Dead Island Torso Statue: Misogynistic? Stupid? Both? Neither?

[Diddy_Mao]

Once again the horrible monster of Context Relevance rears it's ugly head.

If someone were to see the statue itself, divorced of all context through which it were offered then yes I can absolutely see how it could be seen as misogynist and offensive.

If this were being offered as a premium along with a game like Grand Theft Auto or one of those godawful Manhunt games then I daresay I'd probably be quite vocal about my disgust as well.
In that hypothetical situation the implication is that you're being offered a simulacra of one of your victims and that does put the whole thing into a distinctly unpleasant light..to say nothing of the urban settings of those games making the swim suited torso doubly suspect.

However the real context is that it's being offered as a premium for a zombie horror game set on a tropical island vacation spot. Within that context the idea of a mutilated sunbather comes off significantly less socially deplorable. At worst the figure can be assumed to be a zombie victim which by that nature makes it no less misogynist than shark attack.

 

[maninahat]

I've never, in my entire life, been discouraged from handing somebody some money because my 'peers' are disgusted and/or complaining. If such a thing were true, pornography wouldn't be a billion-dollar market. I don't let other people's opinions sway my own or my decisions, because what other people think shouldn't factor in to what you do with your time and money.

So you don't ever rely on the opinions of reviewers, family or friends? Whether you are aware of it or not, your entire life is influenced by other people's responses to stuff, as are your tastes and opinions. I imagine a lot of guys wouldn't want to have to show such a statue to their girlfriends or family.

I think they were deliberately aiming for controversy. I'd not have even known there was a Dead Island sequel, so +1 for marketing. I won't buy it because I think the game is crap, but if I were a Dead Island fan I'd be getting an import of this for absolutely sure.

Just letting people know that something exists isn't advertising, it's raising awareness. The purpose of an advert is to make you want something - and if neither the special edition box set nor the video game sequel is appealing to you right now, than the marketing department have failed. If it ends up making the studio look tacky, sexist and stupid to a lot of potential customers, it has backfired.

And I still haven't a clue how this could possibly be construed as sexual. Because tits?

Yes, because tits. Specifically, because of the implications of chopping a woman down until she is no more than a pair of perfectly defined sex organs. "Reducing women to a pair of breasts" is a common criticism that has been aimed at advertising, media and entertainment's depiction of women for a long time, but I've never seen a situation where the phrase could be applied quite so literally. We are expected to find the tits sexy, otherwise the marketing team would have never bothered with that specific design to represent their game. A statue of a zombified foot, or an electrified machete, or one of the thousands of other images could have been used instead. Do you see a connection between marketers slapping tits on game adverts, and promoting a collectors edition of a game with a tit statue?

 

[McMarbles]

Geez, stick a ligh bulb in that thing and you've a serial killer's table lamp. It's creepy and says things about the mental state of whoever came up with it.

Deep Silver's PR guys need a collective, Moe Howard-style face slap.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's obviously designed to appeal to the most juvenile of the gaming community, which isn't so much the issue since there are juvenile statuettes a plenty (I'm talking about the boobs here). But coupled with the brutal dismemberment it sends off a very wrong vibe. One the developers should've picked up on. Yes, even within the context of a zombie game.

Or maybe it's just me being totally fucking grossed out by guro.

 

[Sansha]

I've never, in my entire life, been discouraged from handing somebody some money because my 'peers' are disgusted and/or complaining. If such a thing were true, pornography wouldn't be a billion-dollar market. I don't let other people's opinions sway my own or my decisions, because what other people think shouldn't factor in to what you do with your time and money.

So you don't ever rely on the opinions of reviewers, family or friends? Whether you are aware of it or not, your entire life is influenced by other people's responses to stuff, as are your tastes and opinions. I imagine a lot of guys wouldn't want to have to show such a statue to their girlfriends or family.

No, because I like what I like and to hell what everyone else thinks. Reviewers are utterly undeserving of trust for the amount that are paid out or biased. An exception is our own Yahtzee. Croshaw is pretty much the only guy on the internet with any real integrity, and as such has done me right with Painkiller, Just Cause2, Far Cry3, and indeed the first Dead Island.
I'm not about to change my opinion about something because someone else disagrees like some fuckin' wine taster.
A lot of my friends criticize me for my love of Taylor Swift, others think my exercise routine is stupid, my best friend is frustrated because I still play Fallout3 instead of Borderlands2, and I guarantee nobody I know would find this statue appealing or tasteful in any sense. I still want one. That's not to say I'd put it in my living room on my piano; I'd keep it in my games room on my PC game shelf. If anything it'll add to the 'stay the fuck out of my gaming room' statement I like to softly encourage.

I think they were deliberately aiming for controversy. I'd not have even known there was a Dead Island sequel, so +1 for marketing. I won't buy it because I think the game is crap, but if I were a Dead Island fan I'd be getting an import of this for absolutely sure.

Just letting people know that something exists isn't advertising, it's raising awareness. The purpose of an advert is to make you want something - and if neither the special edition box set nor the video game sequel is appealing to you right now, than the marketing department have failed. If it ends up making the studio look tacky, sexist and stupid to a lot of potential customers, it has backfired.

I think it's awesome, and I think they shouldn't have apologized, but again I believe they only did so to continue fanning the flames of controversy. If they're smart, their plan would be to not intend to release the collector's pack with the torso in the first place - apologizing and changing their minds would be a delightful little PR trick, and thus people put off by the torso will more inclined to buy it, and people not put off by it will have their attention grabbed regardless.

Personally I hope they go ahead with it because A) fuck the haters, and B) I want to pick one up off eBay.

And I still haven't a clue how this could possibly be construed as sexual. Because tits?

Yes, because tits. Specifically, because of the implications of chopping a woman down until she is no more than a pair of perfectly defined sex organs. "Reducing women to a pair of breasts" is a common criticism that has been aimed at advertising, media and entertainment's depiction of women for a long time, but I've never seen a situation where the phrase could be applied quite so literally. We are expected to find the tits sexy, otherwise the marketing team would have never bothered with that specific design to represent their game. A statue of a zombified foot, or an electrified machete, or one of the thousands of other images could have been used instead. Do you see a connection between marketers slapping tits on game adverts, and promoting a collectors edition of a game with a tit statue?

I honestly think you're looking way too much into this, seeing a representation that's completely unfair, as if it were a trophy or idol of woman-hating.
I firmly believe the only people who would find any sex appeal in this are mentally unstable and should not be in public unsupervised.
Now, if it were made of latex with jiggly tits and possibly a pre-installed fleshlight, there's a problem. But that's nothing that can't be done with an exacto and some hot glue, so godspeed you mad bastards.

It's obviously designed to appeal to the most juvenile of the gaming community, which isn't so much the issue since there are juvenile statuettes a plenty (I'm talking about the boobs here). But coupled with the brutal dismemberment it sends off a very wrong vibe. One the developers should've picked up on. Yes, even within the context of a zombie game.

I maintain that the entire thing was deliberate. They knew what the reaction was going to be, and were entirely prepared to 'retract their decision' in response to it.

 

[Sansha]

Let's look at the RPS quote.

Okay, no it's not. This is beyond disgusting.

Right off the bat, I'm thinking this is going to be nothing but hyperbole, thus not worth my attention, or that of anyone else. But I read a little more just to be sure.

It's as if someone were attempting to demonstrate the most misogynist idea that could possibly be conceived, in an attempt to satirise the ghastly trend.

Lo and behold, I was right! This is hyperbolic in the extreme. "The most misogynist idea that could possibly be conceived"? Are you fucking kidding me?

No, seriously, I didn't think much of RPS before this (mostly because I haven't read much of them), but this alone puts them clearly on the Kotaku side of the scale.

I wrote something more about this collectible specifically, but you know what, fuck it. This sort of rhetoric doesn't merit thoughtful response, it'd be a waste of time. I seriously hope nobody actually believes this sort of hogwash, at least in the same terms that RPS portray themselves to. This is bottom of the fucking barrel writing.

Exactly, a lot of people are preaching that it's like the ultimate symbol of the patriarchy's domination of women: a sex symbol, defeated and butchered and displayed on the mantle like a fucking trophy.

It's pathetic. Extremist is the only word I can think of to describe it.

 

[Sansha]

I honestly think you're looking way too much into this, seeing a representation that's completely unfair, as if it were a trophy or idol of woman-hating.
I firmly believe the only people who would find any sex appeal in this are mentally unstable and should not be in public unsupervised.
Now, if it were made of latex with jiggly tits and possibly a pre-installed fleshlight, there's a problem. But that's nothing that can't be done with an exacto and some hot glue, so godspeed you mad bastards.

Completely faulty logic. You're essentially saying that something can only be sexualised if it contains the most extreme, over-the-top, flagrant sexual aspects possible (ie, fleshlight, jiggly tits, latex). Sexualisation doesn't exist as an extreme, it exists in multiple forms and stages, so your argument is flawed.

I'm saying this item, as it stands, cannot possibly be construed as a sex symbol because it's so gory and inhuman. It doesn't even have a vagina; the base of the figurine stops I'm saying that if the internet's collection of lunatics wants to turn this into a terrifying sex doll then more power to them, but as it stands - it's not.
You're making it sound like the beach is a very traumatic place for you.

Even better, you go into all out accusation by claiming that anyone who does have a problem with this must be some sort of psychotic creep. Really great logic for your argument there: if you disagree with me, you're mentally unstable.

I'm saying people who don't have a problem with it, the people that genuinely think it's sexually appealing are fucked in the head. The kind of people who'd put it on their coffee table or shelf above the television.

I just think it's cool because there's really nothing else quite like it, and maybe my appeal just comes from it being so damned offensive. I've always had a thing for being deliberately out there for the purpose of offending people I disagree with, because it's so damned funny to see them get so wound up over things that aren't issues.

Also hi.

The 'woman' in the statue has nothing to identify her as an individual, nothing to identify her as a human. Every single part of her that would give such an impression as been hacked away, leaving only her breasts, her navel, her crotch and her behind. Again, when there is nothing left but only her sexual parts, how is that not sexualisation? And when the rest of her is presented as mutilated stumps and bleeding wounds, how is the focus on her sex parts not equivalent to sexualising violence?

Doesn't that make it better? Personally I'd be completely put off and on the side of 'this isn't cool' if she had a face up there. And it doesn't have a butt; the base is cut off too high for there to be any noteworthy ass back there.

And because it matches the motif of the game. It's relative to the game: hot people in swimsuits being hacked the fuck up for giggles.

I'll say again, a lot of people are preaching that it's like the ultimate symbol of the patriarchy's domination of women: a sex symbol, defeated and butchered and displayed on the mantle like a fucking trophy. It's not. It's really, really not. You're making this way more of an issue than it needs to be. Yeah, it's edgy, a little sexy and hugely gory, but it's not a deliberate sexist statement.

tl;dr - Marketing 401, really not worth getting hopping mad over, I want one because it's cool.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I think at the point where you're criticising a hacked up bloody torso as being distasteful in any respect you're inherently missing the point. I see it more as an homage to schlocky horror movies and such taken to an almost satirical extreme. Not gonna lie, I kind of like it.

I'm so fucking tired of this constant misogyny fingerpointiong. I'm starting a campaign against romance movies for objectifying and disempowering men. Who's with me?

 

[Sansha]

I think at the point where you're criticising a hacked up bloody torso as being distasteful in any respect you're inherently missing the point. I see it more as an homage to schlocky horror movies and such taken to an almost satirical extreme. Not gonna lie, I kind of like it.

I'm so fucking tired of this constant misogyny fingerpointiong. I'm starting a campaign against romance movies for objectifying and disempowering men. Who's with me?

This guy gets the point, in much more polite and correct terms than what I said. Basically people are saying it's misogynistic because:

Yes, because tits.

 

[Windcaler]

Ive been thinking about it and Im of two minds on the subject. For me and my personal aesthetic choices I think the thing looks absolutely horrible and I would toss it in the trash the moment I got a hold of it. Im not into gore for gore's sake, I can only enjoy gore when it adds to the experience of some kind of entertainment like games.

So heres the other part of the issue I have. How exactly is this thing mysoginistic when its depicting a very real reality in the actual game? I dont see a hatred toward women with its mere existence but I can see how someone could interpret that to be the idea behind it.

 

[Viking Incognito]

I don't think it was "offensive" in the usual meaning. It was in remarkably poor taste and utterly dumb, but that is all it deserves to be called in my opinion.

 

[Sansha]

This guy gets the point, in much more polite and correct terms than what I said. Basically people are saying it's misogynistic because:

Yes, because tits.

No. People are saying its misogynistic because it has only tits. People are saying its misogynistic because it brutalises the rest of the female body in order to show off the tits.

Would it be better if it was wearing a t-shirt?

I'm saying this item, as it stands, cannot possibly be construed as a sex symbol because it's so gory and inhuman.

The implication here being that it is impossible to sexualise violence. That is simply not true. Violence and sexual imagery are very easy to fit together, and it is downright disturbing when developers choose to use such imagery to sell a videogame.

A video game that has horrific violence and sexual content. Two thumbs up.

I'll say again, a lot of people are preaching that it's like the ultimate symbol of the patriarchy's domination of women: a sex symbol, defeated and butchered and displayed on the mantle like a fucking trophy. It's not. It's really, really not. You're making this way more of an issue than it needs to be. Yeah, it's edgy, a little sexy and hugely gory, but it's not a deliberate sexist statement.

Logical fallacy again: assuming that something has to be deliberately sexist in order to be sexist. It does not. Sexism doesn't just lie in intent, but also in action. Whether the developers intended it or not, they are using a statue of a mutilated female body all sexualised up to sell a videogame. That is sexist.[/quote]

Then if it's not deliberately sexist, you got your apology, what's your problem?

If I go round dropping N bombs in random conversation, I may not set out to be deliberately racist, but that is still the effect my words will have on other people.

It's all about context. I use the word 'nigga' very occasionally in conversation with close friends and they know it's not racist.
The context of this being a collectible item used as an advertising/incentive campaign, because realistically, sex appeal is an effective way to push product, especially to the video game industry which, while surely becoming less so, is still a male dominated demographic.
Deep Silver is a very simple company. If they were better at their jobs they'd make quality games. They're not interested in the sociological progression of the gaming community, they'd just really like your dollars. Because, you know, business.

Go protest an underwear billboard or something. Fuck.

 

[IGetNoSlack]

In the words of Daniel Floyd...

That is f**king disgraceful.

Really, Deep Silver? That's thing's hideous. Misogynistic? Maybe. Stupid? Most definitely. That thing has no particularly clear point besides being a controversy rod.

 

[Brainwreck]

Didn't they already get into a controversy when upon launching the game, someone poked around in the files and found out that one of the playable female characters was literally nicknamed 'feminist whore'?