Support NeoGAF

[Mr. X]

American culture is still too much afraid of the female form from how people react to form fitting or revealing clothing. We also still hold women responsible and accountable for the behavior of their male counterparts.

The whole "criticizing something = censorship" is getting real tired.

I wasn't saying that, though with enough criticism I'm sure we can influence the direction of others.

 

[213372bu]

I live in the US, and recently spent 6 years in central Louisiana. Puritanism is alive and well in the USA, and it's effects are still very strong even outside the south.

The US and in turn US pop-culture, is the literal opposite of Puritanism.

Like literal opposite.

Popular media for Toddlers/Kids/Teens/YAs/Adults/ the elderly would almost all be looked down / persecuted by a puritan society.

 

[v0yce]

It's dumb because you can very easily point at equivalent male characters who are not dressed in equivalent fashion, hence it is by default sexist.

Seriously, it's not hard, folks.

Also I have no problem with Tifa's design per se. She's got big knockers? Fine. There are real women out there with big breasts. What matters is what she wears relative to the other characters and in that regard she's perfectly okay (that one odd cutscene aside).

Again, you have a problem with guy character with "realistic" armor vs girl with skimpy armor, but you don't have a problem with guy who uses massive sword vs girl who fights with fists.

Both are equally silly, but one get's in people's head because omg sex. I think it's silly.

Btw there's also real women who dress more suggestive than men.

 

[blackflag]

Wrong thread

 

[UrbanRats]

I really hate when people use "practicality" as a rebuttal to some ridiculously pornographic designs.
Practicality it's a double edged sword, often hindering interesting ideas.

A design like Quiet's is absolutely cretin, because it just doesn't make any design sense in the context of the other characters' design, it's a really crass and desperate attempt at sexyness.
And in that specific context you can even call out the practicality of the costume, since MGS is not exactly realistic, but does apply a certain level of believability to its costume design, so Quiet just looks even more ridiculous.

In a more general sense, however, calling for practicality is just very limiting and often missing the point.

You wouldn't watch a Tarsem movie and complain about practicality of set or costume design (at least i hope you wouldn't), and i think a more holistic analysis of the product's design, with its artistic intentions as a basis, is going to be more effective of a critique.

This, of course, is a pet peeve of mine beyond the theme of sexualization, but it incorporates it, as well.

 

[Teremap]

Again, you have a problem with guy character with "realistic" armor vs girl with skimpy armor, but you don't have a problem with guy who uses massive sword vs girl who fights with fists.

Both are equally silly, but one get's in people's head because omg sex. I think it's silly.

Btw there's also real women who dress more suggestive than men.

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would wear perfectly serviceable armor while the girl is half-naked and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your blatant exploitation.

 

[andymcc]

A design like Quiet's is absolutely cretin, because it just doesn't make any design sense in the context of the other characters' design, it's a really crass and desperate attempt at sexyness.

Yeah, what's even worse is Kojima's really bad defense of it, "detractors will feel bad for calling negative attention to the outfit" (paraphrasing). When in reality, there will be high quality PVC completed model kits in Japan of Quiet, stripped of context, there to be freely ogled on the desk of whoever wants to plop down the $120 on the toy.

 

[Karkador]

Some people judge the material and deem it morally unacceptable. The judgement is then passed on to the creators. It's the deeming it morally unacceptable that is the shaming. Criticizing is one thing, but morally judging things is something completely different. This is where the remarks from people going "and they don't have a problem with the violence?" are coming from.

I disagree that it's being deemed 'morally unacceptable'. Criticism is openly subjective, and much of what has been said about objectification and sexualization in games has been openly a critique, not a mandate. I don't think anyone is making claims about Right and Wrong based on that.

What I do see is that people wont simply let criticism be.
People apparently get upset that other gamers with different opinions and worldviews are now louder than ever. But a reviewer airing these opinions should make no more of a difference than opinions about a game's story, length, graphics, FPS, controls, etc.

I live in the US, and recently spent 6 years in central Louisiana. Puritanism is alive and well in the USA, and it's effects are still very strong even outside the south.

Central Louisiana, thankfully, does not represent the entire U.S.

 

[v0yce]

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would wear perfectly serviceable armor while the girl is half-naked and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your blatant exploitation.

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would use a perfectly serviceable weapon while the girl is left with just her fists and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your sexual hangups.

 

[Dice//]

Again, you have a problem with guy character with "realistic" armor vs girl with skimpy armor, but you don't have a problem with guy who uses massive sword vs girl who fights with fists.

Both are equally silly, but one get's in people's head because omg sex. I think it's silly.

Btw there's also real women who dress more suggestive than men.

Tifa is probably a bad example though.
Yeah she dresses that way, but the game never shows up her skirt and I'd even argue the outfit 'works' for her bar maid occupation. The game never really made many attempts to exploit her sexually beyond...i dunno, peeking in her drawers and that boob-bumping stretch she does after she wins (and that goofy looking FMV that happens when the Weapons arrive). She's not really spreading her legs or putting her low-poly box in front of the camera for viewers to gawk at. More explicit seualization is like that butt-to-boob-to-face shot of Quiet (and the peculiar decision to, at least, give her torn stockings), or the decision to dress up females in bikinis for any DLC chance we can get and make it (often) the only part on them with any bounce beyond their hair swaying (heavy armor? PFFFT light as a feather!).

Happily, the film was less ridiculous with her outfit giving her shorts and a tank top.

 

[TSM]

The US and in turn US pop-culture, is the literal opposite of Puritanism.

Like literal opposite.

Popular media for Toddlers/Kids/Teens/YAs/Adults/ the elderly would almost all be looked down / persecuted by a puritan society.

And they largely were when I was in Louisiana. For instance, there were no bars within one hour of where I lived (Jena, LA). I know this because my sister came to visit and tried to find one. The really strange part wasn't that there were no bars, but that no one in the area thought it was odd that there were no bars. Also the local churches often talked to their attendees about unacceptable television and video games. The elementary school my children went to had a Christmas show. We showed up and there were no Christmas songs, only songs about Christ. It was so odd. I was damn glad to get my kids out of there while they were still young. (Also look up the "Jena 5")

I don't think most people outside the US or even people from the more liberal areas of the US really understand what the south of the US is like. This scene from Top Gear in Alabama is legit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcJ-0bAHB4

 

[fedexpeon]

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would wear perfectly serviceable armor while the girl is half-naked and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your blatant exploitation.

Equality in what sense?
Based on our reality? Or the game reality?

Realism doesn't need to enter into gaming right?
Within the fictional world, the social norm of dressing is different from ours. Within the fictional world, serviceable armor is about style since dwarf craftsmanship embed these armors with magic. Maybe in this fictional world, cloth and leather armor provides faster attack speed and movement due to less weight and more in tuned with their martial and combat skills. Maybe the skimpy dress outfit allows magic user to collect more mana flow from nature faster since metal repeals magic absorption.

 

[UrbanRats]

Yeah, what's even worse is Kojima's really bad defense of it, "detractors will feel bad for calling negative attention to the outfit" (paraphrasing). When in reality, there will be high quality PVC completed model kits in Japan of Quiet, stripped of context, there to be freely ogled on the desk of whoever wants to plop down the $120 on the toy.

Yeah, just going by the backstories of the B&B unit in MGS4, you know cringe will be had.
He made her like that to sell toys, he should come forward and admit it, in my opinion.

 

[hurricanes]

Equality in what sense?
Based on our reality? Or the game reality?

Realism doesn't need to enter into gaming right?
Within the fictional world, the social norm of dressing is different from ours. Within the fictional world, serviceable armor is about style since dwarf craftsmanship embed these armors with magic. Maybe in this fictional world, cloth and leather armor provides faster attack speed and movement due to less weight and more in tuned with their martial and combat skills. Maybe the skimpy dress outfit allows magic user to collect more mana flow from nature faster since metal repeals magic absorption.

Yeah.... So why are their male counterpart not dressing sexy/revealing? Those Skimpy clothing provide better spd/mag and collect mana flowwww!

 

[Teremap]

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would use a perfectly serviceable weapon while the girl is left with just her fists and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your sexual hangups.

You missed the point again.

The whole point of bringing up this argument in the first place is because it's used to justify blatant sexual exploitation of female characters. The weapons are completely irrelevant here. It's the way the character is dressed that matters.

I say again: if there are such obvious advantages to dressing skimpy, why doesn't the guy do it too? What excuse could you have? If the guy dresses in the same fashion, great! Not sexist. Perfectly, totally reasonable. Shame that doesn't happen so often.

Equality in what sense?
Based on our reality? Or the game reality?

Realism doesn't need to enter into gaming right?
Within the fictional world, the social norm of dressing is different from ours. Within the fictional world, serviceable armor is about style since dwarf craftsmanship embed these armors with magic. Maybe in this fictional world, cloth and leather armor provides faster attack speed and movement due to less weight and more in tuned with their martial and combat skills. Maybe the skimpy dress outfit allows magic user to collect more mana flow from nature faster since metal repeals magic absorption.

Okay, then. Why isn't there a male companion wearing a similar outfit? If it's so beneficial to dress skimpy, why aren't there more guys lining up to wear the same gear?

Every justification you come up with will run into the same problems. In the end, it's more sensible and easier to swallow if people across both sexes dress in similar fashion. You don't run into weird logic loopholes trying to justify why one sex is just blatantly sexified while the other is 'normal'.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

Objectification is perfectly fine to me if they make sense in the context of the game, though I agree it can absolutely make a product more niche than it could be if you fall outside of that target audience. Stuff like Quiet feels completely at odds with the more realistic tone Konami seems to be touting for MGS5. It's less HOW DARE THEY and more questioning how a developer expects me to emotionally connect to their dark and edgy story while one of the major characters is wearing next t nothing for no particularly good, if any reason. If it winds up having a lot of goofy moments, the character isn't nearly as much of a tortured type the trailers make out and even something like this is in the game, than instead I think Quiet would be way less of an outlier. You could probably object to her design still in the broader-context of feminism and gaming, but by itself in that hypothetical situation that sort of character would be fine.

Elizabeth is a really neat, mostly well-written character in Bioshock Infinite, yet I was a bit unnerved at some design choices with her considering her backstory of being raised in solitude in the ultra-conservative Columbia... So naturally she some pretty big cleavage. The character by itself, whatever, it's barely that sexual and I think it's a memorable design. In-game? It feels really weird, doesn't fit in with anything in the game (not to mention this was supposedly what the way older and refined looking Lady Comstock supposedly wore?) or prior Bioshock titles every went for and even slightly devalues the character since despite its fantastical setting and occasional light-hearted moments, Infinite is still a plot that takes itself dead-seriously. That's something which ultimately is a very very minor point that hardly dampens my enjoyment of the game, but it still stuck out as something that wasn't really needed for the sort of experience Levine was going for.

By contrast stuff like the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown didn't cause me to bat an eyelid since the entire game is this wacky, stupid fantasy romp and there's little pretense you're meant to take any of it seriously. Elizabeth is obviously a far more positive role-model for women heroines in gaming than her, but again looking at their roles in their respective games I have more of an issue with how the former looks. Plus being a guy I don't mind impossibly big boobs. Obviously not something anybody should really be pushing forward as the ambassador of video games, probably not even something I think you could justify with a straight face as good character-design, but for the game Vanillaware wanted to make, I think it's perfectly fine.

I'm not sure I'd really side with some arguments that prop up in stuff like the FF-threads like "I'm all for well-written female characters, just leave my sexy characters alone!", since I don't think any amount of critique is really going to rob those people of those sort of games. Nor do I think that's the intention of most of that critique. Instead you're probably helping other developers who more subconsciously fall into these tropes to recognize what they're doing and to better create a wider, more inclusive variety of games. Developers who actively knew what they were making regardless can keep up their sexually playful/pandering stuff for those that still want it (and that really isn't said with any intentional condescension), while those who don't hopefully in a better industry have more of an actual alternative.

Hopefully that wasn't too much of an incoherent ramble of how I normally see these things. Slut-shaming isn't something I can recall seeing in the games I play normally and I'd like to think I'd be opposed to it if it actually is a growing problem in certain genres.. Not going to pretend I'm incredibly well-versed in this area at all, but from my perspective it seems like part of the problem is how creative-media is viewed can be incredibly subjective, especially when author-intent becomes more noticeable as games grow more sophisticated. You already have people debating whether Bayonetta's empowering or exploitative in a couple other threads.

Yeah, just going by the backstories of the B&B unit in MGS4, you know cringe will be had.
He made her like that to sell toys, he should come forward and admit it, in my opinion.

Yeah, if you're going to make a character with some major Tn'A than that's perfectly fine, just don't act under the pretense there's some really deep, symbolic message behind it when they're really likely isn't.

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I'm repeating myself again:

This isn't about realism.

This is about equality.

Realism doesn't even enter into it. That being said, since we're on the subject, how about considering the problem of internal consistency - even if you rule that a fictional universe is subject to its own rules, how do you explain why the guy would use a perfectly serviceable weapon while the girl is left with just her fists and the two are somehow able to fight on an even keel? If you can't think of an explanation that isn't completely contrived ("MAGIC!"), mayhaps you should reconsider your sexual hangups.

I don't understand where you are going with this. First of all, do you think people never complained about the sword vs fist thing? Second, you are equating weapons with characters. Weapons represent tools. Characters represent people. Of course people would care more about the latter.

 

[Dice//]

Equality in what sense?
Based on our reality? Or the game reality?

Realism doesn't need to enter into gaming right?
Within the fictional world, the social norm of dressing is different from ours. Within the fictional world, serviceable armor is about style since dwarf craftsmanship embed these armors with magic. Maybe in this fictional world, cloth and leather armor provides faster attack speed and movement due to less weight and more in tuned with their martial and combat skills. Maybe the skimpy dress outfit allows magic user to collect more mana flow from nature faster since metal repeals magic absorption.

Well hell... Let's just give the main hero a third eye, and the main girl suffers a spontaneous explosion disease caused by farting too hard, someone else has an outfit that changes every 5 seconds, and the floating continent of USSR has possessed magical robots for centuries.

But it still doesn't help that men are not similarly showing anywhere near the amount of skin we're believed women are typically. The relationship of our persons is very different and often women aren't in those outfits for "magic up" stats bonuses, but because someone liked the look, and it looked sexy

 

[karasu]

I don't care in the slightest.If we're talking about real women suffering sexism in the workplace or something, I care. But your hobby can be as sexualized as you personally want it to be. You're an adult. If you want to do nothing but fantasize about sexualized warrior women, more power to you. If you can't personally get in on the fantasy, play something else. Fantasies don't have to be all inclusive.

 

[v0yce]

You missed the point again.

The whole point of bringing up this argument in the first place is because it's used to justify blatant sexual exploitation of female characters. The weapons are completely irrelevant here. It's the way the character is dressed that matters.

I say again: if there are such obvious advantages to dressing skimpy, why doesn't the guy do it too? What excuse could you have? If the guy dresses in the same fashion, great! Not sexist. Perfectly, totally reasonable. Shame that doesn't happen so often.

I haven't missed anything. You're still not getting it. You keep trying to assign "reason" but you have no issue with consistency or reason unless it's about sexy clothing. Why? Why is that where you draw the line. Why is that an issue for you? Why is that what matters?

I don't understand where you are going with this. First of all, do you think people never complained about the sword vs fist thing? Second, you are equating weapons with characters. Weapons represent tools. Characters represent people. Of course people would care more about the latter.

So weapons represent tools but clothes represent people?

 

[Reuenthal]

I haven't really thought about it much before or while gaming.

I am currently playing Borderlands 2 and would I have preferred that Lilith and Moxxi did not show cleavage? No.

I am mostly indifferent and it doesn't bother me particularly one way or the other but now I think of it, I kind of prefer some objectification and sexualization.

I don't like bikini armors though. When it comes to clothing I am pro cleavage but I want armors that look like armors. In regards to attractiveness vs immersion vs realism, I don't take a consistent approach in all. Some things matter differently than others, nor are my subjective preferences supposed to be a consistent approach.

 

[Dice//]

So weapons represent tools but clothes represents people?

Can we personally offend/exploit weapons' feelings now?

Fiction or not, we can relate to people, but less so their weapons.

I'd be surprised if I wasn't the only one who thought the lightning-fast action of Advent Children looked goofy with realistic models.

 

[Devolution]

The problem isn't that it exists, the problem is you don't have a spectrum of things so it becomes the overwhelming majority of female representation.

B-o-r-i-n-g.

 

[Palette Swap]

You can't compare a societal view on how women, as people, behave to a media critique about how designers overwhelmingly choose to represent women.

Implying people are uneasy with systematically sexualized depictions of women because they're prudes is an insulting and silly ad hominem that misses the point.

 

[Teremap]

I haven't missed anything. You're still not getting it. You keep trying to assign "reason" but you have no issue with consistency or reason unless it's about sexy clothing. Why? Why is that where you draw the line. Why is that an issue for you? Why is that what matters?

Do you know what internal consistency is?

You establish a rule. For example, a rule that 'this armor is magical and creates a barrier around the user while being lightweight!' There is absolutely nothing about this rule that dictates men cannot wear said armor, so you then run into the problem of why the men are wearing much heavier and more covering armor if the lighter armor has such obvious advantages. That's internal consistency for you. (Of course you can then invent a rule that "this armor can only be worn by women!" but everyone will see right through that bullshit.)

This is besides the point, though. It's still obviously, blatantly sexist even completely disregarding the rule of internal consistency.

The problem isn't that it exists, the problem is you don't have a spectrum of things so it becomes the overwhelming majority of female representation.

B-o-r-i-n-g.

Also, this.

 

[fedexpeon]

You missed the point again.

The whole point of bringing up this argument in the first place is because it's used to justify blatant sexual exploitation of female characters. The weapons are completely irrelevant here. It's the way the character is dressed that matters.

I say again: if there are such obvious advantages to dressing skimpy, why doesn't the guy do it too? What excuse could you have? If the guy dresses in the same fashion, great! Not sexist. Perfectly, totally reasonable. Shame that doesn't happen so often.

Okay, then. Why isn't there a male companion wearing a similar outfit? If it's so beneficial to dress skimpy, why aren't there more guys lining up to wear the same gear?

Every justification you come up with will run into the same problems. In the end, it's more sensible and easier to swallow if people across both sexes dress in similar fashion. You don't run into weird logic loopholes trying to justify why one sex is just blatantly sexified while the other is 'normal'.

Maybe the guy isn't specialize in that martial art or combat line.
He wants to be a front line solider with his plate armor and sword.
Maybe he isn't adapt to mana casting, so why would he wear cloth armor like magicians?
All reasonable answer to me.

But you still haven't answer what is blatantly sexified yet since you haven't clearly define where you get the idea of equality and social norms from.
Are you going to base it off of your owns definition of equality about this from our world, and applying it to a fictional world?
Even in our world, there are some tribes that walk around naked.
There are no moral issues until the civilized world taught them about clothing and modesty.
So I still don't understand why you can bring your social norm into another fictional world with a different norms.
Are you going to these tribes on Earth and tell them about your equality and how to dress as well?

 

[v0yce]

Do you know what internal consistency is?

You establish a rule. For example, a rule that 'this armor is magical and creates a barrier around the user while being lightweight!' There is absolutely nothing about this rule that dictates men cannot wear said armor, so you then run into the problem of why the men are wearing much heavier and more covering armor if the lighter armor has such obvious advantages. That's internal consistency for you. (Of course you can then invent a rule that "this armor can only be worn by women!" but everyone will see right through that bullshit.)

This is besides the point, though. It's still obviously, blatantly sexist even completely disregarding the rule of internal consistency.

Ok, simple request. Please do me a favor and apply that exact same line of thinking to a game where a guy uses a sword to fight dragons and a woman uses her fists.

 

[Dice//]

You can't compare a societal view on how women, as people, behave to a media critique about how designers overwhelmingly choose to represent women.

Implying people are uneasy with systematically sexualized depictions of women because they're prudes is an insulting and silly ad hominem that misses the point.

I'm just gonna quote this for being concise and insightful.

 

[Teremap]

Maybe the guy isn't specialize in that martial art or combat line.
He wants to be a front line solider with his plate armor and sword.
Maybe he isn't adapt to mana casting, so why would he wear cloth armor like magicians?
All reasonable answer to me.

But you still haven't answer what is blatantly sexified yet since you haven't clearly define where you get the idea of equality and social norms from.
Are you going to base it off of your owns definition of equality about this from our world, and applying it to a fictional world?
Even in our world, there are some tribes that walk around naked.
There are no moral issues until the civilized world taught them about clothing and modesty.
So I still don't understand why you can bring your social norm into another fictional world with a different norms.
Are you going to these tribes on Earth and tell them about your equality and how to dress as well?

We're talking about fictional universes here. They're made by human beings. OF COURSE WE USE MODERN EARTH STANDARDS OF EQUALITY. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

Being a work of fiction is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. If it's dumb, it's dumb, period.

Regarding your point about tribal nudity, it's fine if both sexes are equally covered. That is the whole point of contention here. Treat both sexes equally and there is no problem.

 

[way more]

There are no moral issues until the civilized world taught them about clothing and modesty.
So I still don't understand why you can bring your social norm into another fictional world with a different norms.
Are you going to these tribes on Earth and tell them about your equality and how to dress as well?

But these fictional worlds aren't real, they are created by people in our world, our culture. A person from the fiction world didn't write a history of his land then send it through a wormhole into the this world. A writer here created that world. If the world they create is a transparent racist allegory calling on people to kill gypsies then we don't just say, "well, that's what it's like in the world of Myet-Myar." We rightly question the intention of the author.

 

[Dice//]

We're talking about fictional universes here. They're made by human beings. OF COURSE WE USE MODERN EARTH STANDARDS OF EQUALITY. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

Being a work of fiction is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. If it's dumb, it's dumb, period.

Regarding your point about tribal nudity, it's fine if both sexes are equally covered. That is the whole point of contention here. Treat both sexes equally and there is no problem.

I'm dying here xD

BTW Teremap, I *heart* you. Way to go

 

[fedexpeon]

We're talking about fictional universes here. They're made by human beings. OF COURSE WE USE MODERN EARTH STANDARDS OF EQUALITY. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.

Being a work of fiction is NOT a get-out-of-jail-free card. If it's dumb, it's dumb, period.

Regarding your point about tribal nudity, it's fine if both sexes are equally covered. That is the whole point of contention here. Treat both sexes equally and there is no problem.

So they are made by human beings, they will use a same standard of equality and social norm?
Another person from another part of the world can create a fictional world where women can't reveal any skin since only men are allowed to do so.
Another person can represent a world as a matriarch society where men have to obey the female counterpart.
Where do you guys have the concept of a generalize social norms and culture anyway? Is this a 1st world ideology/mentality of following the rule that only the Western norms are correct?

So do you considered other countries with different culture and social norm to be lesser than others that practice "modern Earth standards of equality"?
First time I have heard this term, even when I am in a 1st world country, I can't remember anyone using it.
So where is this place that has treat both sexes equal anyway? I am pretty sure majority of the 1st world, even in the US, don't have this treatment.

 

[Devolution]

Act ridiculously obtuse about how plenty of cultures overlap in terms of how they limit and basically oppress women and then re-establish/represent those same ideas in their media brehs.

 

[hurricanes]

So they are made by human beings, they will use a same standard of equality and social norm?
Another person from another part of the world can create a fictional world where women can't reveal any skin since only men are allowed to do so.
Another person can represent a world as a matriarch society where men have to obey the female counterpart.
Where do you guys have the concept of a generalize social norms and culture anyway? Is this a 1st world ideology/mentality of following the rule that only the Western norms are correct?

So do you considered other countries with different culture and social norm to be lesser than others that practice "modern Earth standards of equality"?
First time I have heard this term, even when I am in a 1st world country, I can't remember anyone using it.
So where is this place that has treat both sexes equal anyway? I am pretty sure majority of the 1st world, even in the US, don't have this treatment.

So because a problem exist in real world, you are going to make in worse in the virtual one?

So what you say is, I can make a discriminate game (Caste, Disability, Employment, Evaluative orientation, Language, Nationality, Racial or ethnic, Regional, Religious, Reverse Sex, gender, and gender-identity, Legislation, Sexual orientation*) and no body has the right to even criticize me. Sounds great!

*thanks! Wikipedia

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

Just answering the OP... I'm not sure what the question is, really, but if you're asking what my limit is as far as game content goes, I don't have one. I'm not easily offended. Note I'm only talking about creative work here. When I do get offended I don't cast judgement and start a campaign against the creators and consumers of the offensive work.

I think games need to expand and be more inclusive but to me that means omnidirectional expansion, not linear "progress" toward a specific ideology or cultural ideal. I'm all for games with social messages but at the same time I'd be happy to see some devs out there really push the envelope in terms of taste and social acceptability. Right now the game industry is dominated by the Michael Bay mindset. In as much as the industry needs more mindsets like Gus Van Sant, Ang Lee, and Kathryn Bigelow, it could do with some Eli Roths, Lloyd Kaufmans and Russ Meyers as well.

 

[fedexpeon]

So because a problem exist in real world, you are going to make in worse in the virtual one?

So what you say is, I can make a racist/abusive/discriminate game and no body has the right to even criticize me. Sounds great!

No, I just want the poster opinion about other culture and their social norms.
I don't see how a fictional world created by a human being should be subjected to one viewpoint or laws of the land.
I don't see how you can generalize every works of fiction by using a board term of modern society/Earth rule sets where no one in the world has adapted a policy for that yet.

 

[BadRNG]

The whole point of bringing up this argument in the first place is because it's used to justify blatant sexual exploitation of female characters.

Does the exploitation of fictional characters(sexually or otherwise) really need justification to begin with? I guess I look at it in a similar light to the many different kinds of exploitation films out there. The characters in these situations aren't real people, they can't be exploited in any real negative sense.

You mention it's an issue of equality in a game when a woman has one of those awful bikini armors and men are fully clothed, but I don't believe equality is something that is necessary on an individual game basis. There is a problem with the fact that there just aren't enough games designed on the other side of that spectrum, but it feels like this is too rarely discussed as the actual issue. Instead people focus so heavily on individual games or creators that don't represent the games they want to play, and that doesn't really lead to many changes. It also leads to people being overly defensive as they feel their games are under attack (even when they generally aren't, though the language some critics use can give that impression) which just makes the conversation even more difficult to have.

Getting more women (and minorities) into development making games like this is the only way we'll see any change in direction. Especially on the indie game front, as the big developers/publishers will always play it safe until there is a proven market. Debating over whether Bayonetta or Silent or whomever is sexist or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. That's not to say these games should never be criticized, but at a certain point it becomes an echo chamber. You can tear apart random summer blockbuster number 3 for how one dimensional/sexist it's female lead is, but at a certain point you got to realize that they don't care and you just may not be their target audience. The goal should be to find and create more games(or movies or whatever) that appeal to these underrepresented audiences rather than attempting to change the existing media that doesn't.

I hope that made some semblance of sense, it's getting late and I'm not sure if I conveyed my point correctly.

 

[Rhaknar]

Ive never heard the term "slut shaming" before

 

[The Shogun]

Its pixels and art.

There is no physical real human being to feel offended or objectified.

 

[hurricanes]

No, I just want the poster opinion about other culture and their social norms.
I don't see how a fictional world created by a human being should be subjected to one viewpoint or laws of the land.
I don't see how you can generalize every works of fiction by using a board term of modern society/Earth rule sets where no one in the world has adapted a policy for that yet.

So it's ok to make a discriminate game after all, rules of the earth do not apply since it is a fictional world.

 

[Imouto]

Okay, then. Why isn't there a male companion wearing a similar outfit? If it's so beneficial to dress skimpy, why aren't there more guys lining up to wear the same gear?

Every justification you come up with will run into the same problems. In the end, it's more sensible and easier to swallow if people across both sexes dress in similar fashion. You don't run into weird logic loopholes trying to justify why one sex is just blatantly sexified while the other is 'normal'.

There are, but then you people just scream at the top of your lung when they appeared (Vaan, Tidus for popular example). The western often ridiculous JRPG's male character because they are skinny/feminine yet at the same time demand equality?

In the end of the day, it's just what look good on the characters. There is a reason when we started at drawing school, they use female model as a starting point, because the female body has thing that is pleasing to human's eye, the curves. What's wrong with emphasize the strong point of female body?

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

I haven't missed anything. You're still not getting it. You keep trying to assign "reason" but you have no issue with consistency or reason unless it's about sexy clothing. Why? Why is that where you draw the line. Why is that an issue for you? Why is that what matters?



So weapons represent tools but clothes represent people?

Oh, I thought we are talking about character design. Just clothes in particular? Then your comparison doesn't really apply here. All weapons being equal, there are still a wide variety of them used by a wide variety of people. All armor being equal, somehow only the skimpy ones are worn by women.

In some games, the same weapon would have the same shape when worn by any gender. However, a normally full-plate armor would suddenly have a boob window when worn by a woman. Yes, so, what's so equal about that? What's so consistent about that?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Its pixels and art.

There is no physical real human being to feel offended or objectified.

brb making a cartoon movie with blackface characters

 

[QuantumZebra]

Honestly my answer to the imbalance of male and female objectification is that there should be more games exploring male sexuality.

Ding ding

 

[MikeOfTheLivingDead]

So it's ok to make a discriminate game after all, rules of the earth do not apply since it is a fictional world.

Yes it is. See "Papers Please". It's an idea that could have been pushed even further into getting players to really think about their own prejudices. Putting a player in the role of discriminator, instead of playing the paragon of virtue is a fantastic way to make a point. "This game is making me feel bad. Why is it making me feel this way?"

 

[way more]

Its pixels and art.

There is no physical real human being to feel offended or objectified.

In your mind, were people mad at the movie Birth of a Nation (which glorified the KKK and portrayed blacks as evil) because they felt the need to defend the film projections they saw on the screen, or were they mad because it was promoting the KKK?

 

[Great Puma]

I believe boobs are nice to look at. Also, I believe women should be treated equally, be afforded the same opportunities as men, and never be made to feel uncomfortable, inferior, or unsafe.

As long as there are plenty of games that appeal equally to both sexes (which there are), I have no problem with the occasional title that is full on fanservice. I'm human; it's in my DNA to enjoy the visceral thrill of action, as well as a shapely behind. Why deny my nature, when indulging myself comes at no cost to anyone else?

Not every little thing we do has to be weighed on the scales of some social ideal. Act like a dick to a real-life woman? Not cool. Catch an almost-glimpse of Bayonetta's nudie parts? Who the hell cares?

 

[The Shogun]

brb making a cartoon movie with blackface characters

We are comparing depictions of Sexualization to racism now.......

Man we really have an unhealthy view of sex and the human body in modern culture. Its actually scary how we got here

 

[NoCryingUntilTheEnd]

People love to look for meaning where there is none. At the end of the day, they are just video games, just movies and just tv shows. Watch and play the ones you want and ignore the others. There really is no need to write 3000 word articles about how offended you are that someone decided to create something you disagree with. Move on. No need to moan about it.

I feel the same way in that I'm not bothered either. That being said, there is occasionally some shit that others would consider trivial that I would find incredibly bothersome. If it's okay for me to be bothered by that, then I think it's okay for people to be bothered by this.

 

[SkeptiMism]

People have the right to be offended sure. What people don't have the right to do is go after creators and fans of the offensive work and fight to have it removed from the public eye, or to fight with creators to change their games away from their vision when they're in development. That's the real shame, that all these people on the Internet feel like they're entitled not to be offended. It's that kind of thinking that got Lenny Bruce arrested.

Who does that? Seriously. For example Sarkeesian herself always says she doesn't want to remove the games she criticizes.

Also, games, just as any art, can be criticized for anything (yes, just as we criticize plenty of other things like gameplay ideas during the creation process). That's not fighting to have the piece of art changed, but it's to offer criticism. Nothing prevents nor should prevent criticism during a creation process (as long it's taken into account that it's still in the creation process).

The developers are then free to either ignore it and do nothing about it, listen to it and do nothing about it or listen to it and do something about it. Nobody forces them to do anything, it's just criticism.