Support NeoGAF

[Riposte]

Why?

Please do not try to construct a framework through which to understand a point of view you don't hold.

 

[JABEE]

Problem with authorial intent is well, authors are kinda dumb sometimes. Far Cry 3 writer would have you believe he wrote a masterful satire. Doesn't make it true. I think video game fans place way too much faith in the artist's vision, especially given the focus tested nature of a lot of games tends to undermine that in the first place.

Most other mediums are fine with criticizing the content of their creatives but video game fans are at times weirdly defensive about it. Give them way too much credit.

I think it's because video games are always seen as one step away from being uncommercial/cancelled. Games should be toys for children. Broken, mean, arrogant, sexual, culturally oppressed characters are treated as inherently bad characterization.

Games serve as joy generators that are made to make people feel good about themselves.

The critics of games are for the most part shallow. You can see it in the way that critical analysis is difficult for them to achieve without checking down a list of tropes, a term that was invented in 2012.

Most stories in games are shallow and pandering, "fan service."

I hope the existence of so many publishing platforms will stop gamers from being defensive. Their preferred art form is not going to disappear. It's just going to take time for a critical community that is worthy of real good stories to arise. It takes time. It's going to be harder for that to happen with the contraction of media outlets and the constant feedback of meta-data on articles and the yearning for objective evaluations in the form of numbers.

 

[Mesoian]

Why? What about it?

I think he's just busting his chops. Implying that someone's discomfort has to steam from some sort of real, logical source that can be easily broken down and explained for the masses is both unrealistic and insensitive.

 

[Not]

Aside from that, if one side of an argument is "This makes me feel uncomfortable, right now." and your response is some metaphysical abstraction like "What is comfort?" then you are out of touch, and you're trying to bridge a gap in perception through rationalization.

GAF burn

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Context is king.

Going to go with this broadly, but more specifically:

Is the sexualization either directly or indirectly related to her character arc or characterization?

If so, it's a depiction of a female character where sexiness is a personal trait, if not then it's probably just unrelated pandering.

 

[zeldablue]

But those who treat you well/normally when they don't know anything about you, do they do that because of media portrayals they have seen, or because they have been taught that media =/= real life people? I do understand that media holds some power, but my point is the power it holds is the power we give it, and trying to fix the media is not how you fix that problem.

Again, I say that from the perspective of a male who doesn't feel controlled by any media at all, despite there being much media that would say I am this, that, or the other. I don't feel it personally nor in how people receive me. That means I'm "neutral" and that is a privilege, yes, but it is also one that can be extended. It means that the power is in our discussions and attitudes, and the biggest benefit in discussing depictions isn't the part that says "this depiction is problematic" but the part that says "this depiction is not real people" and that will also, ultimately, be the only real solution to the problem.

Otherwise, I just see it as like trying to put decks of cards back together as others keep throwing them out on the ground.

It's a difficult thing to explain. So I usually use Majora's Mask to explain prejudice. It's the only game or story I can think of that really forces you to understand silly things like racism and "privilege." (I don't like that word either.)

When you are in a majority group you are given a lot of benefits that are basically invisible. Things you don't even think about at all. These things are invisible, but if they were taken away from you they would probably obliterate you.

In Majora's Mask, Link has the benefit of looking similar to the other residence of Clock Town. This means that, even though Link is a complete stranger, people can still relate to him and have common empathy and understanding with him. They can basically see each other as the same regardless of the situation. But Skull Kid decided to take Link's "face" away and curse him into a sub human.

This screws everything up because when people see Link's cursed form they don't have that point of relatability. So a big portion of commonality and empathy are gone. Instead they have to draw from past knowledge on how sub humans work. Link isn't able to be treated fairly by the kids and they deny him the ability to join their club. Why? Because the only other sub human who joined the club (Skull Kid) ended up screwing everything over. And if that sub human is bad...then this one probably is too. So Link can't progress in that way because of his association with an out-group. They said they would have let him in, if it wasn't for that past altercation.

If the kids had known more about sub humans and had more stories and more personal exposure to those out-group humans...then maybe they would realize they shouldn't judge Link based off of their limited knowledge of his group. Instead...Link is "different" now.

So basically, the more foreign something is, the more easy it is to simplify it into a black and white definition. Those images, stories and games you play, as well as the many opinions of the people you love form your knowledge of the "Other." And all too often, those definitions of the "Other" are limited and really really sucky. You have to do double the effort for half the respect.

If that knowledge is limited...you WILL definitely judge people based off of that limited perception. That is common knowledge. The only way to break that prejudice is to give everyone a wider array of knowledge when it comes to outside groups. Every group is immensely diverse...and human! No group is just one thing. To say women need to all be sexy means that you're going to unconsciously see women as needing to be just that. The more you see something as "different" the worse the prejudice will run in your veins. You're not seeing humans, you're seeing sub humans.

Though consciously, people are not really racist/sexist at all. Instead those attitudes and beliefs are usually deeply repressed but still instinctual influencers on your perception of others. That innate bias is permanent in all living humans. But we can always become better at understanding how we feel about others. Throughout MM, Link puts himself in the shoes, or faces, of others to gain more perspective on each person's unique plight. He then realizes that there was a lot of commonality between everyone and then just like that his hidden prejudice disappears.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The worst part is when fighting women are scantily dressed (and the men are not). I don't care if a female character gets naked for a sex scene, but if she's going to engage in combat, no self-respecting woman would dress like that. Not talking about over-the-top fantasy silliness like Bayonetta, but many RPGs in general. Like this:

I think it's pretty clear when it's just fanservice and oversexualization and when it's just a normal outfit. Yes, even a sexy cut dress can be normal. Women wear such things, BY CHOICE, every day. What I hate is when women "armor" leaves out her boobage or something. That makes no sense. Tho, in jrpgs men armor doesn't make sense either as seen in the newest FF mobile announcement...

Good example of how it should be. Glad Larian made the change.

Yeah that was bullshit, but funnily enough, the artist himself was very, very butthurt about having to change his precious design. LOL.

if female characters had the same breadth of design that male characters do with regard to role, personality, body type, abilities, etc there wouldn't be nearly as much to complain about. as things stand right now the few women designed for games are mostly eye candy.

Quoted for truth.

As a man, I don't worry about how men are depicted.

Of course you don't. See the red highlight above. That's why. Also, you can criticize depictions of people in media without it personally affecting you, FFS.

 

[Zoe]

Going to go with this broadly, but more specifically:

Is the sexualization either directly or indirectly related to her character arc or characterization?

If so, it's a depiction of a female character where sexiness is a personal trait, if not then it's probably just unrelated pandering.

What's the personality of someone that wears revealing clothing?

Why must revealing clothing be a reflection of someone's personality?

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I don't think too much about it, but for me it depends on the characters personality or development. If the shoe fits wear it.

Oddly enough I guess what DOA does is ok, start with the basic outfit then let the player decide to sexualize her or not with unlocked ones.

 

[timetokill]

One of the things that bothers me is that there's such a negative reaction to big-breasted women in fiction. Big-breasted women exist in real life, too, and they're already constantly shamed (generally by women) or objectified (by men and women) for them, like their entire being is based around their breasts.

When we criticize a character that has big breasts as being "obviously male fantasy" it only serves to reinforce the idea that big breasts are somehow unnatural or wanton.

 

[Kurdel]

One of the things that bothers me is that there's such a negative reaction to big-breasted women in fiction. Big-breasted women exist in real life, too, and they're already constantly shamed (generally by women) or objectified (by men and women) for them, like their entire being is based around their breasts.

When we criticize a character that has big breasts as being "obviously male fantasy" it only serves to reinforce the idea that big breasts are somehow unnatural or wanton.

We are talking about designs made by men, made to sell more copies to teenagers.

 

[Dice]

*good stuff*

I agree that such dynamics are in play, but if one of the perpetually messed up depictions is half of the human population I can't help but think trying to go by way of varied depictions isn't going to fix the issue, especially if we are trying to do it not just for women in general, but all kinds of people and stereotyped demographics. There will always be some more-minor minority (I'd say transpersons are an obvious one right now) that will have less hope of building a wide array of widely received depictions until it sinks into the general public that they are just people who are all different from each other to be received as individuals. So to me that is only a partial strategy that will never actually solve the problem.

Instead, we have to intentionally raise people up out of that mire of going by instinct and passive lessons. We have to equip them with the skills of being mindful that the stereotyping instinct even exists, so they can keep it in check no matter what media shows, just like we do with things like anger management. We're all born little cavemen and "humanness" as we know it is a cultivated skill civilization has made outside of any one of us individually that has to be re-implemented every time someone is born. We teach children specific rules of behavior that guide them to merely be considerate of others, but at some point that has to take over to simply understanding what being a considerate person means, because no set of rules can fan out into the infinite contextual possibilities of life.

Just as an aside, for my story, after 15 years of ministry, I stopped believing. And at the end there I went from worship leader of a church to unofficially yet effectively excommunicated by everyone I ever knew except for 5 people. I feel like, from that, I have definitely come to better understand about in-groups and out-groups and how powerful those tribalization instincts and stereotypes can be. Still, I focus not on those who suffer from the problem, but those who have transcended it. If they are mentally free, the solution has been manifested in them, and I can tell you for sure it wasn't from media or common public portrayals passively instilled that they learned how to take people as they are.

Perhaps we need more things like Majora's Mask more than we need varied roles for every demographic, and as society finally gets it, the varied roles will come. Not that I am against varied roles before that lesson is instilled, but as I said, I don't see them as the solution.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

One of the things that bothers me is that there's such a negative reaction to big-breasted women in fiction. Big-breasted women exist in real life, too, and they're already constantly shamed (generally by women) or objectified (by men and women) for them, like their entire being is based around their breasts.

When we criticize a character that has big breasts as being "obviously male fantasy" it only serves to reinforce the idea that big breasts are somehow unnatural or wanton.

What Kurdel said. When was the last time you saw a large-breasted woman in a game that wasn't sexualized like crazy? It's really rare. Ironically, one of the better examples for that is Ellie from Borderlands 2. Don't know anyone who thinks she's objectified or anything like that, because despite her cartoony appearance, it's refreshing to see a different body type for once.

 

[shiftplusone]

We are talking about designs made by men, made to sell more copies to teenagers.

and?

They're still female characters. I understand your point but if we're going with the "ask the women around you" thing (which is good) then I'm gonna have a problem with this dismissal of the shaming argument

My wife has larger than average breasts to put it mildly. All of the shit talking about the sorceress in dragon's crown really bothered her. It happens. When people talk about how comically large they are and how disgusting it is, that stuff bothers her. Kamitani drew the character, yes, but she exists now for better or worse and throwing insults at characters for their physical appearance bothers those who mirror those attributes regardless of design origin or reasons.

 

[RustyNails]

People confuse being sexual with "female empowerment". It really does not matter if creator of Bayonetta is a woman, when the character is overtly sexualized to the point of being a ridiculous cartoon/gothic library porno. Granted, sexuality is an agency of expressing freedom, but it does not necessarily mean the woman is free. Conforming to norms of society that deems it ok is still being enslaved to society's standards. How is it empowering when millions of teenage boys are jerking off to your pictures? The problem arises when developers come up with a character "that catches attention". Mind you this is prevalent in both male and female characters. Males get a pass in this regard because they are not being held back. For every Kratos we have a Joel. For every Bald dude that will fuck yo shits we have a scrawny LucasArts adventurer and an average duder caught in a shitstorm. Maybe not in the amount we wanted, but its not enough to raise cries of male-sexism. But when developers approach a heroine (or a hero) from a perspective of "why" and "does it add more meaning", we will have lot less ridiculously sexualized protags to the point of ridicule. Michel Ancel is one of my favorite developers. He could have easily made Jade a teenage fantasy with boobs and ass spilling out of her and minimal clothes. But...such a character adds nothing to Michel Ancel's world. He did not create the character first, he created the universe, and then created Jade. Same thing with Portal games and depiction of Chell.

Final Fantasy games have always teetered between meaningful and just plain eye candy. We have more Terras than Tifas. Yet some of the shit made absolutely no sense, such as Ashe's micro skirt that simply reeked of cheap T&A for gamer magazine covers. I guess it depends on the director and where he is coming from.

 

[terrene]

I reject the false dichotomy being presented. Sometimes someone is just attractive and doing it for you while going about their business, in real life. That doesn't make them either empowered or sexualized. The question being presented here seems to play into our debate-loving, side-taking, sensationalizing, hyperbolic side that coarsens every discussion on these kinds of issues to the point where the two sides end up angrily arguing from a place of moral absolutes. Getting pretty sick of it, honestly.

 

[zeldablue]

I agree that such dynamics are in play, but if one of the perpetually messed up depictions is half of the human population I can't help but think trying to go by way of varied depictions isn't going to fix the issue, especially if we are trying to do it not just for women in general, but all kinds of people and stereotyped demographics. There will always be some more-minor minority (I'd say transpersons are an obvious one right now) that will have less hope of building a wide array of widely received depictions until it sinks into the general public that they are just people who are all different from each other to be received as individuals. So to me that is only a partial strategy that will never actually solve the problem.

Instead, we have to intentionally raise people up out of that mire of going by instinct and passive lessons. We have to equip them with the skills of being mindful that the stereotyping instinct even exists, so they can keep it in check no matter what media shows, just like we do with things like anger management. We're all born little cavemen and "humanness" as we know it is a cultivated skill civilization has made outside of any one of us individually that has to be re-implemented every time someone is born. We teach children specific rules of behavior that guide them to merely be considerate of others, but at some point that has to take over to simply understanding what being a considerate person means, because no set of rules can fan out into the infinite contextual possibilities of life.

Just as an aside, for my story, after 15 years of ministry, I stopped believing. And at the end there I went from worship leader of a church to unofficially yet effectively excommunicated by everyone I ever knew except for 5 people. I feel like, from that, I have definitely come to better understand about in-groups and out-groups and how powerful those tribalization instincts and stereotypes can be. Still, I focus not on those who suffer from the problem, but those who have transcended it. If they are mentally free, the solution has been manifested in them, and I can tell you for sure it wasn't from media or common public portrayals passively instilled that they learned how to take people as they are.

Perhaps we need more things like Majora's Mask more than we need varied roles for every demographic, and as society finally gets it, the varied roles will come. Not that I am against varied roles before that lesson is instilled, but as I said, I don't see them as the solution.

I think I agree with everything you said. And I'm sorry you had to go through that! :C

I'm not really someone who fights for better representation, because I don't really care too much. But I realize how it affects children and how it affects people who don't try to understand others. I think for my future children, I'd like them to play games where they can see themselves, so they aren't raised with the typical amount of shame you get from being the ignored one/2nd place in society.

Being a kid is about raising up self esteem, and seeing yourself is important. After that however, it should really be about reflecting back and not riding too hard on your past.

So if I were to fight for more positive or diverse representation, it would be for children. A simple example would be me not seeing a black women at a beauty contest or something. The absence of her would make me feel as though I didn't matter, or that I was somehow ugly. Sure, that's a childish feeling, but one that is really really powerful when you're growing up and need that form of worth/significance. Unfortunately for minorities and women, we simply don't get the same reassurance that others get through the entertainment and education they surround themselves in. So in the case of females in games, it would extend to wanting my kids to see that women are capable and free and important in multiple ways.

Once you're an adult, there's not much more learning to do, just a lot of reevaluation. xP

As for prejudice, well...it all comes from how much you're willing to know and listen to others. So when women say "This makes me depressed/feel bad/alienated." it's worth trying to figure out where that feeling is coming from. A lot of women, including me, often feel sick when it comes to demeaning attitudes and depictions of women. There's nothing we can do, so we don't really do anything.

 

[molnizzle]

I think most of us can agree that there is definitely a problem in Japanese and Western videogames with oversexualization of female characters, women-as-sex-objects-and-nothing-more.

I don't understand why the discussion always has to be about female oversexualization.

What about male undersexualization?

It's obvious that the male demographic responds well to these sexy female characters. If that's what they want to see in their games, why shouldn't they be able to? If female (or gay male) gamers feel it's unfair, why aren't we doing more to have more sexed-up man candy in games?

Kinda like the argument you sometimes hear about nerfing weapons in an online shooter. "Instead of nerfing this one gun... why not make all the other guns better?"

 

[sechsterangriff]

Sexualization and empowerment aren't mutually exclusive, if you ask me.
In all honestly, I don't really care how much a female character is sexualized in games because it has zero impact on how I think about her as a character. What matters to me first and foremost is the context of the game (I have completely different expectations between games like Bayonetta and Seran Kagura), and then what is her place in the game universe and her interactions with other characters.

Also the only problem with sexualization for the sake of fan service is variety, in that currently mostly is directed for men. I wonder if one day with more women involved in games development and women being acknowledged as an audience for all kinds of genres this situation will change. On the other hand, the usual male audience will also have to learn to see male sexualization in their games without feeling offended or throwing a fit. Some men seem very sensitive to male sexualization in their games...

 

[Derekloffin]

Yeah, unfortunately this is a very complicated problem, and while you definitely want to talk to women, that isn't going to solve the problem as opinions on this matter are extremely varied and often contradictory. No matters what way you go, you'll find someone who objects. I would also say that judgments of male sexualization verses female sexualization are also very... unequal if you will and that further clouds the issue.

As someone else already said, and I would agree:
Does the sexualization make sense for the character, or is it just because (ala good old fantasy armor). If it makes sense then sexual or not, it makes sense. If it doesn't we can safely say the creator is just sexualizing the character.

Trying to appease everyone is literally impossible and shouldn't even be attempted. And, I also don't see the argument 'well, it's not real so...' as in any way compelling. Fiction isn't about depicting utopias. While you're free to critic anything, demanding some sort of personal political correctness of a fictional medium is silly beyond belief.

 

[Dice]

I'm not really someone who fights for better representation, because I don't really care too much. But I realize how it affects children and how it affects people who don't try to understand others. I think for my future children, I'd like them to play games where they can see themselves, so they aren't raised with the typical amount of shame you get from being the ignored one/2nd place in society.

Being a kid is about raising up self esteem, and seeing yourself is important. After that however, it should really be about reflecting back and not riding too hard on your past.

So if I were to fight for more positive or diverse representation, it would be for children.

This I can agree with, and in fact in another thread I was just discussing how the reasoning behind guarding children from certain media is much more about the messages they receive than the extreme content it holds. The extra trouble comes when people who were raised like shit still think like children, and we have no choice but to give them the same freedoms despite it being as harmful to their wellbeing (and that of everyone they know) as it is for children. It is difficult to manage, but I definitely do believe in solving the issue in our society at the stage of childhood [example: one of countless methods possible] more than taking retroactive action and limiting freedoms of expression and trying to force media into being a certain way, in part because some share of media creators will inherently be those who weren't properly equipped growing up and we can't presume the role of their parents now. Actual relationships will be how we reach those.

 

[Azih]

The problem isn't that cheesecake characters exist. It's that they're not a part of a large diversity of female characters. That's changing because games are easier to make now (thank god for small studios and indies).

 

[oracrest]

Ask women.

I did. Here's my girlfriend's response to this first post. She refers to "she" as the poster, which may or may not be accurate, btw. Also, she's not really a gamer.

"That's an interesting article about the final fantasy characters.

My thoughts....hmmmm

She talks about Fran, one of the Viera , who could be scantily clad simply because that is the context of her character, which does make sense to me. And I do think people often get offended or upset over a scantily clad woman--at least when she is scantily clad for functionality or for her own reasons (like breastfeeding in public or social media birth pictures). However, where she loses me is she says that possibly because in that game the viera females live with other females so their attire is not meant for male lust consumption....I disagree because the actual "lust consumer" is not other game characters, but the person playing the game.

There's a difference between Chocolina, who, other than a sexualized appearance is an empty character and the Viera who may have motives and acions other than just being sexualized. But I still think that sometimes female characters have to be sexualized just to be included, regardless of their other actions....and that mimics life where in many ways a woman can only be viewed as successful if she is also readily available for sexualization.

That being said, video games are obviously not real life and all characters are typically exaggerated to be pleasing to look at.

She has the shirtless guy as an example.

She makes a great point about it potentially being less harmful for this to happen to male characters in video games since there are many male figures in history who are admired and revered for their accomplishments without regard to their appearance....this isn't the case for women, so perhaps the continuation of that in video games is more detrimental for that reason.

I wonder what a lesbian might have to say about all of this....being both a women, and likely into scantily clad women.

*woman

to answer her question at the bottom, I do think context should matter when evaluating female characters but I have a hard time believing that the Viera outfit is actually designed for Amazonian type functioinality, because it looks extremely uncomfortable, binding and silly.....whereas the scantily clad guys costume involves, pants, boots and a jacket.

then again, women's clothing is almost always more ornate

and less functional

but I mean, if this is a battle outfit why are her strappy boots open toed?

and her abdominal organs are wide open

then again, maybe she has an awesome shield

I think the bottom line is that we need more, varied representation of motivated females in video games.

I'm going to stop replying for awhile because I just typed aaaaaalllllloooootttttt

definitely a thought provoking article."

 

[Phrozenflame500]

What's the personality of someone that wears revealing clothing?

I dunno, out-going, confident, comfortable in her own body.

Why must revealing clothing be a reflection of someone's personality?

Well if we're going to believe a character is wearing revealing clothing because it's part of her character surely she must be somebody who would wear revealing clothing in the first place.

 

[Zoe]

I dunno, out-going, confident, comfortable in her own body.



Well if we're going to believe a character is wearing revealing clothing because it's part of her character surely she must be somebody who would wear revealing clothing in the first place.

While I disagree that someone must have those attributes to wear revealing clothing, I would say that many FF characters who wear skimpy clothing do fall under that description.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

and?

They're still female characters. I understand your point but if we're going with the "ask the women around you" thing (which is good) then I'm gonna have a problem with this dismissal of the shaming argument

My wife has larger than average breasts to put it mildly. All of the shit talking about the sorceress in dragon's crown really bothered her. It happens. When people talk about how comically large they are and how disgusting it is, that stuff bothers her. Kamitani drew the character, yes, but she exists now for better or worse and throwing insults at characters for their physical appearance bothers those who mirror those attributes regardless of design origin or reasons.

The issue with the sorceress* isn't that her breasts are large, and people weren't objecting to the mere largeness of her breasts. It's the whole package; not only is each breast larger than her head yet her waist is smaller than her head, but the cleavage is also absurd and her posture is so distorted as to be centaur-like (so that her breasts and her ass stick out... speaking of stick, holding the stick in her buttcrack looks ehh), and her animations (running and falling among others) are just so ridiculously exaggerated as to make sure the boobs stick out.

* Actually the sexism in Dragon's Crown goes far beyond just the sorceress, but since you focused on that this is what I'm addressing right now.

 

[zeldablue]

I think the argument should be about the lack of non-sexualized female characters and not how sexualized sexualized characters are.

I don't really care about the latter but the former has me interested.

 

[pantsmith]

* Actually the sexism in Dragon's Crown goes far beyond just the sorceress, but since you focused on that this is what I'm addressing right now.

Is there *any* sexism in Dragons Crown? Im going to assume you didnt mean to use that word and instead meant sexualization.

Regardless of how you feel about how she looks, the implication is that the Sorceress used her own magic to exaggerate her proportions to her liking. She is also one of the strongest and hardest to play characters. She is not held back in any way or discriminated by her gender.

While there might be a lot of over the top liberties taken with character design (which seem playfully aware of how impossible they are) I can't think of a single reason to call the game sexist.

 

[terrene]

The issue with the sorceress* isn't that her breasts are large, and people weren't objecting to the mere largeness of her breasts. It's the whole package; not only is each breast larger than her head yet her waist is smaller than her head, but the cleavage is also absurd and her posture is so distorted as to be centaur-like (so that her breasts and her ass stick out... speaking of stick, holding the stick in her buttcrack looks ehh), and her animations (running and falling among others) are just so ridiculously exaggerated as to make sure the boobs stick out.

None of these are actual issues. Fantasies are allowed to be unrealistic and sexual.

I think the argument should be about the lack of non-sexualized female characters

Yup.

 

[Eidan]

What does it look like when a male character is empowered by sexualization?

 

[UrbanRats]

None of these are actual issues. Fantasies are allowed to be unrealistic and sexual.

I would classify both Dragon Crown and Bayonetta under (although very tame) erotic art, in some form.
I think it makes much more sense if you look at it in that light, because the whole product is pretty consistent on that front.

I'm much more disturbed by something like the cleavage from the lady in the Final Fantasy Type 0 trailer, because it looks completely out of place and dumb.

 

[Orayn]

What does it look like when a male character is empowered by sexualization?

It looks like just about any male character with some sort of sexuality. Male characters in general don't need to be empowered because they're almost always portrayed as owning their sexuality, and it's rarely something that seems to be added just to titillate the audience.

 

[DarkArterialGore]

We are talking about designs made by men, made to sell more copies to teenagers.

I think this is nonsense, when I was a teenager I'd never buy a game just because it had some tits on the cover, only if I though it would be a good game. Why would anyone spend $70 on a game for some awkward titillation when they could just peruse the internet and see the real thing.

 

[Mesoian]

We are talking about designs made by men, made to sell more copies to teenagers.

You can make the argument that that's an dramatically more important reason to make these female characters more well rounded.

 

[BobbyRobby]

The worst part is when fighting women are scantily dressed (and the men are not). I don't care if a female character gets naked for a sex scene, but if she's going to engage in combat, no self-respecting woman would dress like that. Not talking about over-the-top fantasy silliness like Bayonetta, but many RPGs in general. Like this:

It can also be a sign of extreme cockiness. You're so confident in your ability as a fighter, you wear no armor.

In Xenoblade, I'll keep Dunban shirtless, because I think the idea of a shirtless samurai is cool.

 

[Mesoian]

What does it look like when a male character is empowered by sexualization?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS8NAvtzyxE

 

[terrene]

I would classify both Dragon Crown and Bayonetta under (although very tame) erotic art, in some form.
I think it makes much more sense if you look at it in that light, because the whole product is pretty consistent on that front.

I'm much more disturbed by something like the cleavage from the lady in the Final Fantasy Type 0 trailer, because it looks completely out of place and dumb.

Agreed on both points.

We shouldn't be shaming people for enjoying a sexual fantasy, particularly when it's being done with harmless graphics. That's incredibly sex-negative. Having grown up in the bible belt, I've heard plenty of scorn heaped on women who dared to expose their bodies or be sexual in any way, and against boys for masturbating, and any and all premarital sex, etc. Shaming people for having sexual feelings is not a good look; if that's your idea of being liberal, you're fucking up.

But what we should be more aware of is sexualization of the mundane for no reason -- that prevents women from feeling included and comes off really unclassy. If you can't design your playable character to be a non-sexpot, or the scientist on your team wears weirdly low-cut shirts, etc, those are pretty strong signals that this game is for people who want to gaze at women, even though you thought it might have just been a horror game, or an RPG, etc. etc. Female gamers have to eyeroll their way through that shit constantly, and they shouldn't need to.

 

[Not]

I think the argument should be about the lack of non-sexualized female characters.

This sums it up. Less female video game characters should be scantily-clad bombshells, or we should have more sexualised male characters to compensate.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

None of these are actual issues. Fantasies are allowed to be unrealistic and sexual.

I didn't say they weren't allowed. People are allowed to draw and enjoy whatever they want. We're also allowed to criticize, preferably without being called prudes.

Is there *any* sexism in Dragons Crown? Im going to assume you didnt mean to use that word and instead meant sexualization.

When the sexualization is completely one-sided, and often very creepy (not talking about the sorceress here) it's certainly a sign of sexism.

Regardless of how you feel about how she looks, the implication is that the Sorceress used her own magic to exaggerate her proportions to her liking.

Uh-huh. Sure she did. She's totally a sentient being with agency. e_e

She is also one of the strongest and hardest to play characters. She is not held back in any way or discriminated by her gender.

You do realize that saying "she's powerful!" doesn't make anything immune to sexism, right?

It can also be a sign of extreme cockiness. You're so confident in your ability as a fighter, you wear no armor.

lol

We shouldn't be shaming people for enjoying a sexual fantasy, particularly when it's being done with harmless graphics.

Who is being shamed for enjoying this? Criticizing art doesn't mean you're criticizing those who enjoy this. Seriously, stop it with that crap already.

But what we should be more aware of is sexualization of the mundane for no reason -- that prevents women from feeling included and comes off really unclassy. If you can't design your playable character to be a non-sexpot, or the scientist on your team wears weirdly low-cut shirts, etc, those are pretty strong signals that this game is for people who want to gaze at women, even though you thought it might have just been a horror game, or an RPG, etc. etc. Female gamers have to eyeroll their way through that shit constantly, and they shouldn't need to.

Well... yes. Exactly. It amazes me that you apparently understand all that, and yet still think this is about slut-shaming. I could easily use your own rhetoric against you and tell you "what's wrong with a scientist wearing cleavage?! You're such a sex-negative prude!". But of course, that would be an asinine and stupid argument.

 

[Croatoan]

Is Boris Vallejo considered taboo now to a lot of you guys and gals?

I don't believe there is a problem with over-sexualization as long as it is content or ip appropriate. (Bayonetta)

When it is out of place or done cynically I do think it can be offensive.

 

[BobbyRobby]

This sums it up. Less female video game characters should be scantily-clad bombshells, or we should have more sexualised male characters to compensate.

It's important to consider sexual dimorphism in regards to attraction.

The markers for beauty in males and females are different due to evolutionary factors.

What we think is inherently beatiful actually has practical roots.

In general, females are attracted to muscular males because of their evolutionay role as a protector for her and her children.

Males are attracted to big breasts and butts because they are signs of fertility and ability to nurture children.

The medium is already full of sexually attractive men.

 

[Zoe]

It's important to consider sexual dimorphism in regards to attraction.

The markers for beauty in males and females are different due to evolutionary factors.

What we think is inherently beatiful actually has practical roots.

In general, females are attracted to muscular males because of their evolutionay role as a protector for her and her children.

Males are attracted to big breasts and butts because they are signs of fertility and ability to nurture children.

The medium is already full of sexually attractive men.

Being muscular does not automatically make a guy sexually attractive.

Most video games feature comic book builds which appeal more to men. Gladiolus in FFXV is much more subdued.

 

[terrene]

I didn't say they weren't allowed. People are allowed to draw and enjoy whatever they want. We're also allowed to criticize, preferably without being called prudes.

I didn't accuse you of disallowing them, I accused you of calling those fantasies problematic and/or sexist. That's an attempt to shame people for enjoying them, as if the moral high ground were hating it. At least, that's what I assert that you're implying, despite what you say here; more on that in a sec.

Side note: If you wouldn't like to be considered a prude, maybe don't post like you need a fainting couch and smelling salts while you describe clothes-on showings of sexual attributes.

When the sexualization is completely one-sided, and often very creepy (not talking about the sorceress here) it's certainly a sign of sexism.

No. It's a sign of being targeted/marketed towards people who are interested in only one gender's sexual attributes, which is not sexist.

Uh-huh. Sure she did. She's totally a sentient being with agency. e_e

You do realize that saying "she's powerful!" doesn't make anything immune to sexism, right?

If she can do whatever she wants, she has agency. Being powerful is just icing on the cake.

Who is being shamed for enjoying this? Criticizing art doesn't mean you're criticizing those who enjoy this. Seriously, stop it with that crap already.

This is the crux of my problem. I think it's a pretty flimsy argument to say, "this art is sexist, and shows a major problem in the culture that produces and consumes this kind of art, but you know, like what you like - no shame." What reason could you possibly have for wanting a certain piece of popular art to change, if you don't care what effect it has on people?

If there's no shame in enjoying it, and no one was exploited creating it, there's no problem in the first place. Period.

Well... yes. Exactly. It amazes me that you apparently understand all that, and yet still think this is about slut-shaming. I could easily use your own rhetoric against you and tell you "what's wrong with a scientist wearing cleavage?! You're such a sex-negative prude!". But of course, that would be an asinine and stupid argument.

I don't think it's all about slut-shaming. It's about sexual desire shaming, as if creating titillating content that piques sexual interest in others was immoral.

If you want *all* content to be like the scientist -- utterly realistic, sexualization-free, then again, you're fucking up. Different content can absolutely serve different audiences and purposes, and there's nothing wrong with that. You went to a fantasy game in search of unrealistic female proportions and found them. What kind of achievement do you actually suppose that is? I would argue that it isn't much of one.

And, there is a difference between rhetoric and actual arguments. The actual arguments you make can use whatever rhetoric you like, but I would still have the problems I do with what you're saying.

 

[AAK]

People confuse being sexual with "female empowerment". It really does not matter if creator of Bayonetta is a woman, when the character is overtly sexualized to the point of being a ridiculous cartoon/gothic library porno. Granted, sexuality is an agency of expressing freedom, but it does not necessarily mean the woman is free. Conforming to norms of society that deems it ok is still being enslaved to society's standards. How is it empowering when millions of teenage boys are jerking off to your pictures? The problem arises when developers come up with a character "that catches attention". Mind you this is prevalent in both male and female characters. Males get a pass in this regard because they are not being held back. For every Kratos we have a Joel. For every Bald dude that will fuck yo shits we have a scrawny LucasArts adventurer and an average duder caught in a shitstorm. Maybe not in the amount we wanted, but its not enough to raise cries of male-sexism. But when developers approach a heroine (or a hero) from a perspective of "why" and "does it add more meaning", we will have lot less ridiculously sexualized protags to the point of ridicule. Michel Ancel is one of my favorite developers. He could have easily made Jade a teenage fantasy with boobs and ass spilling out of her and minimal clothes. But...such a character adds nothing to Michel Ancel's world. He did not create the character first, he created the universe, and then created Jade. Same thing with Portal games and depiction of Chell.

Final Fantasy games have always teetered between meaningful and just plain eye candy. We have more Terras than Tifas. Yet some of the shit made absolutely no sense, such as Ashe's micro skirt that simply reeked of cheap T&A for gamer magazine covers. I guess it depends on the director and where he is coming from.

I echo this.

 

[Orayn]

It's a pretty flimsy argument to say, "this art is sexist, and shows a major problem in the culture that produces and consumes this kind of art, but you know, like what you like - no shame." What reason could you possibly have for wanting a certain piece of popular art to change, if you don't care what effect it has on people?

If there's no shame in enjoying it, and no one was exploited creating it, there's no problem in the first place. Period.

Saying that this is a binary choice between total shaming and everything being fine is a total false dichotomy. How about liking something, being cognizant of the aspects of it you don't like, and not being afraid to criticize those things while still having an overall positive opinion of the work? The desired effect can be for other people to be persuaded by what you're saying and come around to your point of view of their own accord.

Side note: If you wouldn't like to be considered a prude, maybe don't post like you need a fainting couch and smelling salts while you describe clothes-on showings of sexual attributes.

Don't post condescending bullshit like this.

 

[terrene]

Saying that this is a binary choice between total shaming and everything being fine is a total false dichotomy. How about liking something, being cognizant of the aspects of it you don't like, and not being afraid to criticize those things while still having an overall positive opinion of the work? The desired effect can be for other people to be persuaded by what you're saying and come around to your point of view of their own accord.

Sounds good, but you're subbing a much more cogent argument for the one she is presenting. And even if that were her argument, she wouldn't have a point to make when criticizing some fantasy game where nothing is real in the first place. Pointing out the surreality of female bodies in a game like Dragon's Crown is like lamenting that Jurrasic Park didn't use real dinosaurs.

Don't post condescending bullshit like this.

Right, I'll just call use the terms "asinine" and "stupid" next time, like Morrigan did to me? It was an earned criticism. I found what Morrigan Stark had to say to be sex-negative.

 

[Orayn]

Sounds good, but you're subbing a much more cogent argument for the one she is presenting. And even if that were her argument, she wouldn't have a point to make when criticizing some fantasy game where nothing is real in the first place.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that it's not valid to criticize objectification in a games that are supposed to have a realistic context? That, to me, is getting dangerously close to a complete dismissal along the lines of "it's just pixels lol who cares." I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an overall trend and cite individual games as examples when they fall into a broader pattern that you take issue with.

That's not to say the mere appearance of any form of sexism is bad, it depends strongly on context. A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones portrays a world that's full of blatant sexism without endorsing it at all, and it's also full of strong, well-written female characters who subvert the systems that work against them. I can totally accept that argument, but we rarely even get to that level with video games, where a lot of the problematic content is probably thrown in on a whim or as a cynical attempt to make the game more marketable to a certain demographic.

Right, I'll just call use the terms "asinine" and "stupid" next time, like Morrigan did to me? It was an earned criticism. I found what Morrigan Stark had to say to be sex-negative.

Then say why you thought it was a poorly constructed, sex-negative argument instead of calling someone else a prude. Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy even if the other person did it first.

 

[SOLDIER]

Yes. At least I believe so.

Tifa Lockhart is essentially the pin-up girl of Final Fantasy and at the same time she's a very empowered character.

Doesn't Fran wear that armor because she was exiled from her Wood?

I largely blame the fanbase for shackling the character with that classification.

Yes she has a short skirt and some very unfortunate proportions during FMVs, but she is still portrayed as a character who can handle herself in a pinch, does not make any suggestive advances and also becomes a voice that raises the spirits of the other party members (especially the main character).

Yet years of fan-art from both Japan and America tend to portray her like she's Orihime, completely submissive and barely able to contain her endowments in her own clothing.

Considering what she looks like now, I think Tifa is above all criticisms regarding her appearance, and she really does deserve a spot in any categorized lists of "most empowered female videogame characters".

 

[BobbyRobby]

Being muscular does not automatically make a guy sexually attractive.

Most video games feature comic book builds which appeal more to men. Gladiolus in FFXV is much more subdued.

That's true, didn't think of that. Men prefer to look at massive dudes while most females prefer a more lean musculature.

You find this in high fashion also. What females find attractive in other females doesn't quite sync up with what males prefer.

Portraying more lean, fit men would definitely help appeal to young women.

I think we're still left with a similar problem though. People are biased towards looking at attractive people. A classicly attractive male is more fitting for an action setting (which most games are) than a classicly attractive female.

It's a problem with societal beauty standards.

 

[KojiKnight]

The fallacy of this argument is that one culture is real and one isn't. Nonexistant people from fantasy stories are not the same as an actual population of actual people with cultural roots that are traceable beyond some game designer's imagination.

How far from reality does a character have to be before it's no longer trying to show something culture, but rather overtly sexual and pandering?

I ask because if you made a game about a tribe of Amazon warriors and all of the women were naked as per their tribal standard, does that make them overtly sexualized fantasy? I mean, they aren't real... they are just polygons. Those polygons can't have a traditional value... so should they then be clothed simply because they aren't real even if they are based on real things?

If in that case it's okay, then what if the game is the same setting, same story, same gameplay, but the only difference is that instead of a real tribe, a fake tribe is fabricated that's the same in all but name? That fake tribe surely doesn't have history but it's also based on real tribes and rule cultures... is that okay?

If the first case ISN'T okay, what if the game has the women clothed in game, but uses FMV of real women in the tribe national geographic style? Real video captured from real women in their real daily lives, would THAT be offensive/overtly sexualized?

Clearly there IS a line, but some people have muddied that line so much that it's near impossible to tell what it is and where the parody of that begins.