Rebel_Raven said:
How well known are these games, or how well known will they be? What will the quality of the games be? I don't mean to split hairs, but a game is hard pressed to be successful if no one knows it's out there, and if it can't stand on it's own regardless of the protagonist, it will fail.
I'm still wary of the industry's treatment of female characters.
And don't forget Skullgirls! It might be debatable with some of the fighters in its primarily-female roster, but I have a particular soft-spot for Peacock's old-school-cartoon design. It would be good to shine focus on particular developers too, since Valve has often come out with less-objectified characters (Chelle, Zoey, Alyx). Also, some indie game developers tend to shy away from the blatant sexualization that bigger companies resort to.
I concur with your argument, and would like to bring up percentages. It's nice that there are about 10 to 15 games out there that can declare its female protagonists to be well-rounded non-bimbo characters, but what would the following ratio look like? {2013 Games with strong non-sexualized heroines} : {2013 Games in Total}
AlexWinter said:
So yes, this question needs to be asked more and more and more and more until I can like and identify with a female character that doesn't get objectified. Because that kind of shit is not only offensive and condescending to me and other adult gamers that don't want to be treated like horny teenagers but it's harmful to women in the real-world.
Testify! Every time a game shoves heaving bosoms into my frame of view, it's like the devs are screaming "Shove some tits in his face and he won't care about poor gameplay and minimal bug-testing!" If inserted without thought and meaning, gratuitous cleavage and ass-shots feel like scented smokescreens, like waitresses in tight shirts luring customers to buy sub-par wings.
This is what I don't understand about the people defending the omnipresence of overt sexuality in games. While it may work for some games (Bayonetta arguably), blatant sexual imagery is a marketing tool meant to appeal to the male libido's wallet. Beer ad models don't improve a beer's flavour, and showgirls don't improve a car show's cars.
Which is all well and good. They aren't a charity; they have to sell the game and push the product. If using sex sells more copies, then all the better right?
But games have deadlines, and games have
limited budgets. When everything is coming down to the wire and they have to decide between coding a new multiplayer map or animating a hot springs cutscene, well they'll have to go for what sells the best and if that happens to be sex...
Games can be deep and fun
and have sexy ladies in it all at the same time. But if devs have to choose, I would much rather they focus on making a better game with less animations, as opposed to a grindy snore-fest that shakes tits in my face everytime I level up.
"We want
better games. Not softcore porn.
Games!"
That's the message we gamers are trying to send, right? No matter what we think of crudeness or prudishness, we are all surely valuing gameplay over imagery?
rbstewart7263 said:
if you put a man in a full fledged suit. and then had him recline on a couch with his ass in the air it would not be as attractive to females as it would be if you had a man do it. different sexes tend to like different things sexually with some exceptions. I dont care if your the one chick who wants to see kratos with his knees together sticking his butt in the air your probably one out of 20. So when you say things like that your making a false equivalence. one does not mean the other and vice versa.
While you're missing my point, thank you for giving me another example! As I've said before, Kratos (and other manly man heroes) are not
meant to sexually attract the player. They are meant to be
worn by the player so they can share the feeling of being powerful (and perhaps being "sexually attractive" as well). We "get" the heroines; We "be" the heroes.