You still didn't reply me why do you think one is a unrealistic sexualized gear for women and the other is a unrealistic non sexualized gear for men.
-
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 (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- Status
You still didn't reply me why do you think one is a unrealistic sexualized gear for women and the other is a unrealistic non sexualized gear for men.
The rags argument isn't even a good one, because pretty much everyone thinks it's dumb too that rags+10 would offer better protection than a steel plate+1. :P But when you start throwing sexism in the mix, well, it becomes all the more annoying.
Because it's the why that's important. Why is the steel plate turn into boob plate for the women? And the answer isn't just "it's not realistic anyways so shut up". Even within the veils of unrealism, there are things that can take someone out. Rags upgraded to be more defensive than steel plate is a game decision because it directly affects the game. Remind me, what does boob plate do that is so important, that every women needs to have their armor magically changed so it becomes that? Even if there is an in-game reason, it only serves as an excuse for the real reason: audience titillation. And if the entire game was based around titilation, then we wouldn't be complaining about it. But since this comes from a game where it isn't the main goal of the game, this sticks out more.
Neither is realistic.
The male version makes your character look cool.
The female version makes your character look like a stripper.
Do you not see the point?
Men are given armor that they want to wear and women are given armor that men want to see them wear. Often this ends up with men having more practical armor, that's not the main point though.
You are nitpicking a really bizarre angle here.
You are nitpicking a really bizarre angle here.
Ah, I'm actually glad you brought up Mobius. I recall the old thread about it on GAF when it was first revealed and I admit I (and many others) called the original design something like "absolutely stupid". I'll freely admit that at the time I wasn't yet exposed to these kind of discussions and perspectives from a lot of women, so it didn't even cross my mind then just how lacking in self-awareness I was when I made that comment. Here was a male character with a relatively skimpy design and I was slightly wringing my nose at it, without stopping to realise that he would have been an anomaly in a genre that is so predominantly filled with the equivalent for female characters. It just never yet occurred to me that my immediate reaction to seeing the main character's original design would have been very similar to many women who genuinely want to experience a game like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (and many others), only to be disappointed and appalled when they realise it's yet another transparent attempt to appeal to the male gaze. Except obviously women would experience it a hundredfold by comparison.
So yeah, quite telling that they ended up changing the Mobius main character's design to make him look more modest, only to come out with an actual playable female character who looks like...well...
All in all, I'm very thankful for thread topics like this and I commend all the regulars in here, even when the disingenuous trolls are trying to batter down the door in bad faith (I'm going to hazard a guess and say places like Voat are keeping a close eye on this thread). It's comprehensive as heck, genuinely intriguing and has been another valuable resource for me, particularly in helping me to further understand women's perspectives on this issue.
No shit, I say myself in my post you quote that both are unrealistic, but you still didn't explain why one is sexualized and the other not.
You're either missing or ignoring the point of this whole thread.
Yep! That's why I think empathy and reflection helps a lot. It's just about putting yourself in the shoes of the other, you just need to be willing to do it.
I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to say.
'Unrealistic' game mechanics do not negate criticism of visual design. You are missing the point entirely.
I don't disagree bikini armours etc are to make female characters more sexualised and there are plenty of valid arguments regarding this.
Again, my issue is with realism criticisms.
"I don't like bikini armour because XYZ" is fine, "I don't like bikini armour because XYZ and it's not realistic" I'm kinda calling BS on.
Why? Because most of every game is unrealistic. If you love a game but wanna criticise the bikini armours and add "It's not realistic", to single out that one unrealistic thing in a game full of them, to criticise just that as being unrealistic, it seems disingenuous. That it's taking the personal opinion then adding a neutral criticism to make the opinion seem less like an opinion and more like a fact. If realism was really that important it would mean that person shouldn't like much of the game at all.
Games have elements of fantasy in them, but usually provide a believable base. This is important to immersion even in sci-fi games. Certain things can largely damage that base, like having your character fight practically in the nude.
It's bizarre, it's as if you're suggesting that all these people think that games are realistic in all regards and they're being hypocritical to score a point.
Holy shit, that's exactly what people were doing until you strode in with "but realism doesn't matter so it's okay if they're titillating".
We were doing that, until you came in here talking to us about a technicality. If you are so focused on this one thing that you are ignoring the entire point, then I don't know what to say. No one was calling for realism. And furthermore, some things can pull someone out of the world then others despite both being unrealistic. So something being unrealistic is still a valid complaint, because out of the entire game, despite it featuring fantastical elements, this one thing is what brought me out of the game.
Don't try to misquote me, and realistic complaints aren't my invention.
Your post is frankly, bollocks.
Which is exactly what people here were doing before you came along...
If that wasn't your intent, you've really bollocksed up your argument, because that's what you've been arguing this whole time.
What the fuck is that argument? "You complain that the second one should offer less protection, but in the game, it doesn't, so you're wrong"? Circular reasoning doesn't even begin to describe it. :D
Also your point about a game only needing to abide by its own rules is disingenuous. All games start out as "like reality unless noted"; for a metal bikini to offer any kind of protection, you have to remove yourself so far from the real world you wouldn't be able to see it with a telescope. How does that even work? Does it project a force field over the exposed skin? It makes the wearer's flesh harden? You might not give a fuck and say "it's just a game" but a lot of people clearly disagree and like that games make an attempt to portray a realistic world within their capabilities... except when it comes to this.
You starting point was pulling realism to the subject, where it was not discussed.
There are plenty of posts in thread using a realism argument. I didn't post in response to nothing.
...are you taking this piss?
Or is your point really, actually, "it doesn't have to be realistic and you're silly for caring"?
Then they should add more options for female armor sets, but "boob plates" are clearly liked by some gamers and I know I'd still prefer to make my female mc wear that kind of stuff, I'm all for bulky realistic armor too, I just probably wouldn't use it, especially in a fantasy game where you have agency over what people wear.
I'm going to step in and say that all it takes is for you to go back one page to see his first response was to someone complaining that female armor wasn't protective enough.
He's got a very specific argument, and a few people here are trying to make him look bad by misrepresenting what he's said.
I say this as someone who fundamentally disagrees with what he's saying.
It is strange how every time someone gets banned another person steps up to the plate to try and shut down discussion. Gee, I wonder why that happens.This thread sometimes
If you played a game where you chop arms and legs off normal people, and they come flying and reattach themselves with no explanation; or a game where if you drive your horse off a cliff it starts runnin on air; or any other nonsensical thing that doesn't even make physical sense, and people said "this is unrealistic", would you also lecture them on "it's a videogame, nothing is realistic, duuuh"? Or do you reserve this argument specifically for bikini armor? The only reason you accept bikini armor and would think these examples peculiar is that bikini armor is ubiquitous, which is the entire point of discussion. You're not argumenting against inconsistency, you're just argumenting ad status quo.
Well, you being on the top page made me notice your avatar is Lord Darcia from Wolf's Rain, at least. :)
Last edited:
Agreed, but again, that sort of boils down to decent designs being made, realistic, fantastical or otherwise. The Dragon's Dogma example is tough because it's actually pretty tough to do a decent fashion run in that game.
We're still not even at the point where modern day mainstream games have character creators on the lines of APB, a failed MMO from years ago. Most game developers aren't concerned about fashion and stuff like armor design or practical outfits are a secondary thought, hence "Yeah, just throw some bikini's in it and we'll scale the defense later".
It's really interesting seeing Titanfall Online's core marketing mechanic being really fun character designs for both pilots and titans, something that I thought was sorely missing from the official releases, and something that most likely won't make it into titanfall 3.
I was at the last page. I replied to him. He saw the problem as if it was realism and it wasn't.
Because different things can bring someone out of "reality" of the game's world. In many cases, the sheer silliness of an armor plate changing so drastically that it turns from covering the full chest to a bikini is enough for people to be pulled out of the game and comment on it. Other stuff may or may not do the same. So I don't see why the realism arguement is even in question, because it still raises the point that it is very noticeable across all genres to the point of pulling you out of the "realism" of the game.
Boob plate on its own isn't the problem, it's the fact that that particular armor changes from an armor that covers the entire chest for men to a bikini for women. If there was an armor that was a bikini for women, then changed into covering only the men's shoulder's and leaving the rest exposed for men, then there would be less complaints in this regard.
Because the visual design is utterly ridiculous, out of place, sexualizing, and unrealistic. You are arguing that game mechanics are unrealistic, and that therefore we can't say the visual design is unrealistic or out of place. It's a complete non sequitur.
The point still stands, because we are talking about designs. Nothing is realistic in game, and armor doesn't function in a realistic matter when thathered clothes+10 offers more protection than armor+1.
But the point wasn't about this, the point of that post it was about how, when designing an the same armor for both a male and female character, the one for the woman is sexualized design wise, while the one for the man is not.
As you see, he was not talking about defense and bullets in the head and whatever... just design philosophy.
Both are unrealistic, both aren't ruled by real world physics, and all you want to say... but that was not the point of that post and this thread.
I'm not saying what Stallion says is wrong, is just not what we were discussing.
I think giving men the equivalent "Boob coverings" type armor is a OK in my book
I just need options so I can have skimpy armor on the women and bulky on the men, for example
In a game like skyrim or such, players really should be able to tailor the experience to all of their preferences
I gotta say, StallionDan, I really don't understand the point you're trying to argue about games being unrealistic as a whole.
I mean, sure, the games have unrealistic elements, but there's a clear threshold where unrealistic elements in a game's world become too much and break the illusion of it being a cohesive world. If I'm playing a high fantasy game and I come across a dragon, yeah, that makes sense. But if I suddenly find a locomotive in the same game and takes me to a Wild West town with cowboys and outlaws, it's too much. It doesn't make sense in the context of the world already created and said world's logic, and it takes me out of the experience. The game's internal consistency was compromised because some element of the development team wanted to make a Western, or thought the audience would suddenly want a Western.
Same with the visual design of characters. If the armor for male players covers the player more and provides more protection, the logic is clear that more protective gear provides a better defense. But when the defensive armor for female characters becomes more revealing and visually provides less protection, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in the context of human anatomy, and it doesn't make sense with the logic the game already presented with male players. It takes one out of the experience, the visual logic of the world was compromised to provide eye-candy for the presumably straight male audience. It would be fine if the design for male armor (or character designs as a whole) were treated in equal measure to be sexually appealing, since the logic within the game's world would at least be consistent. But it very often isn't.
I see you agree that titilation is a fair argument, but it isn't mutually exclusive. The visual design of characters can be both blatant eye-candy and illogical to the game's world at the same time.
I mean, sure, the games have unrealistic elements, but there's a clear threshold where unrealistic elements in a game's world become too much and break the illusion of it being a cohesive world. If I'm playing a high fantasy game and I come across a dragon, yeah, that makes sense. But if I suddenly find a locomotive in the same game and takes me to a Wild West town with cowboys and outlaws, it's too much. It doesn't make sense in the context of the world already created and said world's logic, and it takes me out of the experience. The game's internal consistency was compromised because some element of the development team wanted to make a Western, or thought the audience would suddenly want a Western.
Same with the visual design of characters. If the armor for male players covers the player more and provides more protection, the logic is clear that more protective gear provides a better defense. But when the defensive armor for female characters becomes more revealing and visually provides less protection, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in the context of human anatomy, and it doesn't make sense with the logic the game already presented with male players. It takes one out of the experience, the visual logic of the world was compromised to provide eye-candy for the presumably straight male audience. It would be fine if the design for male armor (or character designs as a whole) were treated in equal measure to be sexually appealing, since the logic within the game's world would at least be consistent. But it very often isn't.
I see you agree that titilation is a fair argument, but it isn't mutually exclusive. The visual design of characters can be both blatant eye-candy and illogical to the game's world at the same time.
I empathize and and agree with you, OP. It's one of those things that I never really thought that much about until having conversations with my wife, who is a huge gamer as well, and I started to actually look at the games I was playing, and how women are portrayed in them.
As a minority, I feel a similar bit of disappointment with how black people are portrayed in games as well. It's obviosuly not a 1:1 situation, but it's a similar feeling of seeing the sole representation of your people being standard stereotypes and exoticized.
As a minority, I feel a similar bit of disappointment with how black people are portrayed in games as well. It's obviosuly not a 1:1 situation, but it's a similar feeling of seeing the sole representation of your people being standard stereotypes and exoticized.
To make sure you don't break the illusion that you're playing a video game.
I just went back and checked the last page. The poster you were responding to was complaining that female versions of armor are often less protective than the male versions. They never complained about realism. You are the one that introduced it into the conversation. You can go back and check the post yourself. The very first person that responds to you reiterates that realism isn't the issue, but you continued to make arguments about realism.
Yeah, this stuff can be frustrating on a lot of levels. Sometimes, it feels like you're being penalized for upgrading your character. Want more powerful armor? Okay, but you have to wear a bikini. Want to promote your Fire Emblem avatar? Hope you like thongs.
Last edited:
Valkyr is a poster who openly loves the sexualization and is looking forward to XC2, among other games.
It's his well established personal preference.
Stallion Dan is making a semantic argument out of [possibly deliberately] refusing to understand the meaning of some previous posts, and instead nitpicking the wording. Some posters did indeed use the word "realism", when they more specifically meant "ludonarrative dissonance", which I personally would allow to be a subset of realism. However, an unbiased reading of the argument shows the clear intention they had of "ludonarrative dissonance", and if that damages a person's immersion, it is necessarily a valid point.
You are nitpicking on semantics, ignoring arguments, and now you are being rude. Start discussing in good faith, please.
In a fantasy role playing game? Because that's what like I guess. I try and customize any game that let's me, especially elder scrolls
I guess my question would be, why not?
I mean if someone said they wanted to tailor their skyrim experience to have all male characters run around in speedos and the female characters suited up in heavy armor, I probably wouldn't ask why, I'd assume just preference
As I've pointed out, the armours have the same stats and so offer the same protection. What the poster described was they didn't look like they offered the same protection realistically. So the complaint was realism.
Just wanted to thank the OP for making this thread, and also all the lovely people in this thread for having the patience and understanding to discuss this important topic for so many pages. Regardless of the trolls, I think this thread has gone very well and has undoubtedly informed a lot of people who have either participated or are just lurking.
Again, Incognito never talked about armor stats or how realistic various armors were. You decided that they were talking about realism and responded to an argument that they did not make. Re-read their post. I just quoted it, so you don't even have to go back a page.
Again, you are completely and utterly missing the point. It is irrelevant that the armor set provides the same armor statistic across gender in the game. That is not the point. You conveniently leave out this part of the post you keep going back to;
"If you are female and equip the ancient nord armor, the chestplate completely disappears. Most of the other armors change shape upon picking them up, sprouting boob plates, or in the case of the vampire armor, adjusting to provide a boob window."
The criticism is that the same armor set when worn by female characters sprout boob plates or otherwise change shape to exaggeratedly accentuate the female form. The criticism is that a lot of female armor is 'unrealistic' in the sense that there is a disconnect between their visual design and the actual protection they (would) provide whereas that disconnect is not present for most male armor. None of your claims negate any part of those criticisms.
It doesn't break at sexy armor. It breaks at "women's armor is designed with different intentions than men's armor."
I literally just explained why his post was about realism even if he didn't use that word, feel free to reread it.
Maybe I am derailing the thread, but what about scifi representation of the female and male body?
Eg nude androids, robots etc that have barely any sexuality awareness on their own and are artificially created. GITS Innocence movie as one popular example
Or even biological specimens and failed experiments that only closely resemble a human body.
Topic variety and analysis is vast of course, but that aspect of narrative was always fascinating, though few games bothered with it since it isnt that easy to stomach.
Eg nude androids, robots etc that have barely any sexuality awareness on their own and are artificially created. GITS Innocence movie as one popular example
Or even biological specimens and failed experiments that only closely resemble a human body.
Topic variety and analysis is vast of course, but that aspect of narrative was always fascinating, though few games bothered with it since it isnt that easy to stomach.
- Status