Still playing Red Dead Redemption but there’s a part of the game that’s really starting to urk me. To the point that I avoid going into cities unless I absolutely have to. What’s up with all the rape/violence against women in Red Dead?
The first time I went to Armadillo I was given the instance of saving a women from being stabbed to death by her john. I thought, “That’s kind of cool”, pretty heroic thing to do in a western, save the lady. But every time I entered that town, there was a new woman getting attacked by their john. The guy would be straddling the girl in the dirt, holding a knife over her, and if you aren’t fast enough… STAB! STAB! STAB!
It’s to the point where now I ignore the screams of women being raped in the game. Is that something that Rockstar wanted us to become indifferent to? At this point I’ve seen more random rape scenes than any other type of instance, four fold. There’s a statistic out there that states that one in six women will be sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime (www.rainn.org/statistics), which is heinous, but I don’t think it should be so casually thrown about as it is in this game.
It’s to the point where I wonder, what the fuck are all these women coming to the west for anyway? Don’t they read the flyers? “Wanted: Women to populate the Wild West… expect raping.”
And don’t even get me started on kidnapping. Men, I implore you, only have sons in the Wild West. At least then they’re only going to be shot to death in some random dual to see whose penis is longer. What do you think happens to all those ranchers’ daughters while they’re being hidden in some hole in the wall?
Early on there was a gang hide out mission near Armadillo that asked me to save a rancher’s daughter from bandits. In the end, if you aren’t fast enough, the leader will shoot the girl in the face, causing you to fail the mission. It was so early in the game, that I was not aware of my Dead Eye abilities, so I couldn’t figure out how to be fast enough to not get the girl shot. After seeing her die three or four times this way I just gave up on the mission, it had become too disturbing.
Don’t get me wrong, I get it. It was a wild time in our history, nobody really gets off easily, and the main plotline women are some of the best characters in the game. But perhaps the “random” algorithms should be switched up a bit. I mean, you never see AI people get into duals, that’d be way more interesting than seeing my 500th rape on the way to the general store.
An Aside: If I weren’t at work when I write these I’d make a video of all the raping in Red Dead set to “My Sister Kate”.
|
Paul Barber's blog
Follow
RSS
Contact
Meh... I'm kinda glad I didn't get RDR now. The "women raping" would have annoyed me too.... though in GTA4 it was the bad controls, minigames, and boring missions that drove me to give up on the game.
2) To Elsa's point there's violence against the males in Rockstars games too. It's just, ya know, they're not women. :/
I think casual sexual violence is one of the most despicable things about Rockstar games. They could be SO GOOD otherwise...bah!
The violence certainly is.
As a male who's been sexually assualted by his family I can tell you male rape will never get that kind of attention.
I'm not trying to justify it but there's always too sides of the coin. Why discriminate against who should and shouldn't be violated? If violence against females is wrong what about the other side?
It's no proportionate, I'm not gonna waltz around like it is, but there's definite violence against males and homosexuals in Rockstars games too. It's a violent world they brew.
I do wish Rockstar would bring stronger females to their evergrowing cast. The violence doesn't get me as much as how weak their females are. That gets to me. So far as I'm concerned everybody in Rockstar games gets fucked up somehow rape or otherwise. They're the Lifetime movies of the videogame world. But the females are always so meek about it.
In fact, there are several missions where Marston takes an active role in saving women who in dangerous situations, sexual or otherwise. For example, there is the mission in Mexico where the majority of the player choices are to protect a women from an abusive husband. It fits with Marston's characterization, and if the player chooses to condone the violence (or kill the woman), the blame should rest at his or her feet for making that choice.
Finally, as a matter of historical accuracy, I think RDR did fairly well in portraying that era. Sexual violence and misogyny were indeed fairly common during much of human history, and I don't think Rockstar was really exploiting it in a negative way. The same is true for the issues of racial discrimination, poverty and general violence that were just simply part of that era. Of course, if, due to the nature of randomly generated game events, you saw too many rape situations, it's something that Rockstar couldn't exactly foresee. No developer can fully predict the variations that will happen to the game when it's being played by millions of people (as shown by all the glitches, talking horses, and whatnot). But I'd rather take RDR's bold approach to presenting uncomfortable historical situations over some WWII FPS where issues of rape, pillaging and killing of civilians (which were done by all sides during the conflict) are totally ignored.
Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
Applicant: I like rape.
With the exception of plot specific points, which are few and fa in between, hasn't the violence and sexual mynogomy (bad spelling) in all Rockstar titles been completely up to the player? There's no like "Rape the hooker," mission or some shit. The option was always there, and not to encourage the player, but to represent the world that Rockstar tries to recreate. I mean can you blame Rockstar that the world is full of dead hookers and they're trying to show that? Is there anyone who honestly believes Rockstar let's you run over hookers and take your money back because it's fun? No, it's a sandbox game where all choices are to be exploited. If you give anyone anything an run them over you can get that item back. Because it only makes sense.
You call out RDR but, and maybe this is just my experience since GTA is a sandbox game and can be experienced in different ways, from my playing of GTA the only female violence that occurred was plot specific, melodramatic, and few and far in between.
Especially in GTAIV where I felt like they really did tone down a lot in the plot violence department. Hell Nikko's love interest doesn't even have sex. She's one of the high class acts of that game. And Nikko is totally respectful of that. Not even that but Nikko wants that high class. Nikko doesn't want to associate himself with whores and wifebeaters.
Granted I am pulling a lot from GTA IV but that's mainly because the other GTA's were kinda rubbish. Even still, the violence in general in GTA plays a lot on choice as a sandbox game should. But that may just be my experience.
Maybe I got the rape edition by accident....
I was really put off the first time I went into Armadillo and found a guy trying to slice a girl to pieces. I did what any gentleman would do and put a cap in that fool post haste only to be branded a criminal and have a bounty put on my head. WTF.
Now when I see that kind of stuff going down I punch 'em and hogtie 'em.
you win!
Not that that isn't an obvious conclusion to come to. But it always struck me more a pure life or death situation, rather than a specifically sexual encounter. Maybe that's just how my perception is wired. I saved everyone that I could. Mostly, I think, because John Marston is such a stand up guy in most regards. I don't think he'd shirk intervention in that case.
Also, that random generator seemed tuned differently for different towns. I can't walk a foot in that swamp town without some incident popping off. By comparison, I rarely had more than petty theivery in that first Mexican town.