Anita Sarkeesian and Hitman
Adrian Chmielarz

My biggest take away was her insinuation near the end that if killing/subduing a civilian is the only interaction possible, then the game MUST be encouraging you to do it, regardless of what punishment or consequences it may push in your direction. The problem with this, in my opinion, is that she views these civilians as “object” to “interact with”, rather than “obstacles” to “avoid” (Hitman being a stealth game and all). It’s only when you fail at avoiding the obstacle that the player is expected to interact with it as an object.

It’d be like saying in Thief (the old ones), you’re supposed to attack the city guards instead of avoid them, since that’s typically the only way to “interact” with them (the only time you should be “interacting” with them is when you’re swiping their coin purse, without being detected).

Or say I get the Mario Maker game, and I put in hundreds of spinies (“spinys”?) on the stage. The only way you can kill them is with a shell or with a star, but I decide to put neither in the level. That leaves the only interaction with them being letting them kill you. Who in all the world would think that they’re SUPPOSED to let the spinies kill them over and over again? Would they not realize that instead they ought to avoid them, even if there’s “no real penalty” for being killed, as there’s a free 1-up at the beginning of the stage?

I mean, this is all just off the top of my head right now, and I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure I just put in WAY more thought into this than she did.

Like what you read? Give Jonathan Luke Whittington a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.