Excuse-O-Rama

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

So now it would become a question of "If some explanations are, indeed, valid, then why are some not?".

I mean, I have no doubt there's a lot of creators out there that come up with flimsy excuses after the fact, but it seems awfully presumptuous to be able to wontonly point at something and go "Nah, I don't think that explanation is good enough, clearly it and the creator are sexist."

I can dig it if you think the explanation is dumb, but I think it falls apart about the time one tries to assign secretive motives to the creators because one thinks the explanation is dumb.

All in-universe justifications are valid, it's the creator's universe after all, but when we're talking about ARTISTIC DESIGN, we're talking about the actual process of creating work. You seem hung up on the idea of sexism, so let's run a hypothetical without any negative/positive value assigned to a creative decision.

You ask me, "Why does Erin wear Converse shoes when they clash with her core outfit?"
I say, "because she likes them."

I haven't answered your question, I haven't even engaged with your question. Erin doesn't "like" anything. She's not real. I made that decision. I'm essentially responding to your question, "why did you make that decision?," with, "because I made that decision." It's a useless non-response.

A far more useful response would be: "We chose the converse shoes because they contrast with her nerdier work ensemble in form, while reinforcing her blue/white colour scheme. The shoes are generally worn by younger people, and they clash horribly with her professional outfit, which reinforce her core character traits (namely that she's immature and she has trouble fitting in in professional environments)."

One response actually answers your question or criticism, the other doesn't.

There's something I'd like to add to this - I never ask "why". I feel it's just a weak word and it prefaces weak questions when it's used in such a manner. Mainly because, when you ask "why" you can answer it however you want to...and it answers the question. It may not give you the answer you want, but that's what you get for asking such a weak question. I ask "how" and/or "what". I ask those because they tend to give you a clearer and, usually, better answer. It might take longer to get to that answer, but you probably won't have around 5 bajillion questions after you ask your first question. And at the risk of sounding like a complete asshole, I feel that people who ask "why" are not truly interested in the answer and/or not capable of critical thought.

I apologize if that was a little rant-y.

 

[Erttheking]

Yeah, I have to agree with a majority of the posts here. They are only trying to "justify" design choices because they are being forced to. There was a time when these decisions were never questioned. Now every game has to justify why they are not including a gay/bi/female/trans/black/arabic/big boned/whatever character...

Justify? Oh please. Kojima was being a coward. I mean really, this guy has got how many scantily clad emotionally damaged women in his games and now he's pulling this weak bullshit that it's something more? Dragon's Crown stuck by its guns and it did fine. In fact, after the fact, Dragon's Crown barely has any ill will while people are still calling Kojima out for his intellectually cowardly comments.

Every game? Ok. Please tell me when Halo 5, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, Battlefront, Tales From the Borderlands and The Binding of Issac had to defend themselves for not include certain character types. You said EVERY game. So can you give me some examples? Because I feel like you're resorting to hyperbole. And what does any of this have to do with the current topic.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

There's something I'd like to add to this - I never ask "why". I feel it's just a weak word and it prefaces weak questions when it's used in such a manner. Mainly because, when you ask "why" you can answer it however you want to...and it answers the question. It may not give you the answer you want, but that's what you get for asking such a weak question. I ask "how" and/or "what". I ask those because they tend to give you a clearer and, usually, better answer. It might take longer to get to that answer, but you probably won't have around 5 bajillion questions after you ask your first question. And at the risk of sounding like a complete asshole, I feel that people who ask "why" are not truly interested in the answer and/or not capable of critical thought.

I apologize if that was a little rant-y.

Why?
;p

But seriously. This seems like some tortured logic. The question isn't the issue with this problem of getting an answer/wanted information.
The problem is the intent of the person being asked wanting to bullcrap their way out of giving you an honest answer.

For example, say instead of asking "Why is this character designed like this?" I asked "What was the reasoning you had behind this characters design?"

Or heck, what if I said "Tell me the reason or reasons why you made this character like this". That isn't even a question at that point, but they all are trying to do the same thing. The differences between them are just schematics that don't really add up to much.

The problem is that regardless of the question (or command, or whatever) the person being asked can still talk bullcrap around answering the question.
I see sort of where you're coming from. Some questions are asked for ulterior motives that don't involve the answer and being specific can indeed help you find better information.
But at least 8 or 9 times out of ten, the reason anyone asks a question is pretty straight forward.

"If I didn't want to know, Why would I ask?" ;D

Spoiler: ...

The ulterior motive for the last question was to give ya a giggle. ;3

Have a good one!

 

[RJ 17]

Me? I was more a Walker-Gear guy myself.
It's like a car that punches people and I like to do my own sniping myself

Oh I like doing all my own dirty work as well...that's why I personally go with the recon-bot dog. I love his hussed little "woof"s every time he spots an enemy out for you...especially when coming into a big camp/base where he gets to woof like, 13 times in a row. It's like he's trying to tell you that little Timmy fell down the well again!

Seriously though, DDog is my favorite companion for being able to point out all enemies from a very good distance away...when it comes to infiltration there's no one I'd rather have at my side.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Leave it to the Japanese to be blunt but refreshingly honest in comparison to the deceitful PR weasel word bullshit that companies have had to adopt in response to the advent of outrage culture.

...Uh...you do know that Quiet was designed by a Japanese company right?

If you're going to make a game with politically-incorrect elements then you might as well double down and score some free publicity and the good will of those who will actually buy your game by antagonizing all of the usual suspects. Kojima is effectively a troll. Furthermore his trolling seems to be working, if the comments in this thread are anything to go by.

I just pulled that completely out of my ass, but I do think that it's a more believable theory then anyone anywhere buying into that bullshit about Quiet needing to breath through her skin.

 

[Pyrian]

Breasts don't need a reason;
the breasts are their own reason.
You don't ask why a frog croaks or a cricket chirps.
Don't ask why I draw.

(With apologies to the Black Knight [http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=black+knight])

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I'm kind of half and half on this. On the one hand, yes it's pathetic to see Kojima and co pull shit out of their arse to try and cover for their creative decisions when they raise eyebrows. On the other hand, I do like it when these creative decisions have in-canon explanations that add to the lore of the universe. It only gets annoying when devs try to use these explanations to pretend that the out of narrative creative decision doesn't exist (especially when things that were once the result of technological limitations become iconic design features), because that is always bullshit.

(Oh, and an extra half... yeah, I like big boobs too. I never claimed to be a saint. )

 

[Makabriel]

Every game? Ok. Please tell me when Halo 5, Assassin's Creed Syndicate, Fallout 4, Battlefront, Tales From the Borderlands and The Binding of Issac had to defend themselves for not include certain character types. You said EVERY game. So can you give me some examples? Because I feel like you're resorting to hyperbole. And what does any of this have to do with the current topic.

I apologize, you are correct. Beseiged and Goat Sim didn't have to defend their games from radicals...

Yes, I was exaggerating for the sake of exaggeration. However, it has become almost commonplace to see developers having to defend their creations because of some "cause of the day"

 

[Rahkshi500]

While understanding the reasons behind the post, I can't say that I fully agree with it. Certainly the characters aren't real and that their designs are decisions of the creators. However, I disagree with the notion of designing a character a certain way because "you just wanna see T&A", at least when one is assuming it to be the one and only reason or motive. While you can may apply that to plenty of designers, I find throwing that accusation to any and all similar designs regardless of the context in-universe or out-universe of what the designers' reasons to be a thought-killer tactic, just claiming or assuming that to the true reason or an ulterior motive instead of trying to have actual critical thinking. Time, yeah, call a spade a spade. Other times, though, it's a kings snake, not a coral snake; don't immediately assume or call the former the latter.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Yeah, the whole pile of justification behind Quiet's design went out the side of the helicopter when I saw that video of her- as MST3K put it- presenting like a mandrill. Can we just admit that it's all for the pocket-mining demographic? Or are we so desperate to duck the discussion of stereotypes (of games and gamers both) that we'll accept the most paper-thin rationalizations behind the T&A just so we can say "see, it's not about objectifying women"?

That aside, I'll allow myself just a tiny bit of puerile humor with what I saw when I clicked the comic:

 

[Kohen Keesing]

Don't forget the new one, "Jabba likes looking at slave girls." No, Carrie Fisher wanted to show off her body so they decided to write Leia in a bikini into the script.. Its fanservice and thats okay.

Being a fan of boobies, I appreciate Kamitani's honesty.

Ehh, I don't like to take video games so seriously.

Kickass character? Great! Hot? Even better! Nonsensical outfit? Fuck it, why not? I'm not the artist here.

I wholeheartedly agree with you guys. There's actually nothing WRONG with having big boobs. Some people like big boobs. Some people want to see big boobs and butts in their games. When people get all up in arms about one female character in a game - or many, for that matter, let's be fair - having curvaceous juggs or booties, all I can think is: "So what? So, I'm not allowed to have boobs in the media I enjoy?"

It strikes me as almost puritan, the amount of fuss that gets created about female sexuality in videogames. It seems to be the attitude of "Women who look sexy should not exist in videogames", rather than "This is a ubiquitous trope that needs to be toned back", which is what the activists claim is their cause. There's a lot of people in this thread who are throwing around the question "why", and I think that's one of the big issues here. People are looking for a why in artistic design, and by it's very nature artistic design doesn't need a 'why'. It shouldn't have to explain itself. "I wanted to portray this thing, and it's MY work of fiction" is the only reason that should ever matter. I mean, that's why furry art, depictions of vore, or H.R. Giger's overly phallic art all exist.

The hypocrisy's the worst part though. You mention anything about males in videogames being paragons of fitness, masculinity, and sexiness, a-la Commander Shepard (who gets to bump uglies on screen) or Ezio Auditore (who we also see mostly naked a couple times, iirc), or Master Chief (who is LITERALLY objectified as nothing but a gruff murdering machine, we don't even know what his FACE looks like FFS) and you'll get the retort that 'those are supposed to be male fantasies, they're not sexualized like women are' - a statement that you would know is totally wrong if you've ever been on a site that has Rule 34.

Why could the same not apply to all the female characters in games that everyone seems to have a problem with? Samus Aran isn't a sexualized stereotype, one would say, she's a power fantasy for women, a strong and collected woman who dominates entire planets single-handedly. Lara Croft's not wank-material, one could continue, she's just an anti-hero who likes to kill people to steal expensive stuff. The fact she has big boobs is completely auxiliary to her actual character and purpose.

The difference between female sexualization and male power fantasy?
Spin. The only difference is how you spin it.

It seems to me that the people complaining about it have more of a fixation on the tits or ass or whatever than the people to whom it's supposedly pandering. They disregard every single other facet of the rest of the game to focus on someone's tits. I don't know anyone who played Dark Souls and whipped their junk out as soon as the Princess of Sunlight came on screen, shouting "Women are sexual objects!". They just giggled about it and then got on with the game. I actually /do/, however, know a guy who whipped it out when QUELAAG of all people came on-screen. And he wasn't doing over the human part of her body, either.

In fact, people like me who get off on both genders are an argument that no one in any game should have any sexual traits whatsoever, because I'm capable of sexually objectifying pretty much anyone (Tali'Zorah Nar'Rayya Vas Normandy, *wink wink*).


All bullshitting aside though, when I personally sit down and play a videogame, I'm not constantly thinking about my character. I get immersed in the game itself. I don't see Big Boss rolling around in the Afghani sands, I see ME doing it. I don't see Mileena's huge knockers and scary-ass face, I see the fists and feet that risk ending my game. I don't think about Samus Aran's bewbs jostling around in her Power Suit as she leaps and flips and blasts, I just think about the leaping and flipping and blasting themselves and how fucking awesome it would be to be able to do those things. Sadly I've been unable to find Chozo blood that matches my blood type.

Breasts don't need a reason;
The breasts are their own reason.
You don't ask why a frog croaks or a cricket chirps.
Don't ask why I draw.

They ARE their own reason. Breasts are just nice. I want some breasts in some of my games. I'd actually like some stacked abs on some of the gals and guys I see in games, too.

 

[The Wooster]

If you're going to make a game with politically-incorrect elements then you might as well double down and score some free publicity and the good will of those who will actually buy your game by antagonizing all of the usual suspects.

I've been actually buying Metal Gear game since Solid, and I think Quiet's design was shit on every conceivable level. Painting reasonable criticism as the rantings of radicals who don't play games is a very dishonest approach to the subject.

Don't forget the new one, "Jabba likes looking at slave girls." No, Carrie Fisher wanted to show off her body so they decided to write Leia in a bikini into the script.. Its fanservice and thats okay.

Being a fan of boobies, I appreciate Kamitani's honesty.

Ehh, I don't like to take video games so seriously.

Kickass character? Great! Hot? Even better! Nonsensical outfit? Fuck it, why not? I'm not the artist here.

I wholeheartedly agree with you guys. There's actually nothing WRONG with having big boobs. Some people like big boobs. Some people want to see big boobs and butts in their games. When people get all up in arms about one female character in a game - or many, for that matter, let's be fair - having curvaceous juggs or booties, all I can think is: "So what? So, I'm not allowed to have boobs in the media I enjoy?"

It strikes me as almost puritan, the amount of fuss that gets created about female sexuality in videogames. It seems to be the attitude of "Women who look sexy should not exist in videogames", rather than "This is a ubiquitous trope that needs to be toned back", which is what the activists claim is their cause. There's a lot of people in this thread who are throwing around the question "why", and I think that's one of the big issues here. People are looking for a why in artistic design, and by it's very nature artistic design doesn't need a 'why'. It shouldn't have to explain itself. "I wanted to portray this thing, and it's MY work of fiction" is the only reason that should ever matter. I mean, that's why furry art, depictions of vore, or H.R. Giger's overly phallic art all exist.

The hypocrisy's the worst part though. You mention anything about males in videogames being paragons of fitness, masculinity, and sexiness, a-la Commander Shepard (who gets to bump uglies on screen) or Ezio Auditore (who we also see mostly naked a couple times, iirc), or Master Chief (who is LITERALLY objectified as nothing but a gruff murdering machine, we don't even know what his FACE looks like FFS) and you'll get the retort that 'those are supposed to be male fantasies, they're not sexualized like women are' - a statement that you would know is totally wrong if you've ever been on a site that has Rule 34.

You had me right up until this point. If you think that Cortana and Master Chief are objectified in the same way, you really aren't paying attention. Power fantasies and sexual objectification aren't the same thing. They appeal to different people. Do they overlap? Yes. James Bond is good at shooting people and he fucks a lot of women. He's competent AND attractive, but its his competence that forms the core of his character, not how much he appeals to women. There are relatively few female characters designed in the same way.

 

[MonsterCrit]

I can say I always saw Kamitani's explanation as refreshingly honest and believable. It always seems more sexist and offensive when you cook up some contrived bullshit to justify it.

This type of big-boob male gaze stuff is a lot easier even for dem evul censoring feminists to swallow when it's honest and part of a game/media uncompromising. It's the formulaic, "we have to put hot girl in game for males 14-25 demographic metrics computerized voice beep boop" that gets me the most, personally.

Dude be likin the boobies and there is nothing wrong with that. Because going by the other character designs he also dig guys with really broad shoulders and chiseled abs.

Nothing wrong with the big boobuies... unless you;'re you know insecure about your own cup size.

 

[truckspond]

So, how exactly is a distracting scantily-clad AI going to help in a battle situation where a second can be the difference between victory and death?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I think Hideo and Frank are worried that honesty would kill them.

 

[Kohen Keesing]

You had me right up until this point. If you think that Cortana and Master Chief are objectified in the same way, you really aren't paying attention. Power fantasies and sexual objectification aren't the same thing. They appeal to different people. Do they overlap? Yes. James Bond is good at shooting people and he fucks a lot of women. He's competent AND attractive, but its his competence that forms the core of his character, not how much he appeals to women. There are relatively few female characters designed in the same way.

My intention wasn't to portray Master Chief as being sexually objectified - and actually I wasn't even thinking about Cortana, but now that you mention it she is one of the few characters in a game that I look at and think "All I see here is tits" since she never actually has an impact or purpose in gameplay and all of her story related elements are tired and lame tropes - but as a different and equally bad kind of objectification that still renders him down to only having one purpose, i.e. killing stuff.

I suppose a caveat of my argument is that I only have a problem with sexual (over)representation is when it dehumanizes the character it's applied to. Sometimes dehumanization is necessary, especially when establishing or confronting villains, but sex isn't a way to go about that, and I'm pretty hard-pressed to think of a time in videogames when sex has been used to do that.

 

[vallorn]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I was always under the impression that it was one of the women on the team who made that Sorceress model.

Also, yeah the Quiet thing was kind of hilarious in how Kojima tried to play it. Kojima we already know you are a pervert for men and women (naked Raiden, Vamp) you don't need to try and assuage the frothing lunatics on the internet who follow the creed of "Everything is sexist, everything is racist, and you have to call it all out". Just make the thing and make it fun.

Although, the "Breathes through her skin" is still one of the less outlandish things to come out of trying to explain the Metal Gear Solid series's weirdness.

EDIT: This is still the best thing to come out of Quiet being in the franchise though.

 

[shintakie10]

You shoot black zombies? Racist, regardless of the fact that you're in Africa, etc.

It wasn't about killing black people. It was about being in Africa and the last half of the game being about super fuckin tribal black people that live in huts and throw spears at your ass. The first level was fine. The later half was friggin awful.

 

[Furnicula]

I thought Kojima stated rather clearly that he designed the character that way for cosplay purposes and figurine sales? http://cosplaymygame.com/collection/1525/sniper-quiet-in-metal-gear-solid-v-phantom-pain-designed-for-cosplay https://www.tumblr.com/tagged/quiet-cosplay

https://twitter.com/hideo_kojima_en/status/375142332875558912 https://twitter.com/HIDEO_KOJIMA_EN/statuses/375142795779923968


He just doubled down after the usual suspects for some reason couldn't stop sperging about how horrible a female character showing off boobs and skin somehow is, he probably didn't have any previous contact of that extent with your usual Tumblrites, especially since nobody said anything about all the other sexy characters (male or female) in his previous games in the past. https://twitter.com/hideo_kojima_en/status/376424398023962624

NeoGAF even went as far as to claim that having sexy action figures made somehow constitutes "sexual harassment" and they were about to go contact and harass Stefani Joosten about it:

I really hope the Japanese and Eastern Europeans continue to remain strong and never submit to the kind of cultural policing and prudish bullshit thinking the author of this article displays:

 

[Areloch]

You shoot black zombies? Racist, regardless of the fact that you're in Africa, etc.

It wasn't about killing black people. It was about being in Africa and the last half of the game being about super fuckin tribal black people that live in huts and throw spears at your ass. The first level was fine. The later half was friggin awful.

You say that, but I remember a stink about shooting black people before the game even came out and people GOT to the tribal huts.

Further, it may be stereotypical, but as far as I know there are actual black African tribespeople that still use primitive weapons like bows and stuff in real life, so... not actually racist? Especially given that it shows modern-society black people too, so it's not even saying "All black people in Africa are savage tribesman". Didn't stop the claims of horrid racism.

Man, racism feels like it's losing all it's meaning at this point.