htown1980: Hey, sorry if my post made you angry. That wasn't my intention, I thought I would just set out my views on that particular video. I have a real problem with logical fallacies and poor reasoning and I guess that came out a little too harshly in my response. That said, please don't feel obliged to respond to my posts, if you'd rather play games, more power to you!
Responding as briefly as I can to your response:
granny: 1) " That has nothing to do with the damsel in distress trope. "
As I recall (although there is no way I intend to waste any more of my life watching a Tropes video to double check), Sarkessian does describe the damsel as (effectively) being male property that is passed around in the great game of patriarchy, or some such. The response video suggested a different interpretation. But I strongly suspect that different interpretations isn't what Sarkessian is after. Or her fans/acolytes for that matter.
htown1980: I guess what I was trying to say here was its a false dichotomy, the author of that video has a different interpretation but that interpretation doesn't conflict at all with the damsel in distress trope, its just an additional feature of the story. I think false dichotomies are the most common logical fallacies used by people in arguments generally - it annoys me. I thought the thing about male property was in Anita's second video so maybe that wasn't what the author was responding to, but that said, the damsels can be both property and something else.
granny: 2) "Why? Why can't she be someone who can fight evil (through brains or brawn or unfaltering wisdom and elegance?)?"
That... has nothing to do with the set-up (as described in the quote you posted from the video) of Zelda as a character. What you are talking about (if I understand this correctly) is Zelda's response to the evil she is subjected to, yes? I cannot answer that, as I do not know a great deal about Zelda. One possible suggestion? She does, but much like with Peach, when a thromping, stomping bad guy comes along, she has to rely on her army. Or, in Zelda's case, Link.
htown1980: I'm not really sure I understand the point here. What you have said is the whole point of the trope, the female relies on someone else (not usually an army, usually a single person). Zelda's back story may be that she is wise, etc, but that isn't demonstrated in the game at all (or maybe I have just totally misunderstood your point).
granny: 3) "The fact that there are a examples of games which don't involve the trope, doesn't lessen the relevance of the trope."
That rather depends. If Sarkessian was after presenting a balanced view point, then there would have been more examples in her video of games that do not feature the trope. You know, to say 'this is how it's done'. Or, rather, to show she actually did some research.
The fact that (as I recall) Sarkessian barely acknowledges any exceptions exceptions suggests either a distinct lack of research, or a huge amount of bias. In fact, I do believe that the history she gives concerning the development 'Starfox Adventures' has been shown to be somewhat lacking. Which makes you wonder what she spent $160,000 and nine months doing, considering she had already created at least half a dozen other 'Tropes' videos before the kick-starter.
htown1980: I think that is misunderstanding of what a trope is, I don't think anyone is suggesting there aren't some games which don't have the trope, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are a huge number of games that do have the trope. I personally don't understand the whole "balanced argument" complaint. If someone is putting forward evidence to support their opinion, it doesn't make sense to me that they would put forward evidence (at the same time) that doesn't, it doesn't happen in advocacy, it doesn't happen in philosophical arguments, Descartes didn't put forward a series of logics which would have disproved his argument "I think therefore I am". I'll look into the Starfox Adventures stuff though..
It's a trope because it's so true to life quite often... what is the ultimate goal here, to stop having art reflect reality so often?
