So on one of my other sites someone posted this video Personally I disagree with the video but I want to hear everyone else's thoughts on it. Here are mine: Yes girls always been taking in video games is a bit cliche but it also makes a good story. Lets say a guy was to get kidnapped, you would expect them to be able to save themselves. That is just a general thought of guys. And many times games don't make the girls completely weak but the enemy is just too strong and it takes a few people to save her. Not just one average guy. Besides if it where a guy being taken there would probably end up with less of a love aspect undertone, because who saves the girl? The guy who loves her generally. And for a long time it was generally accepted in the world that girls didn't do any fighting or things like that, it was left for the guys. This is where the theory probably started. Now it is just a general plot device. But as time moves on and views change, so are many plots. We are now getting more and more games based around girls, or at least include girls as strong capable players/party members. When Mario was created it was an accepted concept that it would be a girl isn't as strong as the guy and would be more likely to be taken. But as time moves forward that concept is kept cause that was just the way mario goes. They don't want to waver from that. I don't see a problem with that because it is Mario's basic plot line, it always has been and people have always liked it. On top of this many parts in the world are still male oriented so they go on their ideas not Americas. Many games where made in Japan and such. They will obviously be based on Japans ideals. If you look at games made in America, yes you can still find games in America that are like that, but that is still because it is based off of a generally accepted plot device that was started long ago. On top of this all the gamer population is made up of more guys then girls. So when developers are making a game they will focus a lot on what will appeal to the male population. And some are going to like the idea of having to save a girl. In RPG's you are generally playing the hero. The hero wants to save the girl. What is the problem with that? And the girls aren't always taken they sometimes are actually being as strong as the guy in their own way, offering themselves for the sake of other people. They are trying to help out. What is the problem with that? My last comment on this is that how many girls wanted to be saved by their knight in shining armor when they where kids? That is exactly what is happening here. The girl is being saved by their knights. This is what is happening. Also how many of these have at least some sort of love aspect after. Even Kingdom Hearts where it isn't suppose to be all that much romance, it is there, you can see it, it is cute. There is no argument with that. I enjoyed it. I mean Kairi wasn't my favourite character but I still think it was cute how hard Sora fought to save her. Girls do get their own games where they are strong and independent now. I would list some but I am sure everyone can undeniably list games with a female protagonist or just strong female characters. They are out there and are becoming more common. Times are changing and you see less and less Damsels in distress. You can't base this on old games cause that was accepted back then.
Its a concept that has been around since ancient days during the Greeks and Romans eras. Most women would stay home and wait for their husband/ lover to return to them after a war. It was usually what the man fought for as well. To fight and manage to come home to a woman who wouldn't have dirtied herself with the onslaught of war. Where there are damsels in distress, there are also males who are captured. It isn't always done by a girl but instead family. Or if it is a girl the case usually is family. Men aren't demigods. We cant fight everything and break fee. We'd sure like to think that way, but we aren't. If you are being held captive by some superhuman being/ machine/ monster etc and you are the average male... I wish you the best of luck my friend. Hopefully they have a mop if you are a tad hard headed. For the story concept, it just works. Girl gets captured, Guy embarks on a journey to save the girl, Girl is saved, Fall in love. Its classic and accepted by most. There seems to be some good emotional attachment that way. Especially if the girl has been with you for a good period of time in a game before she gets captured. You liked that character, you want to save that character, you will devote your time to saving that character. Once its all done you feel accomplished and rewarded for reuniting with her. It just seems more thrilling with a guy saving a girl then vice versa.
I don't fully agree with everything Anita Sarkeesian has said & done, the video itself is quite lackluster and has some problem areas but I think her overall point/purpose is good. I agree, it can--and does--make a great story. I enjoy games (and any other kind of media) where the classic "hero saves the princess" trope is employed, Kingdom Hearts being one of them. The problem Anita brings up is that this trope is so commonplace and so used within the media. Sure, different games put different spins on it (sometimes a team saves the princess rather than just one hero; everything takes place within its own universe; etc.). Simply because it makes a good story doesn't mean it's the only story, nor does it excuse it from being problematic in modern society. That said, just because something is problematic doesn't mean you can't like or enjoy it--but you need to be aware of it, and it can be harmful when young kids are exposed to it. The ability to save oneself should not have any gender attachments to it. If anyone is kidnapped, I hope that they can save themselves. Video games that feature the damsel in distress trope reinforce to players not only that females are weak (damsel in distress), but also that males are strong (male power fantasy). This "general thought of guys" is created in the media, when the message we should be sending is that anyone has the power to overcome an attacker. This is a good point to make, that a hero rarely works alone in video games, but all the same, the "main" hero is still, predominantly, male (again, see Kingdom Hearts--Sora is helped by Donald & Goofy to save Kairi, but Sora is still the hero). Why should there be any less of a romantic implication when it's a girl saving a guy? Or a guy saving a guy? Or a girl saving a girl? Why should there be a romantic implication at all? It depends on the story and the game in question. If the two characters have some kind of pre-established romantic element to their relationship, then by all means, it's satisfying for the player to have a romantic implication in the rescue regardless of gender, because the story is then incorporating the "strength of love" theme. I would like to add that it's also very problematic to demand that the two characters end up in love as well. Why should a character fall at another's feet for their rescue? Gratitude does not have to equal (romantic) love. The best defense I can think of for the princess falling for the hero post-rescue is that the hero's journey to save the princess showed the princess the strength of his love (though even that does not mean that she must love him). But not only is that under-emphasized in a lot of games, expecting it in a game seriously harms the hero's image as selfless. Conquering evil is a more noble goal than getting laid. Not only that, but it's blatant objectification of the female character. The problem is that a lot of people don't believe the industry's overuse of the damsel in distress trope is anything wrong, nor do some even realize that they're doing it (& the negative messages it's sending). The industry is putting out more titles with strong female leads, that is true--but it's moving slowly, and change does not happen magically. The public needs to speak up to developers that we want stories with strong female leads just as much as strong male leads (and anything in between). There needs to be equal representation here. That doesn't make it any more okay. We live in a global society--a game created in America could be played worldwide, a game created in Japan could be played worldwide, and so on. The message Anita is trying to send extends to the entire video game industry, not just the American subset (which is just as guilty of this behavior as the rest of the world). According to a 2013 study by The Entertainment Software Association, 45% of gamers are women. Now, true, men are technically the majority according to that statistic, but at 55%, it's hardly an overwhelming majority. And if the gaming industry became more female-friendly, don't you think more women would be playing games? Tastes don't have to be gender dependent. As a female, I enjoy playing as both genders--in some games, when given an option between male and female, I will prefer to play as male; in others, I'll prefer female. Likewise, a male player can enjoy playing as either gender. He may have a preference of one over the other, which is fine, but he can enjoy both, and should be given the opportunity to do just that. The fact that a male player has a knee-jerk "no" reaction to playing as a girl speaks to a far larger societal problem--which video games can help mend, by creating strong female characters that males not only enjoy playing as--they want to play as. That doesn't mean that it's okay for a staggering number of games to cater to this demographic. This video doesn't say that a hero's desire to save people--male or female--is anything wrong. It's that video games continuously portray males saving females. A hero can save anyone, can fall in love with anyone, and be of any gender. Video games are, sadly, skewed wildly in one direction. What you're referring to was, I believe, addressed in the video. When a female character is given any kind of role/power, it's typically a support role--a white mage, for example--rather than being on equal footing to the sword-wielding, ass-kicking hero. A game needs white mages and soldiers--it does not need predominantly female white mages and predominantly male soldiers. I would rather a girl grow up with the mentality of "if I am attacked, I can save myself" rather than "if I am attacked, my knight in shining armor will come save me." And why wasn't Kairi your favorite character? Why do you really only care about Sora's side of the rescue? Because that's how the game is direction and that's how the characters are portrayed. We care more about Sora because he is a character--Kairi is an object. That's true, the industry is changing, but it's slow, and this trope is still being continuously employed. And things won't change unless we ask for it, through videos like this, which raise awareness of the problem and, by extension, sends a message to developers. Even if you remove the gender problems that the damsel in distress trope creates, it's simply unoriginal for games like Mario to continue to rehash the same story again and again. Gamers want to play something they haven't seen or experienced yet--they can have favorites to fall back upon, but innovation is not a bad thing. Edit: People definitely posted while I was typing, will reply more in the future absolutely. 8)
Just wanted to address this and say that it's not even always the case. I can't think of many examples, so I will use my favorite game series: In every Zelda game, it's hinted at a romance between Link and Zelda. However, there is literally no proof that they are concretely in love with each other. In Skyward Sword, for example, Link and Zelda are shown to be incredibly close friends to the point of Zelda fighting Link's battle for him when bullies pick on him, and her teasing him with leaning in as if to kiss him. Seems like she's in love, right? Well, that's wrong. After everything that Link's been through (basically hell and back), Zelda knows he loves her, and she loves him, but it's not romantic AT ALL. Link didn't save Zelda to get laid, he saved her because she's his best friend, a person who he literally cannot live without. Damsel in Distress doesn't mean "Girl I want to sex up so I'll save" Damsel in Distress means "Girl I'll save because she matters." And don't even say that she's always captured, because she always isn't. Ever since Ocarina of Time, when she eluded the villain for SEVEN YEARS, Zelda has always been shown to hold her own ground before being captured if she's even captured at all: Ocarina of Time- Disguises self as Ninja, eludes villain for years. Wind Waker- She's a pirate that basically kicks ass. Twilight Princess- Kingdom invaded. Do I need a hero? Nope, I'll beat the crap out of Twilight Creatures alone, but never let innocents be hurt. I'll also stand on your horse and shoot the villain so you can hurt him. Plus he may possess me, but I'll endure it and act as if nothing happened. Since 1998, the series has evolved past "Weak Princess be captured". I believe this is because Nintendo themselves realize that mature gamers (which play Zelda more than little kids) will mind if Zelda's always caught, whereas Mario is more frequently played by little kids who won't think it sexist. And let's not forget Peach had her own game where she tore the villains a new one. I personally believe Peach and Zelda are rescued until the end because they're shown to be able to fend for themselves, so they have to be places under the highest amount of guarding. This may or may not be the case, but it's what I believe and will continue to believe because it makes sense, especially when Peach gets her own game where she kicks tremendous ass, or Zelda fights off an army of Twilight Creatures all on their own.
I'm actually having a chat about this subject on Skype and we literally just brought up Princess Zelda, ha. I think it was a bad move on Anita's side to choose Zelda as one of her "classic Damsel in Distress" characters because, frankly, (even from my limited knowledge of LoZ, but you've obviously provided more informed basis to the statement) Zelda is kind of a badass--and a female monarch on top of that, which is also pretty badass. The video Shiki posted talks more about this (and about Princess Peach too). I honestly think this is a good sign for the video game industry, that it has, at least recently, moved forward from its early days of rudimentary damsel in distress storylines to flesh out the damsels (and turn them into pretty rad characters). It shows a growth and change that I can only hope will continue. Edit: The romantic/sexual implication is also a tough one to state goes on for a fact, especially in series like Mario & Zelda, where the male lead really has very few to no speaking lines (and there's certainly very little on-screen romance). I was more talking about the damsel in distress trope in general / the points made in the OP (sorry if that wasn't clear!). Like I said, I have problems with the original video, and one of those is the examples she pulls.
I won't say that you are wrong when you claim it is starting to get overused in society today, but the problem I have with her argument and this is she is generally referring to older games like Mario and Zelda. When these games where first developed, that story line wasn't a problem. That idea was accepted more then it is now. And I don't see why these games need to change their story now. It is almost wrong to change it too much cause guess what, that is what people grew up with, that is what they expect. I wouldn't want Nintendo to change Mario. I grew up on the story that you had to save peach, and I don't want that to change, it is half of what Mario is. It is a major part of the game at this point. I stated this in my original argument, if you want to address this issue properly, you need to look at more current games. I know there are a lot of current games that still use this old cliche story line. And yes it is getting over use. But if you are going to argue over this you need to use more up to date examples. I agree it shouldn't be a gender attachment, but guess what, it is. It is a part of life. And know what this may just come from my Christian roots and thoughts, but each gender was made for a their own role. Not to say they can't cross over, but generally men where made to be the protectors and providers of a family. The woman was made for taking care of the family, providing maybe. But we where not built like men where as much for fighting. I respect girls who do fight and I don't have a problem with it but there is a certain idea that has gone back for ages that is still applicable. Woman and men have different roles in the world. Yes they should be treated equally but there are still role in life. 1st Peter 3:7 says "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." Woman where made weaker then men. But that doesn't mean they can't fight. But it does show there is a little but of a gender attachment in this. And know what it isn't a big deal. We each have our own roles in society. I will still go back to the point that in society for a long time and even today that there are still gender roles in society. No they aren't as prominent as they where before but they are still there. And my I point out that just because the main hero is a guy that doesn't mean woman are weak. I mean Final Fantasy 7 Cloud was the main character, but Tifa and Yuffie, and for the first half of the game Aerith where strong. Though out the game Tifa and Yuffie proved to be more useful then most of the male characters and Tifa had a lot of major plot points in which she helped Cloud overcome things himself. I can relate the same back to Kingdom Hearts. Kairi was the one you where suppose to be saving but she helped Sora though a lot in her own way. Heck she wasn't even conscious and she guided Sora and saved him. After he woke up she saved him again. In the second game, she started to fight in order to help Sora. Sure she was the damsel in distress and Sora was the main character, but she sure as hell helped him out of a lot and though not being showed as as strong as you probably think she should be the main hero can rarely do things without some help. And there are a lot of cases that that is a female in one way or another. Plus on top of this all males make good protagonists because they are less emotional. Think again of guys verses girls and the way we are made. Girls tend to show a lot more emotions then men. Emotions can impair judgment a lot. So in reality females would act a lot different then what is wanted or needed for certain situations in games. Sure they could change the situation but would it not be easier to change the character? It is just a trait of males to be less emotional then females. There is nothing to be done about that. And less visible emotion means that you don't get those unnecessary parts of games that they would need to focus on emotions to make the characters more realistic. There isn't really. But if you are going to go for a romantic aspect to the story they tend to try to help each other in some way or another even if the girl is going to be weaker. I could relate this back to the bible once again but I think I made my point clear earlier. Males and females have roles, they always have and always will. I am all for the idea of female protectionists but when you do a romantically themed story, you generally default to the roles of men and woman. These roles aren't made to make the woman look weak, but are built upon our nature and how we are created. We where created different from men. It just so happens that the way men are built and think is more of one of a protector. Girls are almost made more like teachers. This doesn't mean they aren't strong or can't handle their own, it simply means that if something where to happen it would be more expected of the men to fight. I don't see why this should really change, it is how we were made. And it hasn't been an issue for thousands of years, only in recent years has there ever been an issue with this. They shouldn't and I see that as a bit of an over exhaderation. But usually the Damsel and the rescuer knew each other before whatever happened happened. If you had been taken or something would you not want to hug your rescuer. I believe a hug or a kiss is more commonly seen then the damsel falling at the rescuers feet. It doesn't even have to be from a romantic prospective, just grateful is all. But a lot of people like a love story sort of vibe, and if they don't there are other games for them usually ones where the woman is not needing to be saved. But honestly that is more a classic love story Cliche then anything else. But it doesn't always work out like that even though it does often. Yes it is moving slow but you can't just do a complete flip right off the bat, even if it doesn't seem like a big thing like changing the type of protagonist. But even so it would be a shock to the industry. Any change has to be made slowly. That is what I am seeing personally. They are slowly making changes but they can't do it all at once. But when you are writing something a lot of what you are writing has a little bit of your own ideas in it. It is nearly impossible to escape. So if you have an entire team of people working on a game whose society and thoughts say it is okay, at least a small amount of it will be transferred over to what you are working on. Games are played world wide yes, but you have to understand that it is in human nature to let their work be influenced by there own opinion. It is nearly impossible to be completely unbias. And when coming up with concepts, you would start with what you are familiar with would you not? At that is how I view it, and have my own experience with. Things can get adjusted and they do. The world is changing and people are not inputting as much of their beliefs into the work but it will always be there. Even now in my posts you can see a bit of what I grew up believing in my posts and I can't help that cause that is me. It is not an overwhelming majority but if you go back to the actual numbers, there will be a noticeable difference. And this change happened fairly quickly. I mean I know when my parents where teenagers it wasn't as common as it is now. And that seems like a long time but if you look at industry it really isn't. Things are evolving but not as fast as people themselves are changing. Every generation comes with different ideas. And only now really are those people who where raised in more of a society of girl gamers getting in the industry, and they are still pretty new at it. The generation before in the development department didn't come from a generation of dominating girl gamers. Statistics aren't the only things out there. People themselves have views of the industry that will impact it. No they don't but I find personally in a lot of rpg's I like to think of myself in the place of the character and it is easier to do that with someone of the same gender. And yes as the gamer populations starts to have more girls it would be good to see more female characters, but I honestly don't mind if they are party members as long as they are important to the story. I don't think it really matters all that much whether they are the main character or not, but it is nice to see they are included in the game. It can at least me a start can it not? As for the creating more females main characters, I would go back to points I touch earlier on about the making of the game. I can see it coming just slowly. And maybe not as fast as people would like, but honestly I think they need just be patient and wait a bit. But you are talking like all games have been made or even the idea was conceived in a time that this was more of an issue. Most games out there at this point in time where made before this became a dominate issue. And numbers are changing but it won't happen over night. They can't happen overnight. This isn't a new industry really. It is relatively new but still not new enough that it can be changed quickly. For this I just am going to say refer to previous comments because I have pretty much already covered it. (And I am getting too tired to reiterate what I have already said. ) Some are yes, but not all. There are a lot of girls who kick butt in videogames. This is seen all throughout Final Fantasy, and so many other games. Yes perhaps the white mage tends to be a girl but honestly I have a hard time seeing a guy unless a kid fitting into that role well. But other females in the game aren't just like a support character not actually fighting. Even in a lot of games some of the female NPC's can be pretty awesome even if you don't play as them. You also have to consider what time period the game itself takes place in. Games like Assassins Creed or Prince of Persia you won't see many woman fighting, not because the developers think they can't but the time period or location it is set in, it wouldn't make sense to see them fighting. Know what, I have always thought that I could save myself, but it would be a lie if I didn't say I didn't think it romantic that if something did happen the man I love to come to my rescue. People can have both mentalities without it really being a problem. I wouldn't just let myself be taken with hopes someone will save me. But if that was the case I would hope that someone would come as save me like a brave warrior. Honestly I prefer Riku over both of them. Both of their personalities just kinda isn't what I like all that much. I see what Riku did as the the most brave and honorable thing. I am not basing this off how the developer portrayed her. I think they did a fine job at that, this is just personal opinions. No it isn't but like all things change is slow and I believe developers are seeing the change but it can't all change at once. It is a process that takes time. And you can't really rush it that much. I don't have problems with videos like these, it is more the way she presented it that bothered me. Using examples from older games and almost acting like they aren't trying at all. It is also a lot of trial and error to see what everyone will enjoy, not just the women or the men. It is a process that takes time.
I' ve already posted a video answer to Part 1 in another thread, and the one Weeaboo posted is just as pertinent, so here' s a response to Part 2 (which somehow managed to be even more self-contradictory than Part 1) : To me it' s the same as blaming video games for violence : once you see the trope for what it is, just a trope, it can' t harm you in any way. Teaching kids to think critically about what they watch is up to their parents and teachers, not video games. It might just be clumsy wording on your part, but just in case ... it' s fine for you to believe in whatever you happen to believe in, but when you start stating your beliefs out as fact, to put it shortly and bluntly, "proof or indistinguishable from bullshit". That being said, though my approach is more rational I' m quite fascinated by that topic myself. Yes, man have more muscles, women have breasts, and gender specification trends can be observed again and again throughout various societies all across History. However brute strength doesn' t necessarily gives you a decisive advantage in a fight (what about, say, agility and speed ?), men can now buy milk at the nearest convenience store, and for all we know most of those trends might have emerged completely randomly anyway, Let me illustrate that last point : let' s say I rolled a dice ten times in a row and came up with seven sixes, does that make six the likeliest number for you to roll with that dice ? No, all the numbers have about the same odds to show up but statistics won' t necessarily mirror that fact. The lower their scope the more unreliable they are, even with a huge ass sample pool chances are you' ll still find discrepencies between the theoretical odds and the actual known results. Long story short, are some behaviors or personnality traits likelier to emerge in a XX or XY individual ? Maybe, maybe not, as far as I know the scientific jury' s still up on that one (not for lack of exploring this very topic for centuries).
I have stated this a few times, I am not saying woman are not strong or can't fight. Nor am I saying it is all about strength. But if you take two average people, lets say a man and a woman who work the same job and are in the same office and test them in some basic things. If we are talking about why males have the roles of protectors you will test them in things that have to do with fighting or being a protector such as strength, but also emotional stability, and how well they can take hits. It isn't just about their physical build. Being a protector is a lot more then just that, but it is traits that males more commonly carry, some can't be helped. I mean parts on it is to with hormones and such. No matter how you look at it they are there and different between guys and girls. Guys aren't labeled as protectors just because they are stronger. Yes it is part of it but not the whole thing.
Oh don' t take me wrong, genes do set the stage to some degree, hormonal differences are indeed liinked to the X/Y gene and they do impact our emotionnal responses. The thing is, in some areas genes do not set everything in stone because our experiences are just as determinant (if not more, go figure). Personnality (brain development in general) would be one of those areas. If you focus solely on genes you' ll miss half the picture. I wasn' t under the impression you were saying that women are feeble or that it' s all about strength, I was adressing your assertion that some of those differences (the propention to protect for instance) are set in stone. They' re rigged to some degree by genes, true, but rigged enough that it "can' t be helped" ? I wouldn' t bet on it given how few evidence I' ve seen to back that up.
I wasn't trying to give off the impression they where set in stone just address the fact that throughout time there was reasons for things being the way they were and my reasons to believe that they should change. I believe in womans equality yes, but the general belief that the male would be the protector and/or provider for the family stays the same to me. Yeah real life effects emotions and emotional responses a fair bit but genes do too and they also help control emotions not even what emotions you have. The comment I made was all to lead back to roles of the individuals in a household, and these roles transfer over to media like video games too, why wouldn't it?
The problem is the "objectification of female" , their characters doens't matter it could be a bird or a ship , only the male role is important. I think this is more problematic them the "damsel in distress", why doesn't the Damsel tries to escape (even if she isn't successfull). There is two things that some feminists doesn't understand , or fail to understand about feminism: 1) Feminism is about equality, as female role in society is underappreciated , most times make good propaganda of females helps to set the balance , this however is not the goal! 2) Woman are in average weaker than man, not saying that a woman couldn't kick some guys ass, but the average woman probably wouldn't be stronger than the average man... that can influence games, BUT IN FANTASY your muscle doesn't count as much as your magic and other factors, so gender could be discarded. To acknowledge that man and woman are different isn't sexism, but how to treat "different people" equally? By giving "advantages" that will balance the table... When a building puts a ramp for people in wield chair, they are not "throwing a bone to them" they are setting the balance with people that can walk, now both of them can work in the same building, public health care and other stuff like that try to balance the system that is composed by different people. There is the oposite problem of "objefication of female": (I don't endorse everything she says but she got some points... as a male I can state that our role in society isn't a piece of cake either, but I don't blame the feminism if you are a female and thinks so badly of men, even if you think you are a feminist you aren't) ---- That being said, I thought that Peach's game was a poor excuse for a feminist game using PMS as powers is degrading.. ps.: those who think that "is just a joke, so it is ok" it is not , humor supports racism/intolarence etc.. think about that the next time you tell one.
This brings up a lot of things I've always wondered about in these arguments. The big one is: What makes strength so important to a character? It's far from the only virtue, and rarely the most important, even in games that feature these archetypes in their basest form. A character who lacks the strength to defend themselves - once - isn't weak. Otherwise Link would come off pretty weak in the games where Zelda has to save his ass right at the end when Ganon gets the drop on him. Anyway, my only gripe is that there isn't as much variation as there could be. There are a few good examples in the video, but really, there aren't that many male damsel-type characters. The only one I could think of before watching was Otacon. I'd also like to see more female main characters, whether or not they're rescuing their boyfriend; I think it's fair to say that there are more male player characters in the world than female, and the ladies deserve as many characters with which to identify and in which to immerse themselves. Gaming is an industry, true, but it is also an art form. It has its own things to say about the state of the world and the experiences we hold dear, and it can evoke deep and vivid emotions in the player. In my mind these messages, experiences, and evocations should vary in form and function as much as the people receiving them, and I cannot truly be proud of the medium unless it is marching in that direction, no matter its sales figures. A game does not have to settle for selling; it can be a technical masterpiece, a stirring coming-of-age tale, or a thoughtful social commentary, and still be fun and engaging and sell like netbooks on Black Friday. The more variation there is, the less egregious the damsel in distress appears, as it becomes but one of many possibilites.
And this is where tropes (of any kind) in gaming can hurt both genders. Physical strength is not, as you state, of sole importance; however, there are different kinds of strength. Strength of character, morals, etc., are all not to be overlooked, and is where characters like Zelda truly excel, despite not always being shown as physically strong. The "hero saves the princess" plotline can become far more tolerable, even enjoyable, if the princess shows strength of this sort. To pull examples: Kairi in Kingdom Hearts (more so in Kingdom Hearts II, probably, because she's unconscious for the bulk of the first game). Even if she does end up getting kidnapped (in what I'll say is one of the most pathetic kidnapping scenes ever), she shows before then that she's developed the strength to fight for what she wants, rather than wait for it to plop into her lap. She goes on to fight the heartless & nobodies even if she's not as physically strong or skilled as Sora or Riku. In Kingdom Hearts 1 we get a glimpse of her character, where she's shown to have a deep connection and concern for her friends, as well as a strong heart--an abstract concept in the KH series, but a good plot device, as it provides a more direct barometer for strength of character than just physical strength, and can, in fact, run quite the opposite. Nobody would expect Kairi to be physically strong, yet she has one of the strongest hearts of all the characters (she's a Princess of Heart). Riku, by contrast, who is a skilled fighter, is said in KH1/CoM to have a weak heart. Sora triumphs over Riku not because he's a more talented fighter or has a better weapon, but because he has a stronger heart. To me, the "rescue Kairi" subplot is far more digestible for her characterization is strong in other ways, and because her kidnap and rescue has little to do with physical strength, but rather, strength of heart. As an addendum, I still have damsel in distress problems with Kairi, just because the plotline is employed so frequently for her. Happily it looks like, post-3D, she'll have a little bit more to do. Bastila in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Bastila is a galaxy-renown Jedi for her Battle Meditation, and is widely considered the Republic's shining hope in the Jedi Civil War--that implies at the very least, strength of abilities. She's an indispensable party member stats & class wise, and her character is terrifically nuanced. About 3/4 of the way into the game she's kidnapped by the main enemy, Darth Malak, and the game enters a "save Bastila" arc. Looking at physical strength as the only strength would propel the assumption that Kairi is a dictionary definition damsel in distress, when there's a bit more to the plot than just that. Because Bastila has a "strong" character beforehand, it's really not insulting that the game enters a "damsel in distress" situation. Not only that, but the drive to rescue Bastila is all the greater becausewe care about her character, not just about her as an object. Going even further, looking at physical strength hurts the male portrayal as well. If physical strength is all-important, than the male must be physically strong to reach victory. If we look at Kingdom Hearts, this isn't shown as the case--Sora triumphs because he has a strong heart, and draws power from love/friendship. The damsel in distress plotline not only makes women out to be hopelessly weak, but makes men unrealistically and unbelievable jacked heroes. It's an unrealistic standard that we, frankly, don't need to be setting. However, with the examples I've mentioned, I hope I've shown that the damsel in distress plotline can be used positively, without objectifying the damsel or the hero. However, it's a tricky thing to get right, and games need to work hard to not let it turn into a generic "jacked hero saves helpless princess." And really, it transcends just this trope: writers need to put work into characterizing and developing their characters. A character can become an object without it, and the story can flop--we need to feel and believe and care about our characters, if we're to play as them, save them, hurt when harm befalls them. Good writing means that a story can transcend its base roots in a trope. it's 2am and this got rambly i don't feel like i made my point soz if unclear Edit: Something else just occurred to me. When looking at supposed damsels in distress, we also have to consider why the damsel is a target. If the damsel is kidnapped to lure out the hero, then there's probably some objectification issues going on in there. If the damsel is kidnapped because she poses a threat to evil, or is otherwise an important character (like Bastila in KotOR), there's likely more going on than just a damsel in distress situation. I don't know LoZ very well but I assume that Zelda becomes a target because kidnapping her would cause serious unrest in Hyrule--this reflects her as a strong character, not just as an object to force a confrontation between Link & whoever the enemy is.
