Support NeoGAF

[LoftyTheMetroid]

Well, firstly, I'm not aware of any "crusade" here -- if anything, from what I can tell, the ones making this into an "issue" are the people who were upset about the review. The reviewer certainly didn't call for boycotts or any such nonsense.

Secondly, how do you know that people aren't criticizing other games just as much? Or that they aren't the same people? Do you have a google news alert for "women in games" such that you have a comprehensive sense of what people are saying about this and other games?

Finally, as to the "consistent effort" bit... the fact that I'm afraid to even type Anita Sarkeesian's name should be, but probably won't be, its own data point as to the parallel rejoinders that (1) people ARE doing that and (2) people who do that can look forward to a metric shit-ton of harassment, and NO, it's NOT reasonable to say "well, just put up with it if you care about this issue." The harassment itself IS part of the issue.

I'm not talking about that one specific review, but more the Kotaku's and whatnot of the industry.

It's not like there's a standard metric for "fuss", but I don't think it's unfair to say that there hasn't been a serious movement to improve the image of women in games outside of "one-offs" like Dragon's Crown, where the apparent sexism is a lot easier to point out and advertise in an article.

Also, I think Anita bringing attention to the issue is great, but I wouldn't consider her videos to be part of a wide, consistent effort by the industry. I don't see a lot changing in the short-term (although every bit helps).

 

[Coffee Dog]

I think the choice of this game for all this hoopla is bizarre and contrived.

Its an easy bandwagon. Everyone already stereotypes the japanese as freak perverts, and kamitani's style is weird and stands out. We wouldnt be doing this if this was just another game with sexualized little girls.

 

[pants]

It is an easy target

Yeah that's why I'm using the word contrived.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

As for GTA, I think discerning people have already figured out that Rockstar has shit writers and just aren't going to hold their breath for anything brilliant from them.

...So let's just ignore the issue when reviewing GTAV? (Or any other AAA game.)

Not putting words in your mouth, but I expect that will be the general reaction to anything outside of games with blatant imagery like Dragon's Crown.

 

[frequency]

It is an easy target tbh, niche Japanese developer with a small publisher. I really doubt we would hear about this if it was EA or Activision tbh. Its a conspiracy theory sure, but I really do feel that way.

Actually if you pay attention, people talk about these issues for all sorts of games by all sorts of developers and all sorts of publishers.

It's just that most games don't have people vehemently defending them for these topics. And so the discussion just becomes one-sided and one-sided discussions tend to die off pretty quickly. Dragon's Crown appears to be some special target but it's not. The conversation has just been going on forever because it is one of the rare instances where the opposition stands up to defend it at every turn rather than just letting the critics pat each other on the back for their small step against sexism and move on to the next thing because not enough noise is being generated with the current thing.

 

[faceless007]

I'm not talking about that one specific review, but more the Kotaku's and whatnot of the industry.

It's not like there's a standard metric for "fuss", but I don't think it's unfair to say that there hasn't been a serious movement to improve the image of women in games outside of "one-offs" like Dragon's Crown, where the apparent sexism is a lot easier to point out and advertise in an article.

There was a whole panel on it at GDC this year.

It may not seem like much but change basically starts with getting people to think about the issue at all through events like that. There aren't a whole lot of avenues to discuss the topic on any sort of macro, broad level that would get any traction.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Other games aren't ignored, those arguments are made all the time. You may have noticed that there is a certain hotly contested and polarizing (and slow-to-come-out) video series about pointing out all these sexist flaws in videogames....and everyone opposed to the idea pulls any old reason out of their ass to try and justify why the status quo is fine as it is.

Sure as hell the game journalism are way more lenient with GTA and other bigger games. I didn't see a Kotaku article on why the lack of female lead on GTAV, just some soft articles dated from 2 years ago like read like "Hey, it would be cool to have a female character!"

 

[MogCakes]

okay, but the point we agirls like playing games, too. So when there's a systematic tendency of making things for the male response (and not even a response that all males will give), you're basically telling a huge chunk of people to go do something else because this isn't for you. There are plenty of women (and men) who find that kind of pandering to be alienating, and ultimately they might not want to play the game.



Or they're going to buy it, play it, and sigh and facepalm and bear the dumb shit to enjoy what looks to be a fun game otherwise. But they wont give it a 9/10.

I said most, not all and I think you're stretching a bit by implying all females will have a problem with DC.

 

[faceless007]

Sure as hell the game journalism are way more lenient with GTA and other bigger games. I didn't see a Kotaku article on why the lack of female lead on GTAV, just some soft articles dated from 2 years ago like read like "Hey, it would be cool to have a female character!"

Er, contrary to the ridiculous straw man often bandied about, I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that a specific title not having a female character is de facto proof of sexism. It would be nice to see more in general, and I do think a story about a female character rising up in a criminal underworld setting would be pretty interesting, but there's no pressing desire to say that Rockstar has to be the one to do it.

Then again I can't stand this Internet meme logic that says if you write a blog post criticizing one thing, you must also have written a post criticizing every similar thing in history or else you're a hypocrite. Cause no one meets that standard.

 

[MogCakes]

Game itself? I think I would own it already if I still had a Vita still. I love beat em ups and a lot of what I've seen of the game looks fucking amazing.

Use of women, honestly, I don't know. I think that sorceress is real fucking stupid looking. But, I'm not offended by it. At the same time, it's pretty obvious to me why others, especially women, could be offended.

I feel like the sexism in video games "debate" is extremely heated right now as the medium seems to have been being attacked for it for a while now, which has angered a lot of gamers. And of course there's not much honest conversation going on about it because both sides have seemingly dug in and won't budge an inch.

One side is most represented by people like Anita Sarkeesian who could seemingly find sexism in cloud formations, while the other side wants to believe that anyone who sees any problem is A) a white knight, or B) just an overly sensitive Anita Sarkeesian type. One sees problems everywhere, the other sees problems nowhere, and the world keeps spinning.

You and I see eye to eye. (I don't think the sorceress looks stupid, but hey I'll let that go)

 

[Karkador]

...So let's just ignore the issue when reviewing GTAV? (Or any other AAA game.)

Not putting words in your mouth, but I expect that will be the general reaction to anything outside of games with blatant imagery like Dragon's Crown.

No, I'm not saying ignore the issue with GTAV, but it's two different types of reactions.

GTAV doesn't have a female character, but any "complaint" would essentially be a suggestion made at thin air. Dragon's Crown did something "wrong" (though that feels like too strong a word) and there is an actual thing there to complain about.

Sure as hell the game journalism are way more lenient with GTA and other bigger games. I didn't see a Kotaku article on why the lack of female lead on GTAV, just some soft articles dated from 2 years ago like read like "Hey, it would be cool to have a female character!"

I'm not really seeing this conspiracy theory against picking on the small games. I think the difference is that the large games tend to be from western publishers, and despite everything, they are a little more culturally aware of these issues and navigate the PR message better. Meanwhile, Vanillaware and Grasshopper are largely unapologetic and shrug their shoulders, not giving a fuck.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Er, contrary to the ridiculous straw man often bandied about, I'm not sure anyone has ever argued that a specific title not having a female character is de facto proof of sexism. It would be nice to see more in general, and I do think a story about a female character rising up in a criminal underworld setting would be pretty interesting, but there's no pressing desire to say that Rockstar has to be the one to do it.

Then again I can't stand this Internet meme logic that says if you write a blog post criticizing one thing, you must also have written a post criticizing every similar thing in history or else you're a hypocrite. Cause no one meets that standard.

Lack of female leads has been of the key points behind the industry being sexist as a whole. It's one of the meassures lot of people want adress to start helping in the whole issue, GTA as one of the bigger IP's in gaming would be an incredible step forward to that goal.

Certainly the press focussing on this and other problems in GTA, would be more helpful that nitpicking a 100k sales niche japanese game. If you criticize a problem in the industry and then you rage about a niche game ignoring the big fishes because of fear of being fucked up, yes, that hypocrite.

I'm not really seeing this conspiracy theory against picking on the small games. I think the difference is that the large games tend to be from western publishers, and despite everything, they are a little more culturally aware of these issues and navigate the PR message better. Meanwhile, Vanillaware and Grasshopper are largely unapologetic and shrug their shoulders, not giving a fuck.

Rockstar PR has to do absolutly nothing, because game journalism never ask the hard questions and barely does any negative sexism article on their games just from trailers and screens, they let them do the game they want, like Vanillaware wants.

 

[Bethany]

But it basically what the game does...show women with few clothes and focussing in her "attributes".

I just double-checked the review. It makes exactly one passing mention of clothing in a reference primarily directed at the overall passive portrayal of the female NPCs, and doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about the clothing per se.

So no. This is a strawman, as I said. It's not about "modesty" or any such idiocy that virtually no modern feminist gives two stones about (at least, not in the direction they're being accused of). It's about context, it's about how the female characters are represented as compared to the male characters, and it's about good old-fashioned magical biology that, surprise, surprise, renders women ludicrously not-human.

So it's sexist. Thank god it wasn't a binary thing.

Did I say that? Oh wait, that's a silly question, because no, I didn't.

Anyway, I think looking at two female character and a bunch of NPC clothes and poses can be hardly be seen as "taking a work in it's enterity". Using the damsel in distress troupe to calify the game as sexist is was and will be quite a strawman argument to call something sexist. Using that troupe does not mean is sexists. Paiting females in sexy poses like in the classic art is neither sexist.

It's sexuality, not sexism.

(1) The fact that the discussion centers on a specific part of her review does not, as a matter of fact, mean that this is the only part of the game she reviewed. This is actually a small part of her review (even though -- and I don't know if this was a writer or editor-level decision -- the title of the post itself does focus on that one part of it). Do you contend that the exaggerated proportions in the game *aren't* "pretty damned noticeable" when the entire game is taken in context? You're entitled to that opinion, of course, but please take care to actually address what I've actually said and/or what the review actually reviewed.

(2) The review doesn't use the word "damsel" or "distress" anywhere, nor did my comment. So I'm not sure what you're referring to -- another comment, perhaps? -- when you reference the damsel in distress trope.

(3) For that matter, the review didn't even call the game, OR its depiction of women, "sexist." Again. Go back and read it. Read what it ACTUALLY LITERALLY SAYS, not the connotations you've subjectively imputed to the reviewer.

(4) Even if the reviewer *had* said the game was sexist due solely to its reliance on the damsel in distress trope, how would this be a "strawman" argument? You could certainly make the argument that this would be an unjustified assessment (I'd agree with you there -- it doesn't sound like the game particularly relies on the damsel in distress trope. So, you know, good thing the reviewer didn't claim it does). But "strawman" isn't a synonym for "bad argument." It's a particular TYPE of bad argument.

(5) Again, no one has argued that depictions of women in "sexy" poses is inherently sexist. THIS is an ACTUAL strawman, then, because you're arguing against a point that no one has actually advanced.

(6) "Sexuality" is neither a rejoinder nor an objective quality. It's certainly a valid critical exercise to point out when a depiction of sexuality is heteronormative and androcentric, for instance.

Taking the whole industry situation where the predominant use of damsel in distress troupe (or suposedly predominant) and lack of empowered females is the thing that makes the industry sexist.

This game on it's own it is not.

It's good that you at least acknowledge that the prevalence of the damsel in distress trope indicates sexism on the part of the industry generally, but I don't understand the point of your comment. You seem to be suggesting that sexism can ONLY be institutional, and that individual expression can NEVER constitute or reinforce sexism -- but if that's so, how can we even begin to try to combat sexism? Surely you can acknowledge that it's a legitimate exercise to at least TALK about specific examples of sexism?

Again, who said gaming have to be on it's own category?

Well, like I said, the impetus behind a lot of comments defending this game (and others like it, as this discussion has been had many times about many games -- funny enough, each time any game is criticized, one of the immediate predictable reactions is "why don't you criticize all those OTHER games?" As though everyone has somehow forgotten that we all just had an almost identical conversation about any number of other games) seems to be a defense of games generally, and of the gaming industry and games as an emerging art form. As though somehow subjecting games to the same criticism to which we subject other media is an indictment of gaming generally, when it's precisely the opposite: it's a recognition of games as equally important parts of our culture. The critics are not singling out games except to the extent that they are GAMES CRITICS. If anything, giving games a special *exemption* from criticism would be a failure to respect the medium.

People recognized that is a problem within the industry, yeah, but is not a problem within the games.

How can these two possibly be distinct?

You know what a truly sexist game was? Metroid Other M. That game is a truly aberration in female portrayal in a game. Did you see any review calling it out (onlye G4.com)? The answer is NOPE.

Oh, hey, what's this? Google results for "metroid other m sexist"? How many hits? 11,400? Yeah, well. That's ALMOST the same as zero.

And while it might be true that other media might be criticized for sexism. (I rarely see it in my country) , is not at the level of what gaming is suffering

Well, wait, though. Which is it: is there an active and ongoing critical conversation talking about sexism in games, or is Dragon's Crown being unfairly singled out where people usually DON'T talk about sexism in games? Because it can't be both.

Also, I don't know what country you live in, but I do know that my country (US) produces the majority of motion pictures, and the US motion picture industry is rife with sexism for which it is regularly, repeatedly, and consistently called out. Here, I'm sure you'll find something relevant among the nearly-15 million Google hits I just found for you.

 

[MogCakes]

Meanwhile, Vanillaware and Grasshopper are largely unapologetic and shrug their shoulders, not giving a fuck.

Unapologetic about? Why should they apologize?

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

There was a whole panel on it at GDC this year.

It may not seem like much but change basically starts with getting people to think about the issue at all through events like that. There aren't a whole lot of avenues to discuss the topic on any sort of macro, broad level that would get any traction.

I know, I was there. The IGDA in particular has sessions for all sorts of topics covering social issues in the games industry. While there are certainly vocal advocates and "every bit helps", I wouldn't equate that with, again, a serious, widespread, consistent effort. You only need to look at the fall lineup of AAA games to see that women don't feature prominently in the industry as of yet.

It's true that we need to get people to start thinking about these sorts of issues. But I don't think one can say, "See, because there are some instances of industry players speaking out against the misrepresentation of women, we can just pick out easy targets and sit on our hands when the big popular games come out." I don't think pointing out just Dragon's Crown (which hardly anyone is going to buy) is going to change much; rather, we should be challenging the status quo, the games that people are going to be purchasing and playing.

I'm not saying the Polygon reviewer, or anyone here, is guilty of this, just that in all the hubbub I've seen regarding Dragon's Crown, the efforts/critiques don't feel particularly genuine, meaningful, or consistent.

 

[Kagami]

Well, firstly, I'm not aware of any "crusade" here

An example of the sentiment that people are on edge about was linked earlier in the thread:

http://www.samanthablackmon.net/notyourmamasgamer/?p=3228

Are we really back at a point where woman with overdeveloped (and ill covered) breasts and butts are seen as being acceptable in games? I canceled my pre-order. Another company taking a huge step backward.

This is asserting that games with sexy body service aimed at heterosexual men should not exist at all.
Polygon's review didn't really say that, but there are certainly enough people expressing this idea to trigger concern that such content will be taken away--or at least come to be treated as something that only social pariahs enjoy. Men want their Twilight, too.

Because of the way women are treated in society, though, the men's equivalents of Twilight need to carefully labeled as such, so people who want to avoid them can, and so as to make it clear that it's understood that the content is unrealistic fantasy and not an assertion about how real women are or should be.

The trouble lies with the lack of clarity on which games are intended for everyone and which are in the same category as DoAXB and Neptunia. Honestly, Dragon's Crown belongs in the same category as those games, but there's an uncomfortable feeling that maybe it's being presented as being for everyone, which would imply that its portrayal of women is a normal standard for general audience entertainment.

 

[Bethany]

I'm not talking about that one specific review, but more the Kotaku's and whatnot of the industry.

It's not like there's a standard metric for "fuss", but I don't think it's unfair to say that there hasn't been a serious movement to improve the image of women in games outside of "one-offs" like Dragon's Crown, where the apparent sexism is a lot easier to point out and advertise in an article.

Also, I think Anita bringing attention to the issue is great, but I wouldn't consider her videos to be part of a wide, consistent effort by the industry. I don't see a lot changing in the short-term (although every bit helps).

That strikes me as moving the goalpost somewhat, though. Does someone need to be an industry insider to be making a worthwhile effort at changing the industry? Doesn't dismissing "outsider" efforts set up some serious hurdles to establishing legitimacy by those terms? I mean, at that point you're basically saying that, unless individuals with day jobs to risk (in a crap economy, no less) are willing to fight against trends within their industry, then no one cares "enough" about these issues for them to be worth addressing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but that just strikes me as a patently unfair bar.

Regardless, even if you're going to limit it to a disproportionately-small universe of actors whose efforts you'll deem sufficiently legitimate as to merit attention, there are, in fact, movements within the industry to improve the representation of women in games. Here is just a handful of examples.

 

[faceless007]

Lack of female leads has been of the key points behind the industry being sexist as a whole. It's one of the meassures lot of people want adress to start helping in the whole issue, GTA as one of the bigger IP's in gaming would be an incredible step forward to that goal.

Lack of female leads, yes. Lack of female leads in a specific series, no. Do you not see the difference between "We need more good female characters in games" and "We need more good female characters in Grand Theft Auto"? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see both, but one request is a hell of a lot more specific than the other.

Certainly the press focussing on this and other problems in GTA, would be more helpful that nitpicking a 100k sales niche japanese game. If you criticize a problem in the industry and then you rage about a niche game ignoring the big fishes because of fear of being fucked up, yes, that hypocrite.

I don't know what problems in GTA you're referring to that are being ignored (especially since the game isn't out yet and we haven't really seen how the game will treat its female characters anyway--not that I have particularly high hopes, this is Rockstar after all, but I'm certainly not going to get offended at them without something specific to get offended about). As for the press ignoring bigger games, did you miss the fair amount of blog posts written about the treatment of gender in Tomb Raider or Metroid: Other M or Duke Nukem Forever or God of War?

 

[Manbig]

Other games aren't ignored, those arguments are made all the time. You may have noticed that there is a certain hotly contested and polarizing (and slow-to-come-out) video series about pointing out all these sexist flaws in videogames....and everyone opposed to the idea pulls any old reason out of their ass to try and justify why the status quo is fine as it is.

Example: Why can't we have a Zelda game with Zelda as the hero? She's the titular character and can't get a (good) adventure of her own?

Cue 10,000 weak fan-fiction reasons for why Zelda can't possibly be a hero, despite the fact that she has been a ninja and a pirate in her other lives.


As for GTA, I think discerning people have already figured out that Rockstar has shit writers and just aren't going to hold their breath for anything brilliant from them.



Videogames (and most other media) as a whole seem to think so, yes. It's not necessarily sexist for a female to be titillating. But look around at everything that gets made and you'll see that the majority of females are made to be that way...and there's the sexism.

I don't think a lot of people are arguing for the status quo to remain the same. I just think that people are getting defensive because the extreme of other side seems to want this style of game erased from existence.

Personally, I've been having a blast with this game. I picked the Sorceress and I'm not ashamed a damn bit about it. I have no dog in this fight. But I can see why both sides of this argument feel the way that they do.

It is off putting for many people to see these characters portrayed in such ways. The intent of the artist aside, this stuff could have been omitted from the game and nothing of value would have been lost.

Having said that, I don't really thing the inclusion of them should take the focus away from everything else in the game. There was a fantastic blog post that was shared a few times in other threads for this game that points out the crazy amount of influences that Kamitani had when designing every nook and cranny of this game. The concept of the sorceress (and the magic shop keeper) are very directly influenced from works by people like Frank Frazetta, where the sorceresses clearly use their sexuality to assist in getting what they want. The skill card design for the sorceress seems to possibly imply that she actually looks more like an ugly witch, but uses some form of magic to make herself look the way that she does (of course this is just my interpretation here.)

So Kamitani wanted to get a little juvenile with a few of the poses. It totally matches the theme of over exaggeration that the rest of the game has, so I'm cool with it and hope that this controversy doesn't stop Kamitani from treading this ground again in his future games if he wants to. But if someone is not cool with it and chooses not to play the game because of it, then that's totally okay too. Just try to avoid getting on that high horse and forcing that "holier than thou" guilt trip nonsense on other people for liking the game for what it is.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

No, I'm not saying ignore the issue with GTAV, but it's two different types of reactions.

GTAV doesn't have a female character, but any "complaint" would essentially be a suggestion made at thin air. Dragon's Crown did something "wrong" (though that feels like too strong a word) and there is an actual thing there to complain about.

That's the point. It's not blatant or easy to put in a header image or tagline, so people will ignore it and be completely fine with another male-centric title. It's a product of a male-dominated industry, a culture founded on male interests. Unless that is challenged, we're not going to see games featuring women, made for women, or made by women.

It's easy to make a target out of Dragon's Crown, but people shouldn't feel as if actions and voices against this one game alone are going to make an impact in the representation of women. It's like making an issue of a single mass shooting and then ignoring everyday gun violence.

 

[Lime]

This is actually a big issue both in the games industry and other places in life -- this resistance to women's experience. Practically every time a woman contributes her experience, if that experience points out any connection to sexism whatsoever, suddenly she's said something accusatory, or unfair, or mean, or PC, or any number of bizarre descriptors. NO. All she's done is communicated HER EXPERIENCE, and every time you try to silence her, YOU ARE PERPETUATING THE VERY SEXISM SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT. You're doing it by rejecting women's right to voice their experiences.

This should be in the OP of every gender-related thread on Neogaf. GAF is incredibly tough when it comes to this particular silencing and you see a ton of this resistance and denial towards people's experiences.

 

[Karkador]

Unapologetic about? Why should they apologize?

I didn't mean they should literally apologize. I mean that they meet criticism about their female characters (whether they be sexualized, or mostly useless) with more "we don't give a shit" than anything else. Which, as I've said before, is totally fine if they want to be struggling artists, desperate to express their akihabara worldview of tits and icecream and moe to the world....but don't be surprised when westerners (especially women) raise a brow at it and think "wow, this is actively trying to not be for me".

 

[faceless007]

It's true that we need to get people to start thinking about these sorts of issues. But I don't think one can say, "See, because there are some instances of industry players speaking out against the misrepresentation of women, we can just pick out easy targets and sit on our hands when the big popular games come out."

Good thing no one's saying that.

I don't think pointing out just Dragon's Crown (which hardly anyone is going to buy) is going to change much; rather, we should be challenging the status quo, the games that people are going to be purchasing and playing.

Good thing feminist critics are doing that.

 

[MogCakes]

I didn't mean they should literally apologize. I mean that they meet criticism about their female characters (whether they be sexualized, or mostly useless) with more "we don't give a shit" than anything else. Which, as I've said before, is totally fine if they want to be struggling artists, desperate to express their akihabara worldview of tits and icecream and moe to the world....but don't be surprised when westerners (especially women) raise a brow at it and think "wow, this is actively trying to not be for me".

I haven't seen them make any statements like that though.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

That strikes me as moving the goalpost somewhat, though. Does someone need to be an industry insider to be making a worthwhile effort at changing the industry? Doesn't dismissing "outsider" efforts set up some serious hurdles to establishing legitimacy by those terms? I mean, at that point you're basically saying that, unless individuals with day jobs to risk (in a crap economy, no less) are willing to fight against trends within their industry, then no one cares "enough" about these issues for them to be worth addressing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but that just strikes me as a patently unfair bar.

Regardless, even if you're going to limit it to a disproportionately-small universe of actors whose efforts you'll deem sufficiently legitimate as to merit attention, there are, in fact, movements within the industry to improve the representation of women in games. Here is just a handful of examples.

I'm not limiting "game industry" to just "people who make games". I would consider Anita, Kotaku, and even NeoGAF to be part of it. I think that should resolve most of your concern...?

I mean, I don't know what to say. Yes, we're seeing a lot of people advocating women in games. No, I don't think it's near enough, and I don't think we can just pick and choose what to be upset about if we want meaningful change.

EDIT:

Good thing no one's saying that.

Right, the mainstream is doing it, not saying it.

Good thing feminist critics are doing that.

Now let's just move it off blogs and YouTube channels and get it onto the mainstream games media.

 

[Bethany]

I'm not limiting "game industry" to just "people who make games". I would consider Anita, Kotaku, and even NeoGAF to be part of it. I think that should resolve most of your concern...?

I mean, I don't know what to say. Yes, we're seeing a lot of people advocating women in games. No, I don't think it's near enough, and I don't think we can just pick and choose what to be upset about if we want meaningful change.

Okay, so I misunderstood what you were saying, then. But then, I'm still not quite clear on what you're suggesting. Because it *seems* you're objecting to people criticizing Dragon's Crown because not enough other things are being done to change the industry. Is this a more or less accurate assessment of your point? Because, like, in terms of picking and choosing -- there are only so many of us who care about this stuff. Even if we had time to talk about every possible permutation of sexism's effects on games and the games industry (we don't, obviously), I'm not seeing how that would somehow obligate us to talk about ALL of it if we want to talk about ANY of it. I think improving women's representation in gaming is a sufficiently worthwhile effort, and a sufficiently ongoing project, that it's worth reminding ourselves not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

 

[Karkador]

I don't think a lot of people are arguing for the status quo to remain the same. I just think that people are getting defensive because the extreme of other side seems to want this style of game erased from existence.

I think most people would be happy if there was more variety and more positive female roles that don't have to be sexualized to be worthy. It's basically potential customers who are going home hungry because you aren't feeding them.

Personally, I've been having a blast with this game. I picked the Sorceress and I'm not ashamed a damn bit about it. I have no dog in this fight. But I can see why both sides of this argument feel the way that they do.

I have enjoyed Vanillaware games in the past and I've been interested in this game, too

Having said that, I don't really thing the inclusion of them should take the focus away from everything else in the game. There was a fantastic blog post that was shared a few times in other threads for this game that points out the crazy amount of influences that Kamitani had when designing every nook and cranny of this game. The concept of the sorceress (and the magic shop keeper) are very directly influenced from works by people like Frank Frazetta, where the sorceresses clearly use their sexuality to assist in getting what they want. The skill card design for the sorceress seems to possibly imply that she actually looks more like an ugly witch, but uses some form of magic to make herself look the way that she does (of course this is just my interpretation here.)

The disappointing thing for me is that I saw this and it looked really cool to me. If nothing else, Vanillaware games have really nice, magical graphical presentations, and the idea of them incorporating all these historical art references into their game (in itself a reference to the old D&D beat'em'ups) was pretty exciting.

So then I see this really cool, striking image of a girl posed much like a classic painting and I can't help but wonder how this piece would further pull you into the world of all this rich art, and what could they have been intending to say with this type of image in their game, I wondered.

...and then I saw that the painting of this girl was just there so you could grope her and touch her in different places. Biggest fucking eye roll of my life. Really, guys? Why don't we all go to a museum and feel up the Greek statues while we're at it?

 

[Bethany]

Oh! And as to this:

Now let's just move it off blogs and YouTube channels and get it onto the mainstream games media.

I think you'll be hard-pressed to find a feminist gamer who doesn't want this very much indeed Sadly, what frequently happens when feminist views creep into "mainstream" games media is... well, um, kind of exactly what's happening here. Polygon hires a writer who makes some observations that probably qualify as kind of "feminist," and BOOM. INTERNET CLUSTERFUCK and suddenly "this game" is being unfairly "picked on," when maybe it's just that that's the only one Polygon would let anyone write a feminist post about! I mean, you see this level of backlash for this one fairly obscure game -- what if they'd published a review suggesting a AAA title had sexist elements? My head kind of hurts just thinking about how much internet I'd need to avoid for sanity's sake...

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

I just double-checked the review. It makes exactly one passing mention of clothing in a reference primarily directed at the overall passive portrayal of the female NPCs, and doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about the clothing per se.

There are several mentions to their breast and proportions, is not only the lack of clothes is how they have nice bodies.

So no. This is a strawman, as I said. It's not about "modesty" or any such idiocy that virtually no modern feminist gives two stones about (at least, not in the direction they're being accused of). It's about context, it's about how the female characters are represented as compared to the male characters, and it's about good old-fashioned magical biology that, surprise, surprise, renders women ludicrously not-human.

How aren't not human again? because their design? did you see how represented are males with their ludicrously big muscle?

Did I say that? Oh wait, that's a silly question, because no, I didn't.


(1) The fact that the discussion centers on a specific part of her review does not, as a matter of fact, mean that this is the only part of the game she reviewed. This is actually a small part of her review (even though -- and I don't know if this was a writer or editor-level decision -- the title of the post itself does focus on that one part of it). Do you contend that the exaggerated proportions in the game *aren't* "pretty damned noticeable" when the entire game is taken in context? You're entitled to that opinion, of course, but please take care to actually address what I've actually said and/or what the review actually reviewed.

Of course when you take the game out of context they are noticiable, but the artist grossly exaggerated art is not only for women, it's for men too. Or we can ignore that?.

Also, is not my place to imagine the rest of her review, if it actually existed. The discussion is centered in what she choose to center it.

(2) The review doesn't use the word "damsel" or "distress" anywhere, nor did my comment. So I'm not sure what you're referring to -- another comment, perhaps? -- when you reference the damsel in distress trope.

"They're presented as helpless objects, usually in need of rescue." She does not use the term, but clearly references it.

(3) For that matter, the review didn't even call the game, OR its depiction of women, "sexist." Again. Go back and read it. Read what it ACTUALLY LITERALLY SAYS, not the connotations you've subjectively imputed to the reviewer.

When someone says this about a game:"fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream". I think he/she means something more that simple "sexuality".

(4) Even if the reviewer *had* said the game was sexist due solely to its reliance on the damsel in distress trope, how would this be a "strawman" argument? You could certainly make the argument that this would be an unjustified assessment (I'd agree with you there -- it doesn't sound like the game particularly relies on the damsel in distress trope. So, you know, good thing the reviewer didn't claim it does). But "strawman" isn't a synonym for "bad argument." It's a particular TYPE of bad argument.

Because ultimately, Damsel in distress, or the fact you have to rescue females is just a narrative source, you can call it bland, unoriginal and lazy, but is not inherent sexist. Is when is actively used is when it becomes a problem.

(5) Again, no one has argued that depictions of women in "sexy" poses is inherently sexist. THIS is an ACTUAL strawman, then, because you're arguing against a point that no one has actually advanced.

Is one of the complaints and arguments of the reviewer.

(6) "Sexuality" is neither a rejoinder nor an objective quality. It's certainly a valid critical exercise to point out when a depiction of sexuality is heteronormative and androcentric, for instance.

True (out of context), but is hardly the case here.

It's good that you at least acknowledge that the prevalence of the damsel in distress trope indicates sexism on the part of the industry generally, but I don't understand the point of your comment. You seem to be suggesting that sexism can ONLY be institutional, and that individual expression can NEVER constitute or reinforce sexism -- but if that's so, how can we even begin to try to combat sexism? Surely you can acknowledge that it's a legitimate exercise to at least TALK about specific examples of sexism?

For sexualization =/= to sexism. They are other instances where talking about sexism, not in games, but in the industry itself, like lack of female leading roles is where the problem is or maybe the main problem. Sexism on a game is when a female character has to wait his superior order to activate her weapons.

Well, like I said, the impetus behind a lot of comments defending this game (and others like it, as this discussion has been had many times about many games -- funny enough, each time any game is criticized, one of the immediate predictable reactions is "why don't you criticize all those OTHER games?" As though everyone has somehow forgotten that we all just had an almost identical conversation about any number of other games) seems to be a defense of games generally, and of the gaming industry and games as an emerging art form. As though somehow subjecting games to the same criticism to which we subject other media is an indictment of gaming generally, when it's precisely the opposite: it's a recognition of games as equally important parts of our culture. The critics are not singling out games except to the extent that they are GAMES CRITICS. If anything, giving games a special *exemption* from criticism would be a failure to respect the medium.

When you criticize one game taht has very little impact and a very specific appeal while avoiding 99% of other cases, isn't that giving those games a special *exemption*?

How can these two possibly be distinct?

I edited it: People recognized that (too much sexuality on games) is a problem within the industry, yeah, but is not a problem within the games.

One sided sexuality is a problem in the industry, but is not a problem that games has sexuality to appeal men (or women).

Oh, hey, what's this? Google results for "metroid other m sexist"? How many hits? 11,400? Yeah, well. That's ALMOST the same as zero.

IGN Boards, ohgodwhy.org. Gamefaqs, and Destructoid blogs.La crème de la crème of the gaming journalism...

I'm talking about the gaming media, not random sites and blogs.

Well, wait, though. Which is it: is there an active and ongoing critical conversation talking about sexism in games, or is Dragon's Crown being unfairly singled out where people usually DON'T talk about sexism in games? Because it can't be both.

Is an active debate about sexism usually misguided to single games and mostly because of it's "sexuality". I'm talking (again) about the gaming journalism, which after are the ones who have more effect in the debate in the long term

Also, I don't know what country you live in, but I do know that my country (US) produces the majority of motion pictures, and the US motion picture industry is rife with sexism for which it is regularly, repeatedly, and consistently called out. Here, I'm sure you'll find something relevant among the nearly-15 million Google hits I just found for you.

Curiously enough, most of the links in the first page are about sexism in the INDUSTRY, rather than in particular media like shows or movies. And mostly refer to the paper of women in the creation of films and abuses they suffer.

Curiously again, what I'm saying where the debate should focus.

 

[UrbanRats]

As for GTA, I think discerning people have already figured out that Rockstar has shit writers and just aren't going to hold their breath for anything brilliant from them.

Right.
Let's just forget all the interesting, non sexualized female characters from Red Dead Redemption (Bonnie and Abigail) or Lost and Damned (Ashley) or even GTAIV (Elizabeta, Mallory, Mrs. Faustin) and Max Payne 3 (Giovanna).
Hell, even Bully, while being far more cartoonish and satiric, had some funny female characters.

Yeah they didn't include a female character in the trio of GTAV, because they were going for a deconstruction of the classic GTA protagonist, and it would've been cool if they did, but really what a weird target to pick, for this crusade.
There are a million worthy ones, i don't think R*, with all their problems, are one.
Also shitty writing? Sure, but in the gaming landscape they're still on the very good side of the equation.

We're talking about an industry that makes satiric, 80s parodies of itself, when the average game still uses all those tropes with a straight face.
--

Anyhow, having looked at the art posted on AllGamesBeta for Dragon's Crown, the game does have much more porny-ness than i expected.
I still don't have a problem with it specifically, as it is honest about his titillation and eroticism.

As i said a million times, what i hate the most, is those games that just put sexualization where it doesn't belong at all, like Halo 4, Red Faction Armageddon, all the Fantasy/SciFi games where armors are gender specific (full armor for the dude, bikini for the gal).
Unfortunately these games are the majority, at least when it comes to AAA titles, and what is causing the issue, in my opinion.
In a similar landscape, of course when a game like Dragon's Crown comes out people are gonna be sore about it; if all the other games didn't push that idiocy down our throats, i'm sure most people would be ok with the occasional erotic game like this one.

I don't have much of a problem with a game that wants to be highly erotic like Dragon's Crown, infact i can even enjoy it, if the art style is peculiar and interesting (like in this case), and not some cheap barely-hentai knock-off; however people shouldn't shut their eyes to it, an recognize it for what it is.

And those are my 2 cents.

 

[Manbig]

I think most people would be happy if there was more variety and more positive female roles that don't have to be sexualized to be worthy. It's basically potential customers who are going home hungry because you aren't feeding them.



I have enjoyed Vanillaware games in the past and I've been interested in this game, too



The disappointing thing for me is that I saw this and it looked really cool to me. If nothing else, Vanillaware games have really nice, magical graphical presentations, and the idea of them incorporating all these historical art references into their game (in itself a reference to the old D&D beat'em'ups) was pretty exciting.

So then I see this really cool, striking image of a girl posed much like a classic painting and I can't help but wonder how this piece would further pull you into the world of all this rich art, and what could they have been intending to say with this type of image in their game, I wondered.

...and then I saw that the painting of this girl was just there so you could grope her and touch her in different places. Biggest fucking eye roll of my life. Really, guys? Why don't we all go to a museum and feel up the Greek statues while we're at it?

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the reason the call back to that painting is there is just so it can be groped. The option to poke characters and get dumb reactions is a call back to the D&D beat 'em ups. Granted, that is a very dumb option to have, but it is still just an option.

 

[Teddified]

I do agree we should just ignore the reviews that we don't like. It just doesn't seem to be that easy. All we need is one person to say something (trollish or genuine) then someone goes at them, then it grows out of proportion.

I try to stay out of those things but it's easy to get caught up in the moment and I dunno it's kind of a defensive feeling. I guess it's just hard to see things you like crapped on.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Lack of female leads, yes. Lack of female leads in a specific series, no. Do you not see the difference between "We need more good female characters in games" and "We need more good female characters in Grand Theft Auto"? Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see both, but one request is a hell of a lot more specific than the other.

Is specific..., exactly like going after Dragon's Crown specifically. At least if you gonna aim at a single game, at least aim at the game that can have more impact.

Don't you think that a successful GTA game with a female lead character couldn't have way more benefit that bullying small japanese niche games?. It's about priority.

Again it just an example. I don't really think no one should force a dev to make what they ask.

I don't know what problems in GTA you're referring to that are being ignored (especially since the game isn't out yet and we haven't really seen how the game will treat its female characters anyway--not that I have particularly high hopes, this is Rockstar after all, but I'm certainly not going to get offended at them without something specific to get offended about). As for the press ignoring bigger games, did you miss the fair amount of blog posts written about the treatment of gender in Tomb Raider or Metroid: Other M or Duke Nukem Forever or God of War?

When I mean GTA problems I mean as a saga. There were some outrage against the TR stuff, but quickly forgotten by the release, MM basically was largerly ignored by the mass gaming media, same about God of War. And the whole nasty nature of Duke Nukem was quickly forgotten too. I'm sure all of them got lots of IGN blog post by random users, but wasn't my point.

None all of them got a Kotaku article detaling how sexist they were. None got they're scores reduced because of sexism and none had videos of 5 minutes mocking how sexist they were, like Killed is Dead recently got.

 

[Bethany]

An example of the sentiment that people are on edge about was linked earlier in the thread:

This is asserting that games with sexy body service aimed at heterosexual men should not exist at all.

Wait, so if I hear something about a game that makes me decide it isn't for me, and change my mind about buying that game as a result, and mention that decision (and the basis for it) on a public forum, this now translates into an assertion that *no* games that are similar to the game in question should *exist at all*?

I don't think that's a remotely reasonable interpretation either of the comment you posted or of the arguments defending the reviewer's right make the comments she did.

Polygon's review didn't really say that, but there are certainly enough people expressing this idea to trigger concern that such content will be taken away--or at least come to be treated as something that only social pariahs enjoy. Men want their Twilight, too.

And what of the women whose, erm, "Twilight" is games (or, if you want to get more specific, cartoonish JRPG side-scrollers)? Do they not have the right to make their voices heard? As I'm sure you're well aware, Twilight is neither universally nor exclusively loved by "women." Just as games like DC aren't universally and exclusively loved by "men." I mean, um, if it makes you feel better, I as a woman wouldn't care in the slightest if you pointed out the many, many, many truly awful things about Twilight -- except, I imagine you wouldn't bother, because you probably don't care enough about it to want to spend that much time talking about it. Probably for the same reason that I'm exerting actual energy not to be insulted that you basically implied that "women" like such offensively awful dreck such that it's remotely fair to compare it to a medium women like me actually DO love.

And that's just the thing. Women (and men) who make these criticisms about games like this aren't doing it because they think games are bad and that people need to stop making them -- or even that THESE TYPES of games are bad and people need to stop making them. If the critics of games like DC *actually* hated the game that much, guess what? They wouldn't even bother critiquing it. More likely, they would just write off the game, or the publisher, or the genre, or *all games*, as a whole, and move onto something that, in their view, held more promise.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

Okay, so I misunderstood what you were saying, then. But then, I'm still not quite clear on what you're suggesting. Because it *seems* you're objecting to people criticizing Dragon's Crown because not enough other things are being done to change the industry. Is this a more or less accurate assessment of your point? Because, like, in terms of picking and choosing -- there are only so many of us who care about this stuff. Even if we had time to talk about every possible permutation of sexism's effects on games and the games industry (we don't, obviously), I'm not seeing how that would somehow obligate us to talk about ALL of it if we want to talk about ANY of it. I think improving women's representation in gaming is a sufficiently worthwhile effort, and a sufficiently ongoing project, that it's worth reminding ourselves not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

It's perfectly fine to object to Dragon's Crown based on its content. And I think people like Anita and (from what I've seen) you are sincere and consistent in your thoughts on the representation of women.

What I'm more critical of are these one-shot bandwagon efforts to decry a single obscure game on some social merit only to ignore the more systemic problems elsewhere. It's fine if a reviewer or writer wants to make an issue of the misrepresentation of women, but it screams of disingenuity and inconsistency to me to only make a point of the most egregious errors and ignore the rest, particularly if they want to claim that these criticisms are part of an effort to improve the representation of women in games. If that were really the goal I think we'd see a more constant and consistent effort, but it often just comes off as an attempt to make a big headline and generate controversy. You don't get to take the high ground only when it's convenient.

I'm not saying you have to seek out every instance of female misrepresentation in order to have an opinion, but I doubt a lot of these "white knights" are going to be thinking twice about this issue when it's not staring them in the face of their favorite games. I don't think you can just "take off points for sexism" in Dragon's Crown and then not apply similar criteria to other games you review/analyze, not if you want to appear genuine.

(And this extends beyond just sexism. Perhaps it could be summed up as the "lol, Kotaku" mentality. Or, maybe it just means most reviews are silly, and these sorts of issues should be examined in thoughtful, meaningful articles and discussions, and not simply summed up on a 10-point scale.)

 

[Karkador]

Right.
Let's just forget all the interesting, non sexualized female characters from Red Dead Redemption (Bonnie and Abigail) or Lost and Damned (Ashley) or even GTAIV (Elizabeta, Mallory, Mrs. Faustin) and Max Payne 3 (Giovanna).

Bonnie: gets kidnapped by some dudes and almost killed.
Abigail: a former prostitute who also gets taken as a hostage and almost gets raped

Ashley: drug addict

Elizabeta: a paranoid drug addict with rape in her backstory, ends up in jail
Mallory: She was kind of just there and then gets pregnant

Mrs Faustin: wife of an insane husband who abuses her and cheats on her

Giovanna: I'm *puke* pregnant!


Yep, all great characters I'm sure women are just eager to relate to. female power fantasy indeed. this is way off topic, though, even for this thread.

 

[Data West]

Bonnie: gets kidnapped by some dudes and almost killed.
Abigail: a former prostitute who also gets taken as a hostage and almost gets raped

Ashley: drug addict

Elizabeta: a paranoid drug addict with rape in her backstory, ends up in jail
Mallory: She was kind of just there and then gets pregnant

Mrs Faustin: wife of an insane husband who abuses her and cheats on her

Giovanna: I'm *puke* pregnant!


Yep, all great characters I'm sure women are just eager to relate to

Didn't realize getting kidnapped makes you weak. Good to know.

 

[Shengar]

This thread pretty much derailed from "criticism on reviews and how we should not focus on the bad part" to "what is sexism and what is sexualization". I'll try to avoid that and focus on the main topic.

I've yet to watch Sterling's video (damned shitty internet), but I can get his point across and agree with him. We shouldn't focused our heat on just one particular negative opinion. Every reviewer have the right to voice their opinion on something, even if their reasoning is poorly thought or just plain horrible. If someone want to criticize a review that isn't suit their view, it would be much better if they do it with well-thought reasoning and argument. The sad thing is that Sturgeon's Law also applied to everything including criticism and comment: 99% comment /criticism is shit. To make thing worse is when particular opinion holder focus their attention to that 99% rather than the good 1%. It create loop where people shitting on each other just because they have different opinion.

Now, on what review should have in itsef, I think game review shouldn't only constitutes gameplay. Yes, gameplay is central core of a game, but now game is moving and developing medium. If we want video game to be taken seriously, we could started making notice on other elements beside the game. To take this on heated object in the thread, that is art, I thought that art or perhaps art-style in a game could be criticize, especially if the developer/lead artist aim on particular style and atmosphere. This art-style could give people more enjyoment or detract them from it. Even when art is pretty subjective, it is still down to people personal taste that I think very fair to be taken into review score.

In the end, game isn't just simple medium. Yes, gameplay is still core element of a game, but even then gameplay itself isn't purely objective. People taste could still affect on how would they like a certain gameplay over the other. A bad review isn't a review that reflect a person personal taste. A bad review is a review that have poorly reasoned and poorly thought argument in its writing. I could point some bad reviews with high score point.

People should focus on the argument within the review, not the score. If they already do, and disagree with it, good. Either you just swallowed it or have disagreement, you have to stay calm. If you want to disagree, make a good rebuttal and not just writing off 1-liner ad hominem or sarcastic remarks to the reviewer.

Rich Grisham, who writes for Gamesradar and other sites doing reviews... and also is in Operation Sport's "Press Row Podcast" said something to me that has been stuck in my head ever since because I think he so brilliantly narrowed down why we have a problem with "games journalism."

He said, paraphrasing here, that the problem is that other than a few people the vast majority of people working in "games journalism" aren't journalists in the least... they are writers.

Back in the magical 1990s I went to school for English with a focus on creative writing. I had to take a few journalism classes as part of that (2, if I remember correctly) and the differences in style and tone are stark compared to creative writing. A good journalist shouldn't be biased in the slightest. A good journalist should look at both sides of every story. A good journalist should be well sourced. A good journalist doesn't partake in tricky word play to look cute, the writing style is about substance - not style.

All of this is the complete opposite of the gaming media. What we have are a bunch of writers. When I was taught creative writing, or hell, even essay writing, it was about style, it was about taking sides and arguing points, it was about colorful language and imaginative descriptions. There aren't rules in creative writing.

Most of the journalists today are writers, they aren't journalists... and nor do they even try to be. Until that changes... games journalism will remain a joke. I think the same goes for reviewers... these people weren't trained in criticism, they are just writers and their reviews come across as such.

I agree that most "journalist" in gaming industry mostly are just writers. But that doesn't mean they have the pass to write poorly-written review with horrible reasoning. Writers, in general, also have to make fair criticism and able to take any opinion that criticize their works. It just many of these "writers" are not (good) writer at all especially when they began saying "those who are not agree with us is a dickhead).

Also, I want to make difference between review writer and journalist. Review writer could be biased with their writing as it is opinion after all (and they should be biased, as people have different taste but being biased doesn't mean I approved poorly-reasoned bias that is akin to stupidity), while journalist have to keep their biased view to bare minimum. If we have really any good journalist in the industry and cover this Dragon's Crown debacle, he or she would cover both sides of the coin, making fair interview on the proponent and opponent alike. So far, I've yet to seen it. Most opinions that floating on the net taking either sides to the extreme.

Didn't realize getting kidnapped makes you weak. Good to know.

I found it ironic that "what is sexist and what is not" is still being decided/viewed from male perspective. A comment from one particular article that also covered this debacle remind me of this. The article said that men in DC are muscle-laden and strong guy while the women is heavily sexualized. Later the commenter said that how men must strong dependable itself is actually sexist, as he usually being shamed because he's not meeting standard of what men should capable of in term of strength.

Debating sexism in video game is pretty useless until we have more female pressence in the industry. Just wait until we have some female game designer or director then probably we could have somethin better to debate for.

 

[UrbanRats]

Bonnie: gets kidnapped by some dudes and almost killed.
Abigail: a former prostitute who also gets taken as a hostage and almost gets raped

Ashley: drug addict

Elizabeta: a paranoid drug addict with rape in her backstory, ends up in jail
Mallory: She was kind of just there and then gets pregnant

Mrs Faustin: wife of an insane husband who abuses her and cheats on her

Giovanna: I'm *puke* pregnant!


Yep, all great characters I'm sure women are just eager to relate to. female power fantasy indeed. this is way off topic, though, even for this thread.

I'm almost speechless.
A good character must now be just a cheap power fantasy kids can see as a shallow role model? Wow.

If that's the standard we're trying to achieve here, color me completely disappointed.

i'd have to imagine that Heather Mason is also a shitty female character, because it shows some weaknesses, Maria from Silent Hill 2 too, 'cause she's partly a stripper.

Talk about missing the forest for the tree.
--
It's not way off at all, it tells me how the definition of "good character" (male OR female) i have is dramatically different than what you (and those who agree with you) have.
And it also tells me that i want a very different gaming landscape (hell, art & entertainment in general) than you do.

I would certainly be not satisfied by a female character that is only "empowering" by virtue of kicking the bad guys' asses and not showing her tits, i think creating a worthwhile character is much more than having a nice puppet the kids can look up to.

 

[Bethany]

There are several mentions to their breast and proportions, is not only the lack of clothes is how they have nice bodies.

"Nice" is an interesting choice. "Literally physically impossible" would be more descriptive. But, again, you're reading into the review, which wasn't about the clothing at all. I don't know how else to tell you to read the actual review other than to keep repeating it.

How aren't not human again? because their design? did you see how represented are males with their ludicrously big muscle?

Sure, the men are ridiculous too. I would totally defend any reviewer who critiqued the ridiculous male bodies in the game. I haven't seen anyone do that -- or if they have, I haven't seen any backlash against it. But if I've missed such a review, by all means, I'd certainly be happy to give it a read, and I would totally defend it against the angry internet hordes.

Of course when you take the game out of context they are noticiable, but the artist grossly exaggerated art is not only for women, it's for men too. Or we can ignore that?.

Who's ignoring it? Since when does saying "X" equate to "ignoring everything that isn't X"? And what do you mean by "out of context"? When I was watching the gameplay video I found it incredibly difficult to focus on anything BUT the Amazon's prominently-featured ass.

Also, is not my place to imagine the rest of her review, if it actually existed. The discussion is centered in what she choose to center it.

I'm not asking you to "imagine" her review. I'm asking you to READ it instead of making assumptions about it. So basically, I'm asking you to do the OPPOSITE of imagine it.

"They're presented as helpless objects, usually in need of rescue." She does not use the term, but clearly references it.

She's referencing objectification, which isn't the same thing as the Damsel in Distress trope. The Damsel in Distress trope is a NARRATIVE DEVICE, not a bare element of portrayal. Again, you're making assumptions drawing on associations that exist in your head instead of in the review.

When someone says this about a game:"fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream". I think he/she means something more that simple "sexuality".

Okay? Not sure of your point here. If you're saying that the characterization in her review was unnecessarily derogatory, I agree.

Because ultimately, Damsel in distress, or the fact you have to rescue females is just a narrative source, you can call it bland, unoriginal and lazy, but is not inherent sexist. Is when is actively used is when it becomes a problem.

I agree. I still don't see what this has to do with the review or the backlash.

Is one of the complaints and arguments of the reviewer.

Please quote the part of her review in which she says that portraying women in sexy poses is INHERENTLY sexist.

True (out of context), but is hardly the case here.

You're entitled to your opinion, as is the reviewer.

For sexualization =/= to sexism. They are other instances where talking about sexism, not in games, but in the industry itself, like lack of female leading roles is where the problem is or maybe the main problem. Sexism on a game is when a female character has to wait his superior order to activate her weapons.

Pointing to other examples of sexism in other games doesn't operate as a defense to charges of a different type of sexism in a specific game. And, AGAIN, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please stop pretending that anyone is arguing that "sexualization" is synonymous with sexism. NOBODY IS MAKING THAT ARGUMENT. STOP ARGUING AGAINST IT. YOU ARE ARGUING WITH A NONPERSON. STOP IT. STOP IT RIGHT NOW. STOP.

When you criticize one game taht has very little impact and a very specific appeal while avoiding 99% of other cases, isn't that giving those games a special *exemption*?

I already addressed this. You're making a counterfactual argument. You are arguing based on assumed facts that are simply not true. It is not true that other games aren't regularly and consistently criticized by numerous games bloggers all over the internet. This is a statement that is false. It is an un-statement.

I edited it: People recognized that (too much sexuality on games) is a problem within the industry, yeah, but is not a problem within the games.

One sided sexuality is a problem in the industry, but is not a problem that games has sexuality to appeal men (or women).

I'm sorry, this makes no sense whatsoever. By which I mean I do not understand what argument you are trying to make here. This doesn't read as an affirmative assertion. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

IGN Boards, ohgodwhy.org. Gamefaqs, and Destructoid blogs.La crème de la crème of the gaming journalism...

I'm talking about the gaming media, not random sites and blogs.

So why aren't you complaining to IGN and Gamefaqs about their lack of feminist journalists? Why are you instead complaining about one of the few mainstream games blogs that is at least giving SOME airtime to these perspectives?

Is an active debate about sexism usually misguided to single games and mostly because of it's "sexuality". I'm talking (again) about the gaming journalism, which after are the ones who have more effect in the debate in the long term

Same question as above, and again OH MY GOD STOP PRETENDING THIS IS AN OBJECTION TO "SEXUALITY." IT ISN'T.

Curiously enough, most of the links in the first page are about sexism in the INDUSTRY, rather than in particular media like shows or movies.

Oh Jesus Christ. Google any fucking movie. Fucking A. It's Google, we ALL have it. Shall I do your math homework for you next?

Curiously again, what I'm saying where the debate should focus.

No, you really aren't. You're saying what it shouldn't do because of your lack of awareness of other things that other people are out there talking about. You're blaming one reviewer for your ignorance and unwillingness to lift a finger to educate yourself.

 

[Bethany]

It's perfectly fine to object to Dragon's Crown based on its content. And I think people like Anita and (from what I've seen) you are sincere and consistent in your thoughts on the representation of women.

What I'm more critical of are these one-shot bandwagon efforts to decry a single obscure game on some social merit only to ignore the more systemic problems elsewhere. It's fine if a reviewer or writer wants to make an issue of the misrepresentation of women, but it screams of disingenuity and inconsistency to me to only make a point of the most egregious errors and ignore the rest, particularly if they want to claim that these criticisms are part of an effort to improve the representation of women in games. If that were really the goal I think we'd see a more constant and consistent effort, but it often just comes off as an attempt to make a big headline and generate controversy. You don't get to take the high ground only when it's convenient.

I'm not saying you have to seek out every instance of female misrepresentation in order to have an opinion, but I doubt a lot of these "white knights" are going to be thinking twice about this issue when it's not staring them in the face of their favorite games. I don't think you can just "take off points for sexism" in Dragon's Crown and then not apply similar criteria to other games you review/analyze, not if you want to appear genuine.

(And this extends beyond just sexism. Perhaps it could be summed up as the "lol, Kotaku" mentality. Or, maybe it just means most reviews are silly, and these sorts of issues should be examined in thoughtful, meaningful articles and discussions, and not simply summed up on a 10-point scale.)

I think I agree with some of what you're saying, but I'm still not on board with what I take to be your yardstick.

As to the "one-shot" bandwagon thing, I'm not quite clear... are you suggesting that the author of the review doesn't put in any other efforts to influence the gaming industry's representations of women? Try googling her: Danielle Riendeau. This is not the only time she has addressed issues of gender and sexuality in games and other media. So if you're suggesting that her review was a "one-shot," I don't think that's a fair assessment.

As to "white knights," whom are you referring to? I can tell you that, for whatever value it has to this discussion, I regularly comment on places like reddit and games blogs about the sexism that I notice in games -- and that's pretty much going to be primarily in the games I play, i.e., the games I enjoy. Why would I bother talking about something I don't care about? For instance: one of my favorite game series is the Mass Effect series. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with people about how disappointing I found it that the marketing for the first two games was one hundred percent centered on the male Shepard model, with barely even a mention of the fact that Shepard's gender is customizable. It was only with the third game that EA's marketing even acknowledged FemShep's existence -- and even then, the marketing of the female Shepard was limited in scope and felt afterthought-y (which is not to say that I as a fan didn't appreciate the efforts, even if they were less than I would have liked to see in an ideal universe). *None of these observations means I don't absolutely adore the games*. I wouldn't have bothered talking about it (and I talked about it a LOT) if I didn't care so much about the games.

And yeah, I'm only one data point, but I'm an ACTUAL data point, whereas I'm not sure who these people are who only ever talk about sexism in a handful of games they don't care about and never talk about it in games they like. I'm not convinced that this actually describes much of anyone, but I'll certainly concede the point if presented with evidence.

And as to meaningful reviews and not summing things up in a 10-point scale, eh, I dunno. Yes and no, really. I mean, with movies they frequently only use five points -- but that doesn't mean they don't talk about the "why" and the specific aspects of the movie they liked and didn't like, etc. I don't think that having a 10-point scale has to mean you can't talk about these things. If anything, I think transparency about the basis for an award of points can help people get a feel for whether the bases for the points awarded or deducted tend to reflect things that resonate for them.

 

[Karkador]

I'm almost speechless.
A good character must now be just a cheap power fantasy kids can see as a shallow role model? Wow.

If that's the standard we're trying to achieve here, color me completely disappointed.

Hey, at least a "cheap power fantasy kids can see as a shallow role model" wouldbe an improvement in the depiction of women in Rockstar games. My original point stands- Rockstar writers are tremendously overrated and the best their female characters can do is live to get pregnant.

i'd have to imagine that Heather Mason is also a shitty female character, because it shows some weaknesses, Maria from Silent Hill 2 too, 'cause she's partly a stripper.

I honestly don't remember much clearly about SH3 to comment, but Maria is literally a manifestation of the main male character's bitter thoughts about women. It works for the story, I suppose, but I'd hardly defend Maria as a "strong female character".

I would certainly be not satisfied by a female character that is only "empowering" by virtue of kicking the bad guys' asses and not showing her tits, i think creating a worthwhile character is much more than having a nice puppet the kids can look up to.

So do you hold this standard for male characters, too? Because I'm willing to bet you've enjoyed plenty of male characters who do little else than kick bad guys' asses.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I think I agree with some of what you're saying, but I'm still not on board with what I take to be your yardstick.

As to the "one-shot" bandwagon thing, I'm not quite clear... are you suggesting that the author of the review doesn't put in any other efforts to influence the gaming industry's representations of women? Try googling her: Danielle Riendeau. This is not the only time she has addressed issues of gender and sexuality in games and other media. So if you're suggesting that her review was a "one-shot," I don't think that's a fair assessment.

As to "white knights," whom are you referring to? I can tell you that, for whatever value it has to this discussion, I regularly comment on places like reddit and games blogs about the sexism that I notice in games -- and that's pretty much going to be primarily in the games I play, i.e., the games I enjoy. Why would I bother talking about something I don't care about? For instance: one of my favorite game series is the Mass Effect series. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had with people about how disappointing I found it that the marketing for the first two games was one hundred percent centered on the male Shepard model, with barely even a mention of the fact that Shepard's gender is customizable. It was only with the third game that EA's marketing even acknowledged FemShep's existence -- and even then, the marketing of the female Shepard was limited in scope and felt afterthought-y (which is not to say that I as a fan didn't appreciate the efforts, even if they were less than I would have liked to see in an ideal universe). *None of these observations means I don't absolutely adore the games*. I wouldn't have bothered talking about it (and I talked about it a LOT) if I didn't care so much about the games.

And yeah, I'm only one data point, but I'm an ACTUAL data point, whereas I'm not sure who these people are who only ever talk about sexism in a handful of games they don't care about and never talk about it in games they like. I'm not convinced that this actually describes much of anyone, but I'll certainly concede the point if presented with evidence.

And as to meaningful reviews and not summing things up in a 10-point scale, eh, I dunno. Yes and no, really. I mean, with movies they frequently only use five points -- but that doesn't mean they don't talk about the "why" and the specific aspects of the movie they liked and didn't like, etc. I don't think that having a 10-point scale has to mean you can't talk about these things. If anything, I think transparency about the basis for an award of points can help people get a feel for whether the bases for the points awarded or deducted tend to reflect things that resonate for them.

I'm not talking about that one specific reviewer, just general reviews/criticisms/etc. levied against the game.

"White knights", I'm talking about, again, general commentators/posters, like a lot of the people that jumped on the bandwagon shortly after Kotaku had that story way back when.

EDIT:

Although, to be fair, I'm not seeing anywhere near as many mainstream reviews as I expected with the stance I was talking about, so maybe it's not particularly applicable in this instance.

 

[UrbanRats]

Hey, at least a "cheap power fantasy kids can see as a shallow role model" wouldbe an improvement in the depiction of women in Rockstar games. My original point stands- Rockstar writers are tremendously overrated and the best their female characters can do is live to get pregnant.

This is what i think is bullshit.

We can argue about R*'s writing ability all day, and i'd be the first to say they aren't great writers in an absolute sense, but they certainly write stories above the average AAA title, if with all their problems.
And this goes for their female characters, too.
Their female characters share the writing shortcomings their male characters have, but you absolutely cannot lump them with the rest of the gender classification this industry usually does and your use of single insignificant bullet points to paint a whole character is what i find appalling.
Is Trixie (Deadwood) a bad female character because she's a prostitute, too? You simply cannot brush away an entire character simply because of one decontextualized "bad" characteristic.

That's transforming the search for a good character into a void bucket list of single elements to blindly avoid.
R*'s female characters are often unusual (for the videogames landscape), and very rarely made to appeal to the teenage male audience (barring very specific cases, which is in a satirical way anyhow, like Candy Suxx).
The way Bonnie gets kidnapped is not in any way shape or form even close to the way Peach gets kidnapped.

I honestly don't remember much clearly about SH3 to comment, but Maria is literally a manifestation of the main male character's bitter thoughts about women. It works for the story, I suppose, but I'd hardly defend Maria as a "strong female character".

A character (male or female) doesn't have to be strong nor weak, they have to be interesting.
You can give me the sexy mistress, the fragile nymph or the bad ass cop, and i couldn't care less about all three.
Sure i can understand the need for variety even when it comes to shallow characters, and i support that, but only as long as it doesn't get in the way of genuinely more interesting characters, only as long as it isn't the end game.
And the reasoning you apply in the post above, is exactly what's causing this, brushing away interesting characters because of a shallow criteria.

You certainly don't need to tell me this industry can't make varied female characters, i agree with that notion very much, but i also think that just searching for "strong, positive female characters" in this shallow manner is not the right answer and is, infact, disruptive to whatever interesting characterizations we may have had (as proven by your opinion of R*'s characters).

And speaking of strong females, going back to RDR, Bonnie is a much stronger character than most male ones in RDR, including John, the fact that she gets physically kidnapped at one point (and btw, she shrugs it off like it was nothing, afterwards) doesn't change that.
A "strong character" is not someone that wins at arm wrestling.
Is someone with a strong moral sense, and a strong will.

So do you hold this standard for male characters, too? Because I'm willing to bet you've enjoyed plenty of male characters who do little else than kick bad guys' asses.

I think you're barking at the wrong tree here.
If i ever enjoyed a shallow "badass" character (male or female) i did it either in an ironic way (the way people "enjoy" Schwarzy in Predator) or simply because i loved the game under it, so i am fond of Hayabusa because the game is fun to play, i couldn't give a shit about a Ninja Gaiden movie or comicbook, though.

So yeah, i'd say i absolutely keep the same standard for males in games:
Them being interesting character > them being badasses.

That is not to say i can't enjoy a shallow caricature of a character (male OR female, again) in a more ironic and less self serious way, and that's how i'd probably enjoy Dragon's Crown, too... and as i'm forced to enjoy most videogames, really, exactly because they can't go over the shallow archetypal representation of "strong positive", "weak positive" "weak negative" yadda yadda...

 

[Kagami]

Wait, so if I hear something about a game that makes me decide it isn't for me, and change my mind about buying that game as a result, and mention that decision (and the basis for it) on a public forum, this now translates into an assertion that *no* games that are similar to the game in question should *exist at all*?

It sounds like you interpreted my post as a comment on the entire editorial rather than the part I actually quoted. I would never imply what you wrote there. Of course people should avoid subjecting themselves to offensive content.

I don't think that's a remotely reasonable interpretation either of the comment you posted

It very explicitly uses the word "acceptable." Saying something is "unacceptable" is by definition saying it shouldn't exist. I'm curious how you're able to interpret it some other way. Are you reading it as something like "acceptable (in games for broad audience)" or "acceptable (if they want my money)"?

And what of the women whose, erm, "Twilight" is games (or, if you want to get more specific, cartoonish JRPG side-scrollers)? Do they not have the right to make their voices heard?

Took me a minute to understand this sentence, heh. I think our views on Twilight are very different. In any case, I would never dream of saying such a thing.

As I'm sure you're well aware, Twilight is neither universally nor exclusively loved by "women."

Of course. All the more appropriate to compare Dragon's Crown with it, as we can observe posts from men who find the implication that they should like Dragon's Crown's sexualized content insulting.

you basically implied that "women" like such offensively awful dreck

My apologies. I don't have any negative opinion of Twilight, so I used it as a well-known example of something with sexual-based appeal aimed specifically at women. I'm aware it's considered "trashy," so it seemed an appropriate thing to compare Dragon's Crown with.

And that's just the thing. Women (and men) who make these criticisms about games like this aren't doing it because they think games are bad and that people need to stop making them

I'm fully on your side regarding attempts to discredit legitimate concerns by painting them as the rantings of a bunch of prudes.

 

[IWKYB]

It isn't stupid shit.

"Point goes over head"
Nitpicking in general is. I wasn't dismissing visuals entirely but as a main focus.

 

[IWKYB]

Hey, at least a "cheap power fantasy kids can see as a shallow role model" wouldbe an improvement in the depiction of women in Rockstar games. My original point stands- Rockstar writers are tremendously overrated and the best their female characters can do is live to get pregnant.

I'd say you are full of it but it does make sense considering there is yet a main character that isn't a male mass murderer/racist cop or just about anything other than male.

 

[Nibiru]

The discussion wasn't on the bad review. The discussion was on the specific criticism of misogyny. It was the subject matter of the game that was being discussed for pages and pages. Sure there were some rolling their eyes at the typical Polygon trolling but the initial review thread was post after post of people attacking and defending the subject matter and art style of the game not Polygon.

Jim is in error.

 

[RoninChaos]

I can't take dragon's crown nay sayers seriously (unless they complain about gameplay). This whole matter seems highly contrived and from my point of view not worth debating/talking to others about as it would just be a painful exercise.

Then why the fuck did you even post? Muscle and I have been having a polite conversation about different view points. If you think people like me who have an issue with art style are people with contrived opinions then why even make a comment? You aren't interested in the whys or the hows, so you're just posting to say "I don't care"? lol

 

[The Technomancer]

They are made for guys most likely, which there is nothing wrong with. At least imo there is nothing wrong with that.

These depictions are quite obviously made to be titillating in a very over the top fashion, in line with everything else in the game, oozing sexuality and absurdity simultaneously. Is it necessarily sexist to have a female be titillating however? Does the characters status as something sexual render them incapable of being something more?

The problem is one of frequency. They are part of a larger media culture in which this kind of thing is quite frankly disgustingly common. Not even overtly sexual imagery but the idea of female characters as eye candy designed for men. Some of us are pretty sick of it.