link
Quote:
|
In almost every single game you can think of where there is a one-dimensional, “Damsel in Distress” character with zero purpose other than to be saved by the protagonist, you will find that the protagonist himself is a one-dimensional, unchanging and undeveloped character as well.The two most pervasive examples she harps on are The Legend of Zelda and the Super Mario games. In both of these, the main “Damsel in Distress” (Zelda/Peach) is a pretty faceless, boring character that doesn’t change or grow at all, and has only incredibly minimal influence over the actual plot of the game. However, to be fair, the protagonist of both games (Link/Mario) is equally boring. Can you honestly think of Link or Mario as anymore than one-dimensional characters whose sole purpose for existing is to save the aforementioned damsels? One could argue that their*raison d’ętre*is equally dehumanizing: they exist only to fulfill their role in freeing the captured woman. While it’s true that the Damsels themselves have no agency or influence over their own actions, the agency that the protagonist has over himself is still incredibly limited as*every single action*he partakes must ultimately lead to the salvation of said Damsel.
|
For reference:
Anita's video
Personally, I read the article first and haven't seen the video yet. But I think the critique is pretty spot on. I can't shake the feeling that there are indeed some characters that defy the DID trope but it isn't being down to argue that a number of females aren't being represented in games accurately.
How about Samus in the same era?
Blaze in Streets of Rage?
How about Dixie Kong being given a game? Sure, she was a damsel but Diddy and Dixie were great in DKC 3. Further, the argument about character development in a game makes this critique fairly strong in showing where Anita needs to strengthen her argument if true. After I see the video, I'll share my thoughts.