Actually, I do have an answer: it's in forging a better question, and getting the better answer. Again, I concede that if a person's intent is to just spout semantics or bullshit, that will eventually occur. What I'm getting at is narrowing the chance of that happening.
I cannot find it for the life of me, but in an interview with a great Scottish comedian Billy Connolly, I recall him saying (and this will probably be paraphrased somewhat heavily) something to the effect of, "I don't ask 'why' anymore. I ask 'how' and 'what', because when you answer 'how' and 'what', you won't need to ask 'why'." I believe he was saying this in response to a question regarding his views on religion, and that is what I based my view on.
In short, yes - it is ultimately up to the people debating whatever it is they will debate, and personalities, views, intents, etc. will inevitably show themselves through these debates (as we've no doubt seen here on this forum >.<) and if they do not wish to give an honest answer, then that will be seen through their responses; however, I believe we can find the information we wish to know, with more clarity, in the better questions that can be asked, regardless of intent.
Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. Someone decided to put sexy women in their game. Deal with it. I honestly have zero tolerance or respect for people who make a big deal out of that. They shouldn't have to 'justify' anything, and it's a damn shame that these people making a fuss are even being acknowledged.
Were I designing the game I'd say the exact same thing; you don't have to apologize for what you like. I find the idea that titillating design is somehow inherently degrading of it's subject to be troubling; it smacks of puritanism.
It's not inherently degrading (see characters like Queen of Pain, Bayonetta, Kaine, Juliet from Lollipop Chainsaw, etc, all great, all sexualized in a way that fits their character), but it's a creative decision that carries weight and like any tool in an artist's toolbox, it can be used incorrectly or inappropriately.
it's in forging a better question, and getting the better answer. Again, I concede that if a person's intent is to just spout semantics or bullshit, that will eventually occur. What I'm getting at is narrowing the chance of that happening.
I cannot find it for the life of me, but in an interview with a great Scottish comedian Billy Connolly, I recall him saying (and this will probably be paraphrased somewhat heavily) something to the effect of, "I don't ask 'why' anymore. I ask 'how' and 'what', because when you answer 'how' and 'what', you won't need to ask 'why'." I believe he was saying this in response to a question regarding his views on religion, and that is what I based my view on.
In short, yes - it is ultimately up to the people debating whatever it is they will debate, and personalities, views, intents, etc. will inevitably show themselves through these debates (as we've no doubt seen here on this forum >.<) and if they do not wish to give an honest answer, then that will be seen through their responses; however, I believe we can find the information we wish to know, with more clarity, in the better questions that can be asked, regardless of intent.
But I asked for a question, not an answer. xD
Also, tired to find that interview too. Couldn't but this one's good enough, right? You can kind of interpenetrate the same basic message. ;D
How was more interesting than why. Also kind of answered why at the same time too.
Edit: Found it!
Anyway, I agree that crafting a question for a specific task can help. Even if the person doesn't want to answer.
I just don't agree that because someone can chose to not give a good/honest answer that we should avoid asking why, or that those who ask why don't really want to get a good answer/don't think critically.
A better argument is that they MAY not think as creatively.
BiH-Kira said:
Interesting.
So writer should just give up on giving any in-universe explanation for anything they write because it doesn't actually exist. It's the writer that wrote it.
Link is the hero because he was chosen by the Goddess Hylia? Nuhuh, it's because Miyamoto wanted it to be so.
Zelda has magical powers because she has literally the blood of a goddess? Nuhuh, it's because Miyamoto wanted it to be so.
The Dahaka is after the Princ in Prince of Persian Warrios Within because he broke the timeline and is ruining everything? Nope, it's because Ubisoft wanted it so.
Do you actually understand what you're saying? Yes, the designer made the design, but how the fuck does the in-universe explanation not count? So stories don't need to be consistent and plot holes are completely okay because that's how the writer chose it to be. Nothing in those games is real. So why are some in-universe explanations okay, but others arbitrarily aren't? Because you don't like them?
Some explanations are obviously bullshit, but that doesn't mean all explanations are worthless.
Nah, the game actually, canonically, states that the virus/parasite/whatever caused the people to long to "dress in the garb of their ancestors". Yes, I'm not making that up, it's stated in some of the journals you find scattered about.
The point where your zombie infection causes people to feel the overwhelming desire to don grass skirts and chuck spears at the protagonists is definitely the point of racism, to me. Though it wouldn't have caused me to roll my eyes quite so much if we saw a few kilts and celtic robes on the zombies in raccoon city.
Agreed right there. I think that is a fitting statement to end this discussion with. It also reminded me that I'm a lefty and that, for some reason, means lefties tend to be more creative thinkers, like Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor. (THAT IS NOT TO SAY RIGHT HANDED PEOPLE AREN'T CREATIVE THINKERS, EITHER, as my comedic idols, Bill Hicks and George Carlin are)
And yeah, though not the one I remembered, that Billy Connolly clip is close enough. But that edited one sure is! Thankie! =3
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.
Kohen Keesing said:
MarsAtlas said:
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.
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.
The whole concept of the power fantasy is tromped out and thrown about as an answer to why one situation of unrealistic design and expections are okay, and another is not. Its literally a way for people who want to complain about unrealistically beautiful depictions of idealized females to get out of having to explain that the exact same thing is being used for males. The excuse of a power fantasy just doesn't hold up under scrutiny because it fundamentally denies the differences that general populations of male and females have in terms of their ideal sexual fantasies. The work in evolutionary psychology on the subject is making these distinctions more and more clear. So... while I understand its easy to turn your nose up at an hour glass figured sexy but loyal heroine and not at broad chested handsome bad boy, these tropes have come about for a reason. Nothing wrong with it, at worst its just very simple easy to convey to a wide audience level of writing.
I enjoy it when creators are honest about their work ie. Tits are life, ass is hometown. - Kenichiro Takaki. I also appreciate these sorts of attempts at melding design, which may well be developed first, with the world's internal logic.
It may be less "honest" to some folks, if we're just going to assume that we know what other people's intentions and motivations are anyway, but I still think it's more creative than simply saying "ME LIKE BEWBS/DICK/WHATEVER."
The Wooster said:
sumanoskae said:
Were I designing the game I'd say the exact same thing; you don't have to apologize for what you like. I find the idea that titillating design is somehow inherently degrading of it's subject to be troubling; it smacks of puritanism.
It's not inherently degrading (see characters like Queen of Pain, Bayonetta, Kaine, Juliet from Lollipop Chainsaw, etc, all great, all sexualized in a way that fits their character), but it's a creative decision that carries weight and like any tool in an artist's toolbox, it can be used incorrectly or inappropriately.
See, I understand this argument. I too find some things to be inappropriate or view them as being incorrect uses of the aforementioned artistic tools, however, I can't bring myself to fully get behind it for one simple reason:
It's entirely subjective.
You mention Bayonetta as a character that's, implied to be, appropriately sexualized. The stink raised about her design and apparent "over-sexualization" kinda proves my point.
I mean, I applaud ya for recognizing how important context is. It's just a shame that the overall approach to these sortsa subjects is anything but consistent on any 'side' of the discussion.
To me, I don't mind the aesthetics of the character as long as the characters themselves have some kind of purpose other than fan wank. I mean, I'm a man so I'm not gonna act like seeing girls in bikinis or lingerie upsets me; ogling their T&A smooshed right into the screen is fine, but give them some kind of fucking humanity.
At least characters like Cortana, Lara Croft, Bayonetta, or Quiet, hell, even the Sorceress, Amazon, and Morgan from Dragon's Crown, at least they have a fucking personality. They don't have to be tough, ball-breaking dykes - as most douchebags would call women who aren't constantly fawning on a guy - but at least they aren't completely helpless, have human-grade intelligence and aspirations, and can contribute to the team or the story. It's kinda the reason why I can't stand most female anime/manga characters.
You can have a women with tits that could fill a bath tub wearing band-aids for cover for all I care, as long as their not these bland, vapid, just pointless-ass characters - fucking have at it. And please, don't try to insult men's intelligence by coming up with bullshit logic; bullshit logic is still bullshit no matter how much science or magic is tossed in.
This has many facets to it. It was precisely because of the outcry against Dragon's Crown that everybody started feeling like they had to make excuses. So while, yes, those excuses are BS and the creators should not feel the need to justify their baser decisions, it ultimately is not coming out of a vacuum. They are reacting to a reaction.
I'm one of those weirdos that thinks that criticism based on anything should be fine but you also have to understand the effect of said criticism when it's loud enough.
Honestly, i don't see what the big deal is. Someone decided to put sexy women in their game. Deal with it. I honestly have zero tolerance or respect for people who make a big deal out of that. They shouldn't have to 'justify' anything, and it's a damn shame that these people making a fuss are even being acknowledged.
Well, in this case you're talking about the creators.
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/09/10/hideo-kojima-talks-more-quiet-you-will-feel-ashamed-of-your-words-deeds-when-recognizing-the-reason-for-her-exposure/
"You will feel ashamed of your words and deeds" -Hideo Kojima.
I love Kojima's games, but he should have stuck with the first thing they said when asked about Quiet's outfit.
http://www.polygon.com/2013/9/4/4693704/metal-gear-solid-5-characters-more-erotic-encourage-cosplay-hideo-kojima
Still smells a bit fishy, but at least they're not grandstanding about making a character in a revealing outfit.
Her design philosophy and in-universe explanation have always been 100% consistent with each other; in fact, if anything, her early designs are less true to her design philosophy. Yes, even in the books.
AIs in Halo chose their own forms based on their own personalities, mission objectives and philosophies. Dumb AIs tend to select abstract or basic things like patterns, shapes etc. like Auntie Dot (Reach) and the Super (ODST). Smart AIs more often choose human forms (but can also stray into abstract things).
Cortana based her looks off her creator Dr. Halsey, not only because Halsey was an influential and powerful person but because as an AI she knew that Humans regardless of their occupation, age or gender respond better and more quickly to a pretty female and female voice than they would to a male's - something she actually uses in the books before Halo 2 even came out - and something specifically chosen to help on the high-stress, high-danger missions she was created to go on.
Other AIs chose their forms for different reasons - Roland (UNSC Infinity) chose the persona and imagery of a daring WWI pilot to fit his role as AI of the most high-tech and daring UNSC spaceship. The AI that taught the SPARTAN-IIs chose the form of Athena, the beautiful goddess of tactics and war.
Cortana's sexy design and the lore have always been related - its just that until Halo 3 the tech really hadn't caught up to that point.
Interesting.
So writer should just give up on giving any in-universe explanation for anything they write because it doesn't actually exist. It's the writer that wrote it.
Link is the hero because he was chosen by the Goddess Hylia? Nuhuh, it's because Miyamoto wanted it to be so.
Zelda has magical powers because she has literally the blood of a goddess? Nuhuh, it's because Miyamoto wanted it to be so.
The Dahaka is after the Princ in Prince of Persian Warrios Within because he broke the timeline and is ruining everything? Nope, it's because Ubisoft wanted it so.
Do you actually understand what you're saying? Yes, the designer made the design, but how the fuck does the in-universe explanation not count? So stories don't need to be consistent and plot holes are completely okay because that's how the writer chose it to be. Nothing in those games is real. So why are some in-universe explanations okay, but others arbitrarily aren't? Because you don't like them?
Some explanations are obviously bullshit, but that doesn't mean all explanations are worthless.
The author didn't say that all explanations are unneccessary. What they ment is that if you, as a person that makes games, want to include sexy lady/ladies in your game where everyone else is wearing rather, um, unrevealing clothing and/or have normal bosoms, then either don't explain it except for saying that you just wanted to do it, or make something up that doesn't sound like BS.
I mean, wife-soul-powered bionic arm? REALLY?!
EDIT: Almost forgot! Andjei Sapkowski gave a pretty damn nice explanation on why sorceressess in The Witcher universe are fond of clevages.
The whole concept of the power fantasy is tromped out and thrown about as an answer to why one situation of unrealistic design and expections are okay, and another is not. Its literally a way for people who want to complain about unrealistically beautiful depictions of idealized females to get out of having to explain that the exact same thing is being used for males. The excuse of a power fantasy just doesn't hold up under scrutiny because it fundamentally denies the differences that general populations of male and females have in terms of their ideal sexual fantasies. The work in evolutionary psychology on the subject is making these distinctions more and more clear. So... while I understand its easy to turn your nose up at an hour glass figured sexy but loyal heroine and not at broad chested handsome bad boy, these tropes have come about for a reason. Nothing wrong with it, at worst its just very simple easy to convey to a wide audience level of writing.
It's a really bizarre attempt at excusing an obvious double standard that sometimes makes my head hurt, the argument doesn't even make any sense. And it's not even consistent within a single day with a single writer, which makes me believe that it's pandering Clickbait bullshit at the cost of everything and everyone else:
I don't even know what their ultimate goal is with all this stuff other than bitching for the sake of it and getting on everyone else's nerves, do they think that if they just repeat these things long enough I (or men in general) will suddenly stop liking large breasts and sexy forms and stop wanting them in their entertainment? Maybe that they'll be able to shame everyone into abiding by whatever insane things they demand?
It's a really bizarre attempt at excusing an obvious double standard that sometimes makes my head hurt, the argument doesn't even make any sense. And it's not even consistent within a single day with a single writer, which makes me believe that it's pandering Clickbait bullshit at the cost of everything and everyone else:
I don't even know what their ultimate goal is with all this stuff other than bitching for the sake of it and getting on everyone else's nerves, do they think that if they just repeat these things long enough I (or men in general) will suddenly stop liking large breasts and sexy forms and stop wanting them in their entertainment? Maybe that they'll be able to shame everyone into abiding by whatever insane things they demand?
For the Street Fighter example, I don't see how the writer is showing a double standard. She says Ryu has changed, directly calling him "hot," and doesn't mention a power fantasy. She doesn't even say that she finds him attractive or not in the title - hot is in quotes. You can think a design looks good and still is overly sexual, but there's no article snippit to compare to.
Mika's article is a statement that she's returned straight from another entry in the series with no visual changes. The writer outright says she's grown more used to the type of over-the-top designs of females in the Street Fighter series, and is about to go into why she likes the returning design of Mika before the article cuts off in the picture you posted. The sexualization of Cammy is a reference to the fact that Cammy's design changed in 5 from a British face (since Cammy's you know, British) to a "cuter," more anime-inspired face due to complaints from the Japanese audience. The farthest the segment goes is claiming that fighter character design can be alienating or just a tad surreal (which context does wonders for). It's not fair to say that writer changed her opinion off of those two screenshots.
Olympic one:
But there's a difference between fan made writing and official videos. It doesn't seem like the writer approves of the fanfiction so much as is enthralled by it's strangeness. Notice the use of "morbid curiosity" and "depraved thoughts." It's obviously a piece written for clicks, but is more of the author saying "This is really surreal, you should look because it's also strangely funny." It's not saying it's a power fantasy, but that the odd over sexualization of the swimmers is amusing in it's novelty. It's constructing yaoi live around actual people, and could be amusing. The official video, on the other hand, allegedly focusing on tits and ass, follows a different precedent. It turns the athletes into body features, not the accomplishments (I'd argue that's harder to convey out of context). In a way, it follows the comic's idea - saying it's okay that we emphasize their asses since they're playing volleyball in the background. A youtube video titled "Summer XXX (LOLOL) Olympic REALLY XXX ASS" wouldn't get a news story. But that being produced by a large broadcast company instead of medal awards or "great play" is different, it's not as funny as the unofficial, amateur, online writing about swimmers. The wording on either article aren't nearly as neutral as the street fighter one and show the author's frustration, but it's comparing two types of sexualition - one novel and one which is repeated.
Romance cover/comic panel
The difference is posing. For the comic, superman isn't so much sexualized as he the Romo-grecian ideal. His body is literally that of a god, at least in the eyes of Western culture. Notice how the shot emphasizes his entire body, and his outfit is a bright color compared to the back. He's vibrant, and stand out. Lois's darker shading makes her blend more into the background, with an outline highlighting her over Superman for clarity. The shot's angled beneath Lois, so she appears smaller while Superman seems larger. It's an action shot, of a very strong person rescuing someone from chaos, while simultaneously being untoched (even his hair is perfect) by it. Hard to argue that a god rescuing someone (who is just plain and blurred enough to be anyone, there's a bit of the unlockable character color scheme there) from a disaster while staying undamaged isn't a power fantasy.
The romance cover is composed differently. First, his shirt is removed, inherently emphasizing his appearance. The shot is fairly even, meaning he doesn't increase in size and she doesn't decrease. The background blurs and is less important, both characters stand out against it. But the woman is clearly the focus - she has brighter reds on, and takes up the most space. Her hand is ON the man holding her (Lois's is just kind of in the air), making the scene more intimate. There's a distinct romantic element to the scene, and not one of danger or the benefits of strength/power beyond the capability to lift people off their feet. There is no context beyond this - it's a front cover.
Wouldn't surprise me if the superman comic was traced from a romance cover, but one of those is pretty clearly sexualized while the other is less so, despite the posing.
It's easy to blend power fantasy and sexualized example together, but it's down to context, not still images. Thor taking his shirt off in the original movie is a sexualization - there's no need for it (you can tell someone's attractive with a shirt on) beyond titillation. Him destroying dozens of Ice Giants while cracking wise is a power fantasy, despite the exposed biceps. His power and strength getting used to meet and exceed the societal standards of "male" makes that. And part of a power fantasy is appearance, since people rarely idolize themselves as ugly, whatever the definition. The issue is that in creative works, the core cultural ideas for "female" don't get associated with powerful actions, appearance is emphasized. Because of that, there's no real female "power" fantasy, and that's an issue with tropes more so than anything else - females certainly still have heroines to look up to and view as ideals. Quiet might be an example of a powerful character, being patient, skilled, and deadly, but her outfit and design is just strange. Her ability as a sniper would certainly make her change her outfit for tactical reasons, and the in-canon explanation is tacked on. Compared to Black Widow who has an outfit that at least makes in-story sense and fits her background, Quiet falls short. Black Widow might be there so the camera has an ass to stare at, but her actions, writing, and context raise her above just boobs with a gun. Power fantasy vs. sexualization isn't a double standard, it's a difference in writing.
The goal is to make characters move beyond window dressing. Getting annoyed with lazy design hopes to encourage more thoughtful ones. More varied visual design and writing isn't a bad thing. Excuses like "Power Girl has a hole in her costume because she doesn't believe she deserves a Kryptonian coat of arms, and will leave the hole there until she does" doesn't really make up for her having a boob window built into her costume, especially since that comment came after she'd been wearing her outfit for a while. Don't retcon something - redesign smarter, with more allowances for who the character is and wants to become. If a character wants to become a sex object (Morrigan Aensland) that's fine, but I doubt every character wants to. Asking for better writing/more thought is hardly an insane demand.
super unrelated: Captcha was a picture of XBOX ONE and Greatest Games Lineup. Why do they market with a third party, multiplatform game, especially since Halo 5 JUST came out?
I still remember that Kamitani got his fair share of flak because of tillitation in Dragon's Crown, though. But if people have finally moved on, that's cool.
Yes, Kojima hyped up the supposed explanation for Quiet's attire too much. And chopper yoga felt like pushing it too far, imho.
I have no interest in Halo and therefore Cortana¯\_(ツ_/¯
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
_/¯