Anita Sarkeesian + Hitman Absolution = Epic Fail

[Guy from the 80's]

Well, let's look a bit broader. Why don't we start with the fact that there IS a strip club level in the first place. The game does not need to have a strip club level for the plot to progress

Strip clubs exist in real life, they are in every city. Feck, movies doesnt have to have strip clubs either. I hope one day there are NO strip clubs in movies or games, nor prostitutes for that matter. In fact, all women in movies/games should be highly educated women.

 

[carnex]

I'm not going to even mention Anita's videos and reasoning since I talked on that topic far an wide quite a few times on this board alone. But now, what there is a strip club in Hitman and other games, not n any semblance of order of significance.

1) It's atmospheric. Strip club and crime/underworld go together like coffee and cream. It gives the game more of that specific tone games like that need.

2) It gives developers excuse to put skimpy dressed female models in game. Games are visual medium most often second only to interactivity (sometimes even more important than interactivity). Also, men and women like looking at super-imposed, realistically unobtainable beautiful bodies. Those Greek statues that are considered pinnacle of realistic sculpting are not realistic, no human can look that perfect or they would look monstrous. Just like in game models.

3) I bring's allure of "forbidden fruit" to the game. In reality in most strip clubs if you touch dancers or even if you are particularly rude, you are removed. Sometimes with additional consequences. In games you are free to roam, do as you please or even own such establishment. Not to mention that quite a few gamers are to shy or socially awkward to even visit such establishment in real life.

4) It can be, and is, used to portray someone, usually owner, thought state of club, staff and dialogue between NPCs.

Now, that we covered almost every possible reason, would someone tell me what is bad there?

Female gamers I know are more self aware and more conservative dressers with less wild behavior in public than female non gamers I know. Only person I know personally that was violent towards women never played any game outside FIFA/Winning Eleven.

Is it because they are skimpily dressed and you can be violent to them? Would that be OK it here were make dancers and you could use power drill on their genitals (so specific just for them)? I wouldn't have problem with either as heterosexual white male that works two jobs to support him and his fiancee that is more far educated than him but still stuck in university which has low pay and mother that is sick with multiple chronic diseases and barely able to take care of her basic needs.

 

[ninjaRiv]

The Hitman series in general has some sexist, creepy stuff in it involving sexual violence against women. But the player is never told to do that unless the actual target is a woman (Pretty darn rare in the series). Even then, they're not told to pose them (I don't think? I know some posing was involved in some missions, right?) or do anything remotely sexual. But that's always been part of the tone. Absolution took it to the extreme, thanks to writers who decided the previous games were too subtle.

The series has always had the creepy, grimy atmosphere to it in an effort to either look "real" or exaggerated and pulpy (Could never decide which one it was...). So, saying Hitman features violence against women is kind of a "no shit" moment. It's like saying porn has naked people or horror films have violence.

Thinking about it, the player is never told to do anything remotely sexual towards any character. People are sexual towards him at times (who wouldn't, am I right?) but he never really reacts. You're offered some freedom, to do some nasty things but even then you can do it to anyone. 47 Has no interest in anything sexual, so it says more about the player when it comes to any in game violence against women (or men). You're punished for killing anyone other than the target you're paid to kill. If you're killing anyone else you're not playing the game properly. You are not actively encouraged to perform all that much violence in this series, really.

In fact, bit of a side note, isn't there supposed to be some debate over 47's sexuality? Isn't there a chance he's bi sexual or something? Or am I making things up? It's been a while since I got stuck into the series (heh...) but that sounds like something that people are debating.

POINT IS: I think Sarkeesian kind of just saw something she thought would fit her point and ran with it without doing any real research, e.g. playing the game itself.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Let me put it this way - how many games have you gone to a library to do something? How many times has a game required you to attend a meeting for recovering drug addicts? Both of those are far more common than strip clubs, yet I can't think of any for either of them.

I used to go to the library back in the 80's and 90's. Who goes to the library today?
Please provide me with strip club vs recovering drug addicts statistics.

 

[Knight Templar]

Let me be blunt here, when a competent writer wants to portray morality in their work (either implicitly or explicitly), more often than not the good choice will seem less immediately desirable. That's what makes evil so seductive in the first place. It's easy.

That isn't how hitman games work, they don't really pose moral questions, you're a clone made to be the perfect assassin. Morality is only there to make you feel less guilty about all the fantastic and creative ways you're about to murder a bunch of people.

If a gun is presented as a way to kill a target, that's a means to complete your objective.
But the strippers are not means to complete your objective. By interfering with them in any way, you're making it HARDER to complete your objective. It's easier and more logical to leave them alone and sneak past them.

Not at all, they are in the way, if I go right for my target then the only thing standing in my way is them, ignoring them just leads to the alarm being called.


But I think my point is being missed here, you cannot just look at one part that isn't encouraging the act and say "well that makes it impossible for the game to encourage the player to do these things". Particularly when the ways it discourages you is something so entirely empty, and the reasons to do it are entirely practical.

 

[eberhart]

Not going to discuss what degree of separation between violence and sexualization is or isn?t "disturbing" (to someone), because it has no relevance on the subject and the only proof is simply "I feel so". Well, granted. But that still offers no direct sexual motive behind player-inflicted violence.

If contemporary and "improved" term is to be used, a woman in Hitman would have to be target of violence because of being a woman or because of being "sexualized". Neither is true, the most common reason is "being in the way", which is not the same as "being a sex worker therefore sexualized therefore being in a strip club therefore having a chance of interfering therefore violence is sexualized". With that mindset of going back as many steps as convenient we might as well ask about her education or genes.

If it was that simple, every game where a character kills NPC of a different race would be automatically adding racial undertones to violence. Or where killing a templar as a devoted muslim = there's something "jihadist" about it. As it is now, we only have "violence against sexualized characters" or, in cases where even that is unsubstantiated, "violence against sexually attractive characters". Not even remotely the same.

If PoV of the authors is to be of any help, then finding a proof for "sexualized violence" claim is not going to be that easy as "tittilation". The latter is pretty much a given, considering there's money and specific target demographic involved***. "Strip club was added because tittilation therefore sexualization therefore sexualized violence", though? This convenient number of steps again. About those "it's unconscious" explanations from lalaland - let's see at least a shred of evidence about that specific group of designers - you know, the owners of that unconsciousness we are talking about. Like... can we at least know what is their consciousness doing first? But I guess that would be hard, because actual research would have to be conducted and that's... not what certain "controversy surfers" are known for.

What are we left with? Players can kill women if they decide them being women is enough of a reason? That's... new? We already know it's hardly encouraged by the game. Any claims that sexualization in-game encourages sexualized violence in-game on its own? Good luck with researching that, not even mentioning proving the existence of any phenomenon that has significance worth more than a footnote to a footnote, let alone this whole thread. "Hitman research shows players tend to kill overly attractive prostitutes, prostitutes, random women, nuns in that order" would make a hell of a clickbait though.

We've already seen various claims of "experts" on many related and unrelated subjects. Trying to tell what "players" or "gamers" think or feel often ends up so hilariously bad that even arrogance on claimant's part, ie. insisting they have a clue "because research" and "data"(promptly taken apart by random people without academic background), tends to be overlooked. Then there are cases where the arrogance is, for one reason or another, not overlooked, generates emotions, a lot of vitriol and we end up with? oh, right, Anita Thompson Threads.

As someone else mentioned, there's a niche of games that *are* thriving on "sexualized violence", easily jumping into sexual violence. But they?re too far from mainstream ? which is a bad thing only for one type of a person: the one who wants to stir a controversy but lacks a material that ?mainstream? audience actually recalls from somewhere. So, rather than talk about "sexualized violence" using a game that sells itself on that, she picks one with... optional violence against sexualized characters. As if it was the same. Also, that "mature" word? - there's a world of difference between Hitman being a "mature game" and a "game intended for mature audiences". Not sure how one could have the same expectations from the former and the latter.






*** Not that I consider "sexualized characters" to be significantly different (or more "problematic") than reducing a person to *any* single aspect of their "self". If it?s being done to sell a game to a bunch of 45-y old gay Asians, then so be it. If it?s being done to convey a message, to parody something, for the sake of consistency ? or for whatever similar reason, even if badly, then so be it as well. If it's being done because author doesn't know any better then, ugh, so be it. If I ever grow sick of any particular "reduction", a number of different games (ie. with other issues) is so large I have zero chances of properly playing even significant portion of them during a lifetime. The industry already reached the same point books, movies or music did. I don?t see a need for any kind of "parity" in any case, where such reduction takes place, certainly not if we are talking about an optional product with entertainment as its primary purpose. If a product needs a simple(ton) way to appeal to men, there will be a disparity in sexualization department for as long as people behind market research are convinced men are more attached to "visual side". Which, at least so far, seems to mean: "forever". For the same reason there will be substantial niches for people who feel guilty about it and for those who don?t give a damn.

For the same reason there's more than enough money and attention randomly flowing around to sustain a number of people who will go out of their way to build mountains out of molehills. If, as it's often the case with incompetent people, molehill is quickly shown to be a molehill, then it's not a big deal either - there's always at least a rock or two around it that surely came from a mountain... somewhere. By the time it happens, there's enough followers talking how they tripped on a molehill and how awful and scarring it was to notice.

 

[Asita]

Let me be blunt here, when a competent writer wants to portray morality in their work (either implicitly or explicitly), more often than not the good choice will seem less immediately desirable. That's what makes evil so seductive in the first place. It's easy.

That isn't how hitman games work, they don't really pose moral questions, you're a clone made to be the perfect assassin. Morality is only there to make you feel less guilty about all the fantastic and creative ways you're about to murder a bunch of people.

See again, "implicitly or explicitly". I am not saying that there is a moral choice system in Hitman, I am saying that it presents you with an easy option and then penalizes you for it both for killing a civilian and for killing someone who is not your target, and that this would not be at all out of place in a game with an explicit moral choice system as befitting the common theme that the quick and easy path is rarely the best one. This follows a distinctly similar methodology to the standard 'good choice, bad choice' dynamic, but for some inexplicable reason while we're perfectly ok with players being incentivized to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock, being actively and blatantly penalized by the game for killing strippers (or any other non-target npc) in Hitman crosses the line because - just like in Dishonored - it was often easier and/or more fun to be less discriminate in your killing and thus implicitly incentivizes you to take that route and - unlike when Dishonored did it - that is a very bad thing because reasons.

Point being that we are apparently being inconsistent in the standards we are using to criticize Hitman in this case. We don't care that it's practical to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock, we don't care that the Dark Side is more lucrative in KoTOR, we don't care that lethal options are more practical than stealthing through Deus Ex, we don't care that it's practical and fun to make chaos inducing actions in Dishonored, so why do we care that it's practical and/or more fun to be less discriminate in Hitman? Because instead of incentivizing you for the sake of trapping you it directly penalizes you for the act and leaves it at that? What makes that so much more worthy of scorn than getting extra Adam for killing little children in Bioshock at the cost of a more sinister ending cinematic?

 

[eberhart]

This follows a distinctly similar methodology to the standard 'good choice, bad choice' dynamic, but for some inexplicable reason while we're perfectly ok with players being incentivized to kill Little Sisters in Bioshock, being actively and blatantly penalized by the game for killing strippers (or any other non-target npc) in Hitman crosses the line because - just like in Dishonored - it was often easier and/or more fun to be less discriminate in your killing and thus implicitly incentivizes you to take that route and - unlike when Dishonored did it - that is a very bad thing because reasons.

Then there's Crusader Kings, where you are quite often penalised for not executing a number of people (your children, grandchildren, infants included) who end up inheriting your kingdom and joyfully tearing it apart due to Gavelkind laws. You sometimes can deal with it in a "civilised" way, but more often than not it requires luck, money and specific circumstances. The best solution (on average) = murder all males (sexism), preferably those with inferior statistics (ableism) and with potentially troublesome skin color (racism). Did I mention surviving one should also be *ehem* willing to provide an heir at some point? Or that game actually provides a conveniently pre-made plot to kill your spouse?

How is this possible CK has not caused a huge scandal yet when such small potatoes do?

 

[WindKnight]

In summary: Hitman Absolution tried to provide an edgy and stylised experience, but cut too many corners to do it really convincingly - and unfortunately a lot of these cut corners coincided with the female characters. I don't believe IO Interactive set out to make a sexist game, but the finished product is sadly very easy to pick apart viewed through a feminist kind of lens. A bit more effort next time would go a long way.

I think this is the big point. A lot of the sexist stuff that happens in games (and in general) is not done because there's mustachio twirling sexists trying to keep women down. A lot of sexism is unconscious and/or unintentional, and happens through not putting enough thought and effort into what your putting out is going to mean (this is precisely Sarkeesians message, though a lot of people like to overlook that when they just want to bash her). It doesn't really make it any less problematic, unpleasant, damaging or excusable, but shows the way forward the companies need to take.

Considering at one point she called people who play games with violent or sexualised content rape apologists. It's pretty apparent her message at least on one level is "I don't like this content in games and I don't think anyone else should like it either so I'll make it a negative thing to enjoy games with said content."

She said 'it makes them more likely to accept rape myths and victim blame'. Very different thing. Not a causation, but an influence, and a negative one, one that's hard to argue with.

 

[Corran006]

Anyone else surprised the mods have not closed this yet?

 

[Batou667]

I think this is the big point. A lot of the sexist stuff that happens in games (and in general) is not done because there's mustachio twirling sexists trying to keep women down. A lot of sexism is unconscious and/or unintentional, and happens through not putting enough thought and effort into what your putting out is going to mean (this is precisely Sarkeesians message, though a lot of people like to overlook that when they just want to bash her). It doesn't really make it any less problematic, unpleasant, damaging or excusable, but shows the way forward the companies need to take.

While I'm glad you thought what I wrote was reasonable, I just want to point out that if Anita Sarkeesian is correct in calling Hitman Absolution slightly problematic, it's for entirely the wrong reasons (even a broken clock is right twice a day). As I mentioned back in Post #48 I think her analysis of the game's violence against women is at best naive and at worst purposefully misleading in an attempt to score a point about how severe and widespread misogyny is in games.

Anyone else surprised the mods have not closed this yet?

Far as I know "No Anita Sarkeesian threads!" isn't one of the forum rules. Besides, it's all been civil enough so far, hasn't it?

 

[WhiteNachos]

Anita should have used footage from the previous Hitman game, Blood Money, instead.
That game is rife with examples of the sort of thing she's talking about.

Scantily-clad women standing around, who serve no other purpose than for fully-clothed male NPCs to ogle at them. Objectified and sexualized women who are the very definition of "background decoration".
One of them even serves as your target.

And you can't even argue that they're "strippers" in a "strip club", so you would "expect" them to be there, ... because they're not strippers, and it's not a strip club.
So, why are they dressed like that?


There's also that other mission, that takes place at a 'porn mansion' in the freezing cold Rocky Mountains, which also has scantily-clad women standing around, with fully-clothed men ogling at them.
Though, in that particular case, it being a 'porn mansion', maybe you could argue that they're "part of the background decoration"... But whatever.

Have you never heard of Hugh Heffner? That mission was clearly a take on him and his mansion.

True. And I admit that's the weaker of the two examples I presented.

The stronger example is the one included in the screenshot above. That 'masquerade party' mission, full of scantily-clad women.
It's not a reference to anything, ... porn mansions, strip clubs, or anything else. And how many masquerade parties have you been to, that have women dressed like that?

None but I've also never heard of a heaven and hell party before but I love the idea. They are background decoration but I'm not seeing the big issue. They aren't presented as objects they're just people milling around that you don't care about because they're not your targets and they're not going to get in your way. Those women are servers, so they were hired to wear that and be part of the party. They are not victims and the game doesn't encourage you to oggle them so if you're not bothered by skimpy outfits then I'm not seeing the issue.

It's not like every woman in that game looks like that.

Edit: Now that I think about it those angels do provide some commentary. Not by themselves but in contrast with the rest of the level.

You have a heaven party and a hell party, the heaven party is very fancy and formal and everyone wears white. The hell party is a huge dance party with big thumping music and it looks like a club. It even has a pyrotechnic show and a shark tank. And yet with all this lack of subtlety the people working the hell club don't show as much skin.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

so, you take no issue over the fact you can literally mow down entire crowds of innocent bystanders in hitman absolution, as well as security guards that are simply doing their job, the strippers are the only lives that matter?

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

Way to be overdramatic lol. Those "innocent lives" will surely respawn and even then, they are just data that you can bring up anytime.

And how is getting negative points in a game thats about getting a good score not punishment? Do you want the game to reroute a nuclear strike to your house if you just brush past the female NPCs lol ( But the males? Nah, fuck em, break their necks like fleshy breadsticks!)

 

[Ironshroom]

?

regardless, this woman, chose to dress like that, how is that sexualization?, and if it is, who cares, is her choice, your political correctness is actually condemning her freedom to dress as she pleases

is ironic now that your argument has had both discriminating and oppressive tones towards women

Ok, give me a second to gather myself so I don't laugh in your face over that argument.

I made no comment about the cosplayer. she is free to choose what she wears.

I made comment about Rikku, a 15 year old character who's design includes a string bikini, detached sleeves and a semi transparent skirt. that is a sexualised design, or a design with some sexualised aspects. She did not choose that outfit - it was chosen for her by her creator. You like her as a character? Thats fine. You like her design? That is totally fine too. Just have the goddamn honesty to accept you like a character who is sexualised as part of her design.

this is Litchi Faye-Ying

Spoiler

[http://s52.photobucket.com/user/Fuu_Phoenix/media/bb-litchi-faye-ling_zps207bba04.jpg.html]

I think she's aweseome - she's a warm, kind and highly intelligent character who shows a lot of caring and is a strong fighter. I also like her looks, and I fully accept her design is sexualised. Doesn't stop me liking her, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that aspect, problematic as it may be.

Rikku is 15....? I've not played X in a long while, but I don't ever remember her being that young. Entirely possible though, playing that game when I was like 7 or whatever doesn't exactly help the memory....

 

[WhiteNachos]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

Realistically how the fuck is that supposed to work in any practical way?

In one level you will encounter dozens of guards that get between you and your target. Suppose you take the guns blazing route and kill anyone who tries to stop you. How are you gonna make the player feel guilty about all the guards they just murdered? How about any civilians that they kill in the rampage? Go through all 20+ backstories at the end in an unskippable cutscene?

"Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement."

It is, it's just no effective discouragement for everyone. Blood Money had good discouragement systems, if you murder everyone the clean up costs eat into your profits, if you're sloppy you may leave witnesses which makes you more likely to be recognized in future levels and if you're really good, follow certain rules and become a silent assassin you get a reward. None of this makes you feel guilty about the people you kill though.

 

[WhiteNachos]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

I know I already commented on this but I just noticed ... you just compared women to children. Full stop. That we should treat them with kids gloves and make an exception for their representation. Women can be cruel vicious monsters, they are not kids, they are adults and do not need some kind of special protection.

 

[Therumancer]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

In the context of "Hitman" though the whole point of the '47' character is that he's been conditioned so that he doesn't exactly feel remorse, he's pretty much an ultimate weapon. Part of the evolving story is him gradually getting some of his humanity back, though at the end of the day he can't change what he is. Creating some kind of major guilt trip over killing wouldn't really fit into the context of the game or it's narrative for the most part. That said we're talking about what is a very dark hero concept, and something that is pretty much against the tenets of society, which is why it's an "M" rated game series above and beyond the simple inclusion of violence.

As far as the sexual comments you made above, that battle has already been ongoing to be honest, so it doesn't make for very good sarcasm. A lot of Japanese games and those made from parts of the world with much lower ages of consent have indeed run into problems with people getting upset about pedophilia or potential pedophilia. This is to say nothing of the "Second Life" battles over so called "ageplay" and people creating underage avatars and animation sets specifically to have sex and/or engage in virtual prostitution. The defense of which has involved things like how the person pretending to be a child isn't actually a child, so it shouldn't count... it's a giant mess, but the point is we've already seen this kind of thing as well.

Speaking entirely for myself I tend to draw a line between "children" and "teens" when it comes to such things even if a lot of society does not do so. The way I see it is that teens are developing sexually, and are going to have sex no matter what anyone does. As a result I tend to be a supporter of things like distributing condoms in schools, along with better sex education, and things like that, as opposed to trying to force abstinence programs and the like. The way I see it is teens having sex with teens, including the pitfalls involved, are part of growing up and learning about life. I do however have a big problem with ADULTS getting involved with teens. As "mature" as a lot of people like to think teenagers are, at the end of the day you wind up with some 16 year old girl going with a 30 year old dude and it's a recipe for disaster, especially if as a young idealist she thinks this guy is going to be with her forever or take care of her just because he said so at some point. Those kinds of lopsided relationships tend to end in disaster, and like it or not teens with limited resources are easy for an adult with better resources (money to spend, etc...) to exploit. Things tend to become a bit touchier when it comes to young adults within a couple of years like a 17 year old with an 18 or 19 year old in my opinion.

To put all of that into a more mainstream context, as general rule a video game that say has teenagers who aren't platonic is very similar to say the "Porky's" or "American Pie" movie series, or various horror movies or whatever, and really given that society already has some degree of acceptance for this as you can tell it really isn't that big a deal if you say have a video game dating simulator where a character in high school can say score with another character in high school.... and really while there are exceptions, this is mostly where such things tend to go.

To put things into perspective, someone mentioned say Rikku in "Final Fantasy X" being 15, and dressing provocatively (and honestly, look at how a lot of 15 year olds dress IRL, whether you approve or not, it's not exactly unheard of). Consider that most of the cast of "Final Fantasy X" are all young and around the same basic age level, pretty much within a few years of her. I think the oldest cast members are Wakka and Lulu who are pretty much committed to each other and they are like what? Early 20s? As a result something like that doesn't wind hitting my alarm buttons, since your pretty much dealing with a teenage romance when you get down to it (and it's not like this game actually goes into porno territory to begin with).

In the TV series "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" most people don't really think about it, but by the time Buffy has graduated high school she's already had an affair with an ancient vampire (Angel) who looks about 30 but is actually centuries old. I don't think the show specifies but consider this had been going on a couple of seasons before graduation, including the whole "he comes back from hell with a soul, ooops he turned evil, ooops now he's good again" ongoing arc. This means at the very beginning when she does it with Angel, which is a big plot point and catalyst for those events she's about 15 or 16. As a general rule this has been permitted because it's fantasy despite being illegal and immoral... and well, it's one of the biggest cult TV shows of all time. Approve or disapprove the ship has already sailed here and I don't see it making a big deal if a video game does something similar.

On the other hand if you want to get creepier in video games, I look at say the "Xenosaga" series where you have say the thing between Ziggy and Momo which I get the impression wasn't exactly staying entirely platonic. Then of course we've got "Kid" who is an adult in a child's body who goes around with an entourage of babes who basically worship him and I sort of got the impression that wasn't exactly platonic either. Things like that represent the exception and get to the point where I'm thinking the envelope is being pushed as your dealing with characters who are pre-teen, and should be pre-sexual, at least physically. So basically the exceptions exist, but again this series doesn't exactly show anything happening or get particularly explicit (it's at best implied).

The point here is that the analogy isn't the best one. I suppose one could say "there shouldn't be graphic violence or teenage sex in video games", but then again a number of people have been saying that about all media for decades and it's been an ongoing issue. For the most part this is why you have warning labels. It's also why going by those labels an actual teenager shouldn't be consuming material just because it involves teenage characters. Part of it is because adults can draw the line between something that's fantasy, and being presented as acceptable or being encouraged. Whether they do or not, arguably real people the age of the teenage victims at "Camp Crystal Lake" should not be watching "Friday The 13th" movies and they are labeled accordingly. If parents do not listen, and nobody heeds the advisory that's an entirely separate issue.

Understand in something like "Hitman" the lead character is not being presented as a role model, indeed the situation is presented as being messed up on all ends, starting with the conditioned demons in his head. Likewise your typical horror movie isn't selling outrageous teen behavior as being a good thing (and indeed if you analyze them, most are morality plays, where those who misbehave are "punished" by the killer of the piece, which while obvious to an adult, and a trope which today is heavily subverted after the success of things like 'Evil Dead', this might not be obvious to a kid, so you know... again the advisory).










Of course then again I am a "Piers Anthony" fan and if you've ever read his stuff, a lot of it is pretty much a huge analysis of sexual politics, and he gets even weirder because he kind of sets up to shock with the whole "okay, well, you thought that was pushing it, and I barely sold it as being acceptable, wait until you get a load of this".

 

[carnex]

"Look, it's not our fault players are having sex with kids in our game! Our game is about having sex with ADULTS, so we programmed it so you could have sex with anyone. Of course we're going to have kid NPCs though, it wouldn't be believable otherwise! Besides, you lose points if you have sex with the kid NPCs!"


(Also, losing a few points isn't "discouragement." Making you feel guilt for callously ending an innocent human life, in a way that happens all the time and rarely receives any sort of justice... now that's discouragement. I'd like to see one of these "dark, gritty, mature" games try that.)

Sooo... we should treat women like children? Hands off approach? With very limited meaningless interactions, inability to cause harm directly, immune to indirect harm, no meaning to the character what so ever, safely conservatively clothed so no skin below neck and above hands can be seen?

There are hyperbolas that make sense and then there are hyperbolas that make no sense what so ever. Your falls in second category.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Rikku is 15....? I've not played X in a long while, but I don't ever remember her being that young. Entirely possible though, playing that game when I was like 7 or whatever doesn't exactly help the memory....

Lots of FF characters are surprisingly young.
Zidane and Garnet from IX are 16.
Basically everyone in VIII is 17 or 18.
Tidus and Yuna are 17 and Rikku is 15.