(04-23-2014, 01:32 PM)Bridge Wrote: Because only women are objectified, right?
[Insert obligatory statement about how hyperpowerful muscleman does not equal half-naked skinny lady.]
Quote:Women overcoming adversity is different from men overcoming adversity? Even though both of these little synopses sound absolutely retarded to me, a piece of art like a game is not defined solely by "what it's about." If you are willing to ignore everything that makes it artistic and just go straight for the "subtext," why not just compress it into a few sentences and get it over with. "Women are just as capable as men and should not be subservient to them." If you only look at art as a tool for "social change," well, I feel sorry for you. Incidentally I didn't like Tomb Raider, it was a poor game with especially poor writing and I agree that Lara's character was nothing to write home about.
Tactful much? Calling me retarded and 'feeling sorry' for me is not the best way to debate.
We have the right to call something out as creepy if it comes off to us as such. Art is definitely a great tool for socially impacting people. It doesn't exist in a mysterious void that gets materialized by certain people - it's a product of our mindsets, and people who consume it either consciously or subconsciously respond to it base off their own mindsets.
Quote:EDIT: Just a fair warning, these questions are rhetorical because I don't believe in them. I can and will (unless you make impressive arguments) dismiss them with a reference to vicariousness.
You "believe in nothing". Yet you've put some effort into being a contrarian. I see a disconnect here.