Blizzard Dev Offers Apology for Response to Sexualization Question
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Do be designed as characters first not for sex appeal? Is that honestly so hard?Deadcyde said:
You act like its some sort of mystery of the universe. It's like any body who make games for an audience outside of the kid audience loses the ability to design female characters that doesn't revolve around boob cuts and skin fluanting. Take a look at the femalle designs of Steven Universe and you'll see what we are talking about.
why? why does it matter? It's fantasy. Not only that you have the option of ignoring it. So why is it important that sex appeal be toned back? Keeping in mind that sex sells for a reason. (it's fun if you didn't know)Dragonbums said:
EDIT: looking at steven universe now... er.. they're exaggerated. Almost like someone is doing it on purpose to prove a point rather then realistically portray character depth.
I don't normally comment on these sorts of things, but this has baffled me. You asked what Dragonbums wanted, as though it wasn't clear. Dragonbums responded, clearly, and now you've shifted the goalposts.Deadcyde said:
When you say "stop fucking with my escapism, you self-entitled twats", why isn't a legitimate response "stop hogging all the escapism"? Yes it's fantasy, but perhaps some people would like a different fantasy for a change? Why should they be the ones who have to ignore the stuff they don't like all the time? Why shouldn't the rest of us have to share just a proportion of that, occasionally? Your argument seems to be: "I want things to be the way I want all the time and everyone else can just shove it and shut up, is that really too much to ask?"
To also call those other people the self-entitled ones seems to be taking hypocrisy to pathological levels.
People aren't playing videogames for sex. "Sex sells" is a cheap marketing ploy that appeals to the lowest denominator of horny losers. You can change her outfi t to something moderate and it will have zero effect on their game sales.Deadcyde said:
How are the designs of SU proving a point in sacrifice of character depth? Their design reflects their personalities quite well. Ironicallly enough that criticism can be directed to the majority of female designs in videogames.
Hello, it's Deadcyde's gf here. As it does seem people are interested in hearing the female perspective on this debate I thought I would add my opinion because I said a lot more than that I "like to pretend to be someone unrealistically sexy and kick ass for ahwile".Dragonbums said:
What I said to him upon reading the backstory for this forum is that it's actually kind of a non-issue for me if they make game characters super sexy... It's not like they are actually in any way realistic. There's no way I am or ever could be a night elf or some scantily clad alien chick from SCII. Dragonbums I do totally get where you are coming from with it being lazy art but at the end of the day they are a business and it's a fact that sex sells. They are definitely not the only gaming company to take advantage of this, nor the only industry. Look at magazines, movies, advertising for all manner of products and services which all use sex to sell (much more frequently than games). So yes while I have felt pressure to 'look' or 'act' a certain way from the media I have realised what the media's view on what's 'sexy' isn't necessarily what an actual guy or girls view on sexy is. Luckily for me my boyfriend think's I'm sexy and his is the only opinion that matters to me, not some gaming company or the mass media.
Getting back to the point though I don't really feel the pressure from the female game characters that I would from stick thin models in magazines or the beautiful actresses. The reason I don't feel that pressure from games? Because they are unrealistic, they are pixels on a screen and while what a character looks like is not a drawing point for me towards a game nor is it something that would discourage me from playing a game. Whether the main character was a scantily clad nymph, a kevlar wearing counter-strike goon or a whimpy kid in his pajamas. I think part of what game creators are trying to do is to create an atmosphere that fits within the realm of their games. While blizzard and other gaming companies may push the bounds of propriety at the end of the day its up to me whether I get bothered by it or just let it go.
To address what deadcyde said again yes I do enjoy playing multiple different characters in various games and it is fun to play a sexy bad-ass chick, but there are so many other things that are more important to me in a game e.g. the thrill of an exciting storyline or the enjoyment that comes from being good at something competitive like SCII or Counter-Strike.
Oh one other thing I thought of... You could quite easily turn around to the guys and say "hey guys, does it bother you when game designers make the male game characters all buff and muscled who are able to wield a giant sword of doom while that may not be how you are in person? Does it make you feel emasculated when they do that?" Now I can't talk for guys and certainly don't want to make any generalisations but I think most of my male gamer friends would say heck no and they too love the feeling of being a bad-ass.
So to close yes I think they are probably being lazy with their game design but no I don't really fee like it is an issue compared to the other mass media and it's not like every game you play has hyper-sexualised females, sure a large proportion are heading that way but there are female characters that are normal, cute, ugly, old crones, children... the list goes on.
*edit - just realised I lied my boyfriends isn't the only opinion that matters to me of course my own does as well of course lol derp!*
How was that a response to what I just said? Where did I claim that Blizzard has never had good female characters?AuronFtw said:
Right, so Blizzard had some good female characters, maybe even ahead of the curve. So, now there is no reason to ask them about a roster of characters that doesn't seem to be in line with what is apparently a grand tradition of strong non-sexualized characters.
RPS did not say that Blizzard was sexist. They made no claims about Blizzard never having good female characters. Nathan just pointed out that the roster on this game looked questionable. The reaction to this was "Oh, we made cool-looking characters, it's not about politics, man." As if one had to make a political game in order to have a more diverse looking female cast. The question was perfectly valid and the response was terrible, so Blizzard apologized.
But yeah, I'm not big on Blizzard lore, so apparenty I'm an "embarrassment to gaming culture." Oh noes! If only I'd played every game made by every gaming company in my 30 years as a gamer I could have avoided such a horrible trait!
Why? Well, off the top of my head, simple business understanding. The people who you now call "Self-entitled" are the same audience that have kept the industry making the escapist entertainment not just around, but profitable. They, on average, are the largest demographic that supports the industry and thus are the reason it, you know, exists in the current form in the first place. Even a fool would understand that because of that oft over-looked fact, they would get the lion's share of the developer's attention when it comes to making new games and the character designs within them. While this doesn't guarantee the designs would be great or unique, nor that there would not be pandering because of the demographic share among certain titles and genre, it does explain the frequency as one of simple business and not ideology, which is important to remember in this.SoManyCrimes said:
And that is not to say that it all has to be one way, not at all. Merely that the largest companies (like Blizzard) will worry about the biggest audience, especially when that audience has been very reliable in the past. While that does mean you see lots of pandering in general and occasional over the top character design, or even sexualization for the sake of sexualization, it doesn't make that self-entitled to ask why the demographics who historically, and currently don't come close to supporting the companies financially have to be represented equally with those that have. Tell me, is it not a little entitled to expect to find a dress on a rack at the store in a grown man's size and cut, knowing full well that the maker of that product knows it has a very very obvious gender slant too? Because last time I checked the games people complain the most about in regards to sexualization are the same ones with around 80-90% younger adult male audience (you know, the same general demographic usually pandered to in the lowest common denominator way).
Going beyond that though, it is not like those that don't care for sexualization do not have options in gaming. From mainstream to indie, there are hundreds of thousands of games without it. As you say yourelf, some people have different fantasies, and as it just so happens, there is a market for that too. It is just that market is a hell of a lot smaller, and you have to expect the amount of companies and money invested in that smaller market will be less because of that (until demand increases). Right now it comes off as complaining about a product not made to your taste and trying to justify a demand for a larger slice of games that suit your taste as some overall social issue instead. You are using your own dislike of an obviously popular (though quite admittedly over saturated) type of product to claim it is something that it is not, abusing social pressures to try to change it to something you want instead. That is self-entitled to the letter.
Not all games are DOA, and there is a valid reason why so many have sexualized character models anyways. I am sorry if it bothers you, vote with your wallet and support the ones that you like, and hope others share your taste. Don't whine about what other people like as though it is some grand social issue here. It isn't. Not any more then my dislike of Twilight's popularity is a commentary on the sexist nature of the desires and fantasies of adolescent and grown women. Tell me, what is the average current gender balance for people who play MOBA? No, I don't want to hear about what you think it could be if they only had more models that catered to your taste or they didn't sexualize as much or whatever else. I'm taking the viewpoint of a conservative business here and will look at the general data we have available, not idealize about what might be. So, what is the general audience of MOBA, and what are some general trends among that audience? Then, after you give that, tell me why any company with a lick of sense would not market to them in every way possible?
Oh, and to cut off another rebuttal, every MOBA I know of has a huge variety of characters and designs, including everything from fan-services to more reserved. So, you know, people have options as it is, and this story never was an argument about a lack there of. Instead, it was someone thrusting a social complaint of the gaming community at large onto the deeloper and making a soapbox out of an interview, hence why I treat it like the social complaint.
But what if someone else wants to have part of that lifestyle? Are you really saying that you're not prepared to sacrifice just a tiny piece of it to include other people? Are you saying that the design of the characters is INTEGRAL to that lifestyle, and that changing them would destroy it? Because then I don't think you'd be in the majority any more.Deadcyde said:
How is it "merely on principle"? People are saying they would enjoy it too if only it were a little different. Obviously if people want to desexualize the characters because they want to censor you, and they have no intention of playing after the changes, then that's bullshit. Ignore those people. But that's not what everyone is saying. They want in on the fun too, it's just that there's currently a barrier there. Are you really not prepared to compromise, even a little?
I think you've misunderstood my position here, and conflated what I said with a lot of other arguments I haven't made. I just didn't understand Deadcyde's argument. I don't have any horse in this particular race, except that I'd like games to be better written, and different approaches to character design would probably help that. But that doesn't apply to all genres.runic knight said:
But I would say that the business understanding argument is flawed, because it only focuses on current customers. I'm a writer and editor, and I occasionally work in games. One reason that games writing was and is so neglected (despite it being so cheap in comparison with other assets) is because when devs looked for feedback, the existing customer base said "we don't care about the writing". So they assumed it wasn't an issue. But that's idiotic. They should have asked people who AREN'T playing the simple question: "Why aren't you playing?"
And it turns out that writing and story DO matter, you just can't easily get data about it. The same might be the issue here. The current player base can't necessarily tell you anything about why the player base isn't bigger. They're already happy. But maybe you could make them just a TINY bit less happy and get a whole lot of new customers?
I think i'll let runic and Nen take it from here, they seem to be explaining my stance slightly more clearly.
I'm up in arms because it doesn't appear that there needs to be "non sexualized room" in video gaming, cause there is that room. And any true gamer doesn't care about visuals with a good game.
As well as keeping in mind that games are meant to be fantastic and an escape from reality
What's the problem?
I'm up in arms because it doesn't appear that there needs to be "non sexualized room" in video gaming, cause there is that room. And any true gamer doesn't care about visuals with a good game.
As well as keeping in mind that games are meant to be fantastic and an escape from reality
What's the problem?
Sorry just had another point on the above. I read the original RPS article and they talk early in the piece about what kind of 'crowd' (market) their new game is for. They make a point of saying they don't really do marketing research they build games that 'excite them' and then see who wants to play it... I'm sorry but I don't really think the minority opinion matters to blizzard.SoManyCrimes said:
At this point I was more or less talking about designing in general.lapan said:
Especially considering how the poster I originally commented on decided that anyone who critiques aspects of female design period are "self entitled twats"
But that is the problem, and I think you are aware of it. As a writer and editor, and certainly a gamer, I am sure you have seen the controversy and shit storms raised when a game franchise changes things. DMC, Tomb Raider... they are just the latest of the internet shit storm that rages every time something changes. Game companies look for feedback and anytime there is a change that doesn't appeal to the same demographic, there tends to be a lot of drama. And a lot of potential sales lost for it.SoManyCrimes said:
Furthermore, you shouldn't present it as though a loss of a small amount to a larger net gain. It doesn't work like that and businesses know better. It is not a matter of simply moving numbers, but paying attention to who would buy the product in the first place. The current target demographic is dependable. An average male will buy games in the usually contested genres, thus it is a matter of convincing them to buy that developer's game. The average female wont buy games in those genre though, thus it is convincing them to not only buy the individual's game, but to join the genre itself. To put it another way, it would be like having a fair. All the rides are spinning. Now, the people who go to the fair want the spinning stuff (for the most part). And each ride only makes the money it earns, hence why they all spin. Now you see this and ask "why not make some that don't spin, you might lose some people but you'd get more". Well, because you have an audience that is going to spend money in the fair somewhere, versus one that may not even go, let alone spend it on you. Most game companies are conservative business wise, they choose the safer bet and stick with the demographic they know will buy if not their product, one very similar to it.
There is solid business logic in why they market largely to the audience they do, and shitstorms enough when they don't. For a company listening to customers, what do you think they would do? Furthermore, most companies try to reach out be it with games or in-game options and use that as a barometer to see if they should change more, to test the waters and see if they can get a bigger and newer audience, and those often fail badly or at the best don't quite balance out the potential lost customers for the shitstorm changes bring.
As for bad writing, I feel you there. Some better story would be nice. Though, I think it is worth mentioning that not all games should have a great story. And MOBA, well, they aren't exactly story driven narratives.