Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)

[Redcrayon]

I honestly can't believe we're on page 30 and the difference between criticism of popular media and censorship is still apparently a hard concept to grasp.

 

[Talraen]

no one is pushing other people to say they should or should not like whatever

devs can and will still make whatever they please

some women are saying we find a few issues with a thing. that we have criticism of how women are widely sexualized in mainstream gaming. THIS IS NOT "pretty much the same as pushing anything on others".

say, a person go and see a superhero movie. then they say, this movie suks. this is CRITICISM. it is NOT censorship.

Click to shrink...

I really don't understand this view. So, what, you just want to keep criticizing the same thing over and over forever, but don't actually care if it changes? What is your goal if not to have this stop happening? I feel like we're far too easily drawn into a semantic argument by the word "censorship." The OP asked for honesty, and I can't honestly say that "censorship" does not describe what I would like to see here. If someone has a problem with that word, I'm more than happy to defend it.

If it means a future where a game like Street Fighter V wouldn't exist as it is today(with characters like Laura / RMika etc) that's a future I want no part of in gaming

Click to shrink...

So if we took these characters and made them less offensive, that's the line you draw on being involved in the future of gaming?

 

[DerpHause]

When questions of representation come up, we can always remember these recent statistics from Quantic Foundry:

Across "Casual / Hardcore / Core" divide

aka men seems to have a general problem empathizing and understanding situations different from themselves

https://quanticfoundry.com/2017/08/29/just-important-female-protagonists/

Click to shrink...

That feels like an odd takeaway from the graphs unless we're assuming they shouldn't just be answering for themselves. For me either gendered protagonist isn't terribly important, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the inclusion of a female option for those that want it.

Hopefully the article expounds a bit.

 

[Deleted member 1287]

I love sexy things in games but I like it done well (reasons for it and stuff) and I want more variety in female characters overall, not every single one an impractically armored set of titty balloons (only some). Some evenness would be nice

But apparently that's censorship

 

[Deleted member 888]

I really don't understand this view. So, what, you just want to keep criticizing the same thing over and over forever, but don't actually care if it changes? What is your goal if not to have this stop happening? I feel like we're far too easily drawn into a semantic argument by the word "censorship." The OP asked for honesty, and I can't honestly say that "censorship" does not describe what I would like to see here. If someone has a problem with that word, I'm more than happy to defend it.



So if we took these characters and made them less offensive, that's the line you draw on being involved in the future of gaming?

Click to shrink...

I think the goal is to see more experiences, especially big budget, that aren't as exclusively catered to the male demographic that either likes sexualisation or isn't bothered about it. Things like Horizon.

Even I get that lol. Although, I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone specifically, just sharing what I routinely read when the censorship argument comes up. More diverse experiences doesn't necessarily mean "less" of another by some sort of force, it just means trying to wave at some devs and ask them to be less risk adverse.

I doubt anyone actually thinks if they keep shouting at Kojima he's going to change what he does. The guy has been around longer than some of us have been alive, he's going to keep doing Kojima. Other devs can and will listen from time to time and maybe do something different. Of course, if anyone does actually want censorship, they can speak for themselves. You're not going to get censorship though unless you somehow change ESRB/PEGI and/or really roll out some mass boycott. Good luck on either.

ESRB and PEGI don't even have a problem with full frontal nudity now, as seen with GTA and Watch Dogs having penises. Actual depictions of sex are obviously still bound to no penetrative visualisation as that would make it pornography. Besides that though, the ratings boards really don't ban or censor much these days.

 

[Pirate Bae]

I have to agree with the OP.

I am finding that the more I play games, the less tolerance I have for overly - sexualized designs. I could understand the position if that extended to both sexes equally, but when it doesn't, then I don't feel the developers have made their case. I do realise that there is an inherent part of our nature that we desire certain things more than others, and that could be the same for both sexes or different. Does that mean that service providers should exploit or pander to those desires as they deem fit? My opinion is that they should not.

In life, we generally, consider out actions and their consequences. Is it beneficial for me, for others? Is it right, is wrong? Is there really a need to do it?

Is it beneficial?

For the developers behind this objectification, yes. At its most basic, they feel this will appeal to the sexually tuned demographic, usually male, and this will hopefully lead to maximised sales, and profit. That's a conceived benefit. Is there a basis? According to this http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2649-sex-sells-more.html from back in 2012, it does. But also it suggests that it takes more explicitness to grab our attention and arouse us. So where do we stand in 2017? And at what point do you draw the line, and say this much and no more? If that statement is true, that we have become inured to such designs and imagery, then reasonably such an approach will eventually be ineffective. The only logical path for continuing in that direction will be to become more explicit, otherwise what's the point?

I'll answer that question. If we exclude the above reasoning, then the point is that designers wanted it due to their predilections. The same consumers who profess to 'love the boob' are of the same mind-set as those producing it, in some, if not most cases. The more explicit, if not outright porn, anime are examples of this. It follows through in other entertainment media, from comics to film. Thus the salacious desire of the consumer is transferred when they become the creator. Then it's not primarily about business, but fulfilling their desires foremost, with the expectation of finding a like minded audience, second.

This reminds me of Gwynevere in Dark Souls. If I recall the interview correctly, her design was initiated by the designer to whom Miyazaki capitulated. To me she stood out in a game filled with the beautifully grotesque. For arguments sake, assume you agree with the following: is she beautiful? Yes. Is she grotesque? Yes. Grotesque in that she is huge in stature and more so her breasts which practically drape on the bed. However, she stands out in the game because there is no deeper meaning to the nature of her grotesqueness. She just has large breasts. No different than a female character that is sexualized in any other game. It's telling that in a later interview, Miyazaki showed doubt about that decision.
To use the already mentioned 'go to' examples of Quiet and Cindy's, characters that are clearly sexualized. Quiet's sexualization is front and center. Her outfit is skimpy, emphasising her body, her scenes in the game are designed to be titillating. The camera manipulates your attention, on occasion taking control and forcing you to be part of that sexualization. With Cindy her breasts are prominent to her design, the red bra actively drawing your attention before your gaze moves to the rest of her design. Both are separate games, both share the same philosophy: the objectification of women by accenting parts of their body and the display of their flesh. I don't believe in MGS V there's a male equivalent comparable to Quiet. Neither do I believe the same is true for FFV. There is no male that has their penis accentuated in a similar fashion.

Is it right?

I believe not. At the stage the work is private, you only have to answer to yourself (assuming the content is not illegal). The moment you offer it to the public for consumption, then you assume the responsibility for your work, its impact, and it's discussion. Are you perpetuating a cycle that has a negative affect on the female population of society? Does your work add anything constructive to it? By that I don't mean the discussion we are having right now, but does your work present an objectified female character and then address that issue in a meaningful way in the work? No? Then you've failed, in my opinion.

There are arguments that this is just fun, and harmless, that people are just being prudish. I think that's being dismissive. Men, mostly, are hot wired to appreciate the female form. That doesn't mean that that desire should be pandered to. As mentioned before, once that desire is met, they'll need to go further to get the same effect, otherwise it will be more of the same.

Is there really a need to do it?

Only if your pandering to your own desires and those of your audience. Then at least be honest for why you're doing it and your intent. If you're saying Quiet is a strong character And her sexualization is part of her character, then you better address that in your game. If you can't, you've failed. The other approach is to include it in your game If you're attempting to use it as a theme in your work, where you are actively examining the subject. Moving the conversation forward.

In conclusion, for every Horizon and Aloy, there are multitudes that are happy to continue objectifiying women. Given the history of women in society, I think self-reflection and being responsible is more beneficial than continuing to perpetrate the same old denigration in the name of fun and self-gratification. This is just from the top of my head, so I expect my opinion might not be fully fleshed out, but I look forward to any examination of it.

Click to shrink...

I know this kind of got glossed over but I just wanted to say thanks and that I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. :)

 

[Popetita]

Let me explain two things to you that may make clear the underlying issue with what you're saying here. First, critics, reviewers, and academics are not shutting down the possibility for response. Dialogue is possible. Studio makes games. Players play games, Player-critics/scholars respond to games; fan-players respond to games. Studio responds as they wish or not at all. There's no shutdown or erasure here. If one element in that equation chooses to be shitty about it, well, that can happen. But response is response.

Then sometimes we have an example like one of Ian Bogost's recent articles, in which he danced all around his colleague Janet Murray's work without ever mentioning her or giving credit to work she had done in the area, and hey, he's also blocked her - his colleague - on social media, and he did not bother to respond to anyone who said anything about that erasure. Bogost, unlike Sarkeesian (who for whatever faults you want to ascribe to her, does credit the work of others and does engage, though I cannot blame femfreq for not wanting to police comments, I mean, god), just rolls on without a care in the world and is celebrated for it. He says games shouldn't bother with stories or characters, and he's not subjected to the same attacks, with people yelling that devs should be allowed their creative freedom, either.

Wonder why that is.

Critics do all sorts of work. Scholars, too. Reviewers same. But those who push for inclusivity are attacked much more frequently than those who critique other aspects.

Click to shrink...

And I am not denying what you say is actively happening. I am just speaking to the few things I have seen and in those particular cases it seems the critic is being shitty for not allowing a position from the person criticized. In that specific case, not gonna keep sating it was Sarkeesian because I can't find it, it was obvious that the person being interviewed was socially awkward and it felt like she humiliated his hundreds of hours of work because of a character design. In the interview itself the guy was blindsided by the focus of the interview when he thought it was about the game itself in general. Thought there is blame to him for not being prepared or not being the right person to speak about the project.

As for those pushing? They are indeed attacked at times for pushing for inclusivity, but also at times they attack other people's hard work for not being included how they feel. It is ok to criticize and point out things but not to take it that far if you yourself are able and capable of creating for that inclusivity and instead bully others into changing their visions.

That is why my general opinion around the issue is that real conversations around the issue could make better change happen. It could lead to some critics getting more involved. It could lead to dev changing some dated views. But as long as it is some fight from both side, no matter who has it worse, it will keep getting ugly.

I don't like some Anita's views but she is a very capable writer. I don't know if she has addressed it or even tried it, but why doesn't she try to be the one affecting change with a video game project and lead by example?

 

[spman2099]

I don't mind if you or anyone else wants to say it's not a good post, but inferring my posts are "designed bait" is a bit childish. I took the time to write goodness knows how many words covering my thoughts in here, which you might completely disagree with, but these kind of sarcastic quips are hardly going to do anything useful or contribute anything better than my terrible posts.

Click to shrink...

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want to support others, who choose not to speak out against people like you for fear of being pulled into a painful, drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

 

[spider]

I really don't understand this view. So, what, you just want to keep criticizing the same thing over and over forever, but don't actually care if it changes? What is your goal if not to have this stop happening? I feel like we're far too easily drawn into a semantic argument by the word "censorship." The OP asked for honesty, and I can't honestly say that "censorship" does not describe what I would like to see here. If someone has a problem with that word, I'm more than happy to defend it.



So if we took these characters and made them less offensive, that's the line you draw on being involved in the future of gaming?

Click to shrink...

Forum discussion is an exchange of ideas. I donno about others, but I welcome the chance to empathize with others on a public discourse space. Of course criticism is meant to voice that there are rooms for improvements. That change is desired but not mandated since the decision making agency in this case rests with the devs (which can and still will make whatever they want).

Criticism IS offered to effect change. But in no way it is not censorship in the way that censorship is defined as censure of others' voices.

Tell me, if you find a movie not to be how you like it, and you say a criticism of it.............. do you consider it censorship? O___O?

 

[Redcrayon]

I don't like some Anita's views but she is a very capable writer. I don't k ow if she has addressed it or even done it, but why doesn't she try to be the one affecting change with a video game project and lead by example?

Click to shrink...

Writing a script is very different to writing a comment piece. A critic doesn't need to actually try to do what they are criticising (otherwise virtually all film, book and music critics would be out of a job), the whole 'make your own game if you don't like it' is unfair. I'd also argue Anita's work already has affected change out of proportion with a series of YouTube videos on basic feminist criticism, when viewing this year's crop of female protagonists and that we're still talking about 'tropes v women in games' on a regular basis years later. I mean, if the mission was to raise awareness it did that.

 

[spider]

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want to support others, who choose not to speak out against people like you for fear of being pulled into a painful, drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

Click to shrink...

u made my day, honestly

thank cthulhu for u

 

[incogneato]

Writing a script is very different to writing a comment piece. A critic doesn't need to actually try to do what they are criticising (otherwise virtually all film, book and music critics would be out of a job), the whole 'make your own game if you don't like it' is unfair. I'd also argue Anita's work already has affected change viewing this year's crop of female protagonists and that were still talking about 'tropes v women in games' on a regular basis years later.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely this. Anita is never given enough credit for the influence and awareness she has brought towards female representation in the gaming industry. I applaud her for it.

 

[Deleted member 1287]

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want to support others, who choose not to speak out against people like you for fear of being pulled into a painful, drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

Click to shrink...

You are a beautiful and concise writer and I appreciate you

 

[Dr. Monkey]

And I am not denying what you say is actively happening. I am just speaking to the few things I have seen and in those particular cases it seems the critic is being shitty for not allowing a position from the person criticized. In that specific case, not gonna keep sating it was Sarkeesian because I can't find it, it was obvious that the person being interviewed was socially awkward and it felt like she humiliated his hundreds of hours of work because of a character design. In the interview itself the guy was blindsided by the focus of the interview when he thought it was about the game itself in general. Thought there is blame to him for not being prepared or not being the right person to speak about the project.

Click to shrink...

You reference an interview (without a link) but say... the person did not have an opportunity to respond? That's how interviews work, and if stuff gets cut, the whole world is now a platform.

As for those pushing? They are indeed attacked at times for pushing for inclusivity, but also at times they attack other people's hard work for not being included how they feel. It is ok to criticize and point out things but not to take it that far if you yourself are able and capable of creating for that inclusivity and instead bully others into changing their visions.

Click to shrink...

That's not how ethical criticism and scholarship works. They aren't attacking. They are engaging. It is an ongoing conversation.

That is why my general opinion around the issue is that real conversations around the issue could make better change happen. It could lead to some critics getting more involved. It could lead to dev changing some dated views. But as long as it is some fight from both side, no matter who has it worse, it will keep getting ugly.

Click to shrink...

Except it isn't like this with most spheres. Not with visual art. Not movies. Not food. Not television. Not jewelry. Not fashion. Games, social media "dialogue," and occasionally sports. So let's not pretend it's some inevitability if people in marginalized positions don't shut up. Do you really think through what you're saying?

I don't like some Anita's views but she is a very capable writer. I don't know if she has addressed it or even tried it, but why doesn't she try to be the one affecting change with a video game project and lead by example?

Click to shrink...

Do you make your own videos?
Blogs?
Did you start an organization to partner with a tech giant to promote the change (or status quo) you want to see?
Must you paint a canvas before you can visit a museum? Must you learn to season and shape sushi rice before you order nigiri? Do you grown your own food, raise your own animals for slaughter, cut your own hair, build your own house, engineer your own car? Gosh, if not, I sure hope you've never expressed any desire for change.

People have jobs, skills, roles. Anita Sarkeesian's job is to make videos, to head a media organization, and to work on activist causes. She was able to make herself a success doing that. Others are able to render characters. They make themselves a success doing that. Some are great at programming. Etc., etc., etc. Again, the ability or even desire to put long hours into learning to create is not a requirement for entry to criticism.

Why are people so afraid of marginalized gamers speaking up?

 

[Grewitch]

I know this kind of got glossed over but I just wanted to say thanks and that I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. :)

Click to shrink...

Thank you. That's very kind of you to say. I've been following yours and fellow members considered discussion with much interest. It's gratifying to be able to see the nuances being discussed and having your own opinion being informed by it. Especially this subject which is so central to the content that we consume and the people we associate with. So, in return, I thank you, and all of you.

 

[Dary]

I honestly can't believe we're on page 30 and the difference between criticism of popular media and censorship is still apparently a hard concept to grasp.

Click to shrink...

 

[Valkyr1983]

I really don't understand this view. So, what, you just want to keep criticizing the same thing over and over forever, but don't actually care if it changes? What is your goal if not to have this stop happening? I feel like we're far too easily drawn into a semantic argument by the word "censorship." The OP asked for honesty, and I can't honestly say that "censorship" does not describe what I would like to see here. If someone has a problem with that word, I'm more than happy to defend it.



So if we took these characters and made them less offensive, that's the line you draw on being involved in the future of gaming?

Click to shrink...

I'm stating that I like the design of these characters and wouldn't want them all changed

Should sfv have a character like makoto it something less risque? Yeah absolutely and I want that! I also think there should be "ugly" female characters like a female Rufus or birdy, not every character has to be sexy

But I like how R Mika looks in SFV and wouldn't want it changed. I enjoy it.

I guess I see more diversity through additions as a good thing, not through removals?

 

[Deleted member 888]

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want others that choose not to speak out against people like you, for fear of being pulled into a drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

Click to shrink...

If you don't understand why when people point posts at me and say things like "honest question, are you dense" or sum up all the time and effort I spend as

it's bait designed to get people to quote it saying "great post".

Click to shrink...

You write so much, and say so little.

Click to shrink...

We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not)

Click to shrink...

I might respond in a way which tries to defend myself a little, I'm at a loss. I can assure you right now if I implied posters in here were either dense, or just designing their posts to be bait, standing for something ugly, etc, they'd probably be firing back at me with fire.

I really can't be bothered with this place ending up like the old with some users following others around for the sole purpose of shitting on them just because they hate their opinions or views. You've stated your feeling about me, I've read them, this is a forum, you'll see open debate and such, so you're going to have to move on from some posters you really don't like and just leave it at that. I'd prefer if you actually quote all the shockingly poor arguments I have made and refute them with your own arguments/facts or whatever, not just labour me on how "we", as I'm assuming you and others in private are talking about me, don't like me. Great, put me on ignore or something if you don't want to read anything I've posted that much. I'd really personally rather not have you now follow me around the forum constantly letting me know how poor, shocking, ugly, and calculating everything I say is. Keep doing that and I'll just put you on ignore, but here's my reply for now.

 

[Talraen]

You're not going to get censorship though unless you somehow change ESRB/PEGI and/or really roll out some mass boycott. Good luck on either.

Click to shrink...

Censorship does not need to have a method of strict enforcement to exist. I'm not advocating for enforced rules, I'm advocating for making clear that certain things are socially unacceptable.

Forum discussion is an exchange of ideas. I donno about others, but I welcome the chance to empathize with others on a public discourse space. Of course criticism is meant to voice that there are rooms for improvements. That change is desired but not mandated since the decision making agency in this case rests with the devs (which can and still will make whatever they want).

Criticism IS offered to effect change. But in no way it is not censorship in the way that censorship is defined as censure of others' voices.

Tell me, if you find a movie not to be how you like it, and you say a criticism of it.............. do you consider it censorship? O___O?

Click to shrink...

I find overly or inappropriately sexualized character designs to be problematic. That is a very different criticism than a movie not being "how I like it." That's a problem for the individual, problematic content is a concern for society.

I don't want to get bogged down in semantics, but censorship is not the "censure of others' voices." Censure (harsh criticism) isn't the same thing as censorship (the suppression of unacceptable content). As it relates to voices, I'm fine with people arguing that we need to have sexualized characters in games, even though I don't agree with them. I don't propose to prevent them from holding and defending such an opinion. And who knows, maybe one day they'll even convince me. But for the moment, I believe that these things are harmful and unacceptable, and should generally not be included in games. I don't mean this in an absolute sense, either; again, I'm not looking for any kind of enforced censorship. But you should have a well-considered reason for including this sort of thing (such as making some kind of social commentary). "Some people like it" is not enough for me. The cost of having this kind of content far outweighs the cost of suppressing it, in my view.

I guess I see more diversity through additions as a good thing, not through removals?

Click to shrink...

My desire here is not increased diversity, it's removing content that is harmful.

 

[Dr. Monkey]

I also think there should be "ugly" female characters like a female Rufus or birdy, not every character has to be sexy

Click to shrink...

Yes, that's part of the whole argument. While games aren't exactly bastions of great character design in general, men tend to be allowed greater range in appearance and personality, even when leaning on tropes, than women.

 

[Deleted member 888]

Censorship does not need to have a method of strict enforcement to exist. I'm not advocating for enforced rules, I'm advocating for making clear that certain things are socially unacceptable.

Click to shrink...

If it's censorship it would need to be applied somehow though. Either self-censorship via devs not doing something they can do, or by a regulatory body like ESRB/PEGI rejecting a game passing through and it needing to be changed.

Otherwise, it's not really censorship, it's just critique. Or moral judgements.

 

[Talraen]

If it's censorship it would need to be applied somehow though. Either self-censorship via devs not doing something they can do, or by a regulatory body like ESRB/PEGI rejecting a game passing through and it needing to be changed.

Otherwise, it's not really censorship, it's just critique. Or moral judgements.

Click to shrink...

I'm very much OK with devs self-censoring on this matter. Honestly, I thought that was the point of criticizing them.

 

[spider]

Semantics argument.

Click to shrink...

SEEMS LIKE WE ACTUALLY AGREE ON THINGIES. what i want is also for debates and for people to exchange ideas and to be open to improvements. i do think we can do better in terms of framing female sexualization in mainstream media. Same with movies, if I see rampant sexism contents in movies, i will offer criticism on that. Doesn't mean those kinds of movies will stop being made.

ANYWAY, let's celebrate that there are points where we agree on and move on :3

Yes, that's part of the whole argument. While games aren't exactly bastions of great character design in general, men tend to be allowed greater range in appearance and personality, even when leaning on tropes, than women.

Click to shrink...

more options are good for everyone, in general. hear, hear, kikimon o7

 

[Morrigan]

I really don't understand this view. So, what, you just want to keep criticizing the same thing over and over forever, but don't actually care if it changes? What is your goal if not to have this stop happening? I feel like we're far too easily drawn into a semantic argument by the word "censorship." The OP asked for honesty, and I can't honestly say that "censorship" does not describe what I would like to see here. If someone has a problem with that word, I'm more than happy to defend it.

Click to shrink...

Not all response to feedback is "censorship". If Neil Druckmann watches Anita's videos, thinks "you know what, she's got a point", and improves female representation in his next games, that's not censorship, now is it.

In Divinity Original Sin, a female character was originally designed with a skimpy outfit. There were some complaints, the dev agreed that it was unfair that the male character had full armour and the female one wore a metal bikini, and had it changed (much to the dismay of the actual artist who was very, very butthurt about it xD). Was that "censorship", or was it a dev agreeing that their game would improve with a bit more gender equality?

A lot of games are heavily focus group tested (which has its own share of problems). If the focus groups say X, and the publishers decide "ok let's implement X" because they want to sell games, or because they think it's a good idea, or because they think it improves their product... is it censorship?

I don't like some Anita's views but she is a very capable writer. I don't know if she has addressed it or even tried it, but why doesn't she try to be the one affecting change with a video game project and lead by example?

Click to shrink...

Because making video games is complicated, expensive, requires specific skills and resources and budgets, and that's not a critic's job. Do you also tell film critics that instead of reviewing/criticizing movies, they should just make their own?

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want to support others, who choose not to speak out against people like you for fear of being pulled into a painful, drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

Click to shrink...

.

 

[spman2099]

If you don't understand why when people point posts at me and say things like "honest question, are you dense" or sum up all the time and effort I spend as







I might respond in a way which tries to defend myself a little, I'm at a loss. I can assure you right now if I implied posters in here were either dense, or just designing their posts to be bait, standing for something ugly, etc, they'd probably be firing back at me with fire.

I really can't be bothered with this place ending up like the old with some users following others around for the sole purpose of shitting on them just because they hate their opinions or views. You've stated your feeling about me, I've read them, this is a forum, you'll see open debate and such, so you're going to have to move on from some posters you really don't like and just leave it at that. I'd prefer if you actually quote all the shockingly poor arguments I have made and refute them with your own arguments/facts or whatever, not just labour me on how "we", as I'm assuming you and others in private are talking about me, don't like me. Great, put me on ignore or something if you don't want to read anything I've posted that much. I'd really personally not have you now follow me around the forum constantly letting me know how poor, shocking, ugly, and calculating everything I say is. Keep doing that and I'll just put you on ignore, but here's my reply for now.

Click to shrink...

I have not followed you around. Every post of yours I have replied to has been in this thread. Reading a thread, and replying to a person more than once, is not my definition of "following". I have been following this thread, though. That is a real thing.

Moreover, I haven't talked to anyone about you. I am not part of some underground club. Everything I post is out in the open. I can just perceive mounting frustration (primarily, my own).

Lastly, I will be damned if I spend my time quoting different instances of you dismissing arguments, crafting a reply, only to have you fucking dismiss them again. At that point I would deserve to have my time wasted. I know this gives you an instant win, but I just can't justify it. Take that win and hang it on your wall.

I have said my piece. You don't have to worry about me "following" you around (in a single thread) anymore.

 

[DerpHause]

I'm very much OK with devs self-censoring on this matter. Honestly, I thought that was the point of criticizing them.

Click to shrink...

I don't know that that's a universally agreed point, but if it is, it's also going to be the reason for some contention, not that the reason for it is something you may see as a concern.

 

[Talraen]

Not all response to feedback is "censorship". If Neil Druckmann watches Anita's videos, thinks "you know what, she's got a point", and improves female representation in his next games, that's not censorship, now is it.

Click to shrink...

No, it's not. It's a good thing that we will hopefully see more of. However, I want to be clear that I want more than that. If a city's water supply is poisoned, I'll be happy when they clean it up in a single neighborhood, but that isn't the goal.

 

[Dr. Monkey]

My dudes, if someone hears criticism and realizes they are making bogus characters that don't have any place in an otherwise more robust gameworld beyond* a set of big swinging pixel tits, and they decide to change and to create characters that have a place beyond simple sexualization, that isn't self-censorship. That's growth.

(this of course excludes games meant to be fan service or whatever from the top down, which was never the point in the first place)

 

[incogneato]

No, it's not. It's a good thing that we will hopefully see more of. However, I want to be clear that I want more than that. If a city's water supply is poisoned, I'll be happy when they clean it up in a single neighborhood, but that isn't the goal.

Click to shrink...

I see where you're coming from. But I think that developers themselves should have the discussion about female representation. The limit of being a critic is that you generally don't have the capacity to tangibly change anything within an organization, you can only bring light to certain contentious portrayals in it. With that said, I think Anita was successful in that regard. She got people talking. Hopefully this isn't a short-term wave of better female representation, but rather, a stepping stone to more equitable representation overall.

 

[DerpHause]

My dudes, if someone hears criticism and realizes they are making bogus characters that don't have any place in an otherwise more robust gameworld beyond* a set of big swinging pixel tits, and they decide to change and to create characters that have a place beyond simple sexualization, that isn't self-censorship. That's growth.

(this of course excludes games meant to be fan service or whatever from the top down, which was never the point in the first place)

Click to shrink...

That leaves aside the question of whether a game is that kind of game. Dragon's Crown comes to mind as a game on that border. So is it growth to have it's designs not revisited in further vanilaware games? Is it a disservice to part of the gaming population to leave it as is when it has other things to offer? Or is that "fan service from the top down" and able to be excluded where intended from these conversations?

 

[Deleted member 888]

I have not followed you around. Every post of yours I have replied to has been in this thread. Reading a thread, and replying to a person more than once, is not my definition of "following". I have been following this thread, though. That is a real thing.

Moreover, I haven't talked to anyone about you. I am not part of some underground club. Everything I post is out in the open. I can just perceive mounting frustration (primarily, my own).

Lastly, I will be damned if I spend my time quoting different instances of you dismissing arguments, crafting a reply, only to have you fucking dismiss them again. At that point I would deserve to have my time wasted. I know this gives you an instant win, but I just can't justify it. Take that win and hang it on your wall.

I have said my piece. You don't have to worry about me "following" you around (in a single thread) anymore.

Click to shrink...

edit: sigh, whats the point :(

 

[Dr. Monkey]

That leaves aside the question of whether a game is that kind of game. Dragon's Crown comes to mind as a game on that border. So is it growth to have it's designs not revisited in further vanilaware games? Is it a disservice to part of the gaming population to leave it as is when it has other things to offer? Or is that "fan service from the top down" and able to be excluded where intended from these conversations?

Click to shrink...

Would you play the game without the promise of obnoxiously giant breasts? Seems to me that's the real question.

 

[DerpHause]

Would you play the game without the promise of obnoxiously giant breasts? Seems to me that's the real question.

Click to shrink...

There are a number of elements that could singularly be removed and I'd still play it, so I suppose in my mind that doesn't seek to answer the question of whether it's that kind of game. There aren't really ANY games I've purchased where I've "appreciated the visuals" where those visuals wouldn't be replaceable while keeping gameplay, and probably my purchase, intact. If that's the sole qualifier those aspects wouldn't exist regardless of who enjoys them and who finds them offensive.

That said my interest in the game does stem from it's visuals as they remind me of Odin's Sphere, so I can't say my purchase was entirely divorced from that aspect.

Edit: One thing I will say is that I was ammused by some of those aspects and as such I could say my enjoyment of the game would be lessened by the degree lent from them.

 

[IplayGames4Fun]

no one is pushing other people to say they should or should not like whatever

devs can and will still make whatever they please

some women are saying we find a few issues with a thing. that we have criticism of how women are widely sexualized in mainstream gaming. THIS IS NOT "pretty much the same as pushing anything on others".

say, a person go and see a superhero movie. then they say, this movie suks. this is CRITICISM. it is NOT censorship.




howwwwwwwwwww haaaaardddd is itttttt geeeeeezus

Click to shrink...

your open criticism is an attempt to change the way devs design characters, and posting on an open forum is an attempt to get others to feel the same way. to say it's anything but is dishonest. IDK how old you are, but when i grew up we were always told "if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" hiding behind criticism is simply a ruse. Do you find it ok if someone was to walk up to you in public and criticize you? you'd probably find it rude and offensive as would anyone so "it's just criticism" really doens't fly

How in god's name does an inanimate, fictional character choose to be designed a specific way?

Also, please tell the class where anyone in this thread pushed their evil feminist agenda on you. We're having a debate and discussion. You can have whatever opinion you want. But by participating in the thread, you are therefore subjecting your views to criticism and analysis. No one is telling you to change your view if you don't want to. Jesus fucking Christ.

Click to shrink...

The dev chooses to design that character that way. you say my comment is subject to criticism, i agree, as is yours. but your "jesus fucking christ" attitude shows you don't want criticism you just want people to agree with you and get outraged. My view isn't for or against. it's simply live and let live. If you don't like something, be an adult and ignore it. don't buy it, don't support it. that simple.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I think it stands out even more when armour is involved.

I mean, why would her armour be designed in a bikini like fashion?

 

[IplayGames4Fun]

I think it stands out even more when armour is involved.

I mean, why would her armour be designed in a bikini like fashion?

Click to shrink...

less weight? easier to move in? shrouded in magic protection? It's a fictional universe anything is possible. tons of things don't really make "sense" in games hence the video game logic memes

 

[Pirate Bae]

your open criticism is an attempt to change the way devs design characters, and posting on an open forum is an attempt to get others to feel the same way. to say it's anything but is dishonest. IDK how old you are, but when i grew up we were always told "if you don't have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all" hiding behind criticism is simply a ruse. Do you find it ok if someone was to walk up to you in public and criticize you? you'd probably find it rude and offensive as would anyone so "it's just criticism" really doens't fly



The dev chooses to design that character that way. you say my comment is subject to criticism, i agree, as is yours. but your "jesus fucking christ" attitude shows you don't want criticism you just want people to agree with you and get outraged. My view isn't for or against. it's simply live and let live. If you don't like something, be an adult and ignore it. don't buy it, don't support it. that simple.

Click to shrink...

The dev chooses. Yes. They choose to pander to a horny male demographic at the expense of women who may find it degrading or insulting.

My comments are absolutely open to criticism. I have not once said that they aren't. I am frustrated that we have to keep bringing up the same nuanced points, whether you agree with them or not. Take a second to read the thread, or at least the last few pages. Saves us all some time and sanity.

Mature, forward-thinking adults don't solve problems by ignoring that they exist. So no, I won't simply not support it or forget that this is an actual issue.

 

[marimo]

edit: sigh, whats the point :(

Click to shrink...

I saw your post before you edited it and did you seriously just mansplain the concept of an internet forum for the second time in this thread? Construct your arguments concisely and with about 100% less condescension and you won't get called out for the way you write them. Look at the many other people in this thread who disagree but aren't getting the reaction you are getting. It's not about conforming to the majority opinion. spman2099 did a pretty good job laying it out for you.

 

[Pet]

less weight? easier to move in? shrouded in magic protection? It's a fictional universe anything is possible. tons of things don't really make "sense" in games hence the video game logic memes

Click to shrink...

So odd men don't get these magical speedos, given that it's less weight, easier to move in, and (potentially) shrouded in magical protection.

Must be VideoGameLogicTM, and definitely not anything to do with how women are viewed in RealLifeTM.

 

[Morrigan]

"Don't like it, don't buy it, but don't you dare say anything about it!" is a silencing tactic that attempts to stifles discussion. But since a lot of people feel that way, here's my reply to them:

Don't like threads about criticism of sexualization? Don't post in them. "It's that simple", or so I hear.

 

[IplayGames4Fun]

The dev chooses. Yes. They choose to pander to a horny male demographic at the expense of women who may find it degrading or insulting.

My comments are absolutely open to criticism. I have not once said that they aren't. I am frustrated that we have to keep bringing up the same nuanced points, whether you agree with them or not. Take a second to read the thread, or at least the last few pages. Saves us all some time and sanity.

Mature, forward-thinking adults don't solve problems by ignoring that they exist. So no, I won't simply not support it or forget that this is an actual issue.

Click to shrink...

but those are YOUR feelings and sure probably some others, but now you are taking a voice away from all women, some who may just be fine with it. you want devs to pander to you instead of horny teens it's just as bad and sad that you don't see this. also the fact you specifically say "horny male" is insensitive to the LGBT community. why specify males? what about gay males who could care less? what about lesbian females or might like it? You may not agree with dev design choices and you have every right to do so, but you made this to push your agenda for your reasons, nothing else. You don't speak for everyone but you feel you do

So odd men don't get these magical speedos, given that it's less weight, easier to move in, and (potentially) shrouded in magical protection.

Must be VideoGameLogicTM, and definitely not anything to do with how women are viewed in RealLifeTM.

Click to shrink...

funny you assume i'm a man? also you must have never played DR3?

 

[Pau]

So odd men don't get these magical speedos, given that it's less weight, easier to move in, and (potentially) shrouded in magical protection.

Must be VideoGameLogicTM, and definitely not anything to do with how women are viewed in RealLifeTM.

Click to shrink...

Must just be a coincidence.

 

[julia crawford]

You are quite good at what you do, Audioboxer. You range from indignation to taking the form of a shrinking violet when it suits you. However, throughout this entire thread you have said fairly troubling things under the guise of detached neutrality. You pick around other people's posts, often dumping enormous, stifling, smothering walls of text. Once again, couched in moral neutrality. But when people confront your arguments, you never bother to address them sincerely. You write so much, and say so little. You frequently speak of nuance, but when you are addressing others arguments it is stunning how dismissive you can be. More often than not, unless you are addressing someone who has agreed with you, you represent their arguments shockingly poorly.

That is why people confront you like they do. They aren't lashing out childishly, they just want you to know that they see through your insincerity (they also want to support others, who choose not to speak out against people like you for fear of being pulled into a painful, drawn-out argument). Now, maybe you believe everything you write. Maybe you cannot see how calculatingly, selective you frequently have been. We can't say. All that is apparent, to many of us at least, is that you stand for something that is dismissive and often more than a little ugly (intentionally or not). More importantly, you do so while wearing the hat of the altruistic academic. For someone that drones on about self-reflection, and the importance of one challenging themselves, nothing I have read from you has implied that you have ever experienced anything but smug self-assuredness. It is aggravating.

Click to shrink...

Damn you're good

 

[Deleted member 1287]

Wut

How is criticizing media made for public consumption the same as criticizing a public citizen

I can buy something, like most of it, and still criticize some bullshit in it

Stop trying to act like you're the one being silenced when you're just stifling others

 

[Pirate Bae]

but those are YOUR feelings and sure probably some others, but now you are taking a voice away from all women, some who may just be fine with it. you want devs to pander to you instead of horny teens it's just as bad and sad that you don't see this. also the fact you specifically say "horny male" is insensitive to the LGBT community. why specify males? what about gay males who could care less? what about lesbian females or might like it? You may not agree with dev design choices and you have every right to do so, but you made this to push your agenda for your reasons, nothing else. You don't speak for everyone but you feel you do

Click to shrink...

I'm a member of the LGBT community. And a woman. You say that I'm speaking for everyone, but yet, here you are, doing the exact same in your post.

Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Valkyr1983]

Would you play the game without the promise of obnoxiously giant breasts? Seems to me that's the real question.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I still might play it, but then I'd play a lot of games if you took away a single factor, assuming there's enough left to make me still want to play it

If I had the choice between current street fighter 5 and a version that covered R Mika's boob's and got rid of the zoom in camera angles, I'd choose current street fighter 5 every time.

 

[Elshoelace]

less weight? easier to move in? shrouded in magic protection? It's a fictional universe anything is possible. tons of things don't really make "sense" in games hence the video game logic memes

Click to shrink...

Those are all just dumb excuses for I want to look at a scantily clad video game woman. If someone wanted something easy to move in and some protection they would wear a damn helmet, the most important piece of armor.
Call a spade a spade.

 

[Morrigan]

also the fact you specifically say "horny male" is insensitive to the LGBT community.

Click to shrink...

A significant portion of the women who posted in this thread are LGBTQ and have even said as much, including Pirate Bae. Your concern trolling is fooling no one.

 

[Valkyr1983]

Those are all just dumb excuses for I want to look at a scantily clad video game woman. If someone wanted something easy to move in and some protection they would wear a damn helmet, the most important piece of armor.
Call a spade a spade.

Click to shrink...

That's why I'm honest about it. I enjoy seeing characters like quiet in my games, and I wouldn't try and make up some excuse for it

It's why I wish Kojima had just said "I wanted to make a hot sniper to ogle" and we wouldn't still be here years later about "words and deeds"

 

[incogneato]

That's why I'm honest about it. I enjoy seeing characters like quiet in my games, and I wouldn't try and make up some excuse for it

It's why I wish Kojima had just said "I wanted to make a hot sniper to ogle" and we wouldn't still be here years later about "words and deeds"

Click to shrink...

Your honesty is commendable.

Being frank about sexualization is much better than jumping through hoops to justify a choice.