Dragon's Crown Review: Buxom Babes and Battleaxes

[BarkBarker]

Playing Muramasa The Demon Blade of late, I find this to be...sorta meh to be honest, it sure does look nice with it all hand drawn, but the gaming quality doesn't look too enjoyable, I mean just playing muramasa THERE IS A LOT OF BULLSHIT, the gall of having a instant death mode is certainly doable but can't be won with hard work and skill alone, and that is aggravating to know you simply can't win without X, or you crawl out of a boss thanks to items rather than timing and whatnot. I understand that the art designs are exaggerated, I'm fine with exaggeration, the amazon is fine in my eyes because it makes sense, the warriors make sense, the wizard.....okay it feels a bit weird there, and the sorceress is blatant exaggeration of her sexual characteristics, I don't really like that kind of mind set from a developer, I'll keep an eye out for it and watch and read other reviews, but the fact that Vanilla finished this might mean they'll start doing something about that 3DS game they were talking about when it came out, a 2-D Vannilaware game on my 3DS....YUM.

BTW I'm so going Elf, I don't care what anyone says, she is adorable and I will forever gawk at her adorable face.

 

[Plasticaprinae]

Giant breasts are always a put off for me. Just a thing. I prefer smaller breasts or medium breasts. If I was made to play the game, I would just choose the wizard or elf. The backgrounds look pretty. And just.. my god.. That color palette.

Women who are drawn in over exaggerated fashion always kind of made me awkward, but not in a self conscience way. It made me awkward because I always prefer realistic proportions, for males and females, with some exceptions (longer legs, more pronounced facial features). Big breasts make me uncomfortable in the same way a far too long penis makes me uncomfortable. It is a fetish that I am not fond of. I only get an issue if everything I love is plagued by it. Thousands and thousands of gargantuan genetalia and mammaries the size of mammoths. Everywhere.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Spoiler: you totally get it

If you liked the old fantasy beat'em slash'em burn'em ups from Capcom and the whole palette of same game, different name, different graphics and stuff, it's pretty awesome. Same basic gameplay as, say, Final Fight (Shadows over Mystara, Tower of Doom, Knights of the Round, Golden Axe, etc. etc. etc), but I find it absolutely enjoyable.

It needs to be revisited and developed further. You say they're all the same game with different characters.....much can be said about the current generation of games (rpgs esp) where the characters are different but the mechanics are the same. Many of the latest actio RPGs are borrowing from that list you made and I'm really enjoying that trend, however long it lasts.
Glad for Dragon's Crown, Dragon's Dogma and Amalur. Here's to hope.

Aye, I agree. Brought back with a bang, I want/need/crave more of it. Because it's fun.

Indeed, I did say those games (plus Captain Commando, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Warriors of Fate, the Punisher, Alien vs. Predator, Irem's Undercover Cops and all I might have forgotten) were practically the same offering in various flavours. We got futuristic and fantastic stuff, all while eliminating foes of various sizes and picking up food items from the floor to replenish health. They were all mostly quite simple games - easy to pick up, but some were quite hard to master - and finish.

Most FPS shooters these days cost multitudes to produce, they only last 5-6 hours on average and the tacked-on multiplayer is, more often than not, not worth the hassle. I find the majority of them to be a waste of time, money, resources, talent and shelf space. Some of them even do their best to exhume, humiliate and utterly destroy beloved old franchises. That does not amuse me much.

I'm not so certain about modern RPGs borrowing much from the games of old, but any proper fantasy game that - to whatever extent - relies on established fantasy lore and expectations is bound to feature bits and pieces and patches and whole chunks of stuff we've already seen and hopefully haven't grown tired of yet.

I really like Dragon's Crown, and while I find it somewhat difficult to compare it to Dragon's Dogma and the ill-fated Amalur, I like those games as well. Funny enough though, that I found myself preferring Amalur over Dragon's Dogma, as I found combat and enemy variety and design to be quite bombastic, even though the game had obvious issues. Dragon's Dogma felt like a true hybrid hermaphroditic halfbreed and I didn't like it's take on the class system too much. The pawn system felt like something half-arsed Ubisoft would come up with. The incessant banter of the NPCs got from boring to annoying to intolerable at the speed of light... and, yet, I liked it because it did a lot of things right. Not quite the same things Amalur 0.8 beta alpha rushed final release, but they all saw me entertained for hours. Not too shabby, that.

I eagerly await Dragon's Crown. It looks very different from Amalur and Dogma for sure, but you understand what I'm saying. There was something about Golden Axe, Double Dragon, etc that this last generation didn't run with. You can make some solid, engaging games with those old models, especially with the RPG elements. THAT's why Amalur and Dogma are in my library. For all their flaws I still have an old school attitude that helps me to enjoy those games. All those flaws you point out - and Dragon's Crown probably has flaws - won't stop me from enjoying the game.
In fact, one of the things I enjoyed was working around flaws in older games....these days we can have the best of both worlds though. Perhaps the games we're talking about got ignored because people got frustrated playing them? It's an intriguing question for me as an aging gamer.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Here goes my two cents:

I am a woman. I am purchasing this title day one. The art is a stylistic choice, whether you accept that or not. You wanna be offended? Fine. Be offended. I'd rather be a sorceress shooting down monsters and making hordes of skeletons than playing Lara Croft almost getting raped by some douchecanoe. I like what I've seen of the gameplay; I could care less about the story or the characters 'questionable looks' if the gameplay is as awesome as it appears. I think The Last of Us gave gamers their fill of intense story.

It's a beat em up. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. Get over it.

And just as a reminder, this is my opinion. The great thing about opinions is that NOBODY is 100% correct.

But I wish more people like you would speak up b/c you actually are talking about the game itself. That's why I came here, to find out about the game. Sure these issues exist, but I agree with you.

 

[Minity]

Axle, I found your conversation very thought provoking, I tried to answer some of your last questions as best as I could, since I just sort of jumped in her. Hope that is ok.

Because we seem to be talking about two different things, I'll just reiterate that my argument this entire time has been directed towards the tendency of attaching negative traits to the portrayal of a hyper-sexualized female character and saying that they're "stupid", "weak", "less than x", etc. or that they do not embody the traits of "strength", "power", "dominance", etc. because of the manner they are depicted / posed / etc.

Completely agree with this. All things can be seen as "sexual". It depends on the lens of the person who is viewing it. Just because the sorceress has large breasts does not make the character sexual, nor does the fact that her breasts respond to environmental physics. However, the traits that the Amazon and Sorceress have, can be easily aligned with sexuality. Are the male characters given traits that can heavily represent sexuality as well?

I say this because, to show sexually related things or "objectifying" characters in media is not and should not be deemed as negative, but if women are only put in situations that can be aligned with sexuality when the men are not, then it is a form of sexism. Most media does not do this, since sex sells, creators want all of their characters associated with it in someway lol.

I'll use the welding argument that has been posted earlier in this thread. Is the woman is the only one with that low cut shirt in order to have her breasts out while working at this insanely hot factory. Do the men wear t-shirts or tank tops or v-necks, as well, or is it just the female characters? If it is just the woman with her skin showing, but not the men, then the artist is not depicting the image accurately and it would be a form of sexism. It is not hyper-sexualized and her breasts are only out because the artist wants them out, not because it makes sense with the scene. The woman is not equal to the men in the same scene if she is wearing something different only because she is a woman and the artist wants to draw her differently in a place where uniformity would probably be expected. (Also I am assuming that this is a serious story we are talking about in a factory, not something funny or whimsical). Now if everyone is wearing less clothing, maybe to show just how unbearably hot that factory is, then who cares.

I have to disagree. Quantity does not justify correctness.

So if there was a racist game here or there, no-one would really take offence or notice, apart from liking or disliking the art on its own merits according to their own personal tastes? Sounds unreasonable right?

The fact that there is an over saturation of this kind of depiction can be a lot of things; tiring, unoriginal, overdone, etc., it does not, however, define what traits that character depiction carries though, especially when it comes to value.

Mostly agree with this. Especially bolded. In terms of sexuality, pointing out that something is not equal does not automatically devalue the character that is being objectified (i'm putting that in quotes because I do not know if that is the word I want to be using)

Look at Bayonetta. Dante did not need to be naked in his game, and in my opinion, the two of them are very much the same character, two sides of the same coin if you will (male / female). Did you nudity and ass shot take away from her character? In my opinion, no, and if you stuck around till the end of the game, you learned very quickly, not matter what she was wearing, you don't f* with a witch.

Now, could the game have had the option to keep her costume on when she summoned demons? Sure, but her character still was not hurt because she was naked. It only, in my mind, brings to light the fact that Dante has not been naked in his games (until the reboot lol).

I do however, disagree with your statement, for characters that have firmly established backgrounds that would not warrant certain types of hyper-sexualization. I will discuss this with Ms. Marvel from the Avengers later in this post.

I'm not trying to be critical, but I do have to address your positioning on that statement because it implies that women (not a person, a demographic) have a relationship with video games (an industry), which is personifying two very non-human things. What I think you're driving at is that you feel the manner in how women have been depicted by these industries has somehow been detrimental to the demographic of women.

Now while this would be a giant discussion on its own, I will ask the question again, does any individual artist have a responsibility to depict any or all demographics in a manner they find tasteful?

I have to somewhat disagree with the 1st part. A demographic may embody a stereotype, which is a broad idea of people from certain backgrounds. While its not "good" to stereotype people, it happens, and it is actually the way the brain is designed to organize things so that we can save room and energy. Its called a schema instead of stereotype.

I don't believe that any artist has a responsibility to produce something that is "tasteful", because tastefulness is based too much on individual preference. However, I do think that an artist has a responsibility to give 100% to the product they are representing. Dragon's Crown is a hyper / over-exaggerated game of fun (that's the message I get from the trailers). However, the male characters only look....slightly over-exaggerated. I was very disappointed the Conan looking guy was not an alternate skin for the male knight, as he would have looked more in line with the Amazon and Sorceress.

I also want to point out Saints Row IV. That game is over the top, at least that's what its previews would have you think. They have scantily clad women AND men. It's almost like they took that extra step, but it definitely does not look "tasteful" lol

I think Dragon's Crown and Saints Row are games that push boundaries, and should be encouraged to do so. I simple don't think Dragon's Crown went far enough with their male characters yet.

Why is a woman portrayed seductively on display become an object to you?

I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally or trying to label you as a bad person, so please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say as an attack but this is precisely what I'm arguing. This tendency to devalue the image of a woman that is hyper-sexualized on the basis that it has no worth because it doesn't embody the definition of what's "tasteful" to you (or whoever). This is a very damaging outlook for both genders because it indirectly attaches negative connotations to sexual presentation.

Is it wrong to prefer different imagery that better meets your definition of "sexy" or "tasteful"? Absolutely not. But it doesn't make what doesn't meet your definition of sexy or tasteful worth less or stripped of any positive attributes.

I think you are missing something very important from the term, objectification, and that is treating someone as a thing without regard to their dignity. And that last part is often how I define when a character or person is being objectified

I definitely agree with your last statement. However, most of the time, men are not hyper-sexualized in the same way. If odd poses for women, equal sexuality, why aren't men put in odd poses? If less clothing equates to sexuality, why not put men in less clothing?

Or do we have to start asking whether men and women define sexuality differently? (rhetorical lol)
Since I don't want to drift to far from the game, I wonder, is there anything about the sexuality of the Wizard, Knight, and Dwarf in Dragon's Crown that could be equal to the sexuality of the Sorceress, Amazon, and Elf. What are those traits, and why is their value equal or not equal?

I want to look at Chris Redfields sailor costume in RE: Revelations. A number of people called the costume "gay". Why is it when a male character gets put in a fan-service outfit (similar to that of his female counterparts), his sexuality is questions. Sounds like people just want to complain.

Ok, got it.

What I have to challenge then is your notion that their other merits are ignored. This is something done by the individual, not what is being presented. You are subconsciously performing a "valuation" of a character by looking for certain things to be displayed and when they are not, or better said, when other aspects are emphasized instead (such as exaggerated sexual overtones), it results in your judgement. When the judgement crosses into the territory of false association, that's what I'm concerned about.

I agree and disagree. Depending on the media being looked at. Dragon's Crown, I thought the designs were great and it looks like it will be a cult classic type of game.

Now for something more mainstream, and with an established female character who has a very particular background, yes, certain things do invite judgement, because they are wrong based on the stereotype of the information that is well known and supposed to be important to the character. An example would be every time Ms. Marvel has her ass out and hip cocked to the side as she addresses another character. In my opinion, the character of Ms. Marvel is a highly respected and decorated air force pilot. Much of her background implies that she would not stand with her hip cocked and ass out, because, in my opinion, it does not equate to the expected mannerisms of her field, however, it looks as though it is done to make her more attractive, which goes against the characters traits. Does this mean she would never stand relaxed, or wear a bikini or her Ms. Marvel uniform, no (she is invulnerable after all, she could realistically fight naked if she wanted to and not worry about injury. However, during a team briefing or talking business to her teammates, to government officials, the character of Ms. Marvel should probably be depicted in a way that best represents the military and its expected behaviors.

You asked if artists should be responsible to make things tastefully, my answer is still no, but when working with established characters and continuity, they do have a responsibility to provide an accurate representation of that character or the traits of people and groups that character is representing.

So again, where does this factor into the negative associations made towards the portrayal of a hyper-sexualized female character?

The manner of how women are depicted and would like to be depicted is an entirely different issue but I'll address it since its clearly something you feel strongly about (hopefully you can show me the same courtecy by addressing the questions I've posed to you).

I've asked you this question before in this discussion and in order to make progress I have to pose it again. What responsibility does an entertainment piece have towards appealing to multiple demographics? Do you think a movie like Magic Mike had the intention to appeal to men AND women, or mostly women? Was it wrong for it to do so? What if it depicted men in a manner that didn't meet your definition of "tasteful", would it be wrong then? Why?

I ask this question because I think it will answer whether you are consistent in your approach towards the subject at a high level.

I know your questions have not been directed toward me, but I will still answer because I have been intrigued by this conversation.

I, again do not think there is anything wrong with depictions of hyper-sexualization, unless it goes against the characters background, as I have discussed earlier. I also want to point out that this is for official mediums, fan-art, anything goes, IMO.

Magic Mike was clearly geared towards women and gay men, both groups who are sexually / romantically interested in males. I personally thought the movie was too tasteful, and did not push the envelope like Strip Tease with Demi Moore did.

That brings me to my small issue with Dragon's Crown, it didn't push the hyper-sexuality with the male characters enough. Does this mean that it is only being geared towards men, or that men cannot be hyper-sexualized in media that men predominately use? I ask this because you asked about Magic Mike, must they always be separate, and if fan-service outfits are included for men, does it automatically associate negative attributes with their sexuality?

I've addressed this earlier but will mention it again. Whether something is acceptable or not should not be based on quantity, but on its own aspects.

I get that you're trying to encourage "a better way forward" and I don't disagree that injecting variety into the medium would do just that. I also don't think its a bad thing to encourage the creation of more female characters without an emphasis on their sexuality. I DO think its a bad thing to badger the creation of hyper-sexualized female characters as it attaches negative attitudes towards those depictions.

I agree for general characters / depictions. For established characters, any sexuality should fit within the lines that have been drawn. Again, I use Ms. Marvel for my example.

In my opinion, hyper-sexualization is not a negative thing, however, is it needed to get female characters into the media? In my opinion, it depends. Look at the elf, no one is complaining about her right? Lara Crofts new game did very well (I thought people were pulling at straws about her controversial scenes, but that's just me, especially when rape would have been a very real concern for a teenage girl after being stranded on the island). What about Bayonetta, would her game have been worse without the hyper-sexualization or would it have been used at all if we were playing as a male witch instead?

Dragon's Crown looks to be a great game, but they did not deliver on the hyper-sexualized male. It feels, to me, like they didn't take that last step, when others, like Saints Row IV, are starting to do so.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/dragons-crown/critic-reviews


I don't normally go to this website but I was linked and out of curiocity I scrolled down and the source of the lowest review took me by surprise. I guess the star system is a good way to soften a blow cause this game's revew, at least the video semgent, did NOT play out as a 60.



Currently, the escapist has the absolute LOWEST score, with every other review averaging something like 85 or so. It strikes me as odd.

 

[-Axle-]

Axle, I found your conversation very thought provoking, I tried to answer some of your last questions as best as I could, since I just sort of jumped in her. Hope that is ok.

My hat is off to you sir / madam. I'm happy to explore the topic more with anyone willing.

I'm going to do my best at trimming the post as best as possible, but if I miss anything or take it out of context, please don't think its intentional (just trying to reduce the "wall of text" for any others as much as possible).

...All things can be seen as "sexual". It depends on the lens of the person who is viewing it. Just because the sorceress has large breasts does not make the character sexual, nor does the fact that her breasts respond to environmental physics. However, the traits that the Amazon and Sorceress have, can be easily aligned with sexuality.

I would've said their presentation as I align "traits" more with personality, but I think you just mean the way they are depicted. The exaggerated size, the somewhat cartoon-like physics, the emphasis on their sexualily, etc. all point towards sex, and absolutely agree. A clear grab for attention for the demographic attracted to those kinds of women.

(1) Are the male characters given traits that can heavily represent sexuality as well?

I say this because, to show sexually related things or "objectifying" characters in media is not and should not be deemed as negative, but (2) if women are only put in situations that can be aligned with sexuality when the men are not, then it is a form of sexism. (3) Most media does not do this, since sex sells, creators want all of their characters associated with it in someway lol.

*tried to split this one up to avoid confusion

(1) Absolutely not, at least not from a traditional straight-female perspective

(2) Disagree there. I have to ask why you think that is.
Sexism is defined and very much tied to devaluing someone or discriminating against them on the basis of their sex, so how is that happening here? Simply emphasizing one gender's sex while the other isn't, isn't grounds for sexism (or discriminating / devaluing them). I guess an easy example would be a lesbian-geared sexual piece of entertainment. If it was made for that demographic specifically, would they bother emphasizing male sexuality? Clearly not, as its outside of their scope (intent), so I wouldn't classify it as sexist against men simply because that audience has been excluded (or better said, not considered).

(3) Sex definitely sells although I'm not sure I believe most media is as even-handed as you seem to think (I'd say a lot of them still lean heavily towards appealing to men, but I thinks that's ultimately because its been done longer and thus easier to do as a result)

I'll use the welding argument that has been posted earlier in this thread. Is the woman is the only one with that low cut shirt in order to have her breasts out while working at this insanely hot factory. Do the men wear t-shirts or tank tops or v-necks, as well, or is it just the female characters? If it is just the woman with her skin showing, but not the men, then the artist is not depicting the image accurately and it would be a form of sexism. It is not hyper-sexualized and her breasts are only out because the artist wants them out, not because it makes sense with the scene. The woman is not equal to the men in the same scene if she is wearing something different only because she is a woman and the artist wants to draw her differently in a place where uniformity would probably be expected. (Also I am assuming that this is a serious story we are talking about in a factory, not something funny or whimsical). Now if everyone is wearing less clothing, maybe to show just how unbearably hot that factory is, then who cares.

So we're clearly at odds here since I'm of the opposite view. I would ask you is why you think both gender's need to be treated the same in any given scene (from a presentation perspective, not dignity), but let's park that thought as I think it may get flushed out in the other sections.

What I will say here, for the sake of understanding, is that if the situation was reversed (topless men, fully clothed women), I wouldn't call that sexist just because only the men's sexuality was highlighted. (Let me know where you'd stand on that situation)

...In terms of sexuality, pointing out that something is not equal does not automatically devalue the character that is being objectified (i'm putting that in quotes because I do not know if that is the word I want to be using)

I think its worth mentioning here that I think a lot of people are thinking of the same word you are.

What's important is to distinguish between "objectification" of a human being, as it pertains to their worth rather than an "object of desire". I think a lot of people identify the Sorceress and Amazon as "objects of desire" for certain men. That's not objectification, its just a common saying not to be confused the the actual definition of objectification. For example, my daughter is the object of my affection, that doesn't mean I'm objectifying her, its just an expression. I'm thinking perhaps that's why the word "objectify" came to mind for you.

Look at Bayonetta. Dante did not need to be naked in his game, and in my opinion, the two of them are very much the same character, two sides of the same coin if you will (male / female). Did you nudity and ass shot take away from her character? In my opinion, no, and if you stuck around till the end of the game, you learned very quickly, not matter what she was wearing, you don't f* with a witch.

Now, could the game have had the option to keep her costume on when she summoned demons? Sure, but her character still was not hurt because she was naked. It only, in my mind, brings to light the fact that Dante has not been naked in his games (until the reboot lol).

...until the reboot is right! lol

I agree, and its clearly chalked up to the creator being a straight male attracted to women. If it was the reverse (with the same inclinations towards highlighting sex), then Dante for certain would have been overly sexualized in the same manner. However, the concept would probably never get very far on the business side since publishers would likely shy away from any eroticism that excludes straight men. I'll add a note here before anyone asks, that I don't think that's out of sexism, but out of business risk (I'll expand if asked).

I do however, disagree with your statement, for characters that have firmly established backgrounds that would not warrant certain types of hyper-sexualization. I will discuss this with Ms. Marvel from the Avengers later in this post.

I think we actually do agree on that point, at least to an extent.

If you have an established character who's sexuality was never previously highlighted and it all of a sudden is, its clearly a departure from their roots and one that may very well betray the character. But is it sexist? I don't know, I have to say no as otherwise no character could ever evolve from where they started without being labelled in one way or another. Or in other words, why would sexuality be the only character change that could not occur.

I don't feel I have a way of articulating this well, so I'll just put my thoughts down quickly;
I loved The Last of Us, I also loved the fact that Ellie was never sexualized in the game. I will admit that I was worried that at some point in the game, even if she wasn't in a bikini, that they'd do an "ass shot" or something that would somehow put her in a position to appeal to men in a sexual manner. Needless to say, that never happened and I was very impressed. If they were to do a sequel or show Ellie in the future as an adult, would it be sexist to showcase her sexuality for the sake of arousal? I would say no, but it would certainly betray the nature of her character and the atmosphere of the story in my eyes. Kind of like what Square does with Final Fantasy (lol)

PS. I have the same fear about HitGirl in Kick A$$.

...I don't believe that any artist has a responsibility to produce something that is "tasteful", because tastefulness is based too much on individual preference. However, I do think that an artist has a responsibility to give 100% to the product they are representing.

Doesn't "give 100% to the product" result in the same thing? ie. highly subjective to each person's opinion.

Dragon's Crown is a hyper / over-exaggerated game of fun (that's the message I get from the trailers). However, the male characters only look....slightly over-exaggerated. I was very disappointed the Conan looking guy was not an alternate skin for the male knight, as he would have looked more in line with the Amazon and Sorceress.

I also want to point out Saints Row IV. That game is over the top, at least that's what its previews would have you think. They have scantily clad women AND men. It's almost like they took that extra step, but it definitely does not look "tasteful" lol

I think Dragon's Crown and Saints Row are games that push boundaries, and should be encouraged to do so. I simple don't think Dragon's Crown went far enough with their male characters yet.

I'm not sure how you think the men are only slightly exaggerated in DC when they're not proportionally accurate either and by a longshot.

SR IV (or III) is a good subject to look at for this topic. Lots of sexuality on display but due to the character customization, you can be anything you want male or female. What I want to point out is this;

-Had SR III or IV only been geared towards women and resulting in a one-sided customization, would that have classified as sexist to you?

-Do you think women are as attracted at the prospect of a naked male avatar as much as men are attracted to a naked female avatar? Why do you think that is?

I think you are missing something very important from the term, objectification, and that is treating someone as a thing without regard to their dignity. And that last part is often how I define when a character or person is being objectified

I don't necessarily disagree with your definition, but I contest that a sexualized representation of a female (or male) counts as treating someone as a "thing". For one, its not a real person (we're talking about a drawing here or VG character), and two why are they a thing? The game has them on the same level as any of the other heroes and balanced the same way. They're not sold, traded, treated as property, etc. By the same token, is a naked male avatar in SR III / IV created without consideration for their dignity (were they a person), does that then mean they are objectified?

...However, most of the time, men are not hyper-sexualized in the same way. If odd poses for women, equal sexuality, why aren't men put in odd poses? If less clothing equates to sexuality, why not put men in less clothing?

Or do we have to start asking whether men and women define sexuality differently? (rhetorical lol)
Since I don't want to drift to far from the game, I wonder, is there anything about the sexuality of the Wizard, Knight, and Dwarf in Dragon's Crown that could be equal to the sexuality of the Sorceress, Amazon, and Elf. What are those traits, and why is their value equal or not equal?

I want to look at Chris Redfields sailor costume in RE: Revelations. A number of people called the costume "gay". Why is it when a male character gets put in a fan-service outfit (similar to that of his female counterparts), his sexuality is questions. Sounds like people just want to complain.

I haven't seen the sailor outfit but to me that sounds like its geared towards gay men, not women (and gay men seem to make a lot of other men uncomfortable, so no big surprise there why some would complain).

To answer the crucial question here though, what's sexually appealing to a man and woman is different. There's a reason why you don't see more men in thongs, and its not because women don't like "smut". Having said that, there's no reason why men couldn't be overly sexualized from a female perspective, it just hasn't happened yet since the majority of the business (men and women business people BTW) do still believe the lucrative side of the business is towards teenage males.

...Now for something more mainstream, and with an established female character who has a very particular background, yes, certain things do invite judgement, because they are wrong based on the stereotype of the information that is well known and supposed to be important to the character. An example would be every time Ms. Marvel has her ass out and hip cocked to the side as she addresses another character... Does this mean she would never stand relaxed, or wear a bikini or her Ms. Marvel uniform, no (she is invulnerable after all, she could realistically fight naked if she wanted to and not worry about injury. However, during a team briefing or talking business to her teammates, to government officials, the character of Ms. Marvel should probably be depicted in a way that best represents the military and its expected behaviors.

I apologize, I'm not sure I follow the first part of your statement but I can try to answer the latter.

The thing about a comic book character is that they are tossed around to different people all the time. If someone created a character that had nothing to them other than their sexuality, someone could come later on and give them more substance (the opposite is also true, and obviously more common). While this would be a departure of their roots, its not inherently something I would label as "good" or "bad" from a moral perspective. For example, I think Michael Bay's Transformers betray the majority of the original characters and he didn't even highlight their sexuality (who's the audience there?). Inversely, if someone came along and made a Batman movie that showcased Bruce Wayne's sexuality with a pure focus on female appeal (for my purposes, imagine something that wouldn't appeal to men for the most part), it would betray his character, but I wouldn't call it something "bad" from a moral perspective.

You asked if artists should be responsible to make things tastefully, my answer is still no, but when working with established characters and continuity, they do have a responsibility to provide an accurate representation of that character or the traits of people and groups that character is representing.

Agreed!

I know your questions have not been directed toward me, but I will still answer because I have been intrigued by this conversation.

I, again do not think there is anything wrong with depictions of hyper-sexualization, unless it goes against the characters background, as I have discussed earlier. I also want to point out that this is for official mediums, fan-art, anything goes, IMO.

Magic Mike was clearly geared towards women and gay men, both groups who are sexually / romantically interested in males. I personally thought the movie was too tasteful, and did not push the envelope like Strip Tease with Demi Moore did.

That brings me to my small issue with Dragon's Crown, it didn't push the hyper-sexuality with the male characters enough. Does this mean that it is only being geared towards men, or that men cannot be hyper-sexualized in media that men predominately use? I ask this because you asked about Magic Mike, must they always be separate, and if fan-service outfits are included for men, does it automatically associate negative attributes with their sexuality?

I definitely think DC was geared towards men without much consideration for women. That's not to say it was done to exclude women, its just that they weren't doing anything specifically to attract women. Kind of how some car designs are done with one gender in mind over the other. They're not trying to exclude anyone, but their focus is towards one end of the spectrum instead of a balance. I don't see anything wrong with that.

I agree for general characters / depictions. For established characters, any sexuality should fit within the lines that have been drawn. Again, I use Ms. Marvel for my example.

(1)In my opinion, hyper-sexualization is not a negative thing, however, is it needed to get female characters into the media? In my opinion, it depends. (2)Look at the elf, no one is complaining about her right? Lara Crofts new game did very well (I thought people were pulling at straws about her controversial scenes, but that's just me, especially when rape would have been a very real concern for a teenage girl after being stranded on the island). What about Bayonetta, would her game have been worse without the hyper-sexualization or would it have been used at all if we were playing as a male witch instead?

(3) Dragon's Crown looks to be a great game, but they did not deliver on the hyper-sexualized male. It feels, to me, like they didn't take that last step, when others, like Saints Row IV, are starting to do so.

(1) It certainly is not needed, but it is used as a tool to get attention as it has proven very effective in the past. Kind of how putting out an average military FPS will garner a few hundred thousand sales without much effort regardless of quality. Sex appeal towards men is used in the same fashion. The problem (if any) is that it results in the same kind of female character (from a design perspective) being presented time and time again.

(2) I think someone could be offended by the elf, but due to the contrast with the Amazon and Sorceress, it goes unnoticed. Again, its up to each person's individual taste about what's "too much". Female character's don't need their sexuality to be highlighted to be a good character, but they certainly wouldn't be the same character without them. So Bayonetta without the sexual overtones wouldn't be the same character. Does that mean the game wouldn't be any good? Of course not, but the character would be about different things.

(3) So this is one of the most interesting parts to me, did DC need to take that step (hyper-sexualize the males). Would women have gravitated towards it the way men do in the same numbers? I personally don't think it was needed, but it would have certainly made the game stand out, more so. I think it would've widened its appeal as well by making it more "inclusionary" (not a word, I know, sorry). The only issue I see is balance. When you start to gear something towards everyone, its harder to take liberties with the material to the extent you like to since its bound to make someone uncomfortable. For example, it would be extremely difficult to make a game with hyper-sexualized characters that appeals to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. If you wanted to be successful, chances are, you'd have to lean more towards one audience or the other.

I do look forward to the day when someone does a version of a game that is very sexual but without the straight male audience in mind. I'd love to see the reactions as well as whether people would see that as a step forward or backwards. The only thing I don't look forward to, is the ignorance that is bound to come out (from both sides) trying to attack each other for the mere value of simply attacking them.

 

[Minity]

My hat is off to you sir / madam. I'm happy to explore the topic more with anyone willing.

I'm going to do my best at trimming the post as best as possible, but if I miss anything or take it out of context, please don't think its intentional (just trying to reduce the "wall of text" for any others as much as possible).

Cheers, good sir. I will try to do the same, about cutting down the posts.

(2) Disagree there. I have to ask why you think that is.
Sexism is defined and very much tied to devaluing someone or discriminating against them on the basis of their sex, so how is that happening here? Simply emphasizing one gender's sex while the other isn't, isn't grounds for sexism (or discriminating / devaluing them). I guess an easy example would be a lesbian-geared sexual piece of entertainment. If it was made for that demographic specifically, would they bother emphasizing male sexuality?

(3) Sex definitely sells although I'm not sure I believe most media is as even-handed as you seem to think (I'd say a lot of them still lean heavily towards appealing to men, but I thinks that's ultimately because its been done longer and thus easier to do as a result)

2. So for your definition of sexism, it sounds as if we need another term. Now, my next statement, and any after, will be with the intent the DC was meant for all audiences. Because I agree, if it was not meant for a particular group, why cater to them? However, I am responding to what could be "sexism" in the game, based on what others have complained or argued about. So I am going to twist your argument a bit, but if DC was made by Lesbians, predominately for Lesbians, but they still promoted as something for everyone to enjoy, and they did not hyper-sexualize at least one of the males, it would be a form of sexism / discrimination in my opinion.

3. I am not saying media is even handed, far from it. I just believe that men are presented in a way, that does make them more sexual. Meaning creators are prepared for the men to sell to women, gay men, and straight men a like. Daniel Radcliff made the comment that he will miss Harry Potter because he won't get to star in action roles any longer. Its not like he is unappealing to those who fancy the men, but he isn't the epitome of the male "action star", so we won't be getting those roles. That type of treatment of people, men and women, is what I was describing.

So we're clearly at odds here since I'm of the opposite view. I would ask you is (1)why you think both gender's need to be treated the same in any given scene (from a presentation perspective, not dignity), but let's park that thought as I think it may get flushed out in the other sections.

What I will say here, for the sake of understanding, is that if the situation was reversed (topless men, fully clothed women), {2)I wouldn't call that sexist just because only the men's sexuality was highlighted. (Let me know where you'd stand on that situation)

1. Because I am basing this scene as severely realistic and the feminist movement, in my opinion, was designed to give equal rights to women. To me, this means if the men are wearing protective gear, so must the woman. Why is the woman put in the scene in different attire just for sexual reasons, when we could just make her protective gear sexy / form fitting instead of putting her in completely different clothing. That would be a step in the better direction at least.

2. What else should we call something that differentiates between people based only on their sex? One of my favorite scenes in a movie, that I do not believe has any sexism, is the shower scene from Starship Troopers. Everyone is naked in the shower room. No is treated differently or has any more / less shown based on their sex. Sexism happens. It isn't always bad and most media will never be as equal as that shower scene, but what else would we call it?

What's important is to distinguish between "objectification" of a human being, as it pertains to their worth rather than an "object of desire". .... That's not objectification, its just a common saying not to be confused the the actual definition of objectification. For example, my daughter is the object of my affection, that doesn't mean I'm objectifying her, its just an expression.

I think that I agree with you...So for me, the characters are not objectified, because, as of now, they do not appear to have personalities. They are hyper-exaggerated place holders that are representing archetypes. That does not mean that they are objectified just because they are well endowed versions of the those archetypes. Is that along the lines of what you think as well?

I agree, and its clearly chalked up to the creator being a straight male attracted to women. If it was the reverse (with the same inclinations towards highlighting sex), then Dante for certain would have been overly sexualized in the same manner. However, the concept would probably never get very far on the business side since publishers would likely shy away from any eroticism that excludes straight men. I'll add a note here before anyone asks, that I don't think that's out of sexism, but out of business risk (I'll expand if asked).

Do you think that is sexist, I mean of American people, not just the creators? If the creators want to hyper-sexualize Dante, but can't because it won't sell well since he is a man, but can and are even expected to do so for Bayonetta, isn't that unequal treatment?

.... that may very well betray the character. (1)But is it sexist? I don't know, I have to say no as otherwise no character could ever evolve from where they started without being labelled in one way or another. Or in other words, why would sexuality be the only character change that could not occur.

I don't feel I have a way of articulating this well, so I'll just put my thoughts down quickly;
I loved The Last of Us....If they were to do a sequel or show Ellie in the future as an adult, (2)would it be sexist to showcase her sexuality for the sake of arousal? I would say no, but it would certainly betray the nature of her character and the atmosphere of the story in my eyes.

PS. I have the same fear about HitGirl in Kick A$$.

1. It all depends on the situation and the story and if it is happening only because of the characters sex. Would the change happen if the character was of the opposite sex? That is what I think about if I hear a change being sexist.

2. Yes, I would think so, only if the male is not sexualized as well, because it is only for the sake of arousal. Now...if it was to progress her character....again situational difference.

I never have even thought of HitGirl being sexual....I am little nervous you said that LMAO. Hopefully they will still true to the character.

Doesn't "give 100% to the product" result in the same thing? ie. highly subjective to each person's opinion.

It is very subjective...touche lol. The artist must give their best....and then you get what you get, so we can have these types of discussions LOL

I believe you said / agreed with me earlier, that the men in DC were not nearly hyper-sexualized like the Amazon and Sorceress. That is what I meant by 100%, but again, it is subjective.

(1)I'm not sure how you think the men are only slightly exaggerated in DC when they're not proportionally accurate either and by a longshot.

SR IV (or III) is a good subject to look at for this topic. Lots of sexuality on display but due to the character customization, you can be anything you want male or female. What I want to point out is this;

(2).-Had SR III or IV only been geared towards women and resulting in a one-sided customization, would that have classified as sexist to you?

(3)-Do you think women are as attracted at the prospect of a naked male avatar as much as men are attracted to a naked female avatar? Why do you think that is?

1. I guess I mean hyper-sexualized. I was trying to avoid using the word over and over
2. Yes it would have been sexist in my opinion
3. I am not sure. I do not think they are often given the option to choose and therefor are not socially taught to be attracted to a naked male avatar. Judging by the success of Magic Mike, I would say that there is something attractive about male nudity to women.

...but I contest that a sexualized representation of a female (or male) counts as treating someone as a "thing". For one, its not a real person (we're talking about a drawing here or VG character), and two why are they a thing? The game has them on the same level as any of the other heroes and balanced the same way. They're not sold, traded, treated as property, etc. By the same token, is a naked male avatar in SR III / IV created without consideration for their dignity (were they a person), does that then mean they are objectified?

Hmmm...I am not going to touch on the fact that the characters are not real people, though we could discuss that more if you would like. I will say, they are representing people in some way.

I again think objectification has not been the term I want to use.

(1.)I haven't seen the sailor outfit but to me that sounds like its geared towards gay men, not women (and gay men seem to make a lot of other men uncomfortable, so no big surprise there why some would complain).

(2)... what's sexually appealing to a man and woman is different...you don't see more men in thongs, and (2)its not because women don't like "smut". ...there's no reason why men couldn't be overly sexualized from a female perspective, it just hasn't happened yet since the majority of the business (men and women business people BTW) do still believe the lucrative side of the business is towards teenage males.

1. Here is a link:

http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/1146328/article_post_width_Resident-Evil-Revelations-costumes.jpg

Isn't being gay a form of sexuality? The depiction of some of these women makes people, not just other women, uncomfortable, but it is still included. Should something not be included, just because it makes a group uncomfortable? Wouldn't that still be a form of sexism? I guess that is why I believe there is some sexism in the game. I like the designs of the characters, and the women, but the hyper-sexualized style was not given to the men in the same manner. Was that done because the straight male audience might be uncomfortable with it,because that is not equal. Will it stop me from playing, definitely not. lol

2. I also want to point out that I am not talking about what men and women want. I am simply discussing equal treatment of the characters in the game. As a straight man, I am sure you know what makes other men sexually attractive to women or even gay men to an extent (I am assuming you are a straight male because you made the comment about having a daughter). Hope that is ok.

You know, when other people think a male is sexy, it might not be something that is always openly stated, but people, both men and women, gay or straight know what it is. So, why can we not over-sexualize the male characters, when we know what people think is sexy? As you said earlier, men could be the object of desire for other men, in the sense that they would like to be like them, and their sexuality is a part of that. (Not saying they are sexually interested in other men, even if they are gay, but that they want to have the same traits as another man they admire.)

...but I wouldn't call it something "bad" from a moral perspective.

I don't think it is "bad" to sexualize characters. Could you give me an example of how Batman would be sexualized to appeal more to women? I think he is very sexy now, for both men and women. Again, the sexism from my POV, does not matter whose perspective we are using.

I definitely think DC was geared towards men without much consideration for women. That's not to say it was done to exclude women, its just that they weren't doing anything specifically to attract women. They're not trying to exclude anyone, but their focus is towards one end of the spectrum instead of a balance. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Agreed! However....

(1) It certainly is not needed, but it is used as a tool to get attention as it has proven very effective in the past....Sex appeal towards men is used in the same fashion. The problem (if any) is that it results in the same kind of female character (from a design perspective) being presented time and time again.

(2) I think someone could be offended by the elf, but due to the contrast with the Amazon and Sorceress, it goes unnoticed. Again, its up to each person's individual taste about what's "too much". Female character's don't need their sexuality to be highlighted to be a good character, but they certainly wouldn't be the same character without them. So Bayonetta without the sexual overtones wouldn't be the same character. Does that mean the game wouldn't be any good? Of course not, but the character would be about different things.

(3) So this is one of the most interesting parts to me, did DC need to take that step (hyper-sexualize the males). Would women have gravitated towards it the way men do in the same numbers? ....For example, it would be extremely difficult to make a game with hyper-sexualized characters that appeals to both heterosexuals and homosexuals. If you wanted to be successful, chances are, you'd have to lean more towards one audience or the other.

I do look forward to the day when someone does a version of a game that is very sexual but without the straight male audience in mind. I'd love to see the reactions as well as whether people would see that as a step forward or backwards. The only thing I don't look forward to, is the ignorance that is bound to come out (from both sides) trying to attack each other for the mere value of simply attacking them.

1. To me, that is the sexism I am referring to (bolded your quote), women must be depicted a certain way in order to be included, rather than have non-sexualized options

2. I agree about Bayonetta if her sexuality was removed completely. However, if her sexuality was toned down some (no ass shots, or nudity) I feel her character would've still remained in tact. I felt it was used as a gimmick, to get people hooked, because about half-way through the game, I felt that the nudity and ass-shots started to get ignored, or weren't used as heavily. If you took it away completely, i.e. she isn't flirtatious, she doesn't purposefully use her sex appeal to make others uncomfortable, then yes she would be a completely different character.

3. Again, I do not think that DC has sexist elements because it excludes the female audiences. DC has sexism, because, out of all the exaggerated characters, only the female ones are hyper-sexualized. It shows that the men, do not need to be hyper-sexualized in order for the product to be successful and that the women should be. It is not necessarily bad, but neither is pointing it out.

I truly do believe that the game could have hyper-sexualized the male characters, without alienating the straight male audience. I mean, isn't this the same audience that tells others to get over it, and just enjoy the game? Maybe it is time they practice what they preach, and judging by the success of the SR games, I would say they would be ok for the most part. (Thanks for the info on SR, I've never actually played, just saw the previews and what now).

Hope I didn't come off as too preachy at the end, but I don't think I did a good job of cutting down the wall LMAO

Sorry for that.

 

[xeyra]

This is like deja vu to the comment section in the Polygon review I just spent a good half hour reading today. It's like people just copy pasted to or from there. The exact same arguments, accusations of lack of objectivity, of my opinion is better than yours and average reviews are not allowed on the basis that I love the game and you obviously are wrong and shouldn't review it. I'm waiting for the 'you have no right to review this game on the basis that you're female', which is possible has already been said since I didn't read all six pages.

 

[Grahav]

*snip*

*snip*

I was thinking in discussing all your points but you both are already making them sensible and inteligent.

Congratulations for both of you

Just some things though.

I would say its an assumption to say that anyone who makes that statement is a feminist though. One because they likely haven't mentioned whether they identify as one or not, and secondly for the same reason that you wouldn't want to make the assumption that a Christian / Muslim / Jew / etc. makes a statement that may resemble only a portion of that demographic.

Well, that statement at resembles a portion of the feminist demographic. But I agree that I expressed in a way that made a generalization.

I guess that is one of the problems here. Distinguishing the characteristics of a group from the characteristics of the individuals of a group.

You have humans. Then you have the genders who have different characteristics. Then you have age, culture, religion, formation, sexuality, job, food preferences, etc... How to appeal to all of them?

It is not bad to have something made to a certain demographic as long other demographics get their share.

In fact it is easier in that way, since you may risk peasing nobody when trying to please everybody. This is specially true in regards to sex. Each gender ideas of romance, beauty and attraction tend to differ. It is easier for an author to relate to people who have his own preferences.

She or he will do idealized representations of the self and the target of affection. So in a common male fantasy (take comics, for example) males are physically imposing, muscular and powerfull. Women have stripperific outfits. The heroes have a lot of romantic interests.

And in shoujo manga the guys have softer traces and hardly a single speck of body hair or beard. And the girls are super models. The heroines have a lot of romantic interests.

Both are unrealistic and unfair. Fantasy and desire don't worry about these things.

Still, in each side there is the danger of considering them a literal real goal to achieve. That would imply in unrealistic goals for partners, plastic surgery, steroids, continous diet...

 

[-Axle-]

Cheers, good sir. I will try to do the same, about cutting down the posts.

...

Hope I didn't come off as too preachy at the end, but I don't think I did a good job of cutting down the wall LMAO

Sorry for that.

LOL, not at all and please don't apologize, I actually appreciate how well you're articulating yourself but I'm just as guilty of creating a wall of text. Attempt #2

At a high level, here's what I'm gathering (please correct me if I misunderstood);

... Now, my next statement, and any after, will be with the intent the DC was meant for all audiences. Because I agree, if it was not meant for a particular group, why cater to them? However, I am responding to what could be "sexism" in the game, based on what others have complained or argued about ... if DC was made by Lesbians, predominately for Lesbians, but they still promoted as something for everyone to enjoy, and they did not hyper-sexualize at least one of the males, it would be a form of sexism / discrimination in my opinion.

To me, that is the sexism I am referring to ... women must be depicted a certain way in order to be included, rather than have non-sexualized options

...I do not think that DC has sexist elements because it excludes the female audiences. DC has sexism, because, out of all the exaggerated characters, only the female ones are hyper-sexualized. It shows that the men, do not need to be hyper-sexualized in order for the product to be successful and that the women should be.

What else should we call something that differentiates between people based only on their sex? ... No is treated differently or has any more / less shown based on their sex. Sexism happens. It isn't always bad and most media will never be as equal as that shower scene, but what else would we call it?

You do not believe it is "ok" to only cater to one gender when creating sexually-loaded entertainment, and this also falls in line with your definition of sexism because it caters to only one sex.

Here's why I disagree;
(1) That definition of sexism is too broad.
Sexism, by definition (not mine), has to contain discrimination or devaluation. Otherwise, segregated bathrooms, shampoos, hygiene products, toys, some cars, room decoration, watches, etc. would all classify as sexism when they only consider or cater to a specific gender. A lack of equality in design does not necessarily equate to sexism. For example, when I was shopping for items for my daughter, 95% of all ads and packaging depicts a mother using the items only. Clearly, less than 95% of parents are female but the marketing of those products felt that the key demographic was women, not men. By your definition, would that not be sexist? (I don't think its sexist)

(2) That same definition would also paint the other "isms" such as racism too broadly.
For example, if a game contained a black character that committed a crime, is it then obligated to have a white person also commit a crime lest it be labelled as racism? Why stop there, whites and blacks aren't the only races. Think about how many games are made to appeal to an American audience, do they also appeal to non-American audiences as well? I will assume you agree that they don't consider non-American audiences, but they don't necessarily directly exclude them either, which IMO is "ok" and not racist.

(3) Frequency does not necessarily dictate correctness
Is it tiring, overdone, etc. to see the same thing produced? IMO, yes. I would love to see more variety for all the same reasons. How often are Germans depicted as only Nazis, how often are Americans depicted as only heroes in any given event? How often are Americans depicted as the invading force (think about how a middle-eastern or a latin american would feel about American political events that undermined or influenced the directions in their respective countries). I don't want to get controversial but regardless of how you feel about any one given event, there is likely at least ONE war or significant political event that you would question or label as "wrong" at one point or another. But guess what? How much do you think that depiction would turn away an American audience? The sad reality is, from a business perspective, someone is putting money on the table and they will prioritize their success based on who they think their buyers are.

Let me ask you a few questions to help shed more light on the situation

(a) Do you feel the same way about non-sexually loaded entertainment? (That it needs to cater to both genders equally, or is it only whens sex is a component of the entertainment that an even-hand has to take place) Why?

(b) Do you agree that it is ok to prioritize your audiences in order of who is likely to produce the most financial success?
To clarify, you obviously can't make an insulting statement in a product (like say "All black people are criminals"), but you don't have to cater to them either. For example, Twilight didn't prioritize male appeal, it prioritized female appeal. Therefore if a decision had to be made about something that would appeal to women but simultaneously not appeal to men, the leaning would be to appeal to the women first because the expectation is that they are your primary paying audience.

... men are presented in a way, that does make them more sexual. Meaning creators are prepared for the men to sell to women, gay men, and straight men a like ... That type of treatment of people, men and women, is what I was describing.

I don't think its intentional though. I think at a base level, yes, there is a lot of overlap in what appeals sexually to straight and gay men / women / etc. and that's why you have the result you do today. If there was no overlap, then I think you'd have a lot more less emphasis on highlighting male sexual traits.

...Because I am basing this scene as severely realistic and the feminist movement, in my opinion, was designed to give equal rights to women. To me, this means if the men are wearing protective gear, so must the woman. Why is the woman put in the scene in different attire just for sexual reasons, when we could just make her protective gear sexy / form fitting instead of putting her in completely different clothing. That would be a step in the better direction at least.

I think we're mixing two very different things together though. The need for people to be treated equally and afforded equal opportunity and then we're talking about depictions of fictional people in an entertainment medium.

In a serious setting, that kind of setup wouldn't make sense since it begs the question of "why isn't she wearing protective gear". But we need to discuss it in the context of a fictional fantasy setting in order to compare apples to apples. I would go back to my Tony Stark example, if he was shown welding something dangerous sans protective gear and with a look that only appealed to women (lets assume it was unappealing to men), would that be sexist? What if we use the same scene (in a fictional fantasy setting) but reverse the context, where the men are welding without protective gear and the woman is fully protected. Say it was also done with a clear objective of sexually appealing to women at the expense of men finding it appealing, is that sexist? If so, why?

A "better direction" is relative to your expectation that entertainment should cater to both genders simultaneously but I challenge that notion because there are so many other entertainment pieces that people (let me know what your opinion is on these) wouldn't classify as problematic despite being unbalanced. I'm thinking of things like "chick flicks", romance novels, soap operas, etc. that appeal to women first and foremost. Men aren't forbidden from liking those things, but they don't gravitate towards them, in the same way that I would say DC appeals to men first without making much effort to appeal to anyone else.

I think that I agree with you...So for me, the characters are not objectified, because, as of now, they do not appear to have personalities. They are hyper-exaggerated place holders that are representing archetypes. That does not mean that they are objectified just because they are well endowed versions of the those archetypes. Is that along the lines of what you think as well?

Yep, bang on.

...If the creators want to hyper-sexualize Dante, but can't because it won't sell well since he is a man, but can and are even expected to do so for Bayonetta, isn't that unequal treatment?

Unequal treatment? Yes. Sexist? No.

It is simply forecasting how a business person deems the market will react for that specific product. If Dante was a character in a romance novel, yes, they'd hyper-sexualize the cr@p out of him IF women would find it more appealing and more likely to buy the product. But if Bayonetta was a character in a romance novel, they would NOT hyper-sexualize her as it would likely turn away women, who are their primary demographic and client. Is that situation treating both genders unequally? Yes. Sexist? No.

It all depends on the situation and the story and if it is happening only because of the characters sex. Would the change happen if the character was of the opposite sex? That is what I think about if I hear a change being sexist.

In my example, I would say it was done purely out of the sake of arousing a male audience (without regard for the character). I think it would be in poor taste and cheapening the history of the material but not sexist. Where as I think this is where you think it crosses into sexism. I don't for the same reason that I don't think it would for the Batman character either (in a situation where he was showcased primarily to just be appealing to women at the expense of male appeal)

It is very subjective...touche lol. The artist must give their best....and then you get what you get, so we can have these types of discussions LOL

I believe you said / agreed with me earlier, that the men in DC were not nearly hyper-sexualized like the Amazon and Sorceress. That is what I meant by 100%, but again, it is subjective.

Exactly.

I do not think they (women) are often given the option to choose and therefor are not socially taught to be attracted to a naked male avatar. Judging by the success of Magic Mike, I would say that there is something attractive about male nudity to women.

LOL, well, obviously straight-women are attracted to a naked male but I don't think the aversion to a naked male avatar is because they weren't socially conditioned to do so. At a fundamental level, I just think its that women aren't as highly influenced by a male's physiology as much as men are to women's physiology. Without going too far off the topic of VG, you can see this in any study about evolution and what's important in mate selection to each gender. You'll notice that each gender cares about different aspects "unequally", but that doesn't constitute as sexism. It can lead to sexism, but is not enough alone to constitute as sexism.

Hmmm...I am not going to touch on the fact that the characters are not real people, though we could discuss that more if you would like. I will say, they are representing people in some way.

I again think objectification has not been the term I want to use.

This fueled question #2 in my first section but I'll address the remainder here.

You seem to be of the opinion that a person depicted has to represent their background, at least their gender. Why? This would create so many problems with any depiction as you'd always have to have equal numbers of representation in everything to evade sexism, racism, religious discrimination, etc.

Let me clarify, I don't think a person depicted CAN'T represent their demographic, I just don't think they need to and consequently should not be looked at as representing their demographic, simply because they happen to be a part of it.

1. Here is a link:

http://download.gamezone.com/uploads/image/data/1146328/article_post_width_Resident-Evil-Revelations-costumes.jpg

LOL, thank you for that. I feel like I was really lazy not looking it up (I was just tired, it was late and I was writing for a long while).

Isn't being gay a form of sexuality?

Absolutely

The depiction of some of these women makes people, not just other women, uncomfortable, but it is still included. Should something not be included, just because it makes a group uncomfortable?

From an artistic perspective, absolutely not. It tends to make things more interesting (IMO). But from a business perspective, it would be really unwise to make your key demographic uncomfortable.

Wouldn't that still be a form of sexism?

I don't think so. Remember, there's not just straight-sex appeal. How often do you see sexuality that appeals to trans-gendered people in romantic / dating movies? Would it make straight men and women uncomfortable? Yes. Are they going to do that when the target financial demographic to the current romance movie is straight men and women? Absolutely not. Is it sexist (or whatever you would call that form of it)? I don't think so.

I guess that is why I believe there is some sexism in the game. I like the designs of the characters, and the women, but the hyper-sexualized style was not given to the men in the same manner. Was that done because the straight male audience might be uncomfortable with it,because that is not equal.

I don't think it was because it would make a straight male audience uncomfortable, I think it was because the artist(s) made the designs in what they saw in their vision (which naturally does not include every perspective). Think about how successful you'd be at making something hyper-sexualized that appeals to someone of an opposite / different orientation to your own. You wouldn't likely be able to do it justice the same way that someone who identifies with that orientation, nor have as much desire to. That doesn't make you a bad person in my eyes. Its just where your abilities lie.

... I am simply discussing equal treatment of the characters in the game. As a straight man, I am sure you know what makes other men sexually attractive to women or even gay men to an extent (I am assuming you are a straight male because you made the comment about having a daughter). Hope that is ok.

I am (lol), not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld fans?)

But let's remember, sexual appeal isn't unanimous. What some find sexually appealing may not be for another and vice versa.

You know, when other people think a male is sexy, it might not be something that is always openly stated, but people, both men and women, gay or straight know what it is. So, why can we not over-sexualize the male characters, when we know what people think is sexy? As you said earlier, men could be the object of desire for other men, in the sense that they would like to be like them, and their sexuality is a part of that. (Not saying they are sexually interested in other men, even if they are gay, but that they want to have the same traits as another man they admire.)

A few things here;
(1) There is nothing stopping the over-sexualization of male characters from a fundamental perspective.
The reasons why it isn't done right now is because the business side has found success in appealing primarily to straight men. Appealing primarily to straight women presents an unknown risk (for a hyper-sexualized, polarizing product, will they find buyers?) and unknown territory in how to get there (there aren't many with experience AND success in this background in the VG industry). Also, the majority of developers appear to gravitate to the straight demographic. So in essence, the financial and creative forces at play.

(2) Men look towards Male rolemodels differently than Women look towards Female rolemodels, so you can't directly equate the two with respect to approach in designing a product's appeal
Men are more likely and generally comfortable with striving for a "superficial" physical trait compared to women. The target for women is usually more about achieving the same level of sexual appeal / attention, but not necessarily achieving that other person's proportions. I have a feeling this will be misconstrued a lot so let me try a an example. How many men would like to look like those guys depicted in muscle mags with extremely large muscles all over? How many women want to look like those women depicted with extremely large breasts? This is what I'm trying to get at, one is more common than the other and what is sexually appealing to a man / woman won't necessarily be something that another woman / man would want to strive for, just to gain favour with the opposite sex's sex appeal.

I don't think it is "bad" to sexualize characters. Could you give me an example of how Batman would be sexualized to appeal more to women? I think he is very sexy now, for both men and women. Again, the sexism from my POV, does not matter whose perspective we are using.

LOL, I don't know. It would be fun to see though, no? A perfect example of how we would probably not be the best people to make that happen. I would argue that he's currently still more appealing to men than women though (in the sense that they prioritize appealing to men first, then women).

If someone could achieve such a thing (a hyper-sexualized Batman that appeals to women but makes most men lose appeal for him), I wouldn't consider it sexist. Does it limit the audience? Of course. But not sexist IMO.

...I agree about Bayonetta if her sexuality was removed completely. However, if her sexuality was toned down some (no ass shots, or nudity) I feel her character would've still remained in tact.

Agreed.

I truly do believe that the game could have hyper-sexualized the male characters, without alienating the straight male audience.

Possible? Yes.
Difficult? Also yes.
Risky? Yes again.

I mean, isn't this the same audience that tells others to get over it, and just enjoy the game? Maybe it is time they practice what they preach, and judging by the success of the SR games, I would say they would be ok for the most part.

Well, we'd be generalizing if we said that.

What I will say is that one of the motivating factors behind highlighting sex from a business perspective is because it doubles down on the likely hood of success (historically anyways, it may not always be that way). For example, a character can be interesting independently of their sexual appeal, but should they fail to be interesting, a sexual appeal angle could still garner attention. Where as, a boring non-attractive character would be more easily forgotten.

Well, I completely failed at reducing the wall of text. Sorry (lol).

 

[-Axle-]

I was thinking in discussing all your points but you both are already making them sensible and inteligent.

Congratulations for both of you

Just some things though.

...

Still, in each side there is the danger of considering them a literal real goal to achieve. That would imply in unrealistic goals for partners, plastic surgery, steroids, continous diet...

You honestly deserve a prize for succinctly summarizing your thoughts (I need to take note, lol)

Fully agree with what you said.

In addition to your last point, I think the challenge in creating the equivalent contrasting product (one that appeals to women at the expense of male appeal) is because women's superficial desires are usually more grounded in things beyond physical appearance. A quick example would be the amount of conditioning that occurs today with respect to "if he doesn't do _______, he's just not that into you.", which to me is the equivalent of the current environment where's women's physical appearance and sexual appeal tend to dictate their entire (or majority of their) worth. Because of this, I think that's why its harder to exploit that aspect in the VG industry in comparison. Just my two cents.

 

[saxman234]

Jim Sterling was right! I wanted to read some of these to see if the escapist forums have the problems he describes in todays jimquisition. Of course I see things like "but I always thought of the escapist as an objective and serious game site..." because this reviewer has a different opinion! Why are people so shallow and defensive, not everyone like big breasts and butts being shoved into our faces and that is ok! This problem needed to be addressed after the Skyward Sword hatery. The one reviewer on gamespot got so much hate for his average review of that meh game (yes plenty of people think that game is mediocre, but that is a rant for another time).

I still like you escapist, and I am always happy when a reviewer brings new criticism to the table.

 

[Grahav]

I was thinking in discussing all your points but you both are already making them sensible and inteligent.

Congratulations for both of you

Just some things though.

...

Still, in each side there is the danger of considering them a literal real goal to achieve. That would imply in unrealistic goals for partners, plastic surgery, steroids, continous diet...

You honestly deserve a prize for succinctly summarizing your thoughts (I need to take note, lol)

Fully agree with what you said.

In addition to your last point, I think the challenge in creating the equivalent contrasting product (one that appeals to women at the expense of male appeal) is because women's superficial desires are usually more grounded in things beyond physical appearance. A quick example would be the amount of conditioning that occurs today with respect to "if he doesn't do _______, he's just not that into you.", which to me is the equivalent of the current environment where's women's physical appearance and sexual appeal tend to dictate their entire (or majority of their) worth. Because of this, I think that's why its harder to exploit that aspect in the VG industry in comparison. Just my two cents.

Thanks

This post and your previous answer to Minity made me think. It is all about economics (the vile yellow metal rules us all).

The VG industry doesn't go for the female audience bcause of the risk factor, lack of knowledge in what they want in games and pure laziness in pursuing it.

That makes them more prone to pursue male games. This may or may not kill the artists vision, which I am against. Forcing boobs in the game is wrong, accepting boobs is not.

Still... Give a look to my regards to Minity, below

*snip*

I tend to agree more with Axle on the view that these works are not necessarily sexist because they pander to male desire. It is about money.

Still, I agree with You, concerning the fact that with you have a media stacked in one kind of demographic, one way of thinking is bad:

The industry loses because it loses customers.

Other demographics (women in this case, but also non-americans, for example) feel dejected and alienated and lose potential art and entertainment.

The target demographic loses because it gets addicted in just one way of thinking and THAT can lead to bad consequences. Female and Male sexuality are not wrong per se. What is wrong is thinking there is only one, or that one is more signifcant than the other.

For a non-gender example. World War 2 works tends to show heroic americans, cowardly french, vile germans and non-mentioned russians. They don't show the sacrifices of millions of russians crushed between two tyrants, the french resistance, the germans who opposed Hitler... Then a lot of people got stuck in those stereotypes. Also french who hate americans, russians who hate americans, germans afraid to raise their flag and brazilians (me) who joke about how americans suck in geography.

Again compliments to you two. One of the most rational debates I have seen in regards to this issue.

Spoiler

source: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

 

[-Axle-]

Concerning the fact that with you have a media stacked in one kind of demographic, one way of thinking is bad:

I wouldn't say its bad, but its likely to produce bad behaviours (you did use that word a few sentences below).
(kind of how having an overwhelming majority of games centered around having to kill others is not inherently bad, but it can a will likely encourage bad things)

The industry loses because it loses customers.

Not only customers but merit. Especially if you consider the medium an art form. I think this is why a lot of it gets dismissed and there's so much oversaturation of the same thing over and over again.

Other demographics (women in this case, but also non-americans, for example) feel dejected and alienated and lose potential art and entertainment.

The target demographic loses because it gets addicted in just one way of thinking and THAT can lead to bad consequences. Female and Male sexuality are not wrong per se. What is wrong is thinking there is only one, or that one is more signifcant than the other.

100% agree

For a non-gender example. World War 2 works tends to show heroic americans, cowardly french, vile germans and non-mentioned russians. They don't show the sacrifices of millions of russians crushed between two tyrants, the french resistance, the germans who opposed Hitler... Then a lot of people got stuck in those stereotypes. Also french who hate americans, russians who hate americans, germans afraid to raise their flag and brazilians (me) who joke about how americans suck in geography.

Spoiler

source: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

Testify!

 

[Minity]

We keep bringing the argument back to money and the target audience, while I agree those are important, and appropriate, I want to still discuss if sexism is occurring in the game without discussing who the target audience is. What is the abscence of discrimination, when we reach everyone, equally correct? Do I think we will achieve that, no, but I feel like we are using the marketing to negate the fact that something unequal is occurring in the game. I am not say that it should not occur, ever, I am bringing up points as to how it is there and how it could have been avoided. Continually spilling the conversation over into marketing and other groups makes our discussion too broad IMO, which was your comment on my definition of sexism.

Also, if we are going to keep talking about a marketing stand point. What about the fact that women are sexualized in their own media, when it is targeted at them? What then? It still shows that women tend to get sexualized more than men. (Not saying is wrong or bad, just uneven)

I dont have more time to post, but I will address your other points asap when I get back tonight

 

[Grahav]

We keep bringing the argument back to money and the target audience, while I agree those are important, and appropriate, I want to still discuss if sexism is occurring in the game without discussing who the target audience is. What is the abscence of discrimination, when we reach everyone, equally correct? Do I think we will achieve that, no, but I feel like we are using the marketing to negate the fact that something unequal is occurring in the game. I am not say that it should not occur, ever, I am bringing up points as to how it is there and how it could have been avoided. Continually spilling the conversation over into marketing and other groups makes our discussion too broad IMO, which was your comment on my definition of sexism.

Also, if we are going to keep talking about a marketing stand point. What about the fact that women are sexualized in their own media, when it is targeted at them? What then? It still shows that women tend to get sexualized more than men. (Not saying is wrong or bad, just uneven)

I dont have more time to post, but I will address your other points asap when I get back tonight

This will seem to be like a silly question, but it is important. How do you define "sexism"? Earlier it was discussed "objetification".

 

[Minity]

We keep bringing the argument back to money and the target audience, while I agree those are important, and appropriate, I want to still discuss if sexism is occurring in the game without discussing who the target audience is. What is the abscence of discrimination, when we reach everyone, equally correct? Do I think we will achieve that, no, but I feel like we are using the marketing to negate the fact that something unequal is occurring in the game. I am not say that it should not occur, ever, I am bringing up points as to how it is there and how it could have been avoided. Continually spilling the conversation over into marketing and other groups makes our discussion too broad IMO, which was your comment on my definition of sexism.

Also, if we are going to keep talking about a marketing stand point. What about the fact that women are sexualized in their own media, when it is targeted at them? What then? It still shows that women tend to get sexualized more than men. (Not saying is wrong or bad, just uneven)

I dont have more time to post, but I will address your other points asap when I get back tonight

This will seem to be like a silly question, but it is important. How do you define "sexism"? Earlier it was discussed "objetification".

It is not silly at all, as Axle and I have only briefly discussed, how people use terms is somewhat subjective.

I have a broader definition of sexism that revolves around unequal treatment of gender based only on gender. So a woman or man is treated in a particular way, only because of their gender. It is unequal. Objectification CAN be used to give this special treatment, and that treatment can be negative or positive, but it is unequal, and the same opportunities are not provided to the both genders in the same situation.

Now, I am not saying this is bad, so sexism might not be the best term since it drudges up negative connotations.

However, for example, I think chivalry is sexist against men. Women want and expect equal treatment, but also chivalry (holding doors, you know all that good stuff). Women, if they want true equality, should not be given chivalrous treatment, everyone should be treated chivalrously. Will that happen in our life time, will I expect men to stop being chivalrous, no, but acknowledging it is the first step.