Bitmob_vb_ Bitmob is now a part of VentureBeat
Separator

What's the big deal with the Hitman: Absoltuion Trailer?

Default_picture
Sunday, June 03, 2012

Author's Note:  I also would like to direct readers to Tristan Damen's own article on the subject.  His response in the comments here led me to go back and edit my own article to further clarify my position and address some things that he said.  I do not agree with his conclusions.  I do, however, beleive that his article is extremely well-written and thoughtful.

____________________________________________

The latest trailer for Hitman: Absolution has seemingly sparked a minor controversy.   In the trailer, a group of gun-wiedling faux-nuns in tight leather attack Agent 47.  He proceeds to kill all of them--brutally.  Violence against sexualized and fetishized women seems to be the charge here.

I fail to the see the issue, though.  This is not senseless killing.  Agent 47 is attacking people who have come to kill him.  Their gender is irrelevant.  If this was a sexy female character killing a group of muscular, attractive men would there be such an outcry?

This actually reminds me of an ad for Hitman: Blood Money six years ago.

 
 
Here's another one.  A woman in a bathtub:
 
I remember seeing these ads in PC Gamer at the time. It was part of a series of such ads. The first one has actually been mentioned in a book called The Sexualization of Childhood , which is currently the first hit on Google if you search for "hitman beautifully executed sexist." What is not mentioned is that this was part of an ad campaign that featured two other images.  Two of the images were of women, and two were of men.  The ones about men didn't seem to stir so much anger, though.  To be fair the men were fully clothed, most likely because the ads were meant to appeal to the demographic of straight male games.
 
If people want equality in games, they have to accept that women can kill--and be killed--just like men can.  There are plenty of male characters in video games that some women would find attractive based on personal tastes.  Nathan Drake, Kaiden Alenko, and Geralt of Rivia are all male characters who could be considered attractive and sexual.  But it doesn't upset anyone when those male characters can be killed?  Even most enemies in games are males.  Why is violence against fictional males more acceptable than violence against fictional females?  It makes no sense, and it smacks of the same sexism that games are often accused of portraying.

I simply do not see why it's more okay to kill men than it is to kill women, regardless of what they are wearing.  Clothes or a lack of clothes don't make violent acts any worse.  What was shown in this trailer and in those ads are not sexual violence.  Sexy violence (if you're into that whole nun thing, maybe), but not sexual.  There is no rape going on here.

You can kill women in The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games, too.  In fact, in Fallout 3 you can actually use a perk that causes more damage to female characters (or to male characters if you're playing as a woman).  Why is there no outrage over these games?  I honestly believe it has to do with the fact that the women in those games are not attractive.

People crave equality in video games, but they get upset when women are given that equality.  It doesn't matter if the women are the targets or the protagonists: if the women in a game are attractive, someone will call the game sexist.  If they aren't, no one really cares.  As far as I'm concerned, that is what is really sexist about video game culture.

 
Tags: Fallout 3, Hitman: Blood Money, The Elder Scrolls 5: Skyrim, Hitman: Absolution
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Related Stories
 
Comments (6)
Add a new comment
Default_picture
Giancarlo Valdes
June 03, 2012

While I think that much of the anger directed toward the trailer seemed a bit too excessive (I've yet to make up my own mind about it), here's what I've gathered from reading other opinion pieces: it isn't so much that it's sexist as it is symptomatic of a larger problem of "rape culture" (a loaded term, I know) in society. So while it's not limited to games by a long shot, it doesn't help that such marketing continues to invoke (whether intentional or not) problematic imagery for the sole purpose of stoking controversy and, presumably, sales.

In addition to Keza's IGN piece, here are a few other well-written thoughts about it: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2012/05/hitman-absolution-the-army-of-girls-that-will-change-gaming/, http://critdamage.blogspot.com/2012/05/quit-pretending-there-isnt-videogame.html. Personally, I find it to be a fascinating debate.

Trit_warhol
Tristan Damen
June 04, 2012
If I may be so bold, I'd like to add my article to the discussion: http://bitmob.com/articles/fear-not-the-privileged-our-reign-will-not-end-with-hitman-absolution This has nothing to do with equality, these girls "show up to get knocked down". Agent 47 dresses up and these women dress down and get sexy... then violence. I also think you glossed over the fact that the men in those print ads for Blood Money are fully clothed and in no way sexualised. I also think it's telling that you didn't show the "shockingly executed" ad where the woman target is wearing nothing at all: http://sleazette.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/shockingly-executed/
Default_picture
Nathan Jedziniak
June 04, 2012

This has everything to do with equality.  The women were dressed sexy.  So what?  It's a video game ad.  It's fictional violence against fictional people, male or female.  I agree that they "showed up to get knocked down."  That is absolutely true.  But it's also true of just about every enemy in just about every video game ad ever made.

Agent 47 is shown cleaning his own wounds at the beginning of the video.  Why is no one concerned about his health?

Default_picture
Nathan Jedziniak
June 04, 2012

I edited my article to address this.  I also added an author's note that links to your article.  Please understand that even though I do not agree, I think your own article is very good.

Trit_warhol
Tristan Damen
June 06, 2012

As for you reply, I will again point to this quote from Brendan Keogh:

"So the Hitman Absolution trailer. Do I have a problem with the existence of female assassins? No. Do I have a problem with female assassins dressing up as nuns? No. Do I have a problem with Agent 47 killing females dressed up as nuns in self-defence? No. What I have a problem with, what you should have a problem with, is that these aren’t just ‘women assassins dressed as nuns’. These are women designed and dressed by the trailer’s producer (probably a male) to look (a male version of) sexy while another male (Agent 47) bashes the shit out of them all while other males (the imagined gamer at home) watches on. It is pretty telling that the opening of the trailer is the manly man getting dressed for the encounter while the sexualised women get undressed for it. You, the viewer that the trailer’s creator assumes is male, are meant to think these women are sexy, that their naughty-nun costumes and their giant bosoms and stripper heels are sexually appealing while Agent 47 exerts his male dominance over them, while he puts them in their place. Oh? You think you are powerful assassins? No. You are foolish little girls. Here, see how a real man assassin puts you in your place. No, he doesn’t ‘literally’ rape them, but a male forced these (fictional) women to act in a way males would find them sexy while another male did violence to them. That is teaching women their place. That is fucked up. That is rape culture."

Glad to see you took my argument on board, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Default_picture
Nathan Jedziniak
June 06, 2012

So it seems.  There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, and I'd like to think we've both been respectful despite our diametrically opposed opinions here.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.