It Never Ends

[MoeMints]

My main problems here is that for me, there's no relevance to this that could have amounted to a discussion in the first place.
Dragon's Crown in itself is a niche product that would have probably came out regardless of the nature of mainstream titles.
It only amounts to being a scapegoat in comparison to say Far Cry 3 or Hitman:Absolution where you can argue its exploiting the audience than understanding and appealing to it.
Same going with Bioware's weird bisexuality angles, but that's for another day.
Vanillaware has proven to have beautiful and subtle females. Games like Muramasa and Odin Sphere show this very well, but one game apparently removes that.

Meanwhile, Jason did not apologize in reality, unless I'm missing an article.
You can say you're not a censor and that you now understand what the artist was intended all you like, but Jason shames the artwork on a very popular game site and makes his stance seem better by forcing the implication that George is being homophobic. Seriously, I should see a witch hunt for Muscle March and Cho Aniki if implied homoeroticism gets everyone in a twist.
In fact, I can definitely assume the defensive points on Kotaku are intentionally separate articles for more views and sensationalism.

All in all, its like complaining about an indie buddy cop movie because of exploitative action thrillers.
Why don't you bring up the main picture of why you dislike it as a trend, represent individuals as only potential/mild samples, not representations. Give examples of what you want instead of going back on this "untapped market" that's all faith in statistics. Show you know the reason behind these and you've researched things.
It will be doing like, I don't know, an actual constructive criticism.

 

[JimB]

Why is it so hard for many "people" to realize that they should be investing in more genres, rather than conformity?

I let it go the first time because I wasn't sure how strong your English is, but that's the second time you've done it, so I have to ask, what's up with you putting quotation marks around the word "people?" Are you trying to use irony here to say they aren't people, or what?

More genres, i.e. Men's AAA, Women's AAA, etc.

Please explain to me why you are arguing in favor of segregation. What about the current state of affairs makes you say to yourself, "This situation is good the way it is, or at least, making it more gender-inclusive would make it worse?"

If you truly like "games," like you claim[snip]

Except I didn't say I like games. Anywhere. Are you sure you're even talking to me and not some fantasy you want your opposition to be?

Also, did you just compare blatant racism to a caricature?

Yes, because I consider the caricature to be roughly as sexist as my example is racist.

Ah yes, I forgot that for every game where women are sexually depicted, ten games that don't do it, disappear from the shelves.

You are arguing against a strawman. Please stop.

It's simply not true what you're saying, the entire industry isn't some sort of patriarchy that's out to keep women out of gaming.

Do you have any further argument to back this up? If not, I have to say, you seem to be expecting me to accept "Nuh-uh" as a convincing rebuttal.

It's just that once in a while when there is a game that offends someone, people rage so much that they forget about everything else.

Are you talking about me, or about someone else? Because what I've been doing is not rage. At all. It's disappointment and dissatisfaction over something that I think is shameful and low but that is not especially important when compared to how sexism affects rape victims, like that girl who committed suicide when her friends blamed her for getting raped, or to genital mutilation or to girls who get shot in the head by the Taliban because she wants to go to school.

Those things will make me rage. This topic will just make me heave a sigh of resigned disgust.

Except it is irrelevant, since it's not hurting anyone.

Okay, what's your offer of proof for this statement?

Unless of course, you believe that every game that is slightly politically incorrect forever damages half of the planet in some irreversible way.

I'd say sexism hurts men too, since, for example, the assumption that mothers are and should be primary caregivers means men often get screwed during divorce proceedings, and since idea that women are weak and need to be protected means only men are allowed in front lines combat.

It's not going to change and it's certainly not going to change by talking about it on a forum.

I find this statement despicable for suggesting that it is better to simply shut up and accept an inequity rather that try to correct it. I further suggest that you misunderstand my intentions completely if you think I believe I will magically make games stop having jiggle physics by talking about it here.

The company isn't doing harm or intentional discrimination.

I disagree that it's doing no harm, and I disagree that only intentional discrimination counts as discrimination. I judge actions by their outcomes more than by their intent.

You didn't buy it and then get shocked by the contents. You're not a dissatisfied customer.

I also didn't buy an iPod. Does this mean I'm not allowed to complain to the producing company in China about its inhuman treatment of workers and the suicide rates in its dormitories?

Do you realize how big of a douche you'd sound like if you complained to them because their female characters have exaggerated curves in a caricatured game?

I do not care how people who produce artwork that offends me choose to perceive me based on my complaints.

In comparison, I could complain about Bulletstorm for having me play a dumb fuck oaf who acts like a stereotypical 80's sci-fi action hero which is inherently derogatory to my person, since I'm not like that at all. The premise is the same and no one considers it at least important and certainly not relevant (which I don't think it is either).

The premise is the same, but the context is wildly divergent.

Take it for what it is; if you feel that I'm wrong, then do something about it, but you can't convince me otherwise [snip]

Then you have been arguing in bad faith, and I really wish you'd put this at the beginning of your post rather than the end. I suppose it doesn't really matter, though, since I would have responded the same way; convincing you of anything was never my goal, because the person you're arguing with on the internet will never change his mind. The point of this argument has been the audience.

It's just political correctness for the sake of being on a high horse.

You do not understand my motivations as well as you think you do.

 

[chuckdm]

To me, this is the key here:

I find myself being able to agree on the point of the omnipresence of this character type (the only remarkable thing about The Sorceress is how un-remarkable she is

Making female characters in video games attractive - even comically so - is only a bad thing if they also lack depth. A chick with nice tits is only wrong if she also lacks a brain, basically.

Lilith from Borderlands 2, Trishka from Bulletstorm, and many other female characters in many games have a nice rack and it doesn't prevent them from being detailed, well thought out characters with ample back story and character. (I almost included Bayonetta in this list but TBH I've never played those games and I don't want to jump to a conclusion there.) Even the latest Laura Croft's rack isn't what you'd call tiny. Those are what, like a C cup? For a supposedly mid-20's college student who is otherwise very slim, those are pretty damn large. Yet nobody would accuse post-reboot Laura Croft if being a 1-dimensional know-nothing.

Of course, in certain genre's, there just isn't any backstory to begin with. Fighting games like Street Fighter and their ilk spring to mind, and I don't see how there even is any way to remedy that, but perhaps a simple gameplay time rule would suffice? As in, if there's less than 2-3 hours of non-repeating gameplay in a game, it can skip attempting to be fair about the characters' appearance. Anything where ANY of the other characters have depth, though, should require that most of the well-endowed female characters have equal depth, though.

But yeah, depth is the answer. It's what solves the conundrum. If all the female characters in games that have a lot of character development only for the males had equal development for the females, and only the titles that lacked such development for any gender had this problem, then it wouldn't be a problem to begin with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Lilith from Borderlands 2, Trishka from Bulletstorm, and many other female characters in many games have a nice rack and it doesn't prevent them from being detailed, well thought out characters with ample back story and character.

No, being in Borderlands 2 prevents her from being a detailed, well thought out character with ample backstory and character.

BL2's characters are all pretty flat. In fact, it looks like this would demonstrate a different point: it doesn't matter if the character is deep. A woman who isn't completely ridiculous won't draw that much flak, even if she isn't all that deep.

Those are what, like a C cup? For a supposedly mid-20's college student who is otherwise very slim, those are pretty damn large.

They really aren't. They're a bit above average, but pretty damn large? No.

Yet nobody would accuse post-reboot Laura Croft if being a 1-dimensional know-nothing.

Which is a different point entirely.

 

[Edl01]

It Never Ends

MovieBob discusses the recent Dragon's Crown controversy, and why we really need more diversity in our videogame characters.

And yet he willingly praises every single Mario game for being the exact same game again with slightly better graphics, because copying the same game over and over again is fine...but character designs are A-OK.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

It is unclear to me why Dragon's Crown gets to be star of the show in this latest round of internet drama but a game like Starcraft 2, for instance, gets a free pass on their character design. Why is the Sorceress over the line but Kerrigan with her impractical zerg heels and meticulous non-chitin covered ass is somehow ok?

Well I seriously doubt she was meant to look attractive.

Wait, do people find her attractive? ...Actually don't answer that. I don't want to know.

But to reply to the article, I don't fully understand why fanservice is immediately condemned lately but only in gaming. I mean this IS just fanservice, it isn't a statement towards the capability or "responsibilities" of women. The character isn't any less capable than any other character in the series.

I mean is this about realistic representation? If so that's absurd. Media isn't meant to be realistic.

Is this about overt sexualization of women in video games? If so that may be something I would recognize as a legitimate complaint, but isn't the fact that these characters are represented exactly as capable as the male characters more relevant than how they dress?

I mean sure my Janna in LoL is dressed sexually, but she's still as good as every other champion in the game. Her character has her own ambitions and drive independant of any male. Is that all really completely overbalanced by the fact she has a sexualized outfit?

 

[JimB]

You know, Smilomaniac, usually when I respond to someone in a forum conversation like this, I tend to tackle his post line by line kind of like you did to mine. Go check out my post history if you don't believe me; not that I'm saying you probably should spend time confirming such a worthless fact, but since I'm sure I have no credibility with you, I just thought I'd point out that the evidence is there if you want to go looking for it.

I'm not going to do that with your post. Instead, I'm going to treat this line here as being representative of almost the entire post:

Okay, what's your offer of proof for this statement?

Burden of proof is on you.

In the second place, I already provided the source of my beliefs, but in all fairness, I did it a page or two ago without specifically referencing you, so maybe you ignored it. That's not a judgment, incidentally; lord knows I skipped every page between the first one and my first post in this thread.

But in the first place, if you had actually offered any evidence of your affirmative belief, it would have been absolutely devastating to my position. I might not have been able to recover from the loss, at least in terms of my credibility, but you didn't deliver that blow despite how much it would have done to definitively prove you right. From that failure I have to assume that you have no such evidence to offer and could think of no response except to change the subject to me.

In light of this, I will not be bothering to respond to most of your post, since you seem to think that backing up your assertions is an inferior debate tactic to calling me an asshole, and I have no particular interest in validating that. You do say a few things I want to mention, though:

Do you have any further argument to back this up? If not, I have to say, you seem to be expecting me to accept "Nuh-uh" as a convincing rebuttal.

You mean for example my Steam library of 188 games and 4 of them have remotely sexual content that might be considered sexist?

Without mentioning what games you have, this is an essentially useless response. I am asking you to explain to me why I ought to accept you as an authority, and you answer, "Because I'm an authority."

I find this statement despicable for suggesting that it is better to simply shut up and accept an inequity rather that try to correct it. I further suggest that you misunderstand my intentions completely if you think I believe I will magically make games stop having jiggle physics by talking about it here.

Of course that's how you'd see it. If you bothered to take it in context you'd realize the point was that you're no better yourself if you don't do something actively about it.

This confuses me a lot too. Are you suggesting that because I spend seven minutes of my day typing these responses to you, I must therefore spend none of the remaining 1,433 minutes doing anything else in regards to it? What on Earth would be the basis for such an assumption? I really do feel like you're responding to what I actually say only about half the time, and the rest of the time you're responding to some fictional narrative of events you've created that justifies your insults.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I'm late to this, but I like the designs, I find them all very funny to look at and I get what the joke is meant to be. It's impractical; it's way over the top and it's completely sexist, stupid and downright offensive but on the other hand it's also a homage to the exact same thing that went on in 80's art with the kind of fantasy titles that dealt with it. Anyone who'd even glanced at a Boris Vallejo painting or read a Conan comic can back me up on this.

I get that this is everywhere in the gaming industry, but I honestly don't see why this particular game is such a big deal because it's just a joke, lighten up.

This is no different than when Double Dragon: Neon started with Mariam getting punched in the gut and carried off just like in the original; it's just a tribute to the stupidity of 80's design, you can hate it for being stupid all you like, but don't hold this up as an example of sexism when it's simply parodying subject matter that is inherently sexist and stupid to begin with in order to highlight how sexist and stupid it is.

 

[JimB]

"People," because you think feminist wasn't the best term.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you referencing that time when I asked you to stop calling feminists jerks?

So FPS/RTS/4x = segregation to you?

No, you explicitly saying men and women should have distinct games is segregation to me.

We cannot homogenize gaming into a single genre that everyone loves.

I don't think you and I mean the same thing by the word "genre." How do you define it?

If you don't even like games, then why are you on the Escapist?

I also didn't say I don't like games. My point was that you keep telling me I said things I didn't say, because when you do that it makes me question either your reading comprehension or your bias.

Oh right, you're just a troll.

Please stop that. Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll, and I really wish we could talk about this like adults.

 

[Carlston]

It Never Ends

MovieBob discusses the recent Dragon's Crown controversy, and why we really need more diversity in our videogame characters.

Read Full Article

The thing is, Dragon Crown no only had the outrageous females, people whined about for decades now... but also did it with the males. Equal rights people, both sides got the treatment.

As with lots of art, people have a opinion. I think it's just very sloppy animation myself, nothing very real at all.

Honestly, exaggerated characters always exist and always will. Mostly no one will believe a 400lb Samus is saving the universe. Same time, you make her a bodybuilder, chances are in reality those G cup boobs made of fatty tissue are first to vanish.

People want pretty heroes. Always have. And in not real videogames, where people jump 50 feet in the air, take enough bullets to kill a small country and yet the problem most insecure complainers have....is breast size or to many muscles on the men.

Make believe people. Deal with it.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

"People," because you think feminist wasn't the best term.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you referencing that time when I asked you to stop calling feminists jerks?

So FPS/RTS/4x = segregation to you?

No, you explicitly saying men and women should have distinct games is segregation to me.

We cannot homogenize gaming into a single genre that everyone loves.

I don't think you and I mean the same thing by the word "genre." How do you define it?

If you don't even like games, then why are you on the Escapist?

I also didn't say I don't like games. My point was that you keep telling me I said things I didn't say, because when you do that it makes me question either your reading comprehension or your bias.

Oh right, you're just a troll.

Please stop that. Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll, and I really wish we could talk about this like adults.

So you would say that "chick flicks" and romance novels, shoujo manga and alot of fanfiction (50 shades of grey) are segregation and should be more inclusive?

Many non-gamers some female don't play games, because it just does not interest them. Bioshock Infinite has a rich story and a very well written and presented female character, but this means nothing to people turned off by it being violent. The Walking Dead had violence, but played out more as a film and can appeal to a wider audience than Bioshock Infinite.

So what is so "segregating" by implying that female gamers and non gamers should help to create games that appeal more to them? These genres exist in all other media, why not video games.

 

[JimB]

So you would say that "chick flicks" and romance novels, shoujo manga and a lot of fan fiction (Fifty Shades of Grey) are segregation and should be more inclusive?

I don't know enough about their marketing to say for sure, but if they are created for the specific and explicit purpose of appealing to women to the exclusion of men, then yeah, probably. The principle at work here is whether a product is being aimed at [people who would like this or that product] rather than being aimed at [specific marketing demographic because we've already decided whose money we want and whose we don't]. If it helps, think of it like that thing Romney said last year about how he wasn't going to bother talking to poor people because they're not going to vote for him anyway.

Many non-gamers, some female, don't play games because it just does not interest them.

That's fine. I'm not talking about them, though.

(I'm not really talking about gamers, either--I'm talking about the effect the culture has on women--but I guess this tangent isn't completely unrelated to that topic.)

So what is so "segregating" by implying that female gamers and non-gamers should help to create games that appeal more to them?

Okay, look, here [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/segregation] is the definition of the word "segregation." When you say the solution is for women to have their own, separate category of games, you are saying that the separation of people into categories that are not self-chosen but are rather being determined for them by the industry is a thing you approve of.

You're also misusing the word "implying," which I only mention because I really am trying to understand you, but it's hard to do when you use words that don't mean what you think they do. That's why I asked you to define the word "genre" and why I asked what you were talking about with the "you don't like it when I say feminists" thing: Before I can understand your position, we have to be speaking the same language. I would really appreciate it if you would answer the questions I've been asking.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

snip

I see something problematic in your logic, both points in [] are the same, and of course an American presidential candidate would ignore a large portion of the country, it's how there elections work. Now if they had proportional representation (everyone matters, like games sales figures, anyone can purchase them) Romney wouldn't be able to ignore anyone.

Ok I'll be blunt then, why is segregation bad to you? No game can appeal to every demographic. Also why is "determined for them by the industry" in your rebuttal, clearly I have been advocating for people like you (who seem to not enjoy how the industry is handling it) to take it into your own hands and design games you'd actually enjoy. This would show said industry what you'd actually want more clearly then "that's sexist" and can then further be augmented by complaints or voting with your wallet. If you can't actually make said game, there is someone who can. What I'm suggesting seems more impactful and useful.

 

[JimB]

I see something problematic in your logic[...]

I just want to take a moment to thank you for this statement you just made. It's a lot more like how I wanted the conversation to go.

Sorry to interrupt. Please continue.

[...]both points in brackets are the same.

No, they're not. The difference is subtle, but it's real. The first group is people who are interested in the subject matter; the second group is people whom the developers target. The groups are only the same to the degree that there's overlap. In this specific instance, I think the character design of Dragon's Crown has nothing to do with the game itself--with its mechanics and the way it tells its story--and everything to do with trying to give heterosexual, male consumers erections that will make them want to see the Sorceress bend over and wink.

Why is segregation bad to you?

I believe that for an act to be responsible, the demonstrable good of its outcome has to outweigh the demonstrable bad. No one has been able to demonstrate to me how games, the gaming industry, American society, or even how my personal enjoyment of games are improved by the fetishization of female characters; and I can demonstrate how it has negative effects. Therefore I conclude, because no one will present me with any evidence to the contrary, that the current marketing paradigm behind AAA game design in particular and the gaming industry in general is irresponsible.

No game can appeal to every demographic.

I am not asking for that. I am asking for designers to stop deliberately excluding women.

Also, why is "determined for them by the industry" in your rebuttal? Clearly I have been advocating for people like you (who seem to not enjoy how the industry is handling it) to take it into your own hands and design games you'd actually enjoy.

If I am unhappy with the state of American government, I can begin an armed rebellion to replace the government; but I'd be happier if the current government just listened to me and stopped behaving like children.

This would show said industry what you'd actually want more clearly than "that's sexist" and can then further be augmented by complaints or voting with your wallet.

And if I had any skill in designing games, and if I had an income that was above the poverty level with which to finance a game, that option would be more appealing to me.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

I see something problematic in your logic[...]

I just want to take a moment to thank you for this statement you just made. It's a lot more like how I wanted the conversation to go.

Sorry to interrupt. Please continue.

[...]both points in brackets are the same.

No, they're not. The difference is subtle, but it's real. The first group is people who are interested in the subject matter; the second group is people whom the developers target. The groups are only the same to the degree that there's overlap. In this specific instance, I think the character design of Dragon's Crown has nothing to do with the game itself--with its mechanics and the way it tells its story--and everything to do with trying to give heterosexual, male consumers erections that will make them want to see the Sorceress bend over and wink.

Why is segregation bad to you?

I believe that for an act to be responsible, the demonstrable good of its outcome has to outweigh the demonstrable bad. No one has been able to demonstrate to me how games, the gaming industry, American society, or even how my personal enjoyment of games are improved by the fetishization of female characters; and I can demonstrate how it has negative effects. Therefore I conclude, because no one will present me with any evidence to the contrary, that the current marketing paradigm behind AAA game design in particular and the gaming industry in general is irresponsible.

No game can appeal to every demographic.

I am not asking for that. I am asking for designers to stop deliberately excluding women.

Also, why is "determined for them by the industry" in your rebuttal? Clearly I have been advocating for people like you (who seem to not enjoy how the industry is handling it) to take it into your own hands and design games you'd actually enjoy.

If I am unhappy with the state of American government, I can begin an armed rebellion to replace the government; but I'd be happier if the current government just listened to me and stopped behaving like children.

This would show said industry what you'd actually want more clearly than "that's sexist" and can then further be augmented by complaints or voting with your wallet.

And if I had any skill in designing games, and if I had an income that was above the poverty level with which to finance a game, that option would be more appealing to me.

Do you find offense with fashion magazines and the like, showing how women and young girls should dress to be "accepted by society"? They have a market, sure fetishism might have little point (compared to game play), but it has demonstrated it too has a market. I still don't fully comprehend why the developer would be in the wrong for targeting to a specific demographic, it's how marketing works. Sure they could've done other choices that might've translated to more money, but without proof of concept it'd just be wishful thinking. Your inexperience or lack of funds does not stop you from knowing what you'd think you'd like. You could talk with many like-minded individuals and try to come up with either a guideline or outline, of what would sell you on a game. If I were in marketing/development I'd rather know just what would truly appeal to that demographic, rather than assume and blindly fix things until my studio closes and another studio learns from my mistakes and reaps the reward.

50 shades of grey targets women as it is written by a woman, I find that ok since I can find other media.

 

[veloper]

^ Did you just imply blockbusters are for straight white men? Maybe they are. But why? To my knowledge, most of humanity isn't a straight white man.

I missed that reply earlier, but I guess it still deserves an answer.

Consider this: most hollywood romcoms are arguably worse than the big actions movies, when it comes to insulting your intelligence and casting stereotypes and old rolemodels.
Atleast with dumb action, you can just watch for the fights and the big explosions, so there's a small excuse for the characterisation to be simple. Not so for romcoms.

The implication here is that most blockbusters cater to the dumb, or more precisely, the largest audience through lowest common denominator and that will not change.
Should triple-A game development ever see the rise of a romcom equivalent, I still won't expect such titles to be any more intelligent or socially progressive than the AAA titles marketed to boys.