Games you like that you can admit can be a bit cringe-worthy sometimes

[EMWISE94]

Street Fighter V: some of the female character costumes make no sense, and I mean that in terms of the characters attitudes/mannerism no being reflected in their clothing. I like Cammy White as a character because she has a pretty interesting story to her, being a former puppet of Shadoloo big boss Bison and now using her skill and free will to rescue all the current dolls held by Bison whilst working for a military spec ops group of sorts; cool stuff... Why is she dressed in a vacuum sealed leotard that her anus is trying to devour-our-our? I have never understood this, why would a military personal go around dressed like that? even more confusing is her story outfit which is meant to be her officer outfit for formal functions I suppose.. its just a coat, no pants... the hell? I'd just like some freaking closure on the design decision here, is it that Capcom feel her look is too signature to change? or are they just trying to fill a titillation quota? One which I thought Mika and Laura (oh goodness Laura...) already filled. Also Chun-li's "Battle Outfit"... not sure how that's good for battles per say, it looks more like sexy evening attire, heck her default costume looks more like a battle outfit... her Alpha 3 tracksuit is more of a battle outfit. Then again, I just roll with the possibility that Capcom have 3 lead costume designers on this game, one that makes good designs that work with the characters mannerism, one that designs that kinda work (being more 'meh' but they still fit the character somewhat) and the final designer who just does whatever... and its usually bad.

I remember modding my Cammy in USFIV to have a costume that I felt suited her more:

Spoiler: albeit a bit more out fantasy than military

Devil May Cry 4 Special Edition: You know I really liked Lady in DMC3, she was cool, her design was cool, it invoked a sort of 'young demon hunter doing it because she's kinda gotta' type of vibe to it:

Spoiler: DMC 3 Lady

[img:]http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/devilmaycry/images/3/3e/Lady_3.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080218174626[/img]

I mean sure it kinda has that school girl fetish vibe going for it, but to me it rubbed me more as she was young and had to take up a fight against evil and just dressed really light for the affair, for the most part I don't mind it too much, it works somewhat. Then you have her in DMC 4 looking like this:

Spoiler: DMC 4 Lady

and I'm all like... WHY? You already have Trish filling that sexy lady role, and it makes sense for here she's all 'sexy femme fatal' while lady always struck me more as 'badass serious business femme fatal'

Personally it just extends to any female character design that's titillating just because they're female, and these days I'm more convinced that its a weird subconscious thing rather a conscious one like an artist/designer going "drawing a female character, better make sure she's sexy cause that's how things are done." rather than them actively choosing to make em sexy. Then again, if they DID consciously make that design decision then good on them, it might not be my thing, but at least they stuck to their guns; I'd never touch DoA Xtreme 3 or Senran Kagura with a 10ft pole but I can respect them for doing what they want and flipping the finger to anyone who tells em otherwise.

On the flipside, if you design a titillating female character design and then change it when someone points it out as being sexy for no good reason, then how about exercising some more thought into your designs next time, a lot of people like to chalk up designers changing or removing things as to them being forced to (and I mean like they change it based purely on external stimuli, rather than them also choosing to change it based on a conscious free willed decision) but in my mind if you change a design without even trying to defend it in a "no, I chose to design it this way because reasons." then clearly you weren't thinking, and I mean actively thinking about that design when you made/chose it.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

I can't think of any

 

[Amaror]

My god, yes, this. Just look at Nexus Mods for Skyrim. Almost all of the popular mods for armour, clothing and accessories are pornographic or borderline pornographic. A lot of the companions are fucktoys. I don't mind sex and roleplaying and I wish there were more and better options for it in RPGs but can I get some armour or a lightsaber without wading through twenty pages of softcore pornography? Then there are the mods for outright simulated sex. I thought that this sort of thing was what Second Life is for. I'm glad that New Vegas is much better off in this regard. Probably helps that there's actual kink outfits in the game due to in-game sex work, which were both incorporated decently.

Really? Are we talking about a different Nexus?
A quick look at the top mods for Skyrim reveals:
UI Mods, Immersive Armor Mods, HD Textures, Map Overhau, Unofficial Patch, New Animations and enhanced Characters Creation.
At least at first glance I don't see anything lewd or sexual in the top 25 mods of Skyrim here.
I mean I know that there are tons of pornographic and sexy mods about Skyrim or any other game for that matter, but at least from personal experience I found that the top-rated mods always seem to be more serious than that.
I know that the issue is there somewhat but I just dislike it if people exagerate to such a large degree.
Btw. these are the results for searching "lightsaber" on the nexus and I don't know where you see twenty pages of softcore.
I mean I really want to see what kind of softcore porn-mods people would make with the name "lightsaber", that would be hilarious.

 

[Skatalite]

Didn't think this thread would be about sexism before I entered...

 

[Candidus]

I think Dragon's Crown was problematic because I couldn't put the elf in a thong, and there was no full-on lingerie outfit for the sorceress.

I think Black Desert is problematic because the Valkyrie panty shots really aren't that amazing- the underwear is very conservative.

I think Paragon is problematic because the female characters aren't as provocative as many of SMITE's.

I think Overwatch is problematic because Tracer's dat ass victory pose has been removed totally fine, thanks Blizz!

Looking forward to the arrival of my copy of Dead or Alive Beach Volley 3.
I'll let you know if it's problematic somehow.

 

[Silvanus]

If I wanted smut to wank to in a videogame I'd play Corruption of Champsions [small]again[/small] or do it in Second Life, which is a hundred times more accomodating towards this sort of things. This isn't roleplaying, this is masturbation fodder in an action-adventure RPG.

Sorry, pause there a second. Could I have some more examples, please?

Uhrm, for the sake of the debate, you understand.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I like the COD games, even though their entirely about violently killing men and men alone.

I recently played Black Ops 1 and I seem to recall there being some dogs in that game too. In fact (and I could be mistaken here) but I think dogs are present in Modern Warfare 2 (and possibly the first Modern Warfare, Call of Duty 4). I really don't like to kill dogs in games if I can avoid it. Fallout 3 and New Vegas ALMOST get a pass since they present feral dogs as enemies but I hate that I can't drop food and turn them from enemy to...not necessarily friend but at least a passive animal.

When it comes to sex stuff in video games I'm pretty thick skinned. It was really messed up how Duke Nukem Forever killed a pair of women who were almost certainly being raped by aliens and what's worse is the dialog about them being sorry for being victimized and them promising to lose the weight. I would think that's worse than Duke's iconic line; "Looks like you're...Fucked." Luckily my love of cheat codes allows me to enjoy that game regardless of its crappy writing and the level design that suggests the devs don't know what made Duke 3D a fun game.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I would definitely remove the word "intentionally", there. By that metric, ye olde medieval society was not sexist.

I was meaning in context for this particular topic.

 

[WindKnight]

BlazBlue.

love the plotting and characters, even though at suck at, but all the female characters are fetishised in some manner, even my fave, Litchi. Taokaka has a pretty heavy coat on, but underneath she only has shorts and suspenders.

Gears of War 2, and Dom's wife subplot. Kinda moving in the moment, but when lots of other games are doing it...

Unreal 2.

Crew of hardened soldiers, all the dudes are wearing power armour, coveralls... the one woman, a brilliant tactician haunted by a past decisin goes around in tight pants and a split front halter top.

Thats the ones that immediately come to mind, but there's probably a tonne more that have stuff in it Id rather it didn't, even of I loved it, or, well, female character designs I liked from a personal aesthetic enjoyment, or, ahem, sex appeal aspect, but I would never describe as appropriate to the setting or empowering.

 

[bossfight1]

Dying Light is great fun, but, it uses the trick of 'Hide an insta-kill exploding zombie around a corner and trick the player into instinctively swinging their weapon at it, effectively killing themselves" WAY too fucking much. First time, mildly amusing. Every time after that, it made me want to punch the developers. I know I could've shown a bit of restraint, but having the explosion being an instant kill was just too far, in my eyes.

 

[GundamSentinel]

I would define sexist as "Intentionally demeaning to women".

I would definitely remove the word "intentionally", there. By that metric, ye olde medieval society was not sexist.

Just a question, how was medieval society demeaning to women? Men did the hard, difficult, dangerous work, because women simply weren't physically able to. Meanwhile, women often had their hands full with the household and raised the children with exactly the same ideas on how society should work. Were those women unhappy with their lot? Were the men? Compared to modern society, they all had a shitty life, but you can hardly say one group was demeaning to the other. Men and women had different and equally important things to do and did what they were good at, because that was the only way a family could function. It's only now, in the last century, with a social system and jobs being less physically demanding, that people can have a choice of what to do with their lives.

All those ideas people have about patriarchal systems in past societies are such nonsense. Look at the Vikings, look at the ancient Greeks, look at the Egyptians. Virtually all past cultures have the same gender role patterns, because they worked and everybody was okay with it.

OT: I don't think any one game is problematic, when it comes to displaying sexiness or fanservice or whatever. Loads and T&A and 1-dimensional promiscuous characters is fine. It's fantasy, it's escapism. Just like with violence in games, show me the research that it has any influence on actual behavior of the people playing it. Show me that it's actually bad for someone.

No, the problem comes when there are too few alternatives for people who don't want those kinds of games. When sexy characters and 'male-gaze' are the norm and it's actually putting people off playing games. I don't think current gaming society is like that now, but it's close. While I don't mind games with fanservice at all, there should really be more alternatives, plus developers should be less tempted to put that small unnecessary bit of sexy in their games.

 

[BrawlMan]

The Hitman series. I love it from a mechanical perspective but it always flubbed when it came to world building. The series seems to really take on this pseudo-nihilism that you get from high schoolers who go "everybody and everything sucks". You'll hit just about every nasty stereotype and caricature in the book in the series minus nerdy white guys because nerdy white guys make the game. I think they try to use it as some sort of cheap offhand way of making you want to kill those people but it was always just baffling to me. Its kind of hard to blame them for doing this though because when they make a genuine effort to tell a compelling story they fail miserably, as they did with Hitman Absolution. This weird layer of.. its not even misanthropy because misanthropy is hating everybody in general for the same reason rather than everybody in the world being part of different groups you hate. Racism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, every other ism, ist and phobia under the sun. Its really when playing the games because of that.

Oh please, you haven't seen misanthropy until you've read Shaman King (towards the end) or watched A Wind Named Amnesia. Sure, they're not video games, but they carry that same pathetic high-school amateur philosophy of humans are bastards and here's why argument, and people/persons in those stories making their case has to be in the "right", because the author/writers said so! Ironically I never got that feeling from the Hitman series. Now I never played all of the games in the series, but when you have a story about assassins, a majority of those tales are not going to be sunshine and lollipops. I have no idea what you were expecting out of it story wise, but you have your reasons and you are not wrong for feeling that way.

 

[Silvanus]

Just a question, how was medieval society demeaning to women? Men did the hard, difficult, dangerous work, because women simply weren't physically able to. Meanwhile, women often had their hands full with the household and raised the children with exactly the same ideas on how society should work. Were those women unhappy with their lot? Were the men? Compared to modern society, they all had a shitty life, but you can hardly say one group was demeaning to the other. Men and women had different and equally important things to do and did what they were good at, because that was the only way a family could function. It's only now, in the last century, with a social system and jobs being less physically demanding, that people can have a choice of what to do with their lives.

Wives were the property of their husbands. They had little-to-no choice over whom their husband would be; that decision would rest with the man and their parents. They had no ability to leave their relationships, while the men did. If the men did make that choice, the women would be socially ostracised, or even legally penalised, solely for having been left by a man. While men had some degree of choice over profession (though much more restricted than we do today), the women had absolutely none at all. They were barred from almost all forms of work. They were denied almost all forms of education. They were denied all forms of political representation (even the meagre ones afforded to men in those times). In many cases, they were denied even the ability to leave the home. It's not even disputable that medieval society was sexist in the extreme.

I was meaning in context for this particular topic.

Aye, but my point still stands. Something does not need to be intentionally demeaning in order to be so. In fact, it's usually not.

 

[ManutheBloodedge]

I would say Stella Glow. I bought it because FE Fates is not coming out until end of the next month, and while I like the tactical aspect so far, the story is a bit... well, you play as a male with the ability to "tune" the magical girls in your army. That essentially means you help the girls overcoming their issues by being a magical hobby psychologist, diving into their soul. As in, literally diving in and beating up their manifested problems. And while the game has enough mechanics build around it to justify it, this sadly hurts the story for me.
Every new female magic user that joins your army has to be helped by you to overcome their difficulties before they can join the battle and be effective. It makes sense with the women itself, like the sheltered girl that never saw combat before, and I realize that everyone needs help at some point, but when it happens with every female in the game who joins your army... What also doesn't help is that all females in the army are magic users, and all other soldiers are exclusively male. There is even a 13 year old boy joining you, and he can join the fight without the help of magical counseling.
I don't know, I just miss a badass women who kicks ass all the time and goes: "Emotions? Trauma? the only trauma here will come from my fist smashing your head in!" You know, just for variety.

So in short, I like the mechanic on its own, but not how it is used not only exclusively on women in the game, but on every (playable) female, as this leads to them appearing less competent than the males.

In general, stuff like that is something that annoys me, as opposed to fanservice and sexy stuff. Though thinking about it a bit more, I roll my eyes when fanservice makes a otherwise strong female weak and vulnerable, and suggests I should protect and guide her with a patronizing feeling of superiority. Something like that is very common especially with japanese games, where a romance or fanservice moment with a self-assured female makes her shy, unsure and meak, as if the player could only be attracted to a woman when she is his inferior in some regard. I find that insulting to both genders, actually.

Hence, it has never once occured to me that any element in any game is "problematic" and I am someone who maxed out evey girl and got every mission done with boh A rank and frantic rank in senran kagura burst, for both ninja schools, so that should inform you of what I have experienced.

BlazBlue.

love the plotting and characters, even though at suck at, but all the female characters are fetishised in some manner, even my fave, Litchi. Taokaka has a pretty heavy coat on, but underneath she only has shorts and suspenders.

That's why I like so many characters from both Senran Kagura and BlazBlue. The women in these games are fetishised to (very) different degrees, but they are never demeaned by it. The sexualisation is not opposing their character, in some cases it is part of their character. They all have agency of their own, unique strenghts, flaws and quirks, which gives them interesting personalities. If and when they are sexualized, it is in ways that don't break or even support their character.
So I don't have any problems with sexualisation when done right.

@Windknight: If you feel you suck at BlazBlue, let's play some online matches. I can help you with some of the base mechanics and strategies, and then you will breeze trough the offline-mode in no-time.

 

[MeatMachine]

My take on all of this?

Gamers almost never care one way or the other. I can only speak for myself, but I observe that people who are sincerely drawn to videogames care entirely about the entertainment they will get out the experience, and almost always stop giving a shit about a character's simple appearance after the first impression they get. Laura Croft, for example, might have been hot for the first 20 seconds I saw her, but her carnal attraction all but evaporated from my conscience when I had the opportunity to start shooting wolves while doing Matrix-style sideflips. Alternatively, if a female character is introduced who serves no real purpose other than to flaunt her hooters and squeal, I groan about the insultingly transparent pandering, get bored with dealing with her, and move on to the exciting bits of the game.

This is what separates gamers from self-aggrandizing media critics (who shall not be named).

EDIT: I readily admit that too often, female characters seem to get a lot of care and attention put into developing their appearance, and very little care and attention towards making them into characters worth interacting with for any reason whatsoever. I don't think a highly-sexualized character design is "sexist", nor do I think it is "sexist" to limit them strictly to that - to me, it's just lazy and directionless on part of the developers to prioritize that above making that character a fun utility for the gameplay.

Dying Light is great fun, but, it uses the trick of 'Hide an insta-kill exploding zombie around a corner and trick the player into instinctively swinging their weapon at it, effectively killing themselves" WAY too fucking much. First time, mildly amusing. Every time after that, it made me want to punch the developers. I know I could've shown a bit of restraint, but having the explosion being an instant kill was just too far, in my eyes.

I especially like it when they pull this shit in tight quarters or on high ledges. Remember the quest where you have to climb the spires of the bridge and loot the skylights? Yeah, they had a Suicider burst through the door when you had about 4 square feet of maneuverability over a 500 foot drop.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Just a question, how was medieval society demeaning to women? Men did the hard, difficult, dangerous work, because women simply weren't physically able to. Meanwhile, women often had their hands full with the household and raised the children with exactly the same ideas on how society should work. Were those women unhappy with their lot? Were the men? Compared to modern society, they all had a shitty life, but you can hardly say one group was demeaning to the other. Men and women had different and equally important things to do and did what they were good at, because that was the only way a family could function. It's only now, in the last century, with a social system and jobs being less physically demanding, that people can have a choice of what to do with their lives.

Wives were the property of their husbands.

Define 'property', because, in most historical societies, men had major legal obligations to their wives. Men who treated their wives badly or just plain failed to provide were usually ostracized by the family and society as a whole. I don't know about other parts of the world, but in most of medieval Europe (up to the early 19th century), men had to take almost all the legal liability for their wives' actions (usually excluding murdering their husbands).

They had little-to-no choice over whom their husband would be; that decision would rest with the man and their parents.

Neither had men, in most cases. Arranged marriages were usually a family matter, nothing to do with the people actually involved.

They had no ability to leave their relationships, while the men did. If the men did make that choice, the women would be socially ostracised, or even legally penalised, solely for having been left by a man.

Not really. Marriage in most societies was a big deal, often even sacred. Nobody trying to get out of it is going to get points for that. The reason 'staying faithful' was more important for women, is purely because of the biological reasons for marriage: men provide food/protection, women provide children. Unfaithful women don't uphold their part of the bargain, while layabout men don't hold up theirs and were usually punished severely for it.

While men had some degree of choice over profession (though much more restricted than we do today),

Not really.

the women had absolutely none at all. They were barred from almost all forms of work.

Women, especially those in more well-to-do families, didn't need to have a job at all. Managing a household and looking after the children was more than enough work. Plus, most work was physically demanding. Why would someone pay a woman for what a man would be better at?

They were denied almost all forms of education.

As were virtually all men.

They were denied all forms of political representation (even the meagre ones afforded to men in those times).

A women's life was in and around the house. The number of political decisions that even remotely touched upon female life was very small indeed. Same for most men, really. Money ruled politics, not gender. Poor people had no representation, be they man or woman.

In many cases, they were denied even the ability to leave the home.

Individual cases maybe, but not as a societal system. Even if it were the case, there are plenty of cases where women themselves supported living rules that us modern Western people would find ridiculous.

When there was talk about allowing women to drive in Saudi Arabia, according to many polls a majority of women were against it. Same with abolishing male guardianship. Why? Because they liked to be driven everywhere. They liked to be taken care of. They liked not having responsibility. It's the very same as when in many western countries women's right to vote was instituted. Some of the most vocal opposition was women, because they didn't see any need for responsibility, nor did they have any benefits from it, as politics seldom concerned the household, so did not concern the female life. Only in recent times has that changed.

It's not even disputable that medieval society was sexist in the extreme.

Yes, it is. It's very narrow-minded to assume that just because our modern liberated rules don't apply to another society, that people will automatically be unhappy with it. That it is a form of oppression by one group against another. Or do you really think it's just a case of 'they don't know what they're missing'?

Where were the mass female protests throughout the ages? If it was all so bad, surely some would have risen up against the establishment? Why is it that this only started happening now in this modern age of easier jobs and social security? Because women had no need for it then. They do now. And even now you'll not find many women complaining that there are not enough female garbagemen, female mine workers, female builders (female convicts?). No, it's only about the safe, well-paying jobs, like managers or doctors.

In hindsight we can claim that it was all so unfair for women, not being the same as men back then, but I is there any proof that women disliked their place in society back then? Sure, there would have been some, but the same can be said for men.