Feminists next target; Battlefield 1.
- Thread starter FakeSympathy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
mm definitely, probably should've pointed that out in my original post, though that was why I said to take it with some salt, it was more about the /attitude/ of women being alongside men on the front lines, because that study is clearly biased.Schadrach said:
This little rant is not against or addressed at the person I am quoting, just using it as a starting point.erttheking said:
Sexualized violence is a combination of two things humans find to be appealing in their fiction. Using aspects that are extreme in comparison to our everyday experience in fiction is fucking entertaining. In fact, I think it is very useful that we play with the darkest parts of the human experience in our fiction, regardless the medium. Only fools take it literal, get offended and make attemps to ban it. Only mentally ill people take it as fact and act on it. Every new medium brought up uproars that certain ideas or images in it will influence people negatively, but society did not crumble because of movies, comics and as far as we can tell video games too. It is not that simple.
I find Mortal Kombat to be pretty harmless since the violence is so over the top, it is hilarious. It is just a matter of different tastes. When it comes to sexualized female characters, I love them. As a woman. Female sexuality was shamed for far too long and imo is a form of female power so let the peole who like it celebrate it. I despise sex negative feminists so much for shitting on characters like Bayonetta, who is the best and most positive example of it. Sure not everyone has to like it, but I hate this default attitude that it is degrading for women, that we are and should all be offended because of it. There are many female gamers who think otherwise. In my experience, mostly the ones who are experienced and hard core gamers who just played their stuff and never gave a fuck about gender politics and told the trolls to fuck off.
Many characters that are being used as examples for degrading images of women in video games were just normal for me as a child or teen. For example, I never thought of Lara Croft as a sex symbol. For some male gamers she was, but for me and other male gamers she just was a woman with big boobs. And those exist in real life, so what is the big deal? My point is, whether a character is sexualized or not is very subjective. It varies based on personal beliefs, gender, sexuality and so on. And again, something being sexualized is not entirely wrong itself.
Sure one can say they do not like it, but I hate it when a certain type of person wants to speak on my behalf about it, even shame people for liking it.
History student here. We talk about historical video games or video games with historical settings a lot at my faculty. There are even attempts to use the medium for historical education or at least raising an interest in history. The biggest problem we face is the conflict between historical accuracy and gameplay. For example, sometimes historical details have to be ignored because it would make the gameplay too complex, not fun or there is just no possible way to make a mechanic about it. It also depends on whether the game even wants to educate its users.
BF 1 is pure entertainment of course. But Id still argue that that does not justify including female soldiers.
If you proclaim to use a certain historical event, not just a non specific middle ages setting for example, you have to incorporate some basic historical facts for immersion purposes alone. Furthermore, this is a game about 20th century warfare. In it there are, again, some basic concepts you have to use so people experience it as such. For both, female soldiers are not part of that. Yes there are exceptions, but they were not the norm. They have their place in a single player campaign that has the most freedom and time to explain those exceptions.
But the multiplayer is about being a basic, playable representation of that kind of warfare and specific historical event that took place. It is about painting a rough picture with the most basic facts so people get immersed into that setting quickly. Having female soldiers does not work here. It paints the wrong picture. You could build a mechanic around that, like limiting the amount of female soldiers in the teams, to certain armies or make heroes out of them (like in Battlefront). Or even put a little disclaimer in the menu. But that would be too controversial for some people I believe.
If you choose a specific historical setting, especially one that is not that long ago and still relevant today, there is some historical responsibility to uphold to be able to use it. I do not mean we owe that to the people who fought and died in that war, that aspect is only relevant when you want to comment on the historical event or want to commemorate it. But the people who play that game have some interest in or some idea about it. A historical setting that makes obvious errors that even the layman can point out is useless and comes off as a cheap facade. You could just as well make your own setting then.
I can overlook them using wrong weapons or something like that. Those are details that the average Joe doesnt notice. But something broad and more meaningful like female soldiers is noticeable and paints, as I said, the wrong picture.
It has nothing to do with degrading women like some gender politics idiots believe. Being female myself, I dont want to see wrong historical representations of my gender. That includes things like this, even if some interpret it as positive. It would still be a lie, I see no benefit in that.
A historical setting is both a blessing and a curse for a game developer. On the one hand you do not have to create much of your own, on the other hand when you willingly choose to use that historical setting or event, you are obligated to play by its rules to a certain extent. That is the logic behind "historical". Otherwise you alienate your audience (again, not talking about history buffs here, even the layman can identify obvious errors) and make the whole setting basically meaningless.
You know, there are times when I'm out, especially during the summer when it's really hot -last summer being when it started- and I see what some girls are wearing and I think to myself "Man, if this was a video game or a movie feminists would say they're dressed like unacceptable sluts". The 'unrealistic body' thing too, when I see see a pic on the internet showing an "unrealistic" body type (keeping in mind that "unrealistic" is pretty much everything that isn't more or less 'porky') and I actually know a girl who just so happens to be amazingly fit, and I think "So apparently she's 'unrealistic', huh".CritialGaming said:Here is what I don't understand. What does a woman's outfit have anything to do with her being mistreated? Believe it or not, girls like to feel sexy when they wear certain things. Nobody goes to a nightclub wearing sweats and a parka. Just because those nuns were dressing kinda BDSM-y doesn't mean that they were like that against their wills.
For fucks sake, people seem to forget that these are fictional characters. Little more than animations tacked onto computer drawings.
These aren't real people being subjugated to physical abuse and mental trama. These are figments of a collection imagination whose sole existence is to tell a story. It is from that story that you should derive meaning and take lessons from.
No.Something Amyss said:
I already pointed out the flaw in feminism and you are trying to move it back in some attempt to invalidate my point, this may exist, probably does but that far from invalidates my point that they want special treatment.
Example: the poster I was originally and I'm safely guessing your own views.
If a female character is treated like a fuck toy, get over it, characters are often put in simply to play to certain emotions and feelings, one of them is the libido, that is not a representation of all women, regardless of how often or how little it happens.
Okay but who is it hurting?erttheking said:
You know people get mad when I bring up the "Don't like it, don't buy it" thing. And people always give me shit about it. But you just said so yourself, you don't understand or like the ultra-violence in Mortal Kombat games. Yet you aren't saying that MK doesn't have a right to exist, or that people shouldn't enjoy it. It's not a game for you and that's FINE!
Same thing applies to these nuns, or any game with hypersexualization. Is exists because there is an audience for it. And that audience isn't everyone. But it is okay for that audience to exist, and nobody has the right to tell them that their entertainment is WRONG. Especially because it does nothing to hurt anybody. Those nuns aren't real people, they are computer drawings. There is no mental damage, or risk of being slut shamed in public, because THEY DON'T EXIST!
And before you bring up the argument that seeing violence against woman, or women as sex objects, merely imprints upon people that treating real women that way is okay, I want to point out that these games are almost always rated M+. That means these games are for ADULTS, and if an ADULT looks at a fictional media and thinks anything about it is okay then clearly they have other mental issues because obviously they aren't MATURE enough to separate fiction from reality.
So yeah, "Don't like it, don't but it." Just like you with Mortal Kombat. It's okay to not like something and have a reason to not like it. It is NOT okay to tell someone else that they SHOULDN'T like it, or make someone feel bad for liking it.
It always confused me that apparently being in shape, being healthy, is unrealistic. How is that unrealistic? Go to the gym, eat less McDonald's. It's only unrealistic because people are fucking lazy. They don't wanna cook for themselves. They don't wanna take an hour out of their day to jog or pick up some heavy shit.Gekidami said:
No they wanna look like a Ambercrobe and Fitch model, sitting on their couch eating Dorritos.
Come on.
Nobody is saying that you have to be in athletic shape, but if you ate right and did 1 hour of physical activity at least 3-4 days a week, you would be perfectly "realistic".
Funny thing is, the media poisons you. They want you to buy Hot Pockets, Coca-cola, go to drive through "restaurants". At the same time they show you dudes with perfect muscle definition to sell you cologne. They show you sexy girls with small waists and big tits to sell you underwear. Things they want you to buy directly conflict with how they want you to look.
So when they put "hot" girls in a movie, or a video game, it's "unrealistic". No, no it fucking isn't. That's how a person is supposed to look! The human body isn't suppose to be fucking round people.....unless pregnant.
Also keep in mind this "unrealistic" claim is an American thing, because we are the junk food nation. Eat Nachos, drink beer, watch NASCAR. Meanwhile in Europe, eat junk in reasonable moderation, drink beer, PLAY soccer. I've been to England, and when me and a buddy went to the store for some snacks, he bought himself a chocolate bar. Then to my dismay, he only ate half of it and saved the rest for the next day. It wasn't even a big candy bar, it was barely bigger then what we call in America "Fun Size." I've never felt so fat. We also bought a bag of chips....err "crisps", again it was like one of those 1.49 size bags you see at every check out counter in America. He bought one bag, and I asked where's mine. He just looked at me and said, "We'll share this one. How many crisps did you want mate?" So we shared it, I had 7 crisps. Fucking seven. Then we playing soccer in the backyard, well....we kicked a ball at each other.
Food for thought......
Mortal Kombat's initial appeal was mostly just the violence. Sonya was in the first, and maybe when it was new, she was considered "sexualized" but its certainly tamer than today's standards. It was also a pretty decent fighting game at the time. MK2 added the Ninja ladies, that is, Kitana, Mileena and Jade. Again, maybe they were overly sexy to early 90's standards, but I kind of doubt it. Sure, they were intended to be attractive, but I don't think MK1, 2, or 3 tried to sexualize violence. If anything Mortal Kombat, like Street Fighter just quietly sought to be diverse in their representation.erttheking said:
It was probably after fans sexualized the characters that the newer 3D games started to do the same to appeal better to fans. Mileena gets the most sexualization, but its to add to her characterization as a depraved mutant, a succubus type character.
So no, Mortal Kombat I don't think ever really intends to sexualize violence. It just intends to be violent, and has characters who eventually became sexualized, though in my opinion, being able to kick the ass and then some of people and beings more powerful than an entire gym of weight lifters, kinda gives allowances to wear whatever you want.
Does it need to hurt someone to be criticized?CritialGaming said:
Yes, I do get mad, because I absolutely hate that argument. How would you feel if every time you tried to criticize something I just said "If you don't like it, don't buy it." Course, it also gets worse when some people say you can't criticize something if you haven't played it, making it part of a duo of arguments that seem to exist mainly to stop criticism.
....Uh, I'm not a Hitman fan, so fans of Hitman feel free to correct me on this front, but I'm not aware of previous Hitman games having this kind of sexualization. I know they had prostitutes because "mature" games have a tendency to shoehorn in prostitutes the same way they have a tendency to shoehorn in gore and swearing, but I think the commando stripper nuns were a first for the series. And I think even Hitman fans were having a go at how stupid those nuns were, even Yahtzee. Also Absoultion was kind of considered a step down from Hitman Bloodmoney, so the audience they were trying to reach seemed rather disappointed with this game. Heck, I just did a quick search and it turns out that Hitman 2016 put in female targets that weren't sexualized, something that got it some positive feedback (Time will tell if it's enough to overlook all the stupid that's going on with that game) and no negative backlash. Stop telling me that they don't exist like it's some basic concept that I just can't wrap my head around. I know! Also, considering how rarely brutalized and sexualized characters happen, I have to question how much of an audience there is for it.
Well I wasn't going to, so don't worry about it. What I WILL say is that its lazy writing that slowly seems to be losing appeal when we're supposed to be enjoying it (Thank god) and stagnating when it's supposed to shock us (writer's seem to think showing a dead prostitute is a good way to shock people sometimes) so it doesn't seem like it's the most popular concept in the world and I don't get why people defend it so much.
No. I'll complain about it as much as I please. And I'm not saying people shouldn't like it, I'm saying I don't get who the heck would actually like this. I mean, does anyone on this website love having skimpily dressed women and then having them be violently and brutally killed?
Criticism is okay. But a lot of people seem to go over the line from saying things like, "I don't like hyper-violences and therefore I don't like Mortal Kombat games." to "I don't like hyper-violence and therefore games like Mortal Kombat shouldn't exist."erttheking said:
There is a sharp contrast there, and that's what a lot of this kind of stuff sounds like. Especially to me.
Yes is the sex-nun thing an odd choice? Sure, but Hitman paid the price for that by having a fairly weak selling interation of that game. So they fixed that issue in the next Hitman game and fans are happier with it. They tried something and it didn't work, they paid the price and they fixed it.
Same thing for Mortal Kombat. I mean even Mortal Kombat went back on their female designs. You take how the women looked in MK9 and compare it to MKX and you'll see that female characters are much less built like walking tits, and are wearing more sensible outfits. Is the sexiness still there, yes, but it has been tones down a bit. Mortal Kombat has it's place and it's audience. The Hyper-violence isn't going anywhere, and neither is the sexiness. Because it has it's audience.
Criticize all you want, but do so with understanding. This stuff is made because there is an audience, a group of people that enjoy such things. And a game's audience will tell a developer when they step over the line by *Gasp* not buying the game! Crazy that!
Well you can say that it sounds like I'm saying it shouldn't exist all day. But I didn't actually say that.CritialGaming said:
Odd? I've yet to see anyone actually say that it was a good choice that added to the game. So you do admit that it was a misstep that brought nothing good to the game.
Uh, you said the sexualization isn't going anywhere in the same paragraph you said that it was toning down the sexualization.
I'm confused. You say that stuff is their because the dev wants an audience, yet you just went into detail on how they're cutting down on this stuff. So clearly it wasn't working. Ergo it sounds more like they thought this would get them an audience in a AAA publisher "Horror/PC gaming is dead" mindset. IE, a crap mindset.
You claimed they wanted special treatment for all female characters in games. I gave you a mechanism by which to test it: if feminists want special treatment for all female characters, then it should be easy to find examples of women who aren't sexualised, that are treated like male characters, being protested by feminists. And since you said feminists want this for ALL female characters, it should be ridiculously easy for you to come up with some examples.Gengisgame said:
Except...you won't find that. If you actually look, there's a severe lack of significant outcry when women are treated as equals and killed in games. You can say you've pointed out the flaw in feminism, but you by and large don't see this happen. Since it doesn't happen--and I suspect you know this--this flaw you claim to have pointed out doesn't work. It's not real.
This no longer has anything to do with me, since I didn't offer any value call on this. I simply attempted to test your claim. However, I'm just going to go ahead and address it anyway:
The landscape of gaming has changed. I'm not the one who has to "get over it." Companies are becoming more inclusive. That's what the outrage is about. They aren't your games anymore. Not that they ever were.
There are female soldiers, aren't there? I mean, when I looked it up I saw a bunch of articles and comments about how SJWs and Anita Sarkeesian had forced EA to bow to their agenda by making Hardline include women.Dango said:
Toning down is not the same as eliminating. Sexualization is still there. Proportions are more realistic, that's all.erttheking said:
Hitman, honestly with Hitman...I don't play it. Like you I am guessing. But I did a little bit of looking into it and while the sex-nuns where a HUGE part of the marketing, they weren't actually in the game for very long. 1 or 2 missions. And it turns out that most of the negative response for that Hitman game, fell more upon the gameplay being shit, and not the nuns.
But again. You and I didn't play the game, which means that our criticisms don't hold nearly the weight that someone who's actively been a Hitman fan would.
Us bitching about a series of games we've never played, is kinda like the news talking shit about Mass Effect's sex scenes. Mostly just ignorant hot smoke.
Also to your last little statement there. The industry as a whole is moving beyond niche audiences, and as a result you are seeing more Lara Crofts and who the fuck that girl in Horizon Zero Dawn is. That doesn't mean that the hyper-sex/hyper-violence is going away. Look at recently released titles like Doom and Senran Kagura. Just because I said that the industry as a whole is getting better about this stuff, doesn't mean the development and the audiences for niche sexy violence things is going away. No amount of inclusion is going to stop that, unless people stop liking horror/slasher movies, and tits. But there is a better chance that I'll learn how to breathe chocolate fudge.
You're getting off topic. We're talking about sexualized violence, not sexualization.CritialGaming said:
I don't recall anyone saying anything good about the nuns either though.
I am basing my comments off of what the fans actually said.
See above.
I'm not talking about hyper-sex and hyper-violence on their own. I'm talking about the two being put together with hyper sexualized characters being the victims of violence. And like I said, I don't really see much of an audience for that, nor do I see it happening that often outside of isolated incidents. Heck, Saelune made a good argument as to how the sexualized violence in MK was unintentional.
Okay so examples of sexualized violence only then. Together.erttheking said:
Okay how about blowing up and beating the gay men in Saint's row 3? Where they chase you on gimp powered chariots?
Saint's Row 3 was widely well received, and never once was that part of the game mentioned in any negative light? Does that sexualized violence not count? If so why? Because it is violence against men?
Also I notice you mention the skimpy and sexy women of Mortal Kombat, but say nothing about the buff sexy shirtless men? Do they not count?
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess that those men were designed to be more laughter inducing than actually titillating. Gaming is good at many things, pandering to female sexuality is not one of them. And even if I'm wrong, it'd be one of three AAA games who actually did it. One of the reasons I get so frustrated with sexualized violence against women is that it KEEPS! HAPPENING!CritialGaming said:
As for Mortal Kombat, the only character I'm aware of that could be advocated for being buff, sexy and shirtless is Johnny Cage, and it seems that X had him finally put on a shirt. Every else is too fugly to really qualify. Shao Khan certainly isn't winning any beauty contests considering what he looks like under that mask
http://news.toyark.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/01/Mortal-Kombat-Shao-Kahn-PCS-005.jpg
And again, in a game with people being torn to shreds, I have to question how much of this is actually designed to pander to female sexuality. It's the whole Conan the Barbarian thing all over again, most female sex fantasies that I've seen tend to not have gallons of blood being spilled.
@errtheking
You forget there's Jax, Sub-zero, Scorpion, Nightwolf, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that you have to look at the context. Nudity doesn't = sex. This is commonly called "casual" nudity. The principle applies to places like nude beaches, where nudist just like being naked and have the ability to be naked without exploding into a creepy orgy.
Just because a woman is dressed in clothing that exposes skin, doesn't mean it's there to be taken sexually. It's funny how the first thing people seem to think off when they see a shirtless woman is sex, yet a shirtless man seems to bring about no response.
It leads me to believe that there is a little bit of bias of the viewer. You believe Jade, Kitana, and Sonya are sexualized because you find women sexy (i think?). Yet you do not have the same react to a shirtless buff hunk of a man. With the exception of Mileena, none of the other female characters in MK do anything sexual. They are fighters and all they do is fight, brutally.
Which also leads to another point. A woman acting sexy, doesn't automatically mean she is objectified. Bayonetta is a perfect example of this. She is a literal embracement of her sexuality, it powers her and makes her stronger than her foes. Sex for her is a weapon, and she uses it violently and empoweringly.
Mileena in MK does the same thing. She is a character that knows she is a monster, yet also has a body that can sexually tempt her foes. So she embraces that part of herself, because she knows her body is the most attractive thing about her, as she has the face of a monster. On the surface, she looks and acts sexualized. But it one takes that time to look into the world and the lore, (corny as it may be) the sexualization isn't just there because tits.
Now I get being opposed to sexualization and violence against sexually used women, in no context. But judging something based on a screenshot or passing view of a character isn't any more justifyable than judging a job applicant because they have a tattoo on their arm.
Sexualization is not a bad thing. There is a place for it.
Nudity does not = sexualization. Your views of shirtless men clearly show that.
You forget there's Jax, Sub-zero, Scorpion, Nightwolf, etc.
The point I'm trying to make is that you have to look at the context. Nudity doesn't = sex. This is commonly called "casual" nudity. The principle applies to places like nude beaches, where nudist just like being naked and have the ability to be naked without exploding into a creepy orgy.
Just because a woman is dressed in clothing that exposes skin, doesn't mean it's there to be taken sexually. It's funny how the first thing people seem to think off when they see a shirtless woman is sex, yet a shirtless man seems to bring about no response.
It leads me to believe that there is a little bit of bias of the viewer. You believe Jade, Kitana, and Sonya are sexualized because you find women sexy (i think?). Yet you do not have the same react to a shirtless buff hunk of a man. With the exception of Mileena, none of the other female characters in MK do anything sexual. They are fighters and all they do is fight, brutally.
Which also leads to another point. A woman acting sexy, doesn't automatically mean she is objectified. Bayonetta is a perfect example of this. She is a literal embracement of her sexuality, it powers her and makes her stronger than her foes. Sex for her is a weapon, and she uses it violently and empoweringly.
Mileena in MK does the same thing. She is a character that knows she is a monster, yet also has a body that can sexually tempt her foes. So she embraces that part of herself, because she knows her body is the most attractive thing about her, as she has the face of a monster. On the surface, she looks and acts sexualized. But it one takes that time to look into the world and the lore, (corny as it may be) the sexualization isn't just there because tits.
Now I get being opposed to sexualization and violence against sexually used women, in no context. But judging something based on a screenshot or passing view of a character isn't any more justifyable than judging a job applicant because they have a tattoo on their arm.
Sexualization is not a bad thing. There is a place for it.
Nudity does not = sexualization. Your views of shirtless men clearly show that.
For all the complaints about Star Wars: Battlefront, I haven't heard anything bad abut the default rebel trooper being a black woman. Well, not from feminists anyway. For all the complaints I hear about Overwatch and Battleborn, "you can hurt the womz" isn't one of them. For all the complaints about CoD: Black Ops 3, that you can knife and 'nade female avatars in multiplayer isn't anything I've heard from feminists.Something Amyss said:
So yeah, based on past precedent, the complaining wouldn't be coming from the feminists.
1.Yes I am claiming that, you then attempted to dismiss my claim my GREATLY narrowing the sample size from which I could pull from. What utter rubbish, why not restrict it to women who wore yellow hats while where at it.Something Amyss said:
2. I say that feminists have problems with something existing, never once saying it had to exist in all products and your response is to be childish and call me entitled. Be clear here, do you have a problem with "fuck toys" existing, if half of games where filled with them why should that shouldn't be an issue as long as you have your games. unless you think your entitled to all games.
If there is a racer with those "fuck toys" I like so much that is meaningless to me, but lets not pretend you wouldn't care even if it was a game you wouldn't buy. inclusiveness is such a meaningless SJW buzzword when all that matters to people who PAY FOR THE GAME is that it is something they enjoy.
3. I don't care if there are female soldiers, how much I care about realism depends on the title but if they cite feminism as a reason that women should be in it then they are proving the TC right, the only reason women should be in the game is if that's what would make most of the people BUYING the game happy even if they have to put those women in string bikinis.
So I'm going to be that guy. Why exactly did we need to separate Americans and black people? Last I checked most of those black people were Americans, so why then did they need to be singled out for their contribution to a war that took place mostly in Europe. Now if we're talking non-Americans here and non-Europe battles, then I'm going to say that makes a bit more sense than just throwing the same European character models in there and expecting no one to notice.Charcharo said: