PhazonBlonde Persephone Please drop the hostility. You can express your disagreement without resorting to that.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why women criticise sexualised character designs |OT2| I have no pants and I must scream (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- OT
- Status
And i'm ignoring you and not posting in this thread anymore. GG alienating other queer women;you're sure to win a lot of allies with your combatative attitude /s
Edit: Sorry Morrigan typing that while you were typing your post. Don't worry about me i'm done
Yeah I don't think it's an either/or thing when it comes to fetishization of wlw and mlm. My gay ass loves reveling gay or fujoshi media with straight/bi women, it is fun. My own issue is when women are fine with gay stuff in fics and fanart but don't give gay men that same agency in the real world or in canon works. The "This isn't for you, it's for me" type of mindset is harmful because women whom gatekeep in that way keep gay men out of a medium that actively uses gay male narratives and undertones (whether in fandom spaces or canon works). I think it's fine for women to like and create that stuff but not at the expense of gay/bi men is all i'd say, and many don't do that and advocate for spaces that we can all coexist in. Hell, a lot of my favourite mlm stories are written by straight women, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a nasty side within fandom spaces.
Last edited:
At the same time, I've been in gaming forums were you get gay men getting angry at stuff being designed for straight women, and how it's "typical" they get this and that, when I think of this specific incident the game in question had 7 LIs for straight men, 4 for lesbians, 3 for straight woman and 2 for gay guys, and it was the straight woman they were focusing on. When it was pretty clearly the straight guys that were taking most of the resources. There is a tendency in minorities to blame each other, instead of focusing on were the real imbalance is actually coming from.
It's a legitimate tactic of far-right groups to stir this shit up. It not only takes attention away from them, but it allows them to point at such in-fighting and say to the masses "see, and this is how they treat their own!"
tl;dr
Oh yeah, I never said that gay men have never done problematic things against media for straight women, it's a more complex problem than one lens over the other. I don't think that is relevant to the discussion of fetishization of mlm or wlw specifically though.
It's a legitimate tactic of far-right groups to stir this shit up. It not only takes attention away from them, but it allows them to point at such in-fighting and say to the masses "see, and this is how they treat their own!"
tl;dr
I bet it's already happening somewhere
More an example of how in this thread we've started fighting over who has it worse - I mean I could go into how I've seen gay guys stereotype woman and often end up treating them like objects (not all) but I don't feel like it would be particularly helpful - specially as this thread was meant to be about women character designs. I'm not going to pretend the fetishment of gay pairings isn't a real problem, just the way it's been brought up in this thread, feels like pitting the minorities against each other. Hence the previous example of were I've seen it happen.
So if there are arguments it's that and if we largely agree it's a hivemind?
On one hand: "Era is an echo chamber 1!!!1!!l
On the other: "Hahahaha they can't even agree with each other 1!!!"
You can't win either way -.-
There will always be some disagreements and debates even amongst oppressed groups, I think healthy discussions pertaining to those matters is fine and even necessary.
On the other: "Hahahaha they can't even agree with each other 1!!!"
You can't win either way -.-
There will always be some disagreements and debates even amongst oppressed groups, I think healthy discussions pertaining to those matters is fine and even necessary.
OP
OP
So I finally checked those and they are awesome. Seen a few of them before but there were some new ones too. Thanks for the link!
Hi. Nice to meet you. Can we be friends?
(I think you mean Alys not Alyssa! But she's great yeah, one of my favourites. For once the senior mentor figure is a woman, too.)
Haha if that's true that's a damn SJW ruining the artist visi... oh wait :)
Have you played any of the Dishonored games? I think Emily (2) and especially Billie (DotO) would be right up your alley.
Gotta break the hivemind (lol) and disagree on that one. Can't stand her. Her visual design is fine and a massive improvement over Pointy McTits, but her personality is so, so boring. She, and the games themselves (ok I only played 2013 but I assume it's the same in the sequel) are just incredibly poorly written.
LOL! "OmG wE cAn'T EvEn AgReE wItH eAcH oThEr!!!"
No but really, that's fine. What about the reboot series did you find to be poorly written? What did you find in her personality that you disliked? Also have you been checking out Shadow of the Tomb Raider? I think that game portrays her best out of the reboot trilogy. In Rise of the Tomb Raider, I was personally turned off at her constant mentions of "Father was right!" and "I'm almost there!" lol. I mean the very first time she said those were okay, but yeah constantly... ugh. But in any case, I'd like to hear from you to know your perspective of her and her reboot series.
Oh yeah, definitely, I didn't mean to imply that sexism doesn't exist in the gay community at all, and if I did so, then I'll def apologize for that! I don't think Persephone nor I ever intended to say that "we have it worse" nor to pit one identity over another, both of us have made several posts throughout this thread about the topic at hand. Neither of us have explicitly said that "we have it worse". It was more so that certain aspects of fetishization can be harmful in fandom spaces specifically. It was just a general segway about "male bonding" from an overarching conversation around the female gaze and women's media but I understand that this might not be the thread to talk about such things. But again, neither of us said that "we have it worse" nor did we pit our experience against others. My experience shouldn't invalidate anyone else's but the vice versa is also true.
Last edited:
Oh gosh, that got sooo annoying. The recent Tomb Raider movie did the same thing.
ME? Because yeah it was ridiculous.
Also my main issue with the skimpy armor is it often feels not optional. Like I like skimpy armor at times for certain characters. But don't make certain armor sets on female characters absurd then normal looking for males. Have it skimpy for both for consistency and this armor shouldn't be something I feel forced to use. Heck I'll gladly use an armor with lower stats if I think it looks good enough. But I'm one of those if it makes sense it's fine. It's just so often the "but it makes sense on her!" is a case of "not really tho?"
Phew, I finally finished catching up on the old thread and was excited to finally jump into the new one... and it's already 500 posts in. Welp.
Since this is my first post here, I wanted to bring up a personal recollection of mine on that topic which I remember strongly. I was playing Star Ocean 2 remake, which... had its own eye-rolling moments, but was definitely still a higher point in the series compared to what came after it. Somewhere near the end there's a schene in which Claude and Rena (the male and female leads, respectively) have a conversation wherein Rena laments about how useless she is in combat and how she feels guilty for being a dead weight while the good dude protagonist Claude tries to cheer her up. At that point I started shouting "NO WTF YOU WERE THE MAIN HEALER IN MY PARTY WE WOULD BE DEAD A THOUSAND TIMES WITHOUT YOU" at the screen and nearly threw my PSP onto the floor.
I'm now wondering whether this was in the original PS1 game or is a remake "special" (there's plenty of stupid anime trope crap which I suspect was not there originally).
Since this is my first post here, I wanted to bring up a personal recollection of mine on that topic which I remember strongly. I was playing Star Ocean 2 remake, which... had its own eye-rolling moments, but was definitely still a higher point in the series compared to what came after it. Somewhere near the end there's a schene in which Claude and Rena (the male and female leads, respectively) have a conversation wherein Rena laments about how useless she is in combat and how she feels guilty for being a dead weight while the good dude protagonist Claude tries to cheer her up. At that point I started shouting "NO WTF YOU WERE THE MAIN HEALER IN MY PARTY WE WOULD BE DEAD A THOUSAND TIMES WITHOUT YOU" at the screen and nearly threw my PSP onto the floor.
I'm now wondering whether this was in the original PS1 game or is a remake "special" (there's plenty of stupid anime trope crap which I suspect was not there originally).
Wow, off topic but... That sounds like Sakura from Naruto lmao.
For real, hearing that repeatedly ending up nauseating me.
I just came across this piece of art by GisAlmeida.
I'm just posting it here because we often talk about how mere nakedness isn't necessarily the same thing as sexual objectification, but we rarely have concrete examples of male sexual objectification in contrast to female empowerment, especially in the same picture. What makes it even more frustratingly complicated is when there is legitimate artistic merit to the art itself (as in, the craft of the drawing, like this one), it further muddles the discussion because opponents frame the craft being good as meaning that the sexual objectification cannot be a problem.
So here we have a shining female knight in armor making a power pose while a bunch of nude hunks gather themselves around her in suggestive poses, very impractically on what seems to be as deadly battlefield. I hope it proves useful to any arguments that people in this thread may have with people who cannot understand the distinction.
On another note, I have to say, I feel a bit weird as a straight dude wanting to see more of this kind of male sexual objectification. Because I know other feminists disagree and believe spreading sexual objectification to both genders wouldn't solve the problem, but I'm not sure I agree. Maybe if we saw male sexual objectification in tandem with female sexual objectification in our art, people would be less inclined to take the objectification too far and make it dehumanizing and just enjoy the titillation without creating negative attitudes towards actual people.
I'm just posting it here because we often talk about how mere nakedness isn't necessarily the same thing as sexual objectification, but we rarely have concrete examples of male sexual objectification in contrast to female empowerment, especially in the same picture. What makes it even more frustratingly complicated is when there is legitimate artistic merit to the art itself (as in, the craft of the drawing, like this one), it further muddles the discussion because opponents frame the craft being good as meaning that the sexual objectification cannot be a problem.
So here we have a shining female knight in armor making a power pose while a bunch of nude hunks gather themselves around her in suggestive poses, very impractically on what seems to be as deadly battlefield. I hope it proves useful to any arguments that people in this thread may have with people who cannot understand the distinction.
On another note, I have to say, I feel a bit weird as a straight dude wanting to see more of this kind of male sexual objectification. Because I know other feminists disagree and believe spreading sexual objectification to both genders wouldn't solve the problem, but I'm not sure I agree. Maybe if we saw male sexual objectification in tandem with female sexual objectification in our art, people would be less inclined to take the objectification too far and make it dehumanizing and just enjoy the titillation without creating negative attitudes towards actual people.
honestly its not even lara's characterization that bugs me abt new!TR it's the gross fetishization of her being in danger/getting maimed
the later games toned it down but the clips of her getting impaled/stabbed/etc are like legitimately the most disgusting thing ive ever seen in a video game. like that shit couldnt have been an accident and its horrible
the later games toned it down but the clips of her getting impaled/stabbed/etc are like legitimately the most disgusting thing ive ever seen in a video game. like that shit couldnt have been an accident and its horrible
This always annoys me in rpgs, that characters with essential support abilities claim they are dead weight only because 90% of the conflict and story is resolved by reducing enemy HP to zero, and thus 'hitting stuff with pointy bit of metal that spits out increasingly-high numeric values' is the magic skill everyone thinks is exceptional, powerful and a mark of both leadership and noble defiance against the odds because the story says so. If I was exploring a hostile environment in constant combat with both the flora and fauna and an enemy army, and our party contained a magic healer type who could administer antivenom, fix broken bones and gunshot wounds in seconds and practically raise the dead from a near-unlimited MP pool, then it would seem to me that they are easily the most powerful, useful and least disposable member of the party and we'd be dead in minutes without them. But no, I suppose the protagonist's desire to personally clash swords with something is the mark of usefulness. It's magnified by young women in the party often being relegated to 'support' roles rather than the leader, the professional warrior, the tank etc. Conveniently, the only roles that aren't 'support' tend to be melee combat which tends to attract the male characters, presumably out of the idea that close combat is dirty and brutal and something only men can do. This is also why you get 'little sister' characters and young women with zero upper body strength as archers, or as healers/mages. 'Support' and 'clean' roles rather than 'frontline' ones. Guess which half of the party is more likely to claim they aren't doing anything. I suppose you could argue that real frontline soldiers often complain about their support elements not contributing, but the difference is such elements are miles away rather than fighting alongside them.
I suppose it's the difference between 'the hero's journey' and it's depiction of a quest built around choice, willpower, close combat with a fated enemy, the use of violence sanctioned by a higher power, the clash of blades as competing wills and ideologies and the required increase in martial strength to win, compared to something like Fantasy Life or Altelier. Where your swordsmen can be just replaceable jobber mercenaries to do the stabby thing while you get on with the real hero business (depending on what you've chosen to be as your current job) of fishing/picking ingredients/carpentry etc!
You can also see it in action in MMOs where every party member is the protagonist to their own player, no matter the class. Even then the DPS types consistently moan at healers and defensive units they perceive as not doing their job, but rarely the other way around as the support characters are spinning too many plates to worry about the DPS efficiency of 'EdgyA$$asin2003' :D
Even when I play tabletop RPGs I lean towards support characters, and seem to receive a barrage of advice and criticism on what to do whereas my comments on ill-thought-through attack plans rarely seem as welcome. I strategise based on what we need to do vs what we can cope with+keeping something in reserve, which I suppose seems a bit less heroic than 'kick down the door, kill everything in an explosive display of brutal skills, and hope the enemy hasn't realised our 'tactics' rarely extend more than two minutes out!' Bless them. Literally in some cases.
Last edited:
The weird thing about Star Ocean 2 is...
...Rena is a potential protagonist, technically. The game just pretends that she's not contributing. Because only swords count, apparently. Writers just couldn't imagine that Rena would be important, even though in the gameplay, she absolutely is over and over and over. The original PSX game had that too, LiegeWaffle, and it was weird.
Torment actually had a pretty neat subversion of the "useless party member", but then it's a game where you technically only have to do three fights or so. To the point that Gamers(TM) complained there wasn't enough fighting. Yeah.
...Rena is a potential protagonist, technically. The game just pretends that she's not contributing. Because only swords count, apparently. Writers just couldn't imagine that Rena would be important, even though in the gameplay, she absolutely is over and over and over. The original PSX game had that too, LiegeWaffle, and it was weird.
Torment actually had a pretty neat subversion of the "useless party member", but then it's a game where you technically only have to do three fights or so. To the point that Gamers(TM) complained there wasn't enough fighting. Yeah.
That is why we need that imaginary Moribito game adaptation of mine to be real!
Badass woman mama bear with sick spear skills.
Badass woman mama bear with sick spear skills.
Damn, I remember that anime. It was so different form anything we are talking about here. A badass female character that doesn't mind avoiding fights when she can and isn't sexualized. There's even a bath scene and she isn't objectified in that either.
You have to define what you think is the problem for us to properly evaluate that. Treating it as a ratio problem doesn't seem like a sufficient solution, and a rather reductionist categorization.
Could you be a bit more precise as to who these "other feminists" you're not sure you agree with? Any breakdown of arguments?
More objectification isn't going to fix the problem. The source is the behavior pattern whereby people are subject to commodification; which is exploitative by nature.
All art without an interlocutor is simply commodity, and art itself cannot be made without a discourse to evolve it. And commodification actively distorts discourse, and thus, evolution. There may be an argument to be made that the distortion itself is evolutionary, but so far little beyond survival has come from the transition, as art itself takes on consumptive practices.
All art without an interlocutor is simply commodity, and art itself cannot be made without a discourse to evolve it. And commodification actively distorts discourse, and thus, evolution. There may be an argument to be made that the distortion itself is evolutionary, but so far little beyond survival has come from the transition, as art itself takes on consumptive practices.
Last edited:
When someone suggests "more objectification" as a solution, I'm curious as to what they think is "the problem".
The most notable one I can think of is Anita Sarkessian, who goes on record to say that trying to flip traditionally female tropes into male ones (not just fanservice, but also damsels in distress -> dudes in distress and such) isn't the way forward because those tropes make for reduced humanization. And to be honest, I don't think that argument is without merit for the most part. It's not that I disagree entirely with that notion, it's just that I think objectification is as much a social phenomenon as anything else, and therefore has it's place in both real life and in storytelling. Plus, we generally don't see non-sexualized objectification as bad (for example, using someone as a career measuring stick, like if you decide to objectify Neil Degrass Tyson as the kind of scientist you want to be). As such, my argument is the problem is sexual objectification is often misused rather than being something that has no place anywhere or is bad in all circumstances. On the other hand, arguments have been raised that if sexualization is used 'properly', then it's not objectification at all because it's not dehumanizing people, so it might be a case of me getting my semantics wrong.
Other than that, I can't say specifics because it's a matter of debate that I have had over years with various people in threads that have various nuances to that general argument. I also want to say that my not being sure I agree with them isn't to say that I don't think there is validity to the statement. I'm basically coming from the idea that there IS a place where sexualization...even shallow, impractical, cheesecake sexualization that has no higher purpose than to titillate... can have place in our art. The problem, as I see it, is that that sexualization is both strongly gendered and often written to lessen the worth of people. Culturally, I want sexualization to move to a place where it can be harmless enjoyment, and for that purpose, I posit that maybe more male sexual objectification like in that art piece, can help with that. It just seems that a lot of the problem of sexualization comes from the idea that being sexualized is an inherently humiliating and dehumanizing thing, because its used to prop up male power fantasies. Maybe if it happens more evenly, maybe it will be normalized and being sexualized won't be viewed as inherently negative.
Tyson isn't being objectified when he's idolized. Like those are pretty close to opposites actually. I think there are dangers to idolizing people too much too, but saying you want to be like a scientist that is largely respected around the world isn't negative nor dehumanizing to either yourself or Tyson. Objectification is an actively reductive practice, where the character is washed away. Which again, isn't the case with Tyson because him being a notable scientist has a lot of context.
Sexualization is not necessarily the same thing as objectification. A character can be sexual and can enjoy a certain amount of empowerment from that, but you have to realize that due to the thousands of years of imbalance, there is currently no timeline that, in our lifetimes at least, will tip the scales such that it is simply harmless enjoyment. And making all characters demeaned in the same way just sounds miserable, and that's really the only end where things are equal. Which is to say that everyone suffers, which isn't something I think anyone wants. Moving things forward means pushing ourselves out of old paradigms and into new ones, not simply regurgitating the mistakes of the past. Yes, that's difficult, but the situation won't be fixed by means of, "the beatings will continue until morale improves". You have to think and act above where you are.
Last edited:
And while there's a lot of talk about how difficult the solution to making non-objectified female characters is, it really isn't all that complex. All a creator has to do is to write their female characters as good characters first, and then to add traits and designs that help to inform said characterization. The problem is that all too many game developers think that quirks and archetypes are sufficient replacements for characterization and that the goal of character design is attractiveness rather than whatever will serve the character.
It's less of a problem in other media, so I think that one of the root causes why so many female character designs are sexualized is because gaming is a relatively immature art form and it's going through some growing pains. It's getting a lot better in recent years though as a lot of Western developers are starting to get the picture. Unfortunately Japan is a different story as this conversation doesn't really exist there.
We seem to agree in the actual meanings of what we say, but the semantics is what we get tangled up in. Objectification, in a vacuum, is a neutral term and as such, idolization is just a form of objectification, which is why I used NDT as a positive example of objectification. It's not a disrespectful form of it, but ultimately, you're not looking at Tyson's personhood, but his career achievements and social status. And it's not wrong to do so, so long as you realize that there is more to NDT than just those things, which is where personhood comes in.
And therein lies the problem of what sexual objectification usually brings. We seem to agree that for sexualization (or idolization, or whatever-ization) to be good, it cannot actively deny the character of the person in question. Most sexual objectification of women seems to do that and from that results the dehumanization of real live people that hurts lives. That's bad and should stop. I just don't think mere power fantasies, that often partake in objectification in all sorts of ways, do that. It's the unhealthy projection of those power fantasies onto the real world that does that.
And such power fantasies are also fun and feel good. It's fun for me to pretend to be a cool badass that women fall over themselves for. It's a good feeling, even when it's shallow artistically. I want women to have that sort of power fantasy. And transgendered people too, and gay people, and everyone. It's not that I want people to be equally demeaned to an equal level, but rather that I want people to be brought up to the kinds of things that, now, only straight, white dudes enjoy. As such, things like that art piece depicting a badass woman hero while a bunch of sexy dudes fall over themselves for just doesn't seem like a poisoned gift to me. I feel like having more of that would just bring to light how silly such things can be, but also how they can also just be harmless fun as long as you aware they don't apply to real life. There is a joy to these things, and I want that joy to be shared to those who have been denied it.
(also, I want to note that this doesn't mean I want ALL art to be like this, any more than I want all art to be shallow male power fantasies. We need art that is greatly humanizing in greater quantities than shallow power fantasies. I'm just saying, in measured doses, this sort of stuff can be fun.)
That said, I 100% agree that the history of our culture will prevent a fully equal parity between genders on this front. Thousands of years of female objectification won't just go away, even if we were to somehow adopt this ideology overnight.
Last edited:
I've also mentioned this a few pages back as I still feel like it's relevant to the discussion at hand; I don't think objectifying men comes with the same consequences as objectifying women because we live in a social context where women's bodies are treated differently from men's. You can't just flip the script and expect the same results when both sexes have different sociocultural dynamics. I don't think there's a suitable male analogue to some of the most extreme cases of female objectification. "Twilight" for example, isn't as harmful to men I would say as some of the more mainstream ways women are objectified in media made by straight men for straight men, it's been normalized for so long as well. Of course objectification of men or women has the potential to harm both sexes respectively but I think that flipping the script and expecting things to change based off that alone is fruitless because both gendered bodies adhere to different social consequences. Women being titliated isn't the same as men being titilated in a social context where women being objectified is the default social context that many women have to grow up with (hence, the higher rates of body related issues and eating disorders).
Objectification is not a neutral term when it refers to people/characters. And again, you weren't talking about objectification when you were referring to NDT and idolization is not a form of objectification. Idolizing people elevates them, objectifying reduces them.
Power fantasies are inherently problematic because of exactly what you present. They elevate the player largely at the expense of others and that's a really big problem, not least of which is because of the toxicity inherent in elevating a person unreasonably or pushing them to a place that is beyond reproach. It reinforces and encourages demeaning behavior. While there may be use of it as an outlet for a feeling of repression the player feels, that outlet is limited and past a certain point it simply poisons the well further. It is part of the reason video games themselves suffer from such toxic communities, because they often reinforce unreasonable expectations.
You're doing a lot of projecting and making broad assumptions here. Not everyone enjoys objectifying other people in this way. It's mostly a male fantasy.
Okay, so whats the term for when you think of people as means to an end. Lets drop NDT specifically as an example. Suppose that you instead covet the position of one of the higher ups at a company. This isn't to say that you respect them, but you instead just want their power and the ability to act like they do (for example, to be it being secure in the position of the company. It could conceivably even something negative like being able to crap on lower rung employees if your malicious, but it doesn't have to be that). I used NDT because he was the example I thought of before, but my thinking is that the desire to model yourself after that person isn't something that has inherent respect in it. It just needs to be something you want out of it. It could be for any reason, including selfish ones, though not necessarily to the detriment of anyone. What do you call that in which you see certain people as things that you use, not necessarily with malice, but not necessarily with respect or benevolence either? People you just neutrally use, psychologically, but without actually necessarily harming anyone?
Sure, but at the same time, it doesn't poison all things or all people. And I already agreed in my post that it cannot be the default model or something to base real life behavior on...but as a fantasy? As entertainment? I'm not sure I'm convinced it poisons the whole well to the extent your suggesting.
I mean, when you come down to it, the idea I'm proposing is for minorities to have the same kind of escapist outlet white guys can use responsibly. And if other minorities have them, maybe white guys won't feel as entitled to ownership of those feelings of superiority. They just recognize them for what they are: A fun fantasy.
Fair point and I agree, it's not gonna be for everyone. I just want it to be available to those who do want it.
Last edited:
Everything, everything, and no. Haha.
...Does this answer the question? >_> I'm rather tired right now so my elaboration will be mediocre, but TR2013 was a bad pulpy adventure story that took itself way too seriously, it had no charm, wit, or anything fun about it (compared to Uncharted which is the opposite). Every character is one-dimensional and forgettable, and it's not like there's a clever plot to support it either. Everything is generic, with over-the-top dialogue played straight like we're supposed to be emotionally involved but you just end up groaning or rolling your eyes instead.
I am having a difficult time wrapping my head around this. Value judgments about people are not neutral. If you desire to model yourself after a person, you respect them or some trait they demonstrate. People don't get used "neutrally". Like... that's not a thing. This line of thinking in general seems really poisonous and dehumanizing.
Power fantasies kind of do poison the community though? I think different people are more or less affected by it, but the fact that it's there and it actively encourages unreasonable activity does have regressive behavioral effects over long periods of time. There's other possible contributors, not least of which is the fact that many of these come from traditionalist viewpoints from the outset, given many are set in historical or fantastical wars. Regardless of where the origin is though, it's still the equivalent of psychological junk food.
edit: anyway, need to sleep
Last edited:
Of course they do, all the time. Wanting to be like someone is not inherently a sign that you respect them as a person, it just means they have something you want. Often, these value judgements coincide with personal respect, but it's not necessarily the case. At the same time, that doesn't automatically mean you're doing something wrong if you do it without harming people. That's why I originally used NDT- You don't necessarily have to respect NDT as a person to want to do what he does and have the kind of status he does, and you don't necessarily have to harm anyone to get to where he is. All you need to do to get to where he is is be personable and study the shit out of science (as well as have the opportunities he has had, obviously). To me, that's using NDT as a conceptual idea for your benefit but without harming anyone to make it happen - a case of neutrally using someone as an object (in this case, a career model).
Edit: I thought of a better example of this or atleast a less abstract one: Your normal cashiers of various stores. You pay them money and they let you walk out of a store with whatever you bought. Functionally, they are just vendors, money in, product out. Sure, potentially, you can strike up a conversation or whatever, but basically, you just use them as a function to get what you want out of a store. It doesn't mean you have any kind of disrespect for them as people, but you're still using them as basically vending machines...because, at least in the context of the transaction, that's what they are. And this doesn't preclude your acknowledgement of them as human beings, but it's also a separate thing from you just getting what you want. So that's a case of using people as objects in everyday life.
Again, good points, but the perspective I'm coming at it from is that this is a fantasy that as of now is primarily only available to white men. It creates a feeling that because male power fantasies are so prevalent, that implies to culture that it's because men are the rightful inheritors of power. To my mind, what having power fantasies for minorities in equal proportion would solve is the idea that white, straight men are a special and isolated demographic that indulges in that power. It's something that everyone shares in and thus are just like them.
And again, I totally agree that we need humanizing works more and in greater quantity. but a bit of junkfood now and then isn't going to kill anyone, so might as well share it around.
And I also want to admit here that I might be wrong. It's just my hypothesis and I don't know for sure that's how things would turn out. But I have had a lot of joy from comics nad games and books that are power fantasies, and I want others to feel that joy. If there are others that feel like me, I don't feel that's toxic or dehumanizing. It's just the idea of letting people indulge themselves like I have.
Last edited:
I'm really, really not sure about that last part.
First, as much as I know there is no such thing a "human nature", I strongly believe we'll have a hard time departing from a number of "habits", one of them being empowerment. We like to feel glorified and probably will for quite some time before that changes, if that's even possible. Power fantasies can act as catharsis for that. Yes, it's a pharmakon, it's both a poison and a cure.
Secondly, that's I think a problem which is even more political than it may seem. I still need to wrap my head around most of what I will write now, but I 100% believe it is no random occurrence that alt-right movements and gamer-centric movements are so closely tied. And while you may answer me that it's because of the power fantasies prevalence side effects, I'll answer that I think the root of the issue lie deeper that that. It goes way beyond the simple power fantasy paradigm. It's tied to both substance and form. It's tied to how violence is portrayed as an omni-solution (form). It's tied to of course how women are represented (form). But also to how most games involve infinite resource accumulation one way or another (substance). Or how management is a central part in most gameplay mechanisms (substance). I won't say the big bad word, you know what it is.
But this is starting to become off-topic, so I'll leave it at that for now :)
While I agree that power fantasies can be trouble, there's degrees. You can have everyone look up to the hero and praise him, or you can simply have a cool character that some like, some dislike, that has strengths, and weaknesses, and that is a power fantasy because of the things done. The former sucks, but the latter is important to have. Having heroes is great. Heroes do not need to be heroes at the expense of others, they can do so by elevating others and themselves, and that kind of heroism we need more of, not less.
The problem with videogame power fantasies mostly is the ego stroking. The player is always right, always told to be the best in those. That's not a mandatory part. Heroism can be really hard. Play "Superbrothers Sword & Sorcery" for an example of a heroine where the heroism is sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, and hard work, and no other character is denigrated for it. Metroid is another. Samus Aran is not a character that exists to stroke the players ego, and she's still an awesome character to look up to.
The same goes for player service. I do not believe that "sexualized dudes" are a problem. Sexualized women are because they feed into societal attitudes that don't exist for men. I'd even go further and say that women enjoying yaoi, and men enjoying yuri, is GOOD. Really good in fact. It can breed empathy for others, interest in others, and lead to more stories and representation for everyone. Everyone only playing stories for their specific subgroup would be a net loss. Yaoi doesn't have to have bad parts, and neither does yuri (Particularly if you consider how much of it is female written and female aimed. Takemiya Jin is not an author that does exploitative yuri, and she's female, writing for women, many of which are straight).
That's just me and my opinion on it, mind you, but it'd be a HUGE loss if women reading m/m stories, straight people reading LGBT stories, men reading f/f stories was all bad. A loss for everyone. We connect through other peoples by meeting them, and by connecting people we can't meet through stories.
The problem with videogame power fantasies mostly is the ego stroking. The player is always right, always told to be the best in those. That's not a mandatory part. Heroism can be really hard. Play "Superbrothers Sword & Sorcery" for an example of a heroine where the heroism is sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice, and hard work, and no other character is denigrated for it. Metroid is another. Samus Aran is not a character that exists to stroke the players ego, and she's still an awesome character to look up to.
The same goes for player service. I do not believe that "sexualized dudes" are a problem. Sexualized women are because they feed into societal attitudes that don't exist for men. I'd even go further and say that women enjoying yaoi, and men enjoying yuri, is GOOD. Really good in fact. It can breed empathy for others, interest in others, and lead to more stories and representation for everyone. Everyone only playing stories for their specific subgroup would be a net loss. Yaoi doesn't have to have bad parts, and neither does yuri (Particularly if you consider how much of it is female written and female aimed. Takemiya Jin is not an author that does exploitative yuri, and she's female, writing for women, many of which are straight).
That's just me and my opinion on it, mind you, but it'd be a HUGE loss if women reading m/m stories, straight people reading LGBT stories, men reading f/f stories was all bad. A loss for everyone. We connect through other peoples by meeting them, and by connecting people we can't meet through stories.
We're going to fundamentally disagree on this. I am not going to intentionally treat people like vending machines (and will try to avoid doing so unintentionally as well), and I don't think you or anyone else should either. What you are presenting is an inherently dehumanizing worldview. You cannot say that you don't disrespect people while also thinking of them as vending machines, even if solely in a transactional sense.
Consider
a) power fantasies are largely a creation of and by white men, and that it may not transfer to other groups or
b) even if it does, it may fundamentally look different from what white men imagine it as or
c) power fantasies for minorities are not going to solve the issues related to the isolation imposed white men, which is a problem white men created for themselves, and
d) sharing the same media with the same problems rather than evolving it isn't just intellectually lazy, it harms the media by being satisfied with the status quo, because the status quo perpetuates systemic inequalities longstanding in the media we consume
I agree with the first statement. It has both positive and negative effects. I don't know the full extent of those effects. I'm simply positing.
As for the second, I am unsure, but I do agree that it's not just the power fantasy itself. I think there are a myriad of factors involved, of which the power fantasy as intellectual junk food is one.
Okay, but like, I'm not sure I'd qualify those the latter examples as power fantasies simply because you have power you wouldn't normally have. Those are just... well, regular fantasies, and meritocratic ones at that.
I suppose I'll say that I prefer this definition of power fantasy, as per The Enemy:
(would encourage everyone to read the full article if they can)
And to emphasize, I do think the issue is one that, as described in The Enemy article, relates to how we interact with power in games: video games are too much about having "power over" rather than "power to". One provides opportunities for building empathy and consideration of others, while the other is simply about dominance and control.
One more quote:
Last edited:
Lol, yes! This very well does answer my questions... for now!
One more quote, since problematizing power fantasy is a good article relating to how games can be used to empower: "One answer is to resist our own assumptions, as game designers, about what power looks like. For example, we do not exist outside cultural narratives that tell us what color skin belongs to the hero, and what color to the villain; what gender rescues and what gender is rescued; what sexual orientation is central and what is secondary. If we are going to define who gets to be powerful in play, then we can at least undermine, rather than reinforce, the stereotypes of the rest of society. We can make games that give a voice to the powerless rather than reinforcing the centrality of the powerful.
This responsibility doesn't just extend to how we represent power in games, but also in the way we construct cultures of play. When we create game structures that punish bullies rather than rewarding them, we {game designers} are using our own power over players responsibly."
This responsibility doesn't just extend to how we represent power in games, but also in the way we construct cultures of play. When we create game structures that punish bullies rather than rewarding them, we {game designers} are using our own power over players responsibly."
They may not be power fantasies for the average male gamer, sure, but...as your article mentions (and it is a good article, thanks for linking it), that isn't the only way. And for other audience (like the one including me), they absolutely *are* power fantasies, just less negative ones.
I know plenty of people whose closest "power fantasy" is not a brutal action game, not a violent shooter, but a park management game - completely ignored in the main discussion or general targetting decisions of the industry.
What one really would like being empowered to differs wildly, and I feel a large problem of the games industry is that it often laserfocuses on a tiny part of it, the one easily marketable to impressionable male teens, and blends out every other option.
Criticizing the way many interact with games - expecting power over - is one thing, and it is an important thing. But to me, a more important criticism is the lack of acknowledgement for other ways that already exist and are often not even unpopular. Just ignored and minimized.
I pretty much agree with this. It's obviously important to look at more and different ideologies, and for me that was largely summarized in the series, "Ways of Seeing" (a book, but also a great BBC series): that what is seen is not reality, but reality as reflected through our lens, which has been shaped by our sociocultural situation, by time, by technology, and many other things, but of which, importantly, are also almost entirely out of our direct control. And as such it becomes critically important to question not just the material, but the values that both inform the material and the values which the material itself presents.
I hope you will consider what I arrange, but be skeptical of it.
Last edited:
I also recommend reading The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin. It does a good job highlighting why art developed in the past are different from contemporary works of art; that the understanding and treatment of art and of artistic technique must progressively develop in order to understand a work of art in the modern context.
Also for context, Ways of Seeing was a response to Kenneth Clark's Civilisation series (that's still fueling the Western traditionalist canon), making it highly relevant still.
2002 mmorpg.... lets see the designs.
For anyone that is not familiar with the game you start as a novice and can choose a class.
Here after the novice artwork I put the class and it's evolution.
After the release it took a long time to have more than once choice for said evolution so I am only putting the ones that were close to actual release date (Swordsman -> Knight ... so no Crusader or any evolution of knight like Rune Knight)
It is interesting to note, like even if Swordsman has some boob plate, it's evolved class does not !
And how most designs are pretty in line with it's male counterparts... even if there are some ... exceptions.
It is pretty impressive for a game that is 16 years old that came from asia.
I wonder if the fact that in the end the actual game sprites were sd and small ?
So even the more problematic artwork ended up pretty tame in comparison ...
What I am trying to say is that this game that is old enough to drink in some places made in the land of bikini armors .... has better design than some 2018 games
- Status