Clive_Paddington said:
Dragonbums said:
Actually we do show up. All the time.
You want to know what happens half the time when I input my opinion about something that relates to my sex?
I'm either told that that's just my objective opinion and it doesn't have any weight to how most women act, I'm slammed with "fact checking" women like "social games" and other inane studies about what women like to do, or I'm told that I'm just being a feminazi with my panties in a twist and maybe I need to sit down somewhere and stop ruining videogames.
I've spent enough pages arguing back and forth in these arguments to realize that these arguments are completely surface deep.
Women aren't allowed to claim that not all of us like Princesses all that much without being called a subjective opinion. But the dudes here are allowed to make sweeping claims like women only like simulation games because my girlfriend/wife (ie, probably the 4 women most of them have ever really gotten to know in their entire lives) likes to play them all the time.
They don't ACTUALLY want to know what women's opinion are in this matter. They just want to talk about what they think they know what women want in this conversation. Half the time any women inputting anything will just get brushed under the bus or told to chill out.
Then, may I ask you what your opinion is?
Gosh, I sound like a fucking white knight, but it would be interesting to know.
From an artistic standpoint (being an illustrator myself) it's pure laziness in terms of design.
It went from being something edgy and radical like when it was first introduced decades ago, to being nothing more than a cop out in terms of designing women that are not only unique in abilities, but appearance.
Whether developers want to admit it or not, videogames are as much a visual medium as they are an interactive one. As such, what a character wears and how it's presented will mean A LOT for first impressions.
A user a couple posts above asked what issue did people have with Miranda in relation to the fact that even though her outfit was skimpy as fuck, her personality was sound. Therefore it should be fine.
But that is exactly the problem. It's a crying shame.
If you were to show Miranda from Mass Effect to some random street civilian, the last thing on their mind is going to be how interesting or awesome Miranda's character is. They are going to notice first and foremost her skin tight suit which brings out everything in all the right places. In fact, they are probably just going to see her on the surface as nothing more but one of those sexy catty women.
Her outfit, does not reflect her personality in the slightest (and for someone as high ranking as her in the Cerberus chain, makes her woefully under prepared for any attacks on her person. The only thing she's got going for her is her biotics)
An even better example would be Ashley from Mass Effect.
Ashley is an Alliance soldier through and through. Follows orders, has quick judgement, sticks by regulations - by all accounts her design in Mass Effect 1 reflected her perfectly.
The reason why her redesign was met with so much backlash in ME3? Her design went against everything she is as a character.
Long wavy hair- Not only against Alliance regulations, but also will get you killed in a fire fight pretty fast. Something Ashley would never and did not do in Mass Effect 1
Heavy makeup- not saying women aren't allowed to wear makeup, but let's be serious here. When you are a soldier (and a spectre at that), you don't have the time nor energy to apply 5 layers of powder with full lipstick to boot.
High heeled boots- Why? Just why?
This was in stark contrast to Kaidan (providing he live) who would do the exact same thing Ashley did, yet they designed him in the third game to fit in with what they both went through.
He looks more rugged.
He's more tired, and perhaps a bit despondant. You can SEE that in his design. You don't see that in Ashley's redesign in ME3.
Nothing about Ashley's design in ME3 made any damn sense to either her personality, her current occupation, and the situation around her. It was there to make her look sexy first, everything else second.
And that's the mentality of most of the game industry when it comes to women's design.
Bayonetta did it right. Why?
Because her character is centered around her sexiness. Bayonetta is fully aware that she's hot. She's in control about how hot she wants to be, and she'll make sure everyone else around her knows it. It doesn't come off as blatant sex appeal because they designed her around practically making fun of the practice in the first place.
Now people would rebutt that and claim we want all women to look like Amish. Which is stupid.
I want you to go outside and look at how most women dress on a day to day basis. It sure as hell ain't catsuits and bikini armor 24/7.
When artists design male characters, often times their environment, personality, and current situation are reflected in their design.
However when it comes to most female characters it is simply how to make her look attractive (with only hints at relation to the environment) first and character development second. So yeah, that female character may have the best personality in videogames, but that greatly diminished if she's displayed in a sexy fashion where her breast line takes up half the composition.
It's very possible to make sexy yet reasonable designs for women. Any artist that tells you otherwise are either lying, or need to go back to design school.
