscene plinks in with Niko's regret from the war, his hesitance to pay for his cousins debt with his violence... what hesitance?! You just gunned down an entire city block!

It's a piece of entertainment that tells a story. I wouldn't go so far as to call games 'art', yet.

I prefer the conan o'brian GTA:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0kgo0VXGixk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=JXGSwx29EjI

Nice job. I'd just like to say that as an adult female (di colore), I am kinda tired of being someone else's punching-bag fantasy as seen in videos, video games, porn and as heard in certain music genres.

You know, it's a free country and all, but I have to hand it to the people who sell the "edgy" violent/sexual content.

They've got the formula down. I wonder if it's logarithmic? Apparently, if you make something entertaining enough it ceases to be offensive or worthy of criticism, especially in the eyes of the target consumer.

This reminds me of how some clowns capitalized on the Imus incident and made a porno called "nappy headed hoes".
I can hear the crickets from the next town over.

For the record, you actually do not have the option to go shooting people in the first 20 minutes of the game. You do not actually get a gun until a few missions in. (Which I guess theoretically could take only 20 minutes, but I was not paying attention.)

The story does a good job in the beginning of slowly introducing you to being a violent killer. You start with fists, and driving people around, and then progress up to a baseball bat, knives, and then eventually a gun. That is not to say that it somehow has moral value. But unless you go out of your way to find a gun outside of the storyline you cannot actually go on a shooting rampage until the main character has already gone on a shooting rampage.

(You can however, run a lot of people over with your car and steal their money. Or punch and beat them to death.)

Also, this game is a little better than prior games in terms of how it treats women. That is, actual female characters. (I missed San Andreas, so it might have had them as well.) In the previous games that I played you worked almost exclusively for men. Now you can get missions via your cousin's girlfriend (who is sassy and adorable).

shinobi - in GTA 3, there was a female yakuza boss that gave you a load of missions. And then she tortured a man to death. She was kinda a neat character.

No, not all criticism of the game is alike, but very few criticisms of Grand Theft Auto seem to be able to legitimately compare it to other media. Is what happens in GTA really 'worse' than, say, The Godfather? I would bet the female characters are more well-defined and less passive in GTA. (Let's face it, it wouldn't take much.)

Seconding Miss Ponytailgirls snarky side comment about how art is criticized all the time. Defending the game by calling it art is just ridiculous and acting like that means it is above criticism even more so. I don't think it is even worth taking a stance on whether or not the game is art. Maybe it is maybe it isn't - depends on your definition of art. But even if it is art that hardly puts it beyond criticism. In fact there are these people....they're called art critics.

I've been a complete supporter of the GTA series since its inception, but this time I don't feel quite the same way.

In the past GTA games violence against women has NEVER BEEN CONDONED. Seriously, the only reason you can kill prostitutes in those games is because prostitutes exist in the game world. That's it. That's all there is to the prostitute killing in GTA. I absolutely can not stand when people get all up in arms about this.

That said, GTA4 is different. There are a few missions in the game that reflect violent attitudes towards women and it makes me extremely uncomfortable playing the game.

One of the side missions in the game is for a man named Jeff who petitions you to take some photographs of his wife who he suspects of cheating. While you're taking the photos you find out she isn't cheating, but Jeff doesn't really listen to you about that. A while later Jeff calls you back to say he "may have cut some ties," and now needs your help. You go to where he is and he tells you his wife had "an accident," the type of accident where "you stab yourself fifty fucking times" and he needs you to dump the car her body is in into the ocean. Niko accepts the mission for payment, and therefor the player accepts and the game accepts a complicit roll in Jeff's ridiculous unfounded violence against his wife.

I don't know, I've always loved GTA games but that mission made me really uncomfortable. And I think if anyone wants to complain about the GTA series, it should be for stuff like that, not because of the prostitute killing side effect of the gameplay's nature.

I think that an important point is that if this were a movie, it would be rated R, at least. Just because something is art does not mean that all minors have access to it, not to mention the ability to understand it.

I also think it is ridiculous to throw out the "it's only an expression of people's fantasies" line as a defense. Oh, so killing prostitutes allows some (not all, I know) players to explore their fantasies about killing prostitutes. That makes it more disturbing, not less! And then claiming it's "just a game" sounds kind of silly.

I think that an important point is that if this were a movie, it would be rated R, at least. Just because something is art does not mean that all minors have access to it, not to mention the ability to understand it.

SuzyQ, good point. It is rated M for Mature, which is the equivalent of an R for gamers-- the big chains are supposed to ask for ID when you buy these games (and I've seen it happen). I think the lack of retail support for AO games makes more games like this, that just 'squeak under' the AO bar.

samj-- that mission does sound skeevy. How does Niko feel about it? Does he show discomfort with the violence, or is it just another job?

It's not real. it's a game. this is not a generalized defense against accusations that violent video games are influential. the game goes to incredible lengths to convey that the takes place in a universe populated by video-game characters who live in a video-game reflection of our culture. The outrageous ultraviolence can't be taken as any kind of advocate in the context of rest of the game. The in-game radio, television, and internet alone are steeped in satire. That's no excuse--ou don't have to like it. If you find it tasteless, don't buy it.

You know, I'm a big fan of the game (still) and I'm not marching in and accusing you of calling for censorship. I agree with the majority of your criticisms.

Ponygirl; that's a point I've been trying to make. Being "art" does not make something invisible to the critical eye. I still think GTAIV is a great game, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is a sense of near-total freedom. I'm only reminded of my limitations occasionally. I can experience the game in more or less my own way.

I think, if anything, that GTAIV should be held up to the light for this very reason. A game this popular should beg such questions.

What's interesting to me is that the game designers obviously went out of their way to avoid any suggestion that they might be condoning drunk driving, but didn't take any of the same measures (at least from what I understand) regarding violence against women. It makes me wonder if the game manufacturers thought that drunk driving might be taken too seriously to the point where they'd lose sales, whereas violence against women would be somehow more acceptable to consumers.

Pengo, you're being facile. Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it is immune from critique. Just because something makes a feeble stab at satire doesn't mean that it is immune from critique. Just because you LIKE SOMETHING doesn't mean that it's immune from critique.

Samj: I remember that mission.

Niko meets Jeffery one more time after that, and he tells him he's remarried and he wants you to follow his new wife. Niko refuses and Jeffery storms off into the street where he's promptly hit by a car.

I really wanted the option to shoot him myself.

GTA fulfills fantasies that are already present in the masculine mind.

It stands out in this regard only because it is bridging the gap between publicly accepted misogyny (eg. almost anything by Kubrick) and privately accepted misogyny (ie. the sort of content Dworkin and MacKinnon (among others) spent so much effort trying to outlaw).

While I feel there should be more responsible/feminist/positive games out there, I don't believe we need to get censor anything that already exists. I know you weren't advocating that, of course, you said it pretty point-blank.

Obviously, it's a game intended for adults. It has a Mature rating, and in most stores they say they will card you if you appear under 17 (whether or not they actually do is anyone's guess, I know). It's also not real. It's a game and people who play it realize it. Someone above said her brother plays it BECAUSE you do things you wouldn't do in real life. The point of games is escapism. I don't play the Legend of Zelda thinking I'm really going to grab a green tunic and a sword and go kick some evil Ganondorf ass, I know it's a fantasy universe (side note - speaking of awesome female characters, I'm a pretty big fan of Princess Zelda. Yes, in early NES games she fits the damsel needing to be rescued mold, but if you look at Ocarina of Time, she's actually the one guiding Link through the missions. Just a thought). I never tried to fly after playing Kid Icarus (am I dating myself?). I love Mortal Kombat but I never did a handstand, grabbed someone with my feet and flipped them. I could come up with more snarky examples, but I think you get the point.

I agree with Pengo. What I've seen of past GTA games is that it is blatantly unreal and satirical. Ultraviolence in the same grain as something like A Clockwork Orange. So violent and out there it's not feasible reality. I also agree that you don't have to like it and you don't have to buy it. Sure, go ahead and dislike it, criticize it, whatever, but remember that no one is forcing you to play it. You're free to dislike it and I'm free to play it. That's how it has to stay.

I haven't actually played GTA 4, because all I have is a Wii. I swear, Nintendo is like the Apple of video games and PS/X-Box are the PCs. Those two are practically interchangeable but Nintendo just has to be separate and make its own shit. This post made me really want to get an X-Box 360 and start playing GTA. Damn, I need some money.

I feel like one of the major complaints/criticisms of the game, and gaming in general, is that it's nearly all male-centric. And it's a very valid observation. With the exception of the Metroid and Tomb Raider series there really have not been any games with a female protagonist. But I really believe that this is reflective of the perception of whom the target audience is, hence where the money is coming from, and who is doing the majority of the creative or development work in the field.

Gaming for women has absolutely come a long way from when I first got in to it in terms of broadening appeal; but women gamers who are in to the FPS and other violence-heavy genre of games are still seemingly in the minority.

The thing which has me somewhat jaded on this theme of critique is that I've seen it before in pretty much every form of popular entertainment from Science Fiction, to comic books, to pornography. The story and the content are a function of marketing, and it only makes good sense to cater to the money. So long as men are the dominant spending force in a given niche the niche will cater to men, or what it thinks men want.

Also, as has been pointed out in the past, in regards to this game series in particular: You really don't have to do a disproportionate amount of violence to women in order to progress or achieve in the game. Now it is a violent game, but that's the genre.

And at this point I become confused: Is the issue with the fact that the protagonist, who is male and portrayed as heterosexual, is able to spend time with prostitutes (who are appropriately female), and have the same option to murder them as he does with nearly any other in-game person?

Because if it is an issue with the presence of prostitutes who are female I can only suggest that prostitution is real, men and women do it. Heterosexual men tend to use female prostitutes. That's a sort of 1+1=2 deal.

If it's an issue with the possible violence against women, well my thoughts on that are: The game does not decide whom to allow random violence against. Should it offer special protection for females in the game? Isn't that establishing or supporting some patronizing concept of the female as needing to be sequestered, and thus apart from or less than their male counterparts whom are just as apt to be shot or run over, etc?

In summary: Like it or no, this seems like a pretty straightforward capitalist choice on the part of the gaming industry. Until some gaming company manages to compete and earn equal profits by producing either truly egalitarian or female oriented games then this seems to be the way it will continue to be.

NOTE: Take a look at Everquest/WoW, etc. Certainly a violence oriented experience which seems to be good at reaching a more gender balanced market. However you cannot really compare the experience of MMORPG gaming to that of FPS gaming. Perhaps the ability to truly develop a unique character and interact with other unique persons online attracts more women gamers, while the more instant gratification mode of a GTA/HALO game attracts a more male group.

M.Ponygirl: However, it might have developed an immunity if subjected to the same criticisms 3,000 times in the last few weeks. Or it was born immune, just like God of War would be immune to charges of theological unsoundness.

norbiz: if those criticisms were coming from actual game critics whose job it is to point this shit out, instead of throwing perfect scores at the game's feet like garlands... then we wouldn't have to make so much noise.

It makes me wonder if the game manufacturers thought that drunk driving might be taken too seriously to the point where they'd lose sales, whereas violence against women would be somehow more acceptable to consumers.

I'm not sure-- Grand Theft Auto is pretty satirical, so it might just be considered an in-game joke, not a sign that they take drunk driving particularly seriously.

Perhaps the ability to truly develop a unique character and interact with other unique persons online attracts more women gamers, while the more instant gratification mode of a GTA/HALO game attracts a more male group.

I think that's very true. Though I have a gamer friend who's been disappointed by the gender options in World of Warcraft-- apparently even the lizard women have big boobs (eyeroll).

Mighty Ponygirl, there's a real dearth of serious game criticism overall-- there's no wall to speak of between advertising and editorial in most game magazines. There was a fairly notorious incident where a reviewer was fired for a negative review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men. It's not a real surprise that reviewers in that kind of environment aren't calling out potential misogyny in a tremendously popular game.

yeah, the Gerstmann thing was fucked up. Sort of like GameSpot scrambling to take down the 9.5 they originally gave GTA so that they could put up a perfect 10 and declare that the 9.5 was an editorial placeholder that was never meant to be seen. They're cowards.

It's possible to point out a games good and bad points. I do it all the time. I just did it with Okami.

M.Pony: Apart from your site, the term "serious game criticism" is an oxymoron. It's like reading reviews for shitty horror movies in Fangoria, who are concerned with things far removed from decent filmmaking.

Ah, norbiz, flattery will get you everywhere! I give you a 9.9! :D

Okami didn't have any bad points! It was a perfect game! Perfect, I say! Take it back!

How many of the folks on here own any of the GTA games? or game at all? The story lines have way more opportunity for "violence against men" than any other category. I truly wish Liza owned the title, because I am really interested in her perspective. Can we start a collection for her. I'll throw in 10 bucks.

“And this is why its usually a bad idea for games to promote 'freedom of choice' - you're either restricted by the linear storyline path to some degree or your actions don't match up with your character's� – Arbuthnot

Wow. So they show not pursue more choices because some limitations still apply?

“And this is why its usually a bad idea for games to promote 'freedom of choice' - you're either restricted by the linear storyline path to some degree or your actions don't match up with your character's� – Arbuthnot

Wow. So they should not pursue more choices because some limitations still apply?

Here's why I don't believe that Grand Theft Auto is a piece of artwork: [moral outrage redacted]

I refer you to A Clockwork Orange.

I think, Samhita, in order to sharpen your criticism, you should distinguish among the various aspects of GTA4.

There's the narrative that takes place in the cutscenes. There is the mission component, where the player attempts to fulfill pre-programmed objectives. In-between, there are limitless opportunities for "gameplay" not bound by the narrative or the missions, where the player authors their own experience in the world. Then there are the several multi-player game modes (where there are no prostitutes and you can play as a woman or a man).

The problem is that Samhita takes all these disparate elements, lumps them together and, through a haze of second-hand knowledge, arrives at something that has the outward appearance of criticism. But it lacks credibility because it patently obvious that she has no real knowledge of that which she attempts to criticize.

I like to criticize A Clockwork Orange (the book and the movie) as well. I find it fun and interesting to deconstruct literature and pop culture.

Is criticism perhaps just too intellectual for some people? Does it hurt too much to use the brain like that?

"While I feel there should be more responsible/feminist/positive games out there"

Me too. :) I'm even trying to make one myself. To repost myself from another thread:

"I used Google to look for some amateur-made RPGs with female main characters by entering the search terms 'she' and 'site:rpgmaker.net' then checking those pages.

"Meanwhile, I mentioned this on another thread but just in case you didn't read it there:

"They have several progams with which you can create [a video game]. My personal fave is still RPG Maker 2000 (since I'm a total n00b at this). It's fun to play with even if I never actually complete a game. Other options include

"RPG Maker 2003
RPG Maker XP
RPG Maker VX
ika
Sphere
some more I just found listed here: http://rmlist.rpgsource.net/ (though some of the links are outdated)"

"With the exception of the Metroid and Tomb Raider series there really have not been any games with a female protagonist."

One more exception: Terra's the star of Final Fantasy 6 (Final Fantasy III on Super Nintendo in the US).

"Apparently, great, cutting edge art is only designed for a straight male point of view." (Samhita, emphasis added)

For the record I fall on the side not considering what any of the GTAs have done art too, but this statement falsely implies that Newitz said this is the ONLY kind of cutting edge art, which no one is asserting. The fact that it's designed from a heterosexual male perspective wouldn't preclude it from falling under the category of cutting edge art.

"With the exception of the Metroid and Tomb Raider series there really have not been any games with a female protagonist."

I would be hesitant to bring Tomb Raider out as a positive example without some substantial qualification of it. Yes it's good that the protagonist is a strong female, but it was still done so to appeal to the young straight male demographic whose demand dominates the video game industry. Lora Croft has a ridiculously proportioned body, with enormous breasts and a non-existent waist, and wears extremely tight clothing and short shorts. Whether the effect of having a female protagonist which became well known in the mainstream media outweighs this is debatable, but the intent behind the creation was sell more copies to get young boys (and men) to say "oh look, giant boobs".

Metroid, on the other hand, I think was well done. It was far ahead of its time in video games in introducing a female protagonist (if not the first to do so), and it wasn't revealed that Samus was female until the end of the first game (before which it was ambiguous). This resulted in a normative expectation of a male hero to being challenged after you've completed the game (probably) presuming Samus was a "he".

identity: While I actually refrained from stating any negation or affirmation in regards to either TR or Metroid for precisely the reasons of body/sexuality projection, there are more reasons to see Laura Croft as a positive representation of both a woman and a human being.

1) she is wonderfully free of sexual sentiment (at least in any of the games I've played, admittedly I stopped at game #3). Thus she is not motivated by some bullshit predictable need to get a man, etc.

1a) She is also cutting-edge art (particularly the decade or so back when she was created) in this absence of romantic motivation. She escapes the victim/hero paradigm entirely. Even if there is an implication of her basic sexuality it was ambiguous and so secondary to her motivations and abilities as to render a truly independent woman. This has, I'm sure, a lot to do for her ability to sell to a male audience so well. she was not only an "everywoman", she was an "every-person". Gender equal in a more real sense than I can recall experiencing in film ever, and nearly never in film. Comics do a pretty good job of creating women characters that some men can relate to and truly empathize with. Laura Croft made a bridge between male ego/empathy and the female gender.

2) She is an intellectual. she is truly the counterpart to Indiana Jones.

3) She is not motivated by greed, or personal gain. Aside from some human and universal enjoyment of revenge.

Obviously I liked the TR games a lot.

Metroid is possibly the finest dynasty series ever. I cannot imagine a single iteration of that game series that I would not play right now if someone whipped out a cartridge.

Summary: Think about how few male protagonists in the relatively short history of gaming were unattractive physically. Other than games with a joke theme the player character is always the trapezoidal shaped muscle man. I'm a video game nerd, my body is about as close to that as any real woman's body is to Laura Croft.

Underwhelm, you said it.

My problem isn't with legitimate criticism of the game. I love critical analysis, and as an entertainment writer it's my part-time job to analyze art. The issue is that trying to form an interesting critical opinion on a piece of art without ever having seen the painting/movie/game is IMPOSSIBLE. It simply can't be done.

Why? Because the only way to critically analyze something is to provide examples to back your thesis. If you haven't played the game, you don't have any examples. Therefore, you can't support your thesis.

I like GTA IV. It's, first and foremost, a technical achievement, the first truly next-gen game. It may end up on par with something like The Wizard of Oz in terms of revolutionary technical achievements. GTA IV also has great gameplay. The fluidity and ease with which you can do so much is an achievement as well. The narrative is very solid, creating real pathos for the main character, and the sound technicians did a number with the game. It has a huge, expansive soundtrack featuring different genres, artists, and styles, as well as superior voice-acting.

Are parts of GTA misogynistic? Yes, and that's not counting the intentional satire. However, GTA is SIGNIFICANTLY LESS MISOGYNISTIC than many other games, and much of what we see on TV and on the silver screen. It features a broad array of female characters who encompass different roles, ethnicities, and sexualities. It is male-focused, but then so are most movies. However, in general GTA is more enlightened than nearly any other game, and most movies as well.

In addition to Samus and Terra (and kicking Lara out of the list), don't forget Jade from Beyond Good and Evil! Don't forget April Ryan (who can't relate to her? i mean come on! she's great!) from the Longest Journey and maybe even Zoe Castillo from Dreamfall! And and don't forget Carla Valenti from Indigo Prophecy (though the random shower scene is a sigh)! Oh and please don't forget Heather and Claudia (protagonist AND villain) from Silent Hill 3, a game that can be construed as a nod to reproductive rights! Oh and for that matter, though Angela is sexually abused in Silent Hill 2, she doesn't need anyone to save her... though she does make a very depressing choice in the end... Oh but wait, in Silent Hill 2, Maria is also not so bad. Maria and Angela aren't directly playable, but they're excellent characters with alot of depth. OH and please let's not forget Alyx from Half-Life 2 though I don't remember her being playable. Regina from Dino Crisis! Alyssa from Clock Tower 3 may be an inexperienced, scared-out-of-her-mind 14-year-old in a hostile environment, but she's still terribly interesting and kicks ass in any way she can! Please don't forget Farah (not playable but she fights beside you) from the two Prince of Persia games! She and Princey work together as EQUALS and nobody needs to save her ass and she's delightfully infectious! Heheee, just had to scream my favorite gals in games just off the top of my head. In the still male-dominated gaming industry, these awesome games with awesome female protagonists give me so much hope. I swear I'm going to develop games that even out the playing field ;)

In addition to Samus and Terra (and kicking Lara out of the list)...

Don't do so on my say-so, I just wanted to point out there's some bad with the good for Tomb Raider. I certainly felt that she was being sexualized a lot more than any of the, as Zed mentioned, also attractive, male heros, both in terms of how it was sold and who bought it, and in the way it was treated by media. (Does anybody remember the MAD Magazine bits or Fox Trot cartoons about it?) However, Zed makes a strong case for the game being a substantial positive.

Oh all right, I guess Lara can be a semi-positive protagonist. At LEAST she's not someone's romantic-interest or a damsel. And at least she's intelligent and in control and independently relies on herself. Okay okay. I still don't like that they had to create Lara to cater to male fantasies as far as physical features. Hmmm, while I'm at it, what about Aya from Parasite Eve? I haven't played but I hear she's a good example. Andddd....why not Jennifer from Rule of Rose? Hmm, she may be weak due to some memory loss and traumatic experiences in her past, but her story is very interesting. Actually, as I understand, Rule of Rose stirred up some controversy when it came out and I've always wondered what other feminists have thought about it. Implied molestation, rape, forced abortion, child abuse. To me, it wasn't really implied, but painfully obvious. Oh god, then there's Fiona from Haunting Ground. Actually, scratch her. She may at least be a strong young everyday-woman, though very helpless against some demented, murderous villains, she does fall victim to being physically designed to be appealing to the mans. And ridiculously so at times. There's a very odd, odd, odd, EXTRA cutscene in Haunting Ground where Fiona gets a um, implied forced pap-smear of some kind while she's unconcious. Where was the controversy THEN? Was there even any? I wonder if anyone was ever up-in-arms about that disturbing little scene. It's these mainstream games that get all the spotlight. Anyway, I seem to getting off into a nerdy tangent, and I better stop myself. Hey, I still love those controversial games, Haunting Ground and Rule of Rose, even if I'm slightly disturbed. However, that's the point of those two particular games, to make you disturbed and uncomfortable.

Is criticism perhaps just too intellectual for some people? Does it hurt too much to use the brain like that?

sgzax, what hurts my brain is flawed criticism. After all, as Mighty Ponygirl said above, "Just because you LIKE SOMETHING doesn't mean that it's immune from critique." That includes criticism.

It's plenty fun and interesting to deconstruct literature and pop culture, GTA-IV. But imprecise criticism reflects poorly on the author, not the subject of the criticism.

I really can't believe it every time GTA comes up here or on some other "feminist" blogs. "Oh, you don't HAVE to kill the prostitutes. The rest of the game is really fun!"

Good goddess. Yeah, yeah, it's "just a game." I'm uptight and I want to censor people and I don't "get it."

Please.

Well, I think it would be kind of weird if you couldn't kill prostitutes or women in GTA4. You can kill police officers, firemen, shop keepers, old people, young people, men and women of all ages and races. Why would prostitutes be excluded?

I'm also not a big fan when special rules are used to 'protect' girls, as that implies we are inferior and need to be protected. I can take care of myself thank you very much, I don't need men to protect me or grant me special privileges.

Honeybee -- did I miss the part where police officer, firemen, shop keepers, old people, and young men could give you lap dances or fuck you in the front seat of your car and then be murdered?

My terribly flawed and imprecise, brain-hurting criticism has focused on the failure of game designers to offer a female protagonist in four versions of the game, as well as their profound heteronormativity. You can't tell me a guy like Niko would nevernevernever consider getting a blow job from a guy, or that blow jobs from guys are just not on offer in a city like the one presented in the game. That's bull.

The game designers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that only women get fucked, or perhaps the designer's parochial little brains would just explode if a man got into Niko's car and had a little fun. And can you imagine the criticism if a player had Niko go around killing the men who offer him sex? People would freak the fuck out, and while the designers of GTA will happily court controversy over the bodies of fake women, they really seem to go out of their way to protect the poor menz.

If GTA was actually a sophisticated game (rather than a fucked up boy fantasy) more of an effort would have been made to present the full spectrum of human sexuality. If only one kind of sexuality is presented then it isn't reality, it's a het-boy wank-fest.

I've read a couple of Samhita's posts on GTA4 on this website. I have to say ( given the fact that Samhita has not even played the game and is basing the content of her articles off some second-hand material she has found on the internet ) that most of her assertions and conclusions lack insight. I've played games off and on for a few years so I can definitely say that I have a more informed and balanced perspective than Samhita.

Here's a few points for thought:

1. Prostitute killing in GTA4: The prostitutes, like many other computer controller characters, provide an (optional) service to the main character. Yes, you can have sex with them and kill them. You can also go into a store, buy clothes and kill the shopkeepers. You can kill cops and other law enforcers. You can grab any vehicle on the road. You can kill harmless old people walking around in strollers. The game allows for a lot of deviant behaviours. On a biased website like this, it's obvious that one particular behaviour will be isolated and scrutinized intently -- but doing that in itself is wrong. And if you start examining everything under the senstive lens of 'misogyny' then you're definitely going to run into a number of false positives in GTA4, which is filled with a bunch of mixed messages at the very least.

Most people playing games are intelligent, rational human beings able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. To understand why this violent behaviour in games is fun, you need to understand some of the reasons why people play any game. For example, ping-pong players will report having more fun just aimlessly bouncing the ball around. Children will have fun smashing toy cars together than having them drive around in what would be considered legally correct behaviour. It's fun to break rules and do stuff out of the box, things that we are not allowed to do in the real world because they have dire consequences. I recall reading research into this behaviour that has concluded that we do this out of a need to exercise our minds and expose ourselves to offbeat situations which are new and challenging.

A couple of youtube videos from the Conan O'Brien show displayed a sanitized, politically correct and hyper-sensitive GTA4. One of them showed Niko walking around on the streets, meeting a bunch of people and asking them to start a Jane Austen book club, and apologizing and wincing every time he makes a rash turn on the road. Not many people want to play something like that.

2. GTA4 has a "straight male"-centric view: This is 100% correct. And it's deliberate. But I dislike how this is twisted around to make it seem as if excluded sections of gamers have been purposely victimized. It's incredibly difficult to make a game on the scale of GTA4 that caters to virtually every viewpoint on the planet.

First off, a vast majority of the gaming population are straight males. Making games isn't easy. A lot of creativity, money, time and effort goes into each game, which can either be a big success or a failure. If you were in charge of a corporation that made games, you would -want- your game to be successful and one of the ways would be targetting it at the straight male population for guaranteed revenues.

The people making games aren't out to create a social service, they are around to make money. If you can come up with a realistic idea for a game on the ("artistic") scale of GTA4 that caters to every possible perspective (straight, gay, lesbian, transgender, all races, etc), which promises to be an ironclad, guaranteed succeess in the gaming market, please go ahead and make one. Something which reaches out to such a large audience would be the holy grail for all gaming corporations in existence.

Samhita needs to play more games and play GTA4 with an open mind by herself, rather than critiquing open-ed style articles on the internet that appear to be ill-researched, and using them for second-hand information. It's noise amplifying noise. All of this is just absolutely terrible writing.

My terribly flawed and imprecise, brain-hurting criticism has focused on the failure of game designers to offer a female protagonist in four versions of the game, as well as their profound heteronormativity.

Some games have female protagonists, some have men. This one has a straight man (probably the best way to go considering straight men buy the most video games). There is not enough disc space for one game to be all things for all people.

You can't tell me a guy like Niko would nevernevernever consider getting a blow job from a guy, or that blow jobs from guys are just not on offer in a city like the one presented in the game. That's bull.

Nico is a straight man, so yes, I could say that.

The game designers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that only women get fucked, or perhaps the designer's parochial little brains would just explode if a man got into Niko's car and had a little fun.

If the game is about a straight man, then I fail to see how only women get fucked. That would be a game about lesbians.

And can you imagine the criticism if a player had Niko go around killing the men who offer him sex? People would freak the fuck out, and while the designers of GTA will happily court controversy over the bodies of fake women, they really seem to go out of their way to protect the poor menz.

I haven’t gotten there yet, but I believe others have written here that Nico goes onto a dating site to meet the man he must assassinate.

If GTA was actually a sophisticated game (rather than a fucked up boy fantasy) more of an effort would have been made to present the full spectrum of human sexuality. If only one kind of sexuality is presented then it isn't reality, it's a het-boy wank-fest.

GTA is not a game centered around sexuality. If it was, I might agree with you. Again, no game can be all things for all people. If you want to experience the full spectrum of sexuality, get out of your house and have some fun.

Mighty Ponygirl: So it seems that your beef with that aspect of the game isn't the potential to murder prostitutes, but the fact that they are prostitutes.

Fair enough, but is that a critique of the game or is that aspect of the game a critical observation on the nature of society?

sgzax: Absolutely. That's why I've always resented The Grapes of Wrath, because Tom Joad didn't eat any dicks through the whole book.

Clearly it was poor art because the protagonist wasn't opportunistically pansexual.

No, the beef is that the potential to murder prostitutes is value-added to the fact that you can be serviced by prostitutes, who are only female.

My beef is that all of these people are saying "hey, it's totally optional to do" when we all know that GTA does not limit itself only to intelligent mature males, but has a massive following with teenagers whose sexuality are still developing -- whose first order of business is to secure a sexy lapdance and then kill the Ho to get the money back and for lulz. The fact that the game has set up an entirely hetero-centric, young male fantasy environment and that this is a widely-known and well-understood "option" says not only a lot about the game, but about its audience.

And can you imagine the criticism if a player had Niko go around killing the men who offer him sex?

I just finished a mission where I had to woo a gay man, go on a date with him, then assassinate him.

Mighty Ponygirl: I feel that your argument simply brings up more questions.

1) From my perspective a prostitute is a merchant offering a service. Murdering or not murdering said merchant is good or bad based on the murder, not the gender nature of the merchandise. This forces the observation that your issue is with the nature of the trade, not the aftermath.

2) You're also establishing a guideline, or at least intimating one, where the presumed intellect and maturity level of the audience should dictate the content to which they are exposed

"when we all know that GTA does not limit itself only to intelligent mature males, but has a massive following with teenagers whose sexuality are still developing"

This notion is troubling because it leads inexorably toward sequestering information from one group based on a criteria that another group is left to determine. It is also specious because the game's sale is age-restricted to "adults".

Is the game available to non-adults? Certainly, but then so is all material and substance under similar censure. So your logic leads to a general prohibition because there is no absolute way to ensure that proscribed items cannot get into the hands of minors.

sgzaz, not only would having the character you control in the game have gay sex likely make the target audience very uncomfortable, it would have gotten the game pulled at any kind of conservative big box retailer (Walmart, Best Buy, etc, etc). Including it would not only alienate their fan base but it would be a direct decision to forgo a huge chunk of their sales. You're getting mad at them for not shooting off their own legs - they're a business. It's unreasonable to hold these facts that are outside of their control against them.

It's also ridiculous to start any line of reasoning with "if it was a sophisticated game..." It didn't try to be "sophisticated", and I don't think anyone is arguing that it is. It's just not. It made no attempt to "resent the full spectrum of human sexuality", not only would it have been virtually impossible to do so, but it's not what people who buy their game are interested in. Your criticism would be valid if it were leveled at a game about human sexuality, not driving around shooting people.

LogrusZed -- Simplistic much?

To point out the problems inherent in a game's portrayal of women because the game is consumed by teenagers who LEGALLY shouldn't be consuming the game is not "lead[ing] inexorably toward sequestering information from one group based on a criteria that another group is left to determine." BECAUSE we are NOT (how many damn times do we need to say it before you paratroopers will get it through your skulls?!?!) advocating the game be banned or outlawed. In fact, your fixation on this belief that we are railroading some neo-prohibition is very telling of your own authoritarian predelictions, not ours.

Mighty Ponygirl: OK, you win.

I'm neither concerned enough that your going to influence my future ability to purchase entertainment nor emotionally invested enough in the argument alone to delve into overt or hinted insults.

Have a lovely day.

My beef is that all of these people are saying "hey, it's totally optional to do" when we all know that GTA does not limit itself only to intelligent mature males, but has a massive following with teenagers whose sexuality are still developing -- whose first order of business is to secure a sexy lapdance and then kill the Ho to get the money back and for lulz.

And I'm sure you have extensive research to back your "first order of business" assertion, right? I mean, two weeks after the game was released, there has to have been at least ONE major study on what sexually undeveloped teenagers do with their first hour of GTAIV playing time, right?

No? So, then, you're just spouting off uninformed opinions based on wild, groundless assertions?

And if so many underdeveloped teenagers are playing this M-rated game, shouldn't your primary beef be with the irresponsible parents who buy an M-rated game for their underage children?

Let me add that as a regular reader and commenter at Feministing, it pains me to agree with much of what vrattsild said about Samhita's critique. We on the left are fond of rolling our eyes and scoffing when some douchebag from the Catholic League or the AFA gets all outraged about some film or tv episode based on a second-hand description of some character or plotline. It's because attempting to criticize art (or even product, if you must insist on calling GTA that) without witnessing it for yourself is a fool's errand.

I have no doubt that if Samhita played the game, she would emerge with strong criticisms of varying aspects of the violence, misogyny and other elements present in the game. In most cases, her argument would likely be strengthened by her first-hand experience with the game. But I wouldn't care to listen to a movie review from a critic who hadn't seen the movie in question. I wouldn't accept the arguments of an academic scholar who attempted to critique a colleague's work without reading it. And I can't accept Samhita's criticism when she herself acknowledges that it comes from a place of ignorance, fed by second-, third- and fourth-hand interpretations of the game experience.

It's not spouting off if you've followed the discussion and studies about children and video games, instead of just dropping in from some third-party fanboy blog because omg they're being mean to GTA someone go over there right now and shut those bitches up!.

A recent study in the Journal of Adolescent Medicine has shown that 2/3 of underage males have played violent videogames like GTA whereas 1/3 of underage females have played violent videogames. Of those interviewed, half reported using videogames as a means of "anger management." You combine that with the developmental desire for adolescents to "transgress" as well as GTA's pretty well-publicized "kill da hookers" theme that any kid who spends any time watching gaming forums is going to be aware of and yes, I would say that for a lot of kids it *is* the first order of business.

instead of just dropping in from some third-party fanboy blog because omg they're being mean to GTA someone go over there right now and shut those bitches up!.

Hey, way to drop an ad hominem attack in there, Ponygirl, you must be very proud. You must have also missed the part where I said I was a regular Feministing reader and commenter. I'm even in the Myspace group.

As far as "backing up your assertion", you continue to make wild leaps of logic that are unsupported.

Let's review:

1) You produce a study that says many teens have played violent videogames.

2) You point to the "kill da hookers" theme that has been REPEATEDLY debunked as nowhere near a central part of the game. Killing hookers is one of literally thousands of options. This entire row was created when one, and I repeat, ONE, video gaming site created a video that featured the killing of prostitutes.

3) You use these "facts" to support your still-unproven "first order of business" theory. There remains, to this day, exactly *zero* hard evidence on how many people are actually doing this in the game. No estimates. No small-group testing and extrapolation.

Personally, I would guess that the number of people who paid $60 specifically just to run around a virtual city killing hookers rather than, say, COMPLETING THE ACTUAL TASKS THE GAME GIVES YOU is rather miniscule, but hey, I don't have any evidence to back that up.

Of course, neither do you. But what do I know? I'm just a fanboy from some third party blog, right? Is there no room for nuance of thought at Feministing, in your opinion? Is it possible that I'm a feminist who's still able to consume media that does not strictly conform to my worldview? What a concept.

Have you actually spent time with teenagers and gamers lately? You know, the kind who, when given the option of seeing something sexual and forbidden will leap on it foaming at the mouth? Are you honestly so naive that you think a teenager, when told that a game has something "extra forbidden" in it isn't going to go charging off to find it?

Have you spent time on gaming forums or being trolled by gaming forums by kids looking for lulz? Have you seen the sort of raw hatred towards women that they exhibit?

I'm guessing NO.

Mighty Ponygirl:

How much time did you spend with teenagers prior to the advent of video gaming?

Violent crime, in particular rape and murder has been on a steady decline in the U.S. since 1995. Not just on a percentile basis relating to population, but on the whole. I can substantiate this with facts, and research data.

Where is the corroborative data explicitly stating that teenage boys are somehow more assholish due to exposure to violent games than non-exposed teenage boys? Kids act like jerks, this is probably as old as cave painting.

Correlation =! causation.

And reading and re-reading this forum leads to the impression that the most overtly aggressive person in here is you. So if there is any truth to a causal relationship between violent entertainments and aggression maybe you should take a step back from your console.

P.S. If you were to argue that electronic gaming has contributed to the deterioration in health and wellness in kids I would accept it unquestioningly.

(how many damn times do we need to say it before you paratroopers will get it through your skulls?!?!)

...instead of just dropping in from some third-party fanboy blog because omg they're being mean to GTA someone go over there right now and shut those bitches up!

Have you spent time on gaming forums or being trolled by gaming forums by kids looking for lulz? Have you seen the sort of raw hatred towards women that they exhibit?
I'm guessing NO.

You went breathlessly from accusations of sncreducer being a video game troller to accusing them of never having seen a video game forum. How on earth does that make any sense? You accuse them of being one, then having never seen one before. I agree with you in that younger (read: less mature) males are probably initially excited about the prospect of killing people and having sex with a hooker when they get the game, but how does making unfounded and blatantly contradictory personal attacks help this argument? Seriously.

Mighty Ponygirl, I just want to say that you rock. I love so much of what you've said here (and on your blog!). I do think that this has gotten past the point of debate. Save your sanity... it doesn't sound like many people still arguing are actually interested in complicating their OWN understandings of GTA4 or feminist issues, although they naturally demand it of everyone else.

Ponygirl -

Your retort seems to amount "I KNOW teenagers, and you don't."

I don't really need to debunk this, do you? I mean, you're STILL missing my larger point - and that is that your assertions are still essentially fact-free.

Identity is right, though, in nailing you - first, you insinuated that I was a misogynist fanboy sent here from a gaming blog. When I debunked that, you asserted that I've never seen a gaming forum, and never been exposed to hateful fanboy trolls.

Wrong again. How about taking me and my arguments at face value?

But I digress. You ask whether I am "honestly so naive that you think a teenager, when told that a game has something 'extra forbidden' in it isn't going to go charging off to find it?"

Maybe they will. But I'll still fall back on my point, as a man who was once a teenage boy who played video games, that even the emotionally stunted who WOULD exhibit that sort of in-game behavior would find themselves very bored, very quickly, and would return to the missions that make up the actual game. (Let me add that yes, I've played almost all the games in the GTA series and no, I've never "killed" a prostitute.)

But the larger point is this - neither you, with your apocryphal anecdotes, nor I, with my ACTUAL EXPERIENCES AS A GAME-PLAYING TEENAGE BOY, can claim that we know the motivations or have predetermined the actions of millions of teenage boys we've never met. You could make such claims if you had actual, factual evidence to back them up, but you don't. Worse still, you're twisting what little research you *do* mention to back a hypothesis that the researchers were obviously not looking into. To me, that's the sign of an intellectualy dishonest debater.

Here's my final point: I'm a feminist. I've been one since I developed a political consciousness in my early teens. I'm a game player. I've played video games since I was a child (the first game I remember is "E.T." on the Atari 2600, if anyone's counting). I recognize the inherent problems with any number of video games on any number of levels - including but not limited to misogyny, racism and violence. But I see these things in movies, books, television, music and beyond. Does that mean that games should be treated as high art and be seen as above reproach? Of course not. But if you want to make an argument against a specific game or games in general, you'd better make sure you have your facts straight.

Ponygirl -

I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that if teens 17 and under are playing this game in the first place, that it's a failure of parenting, not the gaming industry.

“My beef is that all of these people are saying "hey, it's totally optional to do" when we all know that GTA does not limit itself only to intelligent mature males, but has a massive following with teenagers whose sexuality are still developing -- whose first order of business is to secure a sexy lapdance and then kill the Ho to get the money back and for lulz.� - Mighty Ponygirl

1. It is totally optional. You have a beef with people making factual comments that they can back up?

2. If people under 18 are playing the game, then you should take issue with the clerks that sell them or the parents that buy them for their kids, not with the game itself which is intended for adults.

3. You have yet to back up this “first order of business� supposition. It is interesting that you toss out unfounded claims like this and then attack someone for pointing out verifiable facts.

This is what I hate about unfounded criticism. When people don't have a leg to stand on the fall back to ad hominem attacks and phrases like "everyone knows that" or "generally speaking".

I am a teenager, at least for the next eight months, and my younger brother is a teenager. We have both put in approximately 30 hours each into GTA IV. Not one prostitute has been killed. Make broad generalizations about gamers all you want, Ponygirl, but please, provide some data to back it up.

First and foremost, anyone under 17 shouldn't have the game. If an immature person has it it's due to failed parenting. Secondly, stereotyping gamers based on message board lulz is like stereotyping feminists based on these comments. I mean, why would you even resort to stereotyping in the first place?

Of course, then you assume you know exactly what people will do in a game you have admittedly never played, and pass it off as the truth.

It's not.

Although I do support MADD's mission overall, this is the one time I have to say that MADD doesn't speak for me. I don't want to censor a game, movie, or any other form of art just because it has something I find reprehensible.

"When we all know that GTA does not limit itself only to intelligent mature males, but has a massive following with teenagers whose sexuality are still developing -- whose first order of business is to secure a sexy lapdance and then kill the Ho to get the money back and for lulz. The fact that the game has set up an entirely hetero-centric, young male fantasy environment and that this is a widely-known and well-understood "option" says not only a lot about the game, but about its audience."

Is there any evidence to back this up?

AS a long time gamer, I can remember reading that I - as a adolescent male - had bought the game "Barbarian" for the commodore 64 because I was suckered by the free poster of the big breasted model that came free with the game.

In other words, as a dumb male, my purchase was lead by my dick.

In fact, I DID NOT buy the game for the poster.

I had access to Magazines like playboy - why would I pay out more money for a crap poster of a woman who showed less?

The truth is - I just wanted to play the hame "Barabrian" - the poster meant nothing to me.

(In Barbarian, you punched, kicked and chopped the heads of other men - women complained about the poster)

Back to the modern day - any young man wanting porn can get it for free via google. Anyone buying or playing GTA4 for the "sexy" bits would have to be a bit nuts. It would be like buying GTA4 because you like the "buying shoes in a shop" bit of the game.

You have a shoe fetish? Fine, but there are cheaper ways of playing that out than spending £150.00 on an xbox 360 and gta4.

Thousands of FREE games are available on the internet with more sexual content than gta4.

I've said it before but I'll say it again: I'm unaware of the fantasy of killing prostitutes being a
hugely popular fantasy amongst young men.

I don't doubt that some young men have this fantasy, then again I don't doubt that some young women fantasise about being prostitutes or using a Strap On on their submissive boyfriend until he cries.

Was ever thus.

"sgzaz, not only would having the character you control in the game have gay sex likely make the target audience very uncomfortable,"

Hmmm, as part of the target audience for this game, gay sex wouldn't make me uncomfortable. In fact, I'd love to see Rockstar introducing that just to make the Right wingers/conservaties/fundies/homophobes
rant even more.

Some gamers have expressed their dissapointment with Rockstar for using "camp" Gay stereotypes.

Some gamers have expressed
have expressed their dissapointment with Rockstar for using "Black stereotypes"

Gamers do, in fact, criticise/discuss/critique Rockstar and GTA4, despite the belief we're all morons blindly lapping up anything Rockstar throws at us.

Hmmm, as part of the target audience for this game, gay sex wouldn't make me uncomfortable. In fact, I'd love to see Rockstar introducing that just to make the Right wingers/conservaties/fundies/homophobes
rant even more.

I hadn't meant to say that no one in the target audience would find it appealing, but I think it's a fair assessment to say that it would push away significantly more of this demographic group than it would pull in. Even if it didn't, the probable pulling of the game by conservative chains is more problematic for them (as opposed to the posturing and admonishment it receives now, which is a controversy that sells more games).

Are you angry with the game because it allows you to kill hookers? Do you not like the game because it gives you the choice to commit violence against women? How is choice misogynist? If it forced you to kill to hookers, I would would be open to such a comment about the game. But, it doesn't do that. The player has the choice, just like you have the choice to buy the game. Shouldn't you call the player who chooses to kill hookers misogynist and not the game? In life, I have the choice to kill hookers; is life misogynist? I have the choice to kill black people; is life racist?

On another note, yes you can and should criticize games. There are games that rise to the level of art. I don't know if I'd attribute such a distinction to GTA IV yet. But, let's remember art is artifice: It's an imitation. Art is artificial: It's not real.

Are you angry with the game because it allows you to kill hookers? Do you not like the game because it gives you the choice to commit violence against women? How is choice misogynist? If it forced you to kill to hookers, I would would be open to such a comment about the game. But, it doesn't do that. The player has the choice, just like you have the choice to buy the game. Shouldn't you call the player who chooses to kill hookers misogynist and not the game? In life, I have the choice to kill hookers; is life misogynist? I have the choice to kill black people; is life racist?

On another note, yes you can and should criticize games. There are games that rise to the level of art. I don't know if I'd attribute such a distinction to GTA IV yet. But, let's remember art is artifice: It's an imitation. Art is artificial: It's not real.

Are you angry with the game because it allows you to kill hookers? Do you not like the game because it gives you the choice to commit violence against women? How is choice misogynist? If it forced you to kill to hookers, I would would be open to such a comment about the game. But, it doesn't do that. The player has the choice, just like you have the choice to buy the game. Shouldn't you call the player who chooses to kill hookers misogynist and not the game? In life, I have the choice to kill hookers; is life misogynist? I have the choice to kill black people; is life racist?

On another note, yes you can and should criticize games. There are games that rise to the level of art. I don't know if I'd attribute such a distinction to GTA IV yet. But, let's remember art is artifice: It's an imitation. Art is artificial: It's not real.

"The game designers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that only women get fucked, or perhaps the designer's parochial little brains would just explode if a man got into Niko's car and had a little fun. And can you imagine the criticism if a player had Niko go around killing the men who offer him sex? People would freak the fuck out, and while the designers of GTA will happily court controversy over the bodies of fake women, they really seem to go out of their way to protect the poor menz."

This has been touched on, but there are gay guys in the game. Niko is straight.

There is one mission where you kill a gay guy (it gets mentioned all the time) and it was pretty uncomfortable. He's pretty stereotyped, though he's presented as sort of a leech - he wants a partner who'll give him lots of money so he doesn't have to do anything, basically.

There's one mission, though, that I haven't heard mentioned. Later on Niko has a gay friend who's getting death threats, and you shadow him around a park while he has a jog. At the end of a dark tunnel a homophobe guy attacks him and you have to chase down and gun down the homophobe, which was pretty cool.

I think that's an example that hopefully helps make the point that, yes, it's a hard game to critique, and it helps to keep one's own incomplete knowledge of it in mind when doing so.

1. There are good-guy gay men and bad-guy men in GTA IV (but no lesbians that I've seen, other than fake-lesbian stripper show).

2. As someone pointed out earlier, if all you do in the game is have sex with hookers and watch strippers and then do violence (or not) to those women, you'll get pretty bored. (The kill/not kill choice is true of basically any other character in the game and I believe fairly irrelevant.) Rockstar put enough effort into it to make it an impressive novelty, but it's not an intricate part of the story arc. ...The detailed landscape, the satirical talk-shows, the handling of the different cars are all significantly more entertaining. I suspect even the most misogynist dumbass teenage boy will get bored -- just as he will get bored of randomly punching out pedestrians.

3. The question is: WHY are there prostitutes & strippers? Rockstar could have been just as titillating and edgy if they had made it possible for Niko to solicit sex (or a blow job for simplified graphics) from any minor character (male or female, or just female, possibly with an algorithm or random chance that the solicitation was accepted). Instead, the titillation is primarily from prostitutes and strippers.

4. And why are there prostitutes you can have sex with but not blow-jobs from guys? Beyond simply saying, "because the main character is straight" (kinda lame argument, since so many other actions are flexible), the reason people are giving is that same-sex blow jobs would tank sales for the game.

THAT is what's fucked up. To reiterate: the very fact that having sex with prostitutes and otherwise objectifying women in the game did NOT "hurt sales" is the RESULT of misogyny. Yet random same-sex blow jobs are waaaayyy too risky. Rockstar is operating in this misogynist world, so it's not their "fault" that objectifying women in their game does not risk drastically reduced sales (and may enhance sales), but they could have just left it out altogether -- opted out of participating in the misogynist worldview.

5. The virgin-whore dichotomy with Niko's girlfriends/potential girlfriends vs strippers and prostitutes is also really, really annoying. Possibly more annoying than gratuitously including stippers and prostitutes in the first place. (Someone who has seen more of the game may correct me about the titillation from Niko's interactions with his girlfriends, but from what I've seen, it's very courtship-ritual dating.)

[sorry if this gets double-posted]

My friend who's played/seen nearly the entire main story arc of GTA IV corrects me -->

1) there were lesbians in GTA3; specifically one of the crime bosses from the yakuza.

2) ...

3) niko can solicit sex from his girlfriends, plus there are a lot of minor characters with whom niko has some kind of sexual contact (there's a female character he kidnaps after luring her with her attraction to European mobster types, etc.) [me: sexual contact with someone he kidnaps? Uh, that sounds like the worse thing yet... don't know about this plot point though...]

4) if niko were gay, would him having sex with prostitutes and such be an issue?

the strip clubs are a clear homage to The Sopranos; the prostitutes are really minor in gta IV compared to earlier games (the box cover art is the biggest aspect; I didn't even find the prostitutes until late in the game, and they're boring)

besides, I'd consider the strip clubs + prostitution fairly accurate for a street criminal in NYC. a conspicuous lack of sex would be even weirder than what is in the game.

there is plenty of homoerotic stuff with brucie anyway. (I think with a few other characters too)

none anywhere near as awesome as Omar Little from The Wire, though.

5) the girls niko meets online (vs. the CIA agent who was sleeping with him for work reasons, and Kate who never sleeps with anyone) are much more normal; there is usually sex after 2-3 dates. sure, courtship behavior.
[me again] -- so the virgin/whore dichotomy is much less of an issue than I thought; I had just seen Kate.

"there's a female character he kidnaps after luring her with her attraction to European mobster types, etc.) [me: sexual contact with someone he kidnaps? Uh, that sounds like the worse thing yet... don't know about this plot point though...]"

Unless we're thinking of a different female character, he kidnaps her by arranging a test drive of a car she's selling. She just hits on him while he's test driving it. There's no sexual contact involved other than that, and he doesn't "lure" her sexually at all. The kidnapping is to force a ransom from someone else.

That storyline is a bit disturbing, though, in a similar way to how a movie with such a story would be disturbing.

(I just beat the game, so... :) )

On another note: I think part of why the criticism of GTA 4 here in general annoys me is that GTA 4 is a very self-aware game in general. It doesn't take itself seriously - it's highly satirical. It doesn't glorify gang violence, drug use or violence against women; on the contrary, almost all of the characters in the game are shown as very messed up in one way or another, and they generally do better the further removed from the criminal scene they are.

The point being, there are significant sexism problems in the game industry in general, but they aren't addressed here, and GTA 4 is one of the last places to look for them. It's a very self-aware and satirical game, in sharp contrast to many others that are neither. The game isn't above criticism, but it seems most of the attention is coming from outrage over incorrect nth-hand impressions of it rather than any interest in addressing video game industry sexism.

1. There are good-guy gay men and bad-guy men in GTA IV (but no lesbians that I've seen, other than fake-lesbian stripper show).

I'm pretty sure Elizabeta, the drug-dealer from Bohan is a lesbian. There was one party cut-scene where she was getting her freak on with another woman.

btw, here's a pretty good resource for people wanting to learn more about GTA:

http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Yep, Elizabeta is a lesbian. Brucie has homoerotic overtones, and Bernie Crane is outright gay, yet Niko's response to Bernie's homosexuality is profoundly enlightened. In fact there's the mission where you hunt down the guy who's intimidating Bernie because he's gay. That said, there are also gay "bad guys", specifically the one you find through the internet and shoot at the diner.

GTA IV is not a heteronormative game. It features a heterosexual main character, but the world in which GTA takes place is very diverse.