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

[BloatedGuppy]

...attack of the funny...

...giggle...

...oncoming attacks of humour...

...give in to the funny side...

... even more hilarity...

Dude...calm down. You are trying WAY too hard with this jocularity routine. It's starting to freak me out a little bit. It's like watching the Big Ear Family sketch on the Simpsons. It's cool that you want to be funny, and you got off to a good start with your Union Jack crack, but you need to end it there. You drop a good deadpan joke, and then you leave. You don't hang around for 10 hours prodding the audience and going on and on and on about how hilarious you are. It's more cringe inducing than the statue.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

That's a major cop out. "No, because I say so."

What did I say would happen? I said you'd sneer at anything I had to say. Your response is to sneer at an EXTREME point form response. No "elaborate on that", no "I disagree because X, Y and Z", just straight up "You're wrong!", with the ever popular "cop out" rebuttal. Dude, I could present you with a 50 page THESIS signed by leading scientific minds, and you would call me wrong. This was the whole point of my "we're not going to agree on this issue, why bother discussing it" entreaty. Which I am now repeating for a 2nd time.

You think I am wrong, and silly. I think you are wrong, and silly. I don't see us reaching common cause through discussion. We have discussed similar issues before at length, and barely avoided getting infractions by the end of it. Let's learn from history, shall we?

 

[Jenvas1306]

Its a twist on imaginery from classic slasher movies and beach/island stuff. it jst comes down to something that has oversexualized aspects to it, combined with gore. I think it just fits quite well and a male torso couldnt hit the spot like that, also as there is no swimwear for the upperbody of males. taking away the bikini-top would ruin it the same way.
thats my opinion and I really like to rant about unfitting oversexualisation.
Its just another case of aiming for straight guys as target group, girls in bikinis are probably something a beach/island paradise brings to mind. here they twist that connection, just as its a twisted paradise.

I can see how I can be offending though and a different choice would have gone around this, cause, undenyable, it is only a female torso, only tits and waist...
A head could have changed that, a bit...

 

[maninahat]

The game designers didn't factor female gamers into consideration when designing either game, and were only interested in serving the majority at the expense of everyone else.

Welcome to Business Marketing 401.

I'm well aware of the financial reasons to do it, but that doesn't make it okay. The industry has been gradually trying to distance itself from sexual advertising, and attempting to show a greater awareness of the increasing number of female gamers. "Sex sells" is still a predominant marketing trick, but there is a trend to see overt, gratuitous sex as tacky and dated. The Lynx/Axe deodorant adverts, for instance, feel very 90s.

It does make it okay because they're a business. They're not here to make everyone happy. It's in their best interest to stand out and appeal to their majority audience because that's how the system works. Dead Island had a small fanbase and was mediocre at best, but popular enough to warrant a sequel, so they had to do something to garner attention, and you're more than doing their job for them. Even if they don't ship it with the torso, they've all the free press from the internet they need.

I'm all for the decline of sexism and the greater appeal to female gamers. I like how female characters are being de-sexualized and the industry is generally becoming less sexist.

But I don't see how this figurine is sexist, I really truly don't. It's not sexually appealing in any logical manner and I think people are over-blowing the whole 'violence against women' thing, because the game's content features all kinds of folks getting fucking butchered.

It's what violence is.

Well it's about time everyone made an "any publicity is good publicity" argument. It ain't true, otherwise Jim'll Fix It DVD sales would be going through the roof right now. I don't know if they foresaw a controversy and aimed to create one for publicity sake, but it's only going to backfire now that members of the public are going to be discouraged from buying it by their disgusted, complaining peers. If they weren't aiming for controversy, it demonstrates an advertising department that's out of touch with shifting video game sexual politics.

 

[Sansha]

The game designers didn't factor female gamers into consideration when designing either game, and were only interested in serving the majority at the expense of everyone else.

Welcome to Business Marketing 401.

I'm well aware of the financial reasons to do it, but that doesn't make it okay. The industry has been gradually trying to distance itself from sexual advertising, and attempting to show a greater awareness of the increasing number of female gamers. "Sex sells" is still a predominant marketing trick, but there is a trend to see overt, gratuitous sex as tacky and dated. The Lynx/Axe deodorant adverts, for instance, feel very 90s.

It does make it okay because they're a business. They're not here to make everyone happy. It's in their best interest to stand out and appeal to their majority audience because that's how the system works. Dead Island had a small fanbase and was mediocre at best, but popular enough to warrant a sequel, so they had to do something to garner attention, and you're more than doing their job for them. Even if they don't ship it with the torso, they've all the free press from the internet they need.

I'm all for the decline of sexism and the greater appeal to female gamers. I like how female characters are being de-sexualized and the industry is generally becoming less sexist.

But I don't see how this figurine is sexist, I really truly don't. It's not sexually appealing in any logical manner and I think people are over-blowing the whole 'violence against women' thing, because the game's content features all kinds of folks getting fucking butchered.

It's what violence is.

Well it's about time everyone made an "any publicity is good publicity" argument. It ain't true, otherwise Jim'll Fix It DVD sales would be going through the roof right now. I don't know if they foresaw a controversy and aimed to create one for publicity sake, but it's only going to backfire now that members of the public are going to be discouraged from buying it by their disgusted, complaining peers. If they weren't aiming for controversy, it demonstrates an advertising department that's out of touch with shifting video game sexual politics.

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.
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.

And I still haven't a clue how this could possibly be construed as sexual. Because tits? Come the fuck on. Like I said I'm all for the decline of sexism in games but that doesn't mean you have a point every time you jump around like a chimp when there's a pair of delicious titties bouncing around.

Unless there's something about the way you look at it that you'd like to admit. We're all friends here.

 

[Kargathia]

Honestly, this whole thing is stupid beyond belief, tacky as hell, and calls into doubt any semblance of good taste and/or sensibility on the part of whomever created it.

... I want one.

 

[Comocat]

For me it suggests that Deep Silver is more interested in producing high quality gimmicks than they are high quality games. For example, they produced a trailer of exceptional quality for the first game that had almost no relation to the actual game. Now for the 2nd installment they release a statue that seemingly only has merit in being controversial, or is helpful in telling someone to not go into the owner's basement alone. I think that statue is stupid but it also says to me that this company would rather trick customers into knowing about their product, than spending money on producing a high quality product. Basically this whole debacle tells me to pass on dead island on release, and let the early adopters get the word out.

 

[anthony87]

Da hell's wrong with me?

I'm afraid you have a very serious case of a sense of humour.

It is a very dire illness not tolerated on these boards by the more serious types who take offense whenever you have an attack of the funny.

There is no cure.

The only thing you can do is join the rest if of us poorly folk and giggle at the pointless things people fly into a rage over.

Oh! OH!

Can I join in? I'm afraid I don't have the personality type to fly into an offended rage over every stupid little thing.

 

[fwiffo]

This is just horror collectable crap, as others have said.

We all want other mediums to "take us seriously", but if we have to tiptoe around everything, it'll do more harm than good.

 

[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.