Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[Subscriptism]

Perhaps I might see it, however I can't personally nor do I know of any other male who can even remotely be described as constantly leering, nor do I personally know a single woman who has ever complained that they are being leered at 24/7. I just don't buy it.

I said neither of those things.

I didn't say that men were constantly leering, nor did I say that women get leered at 24/7. I just said that many women get leered at every day. It might be only for 5 minutes per day. And it doesn't mean that the man leers at everything he sees. But women are pretty consistently leered at. Men, not so much.

That seems quite trivial to me. Is that really something you find to be of great concern?

 

[Lightknight]

The gamer ratio being male/female as 53%/47%

I honestly do not believe that stat is right. I am always suspect of any stat that does not show its methedology, especially one that i think we can all agree appears to be so subjectively wrong. Is there any gamer out there, either male or female who can honestly state that they have actively observed that almost half of all gamers are female? Without adding in people who play exclusively angry birds, farmville, or bejewelled?

Because if this stat is as bullshit as it always appears, maybe we should stop using it to prove points that the stat does not prove. For example, Jims point in this very video that AAA games need to appeal more to women, because of this stat. At what point does this stat say that 50% of people buying AAA games are women?

Well, I wasn't say that the stat is wrong. How they define gaming has evolved to include more video gaming arenas and they're not 100% wrong for doing so. That stat is correct if you understand their definition, I was only saying that it does not necessarily correlate with trends in any particular game genre. For example, if 80% of female gamers are still primary Wii console owners (as they were in 2009), then the FPS market would be significantly skewed towards males as the other consoles traditionally get the big titles (before the WiiU).

Keep in mind that the study also states that 46% of gamers have purchased or plan to purchase one or more games in 2012. That does kind of beg the question of how they defined gamers in the study but it does not call into question the actual numbers they pulled in. Unless the other 54% rely heavily on free-to-play games then I wouldn't call them gamers. Not if they can go years without owning a game.

http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2012.pdf

It would be wonderful if we had a spreadsheet of the compiled data. They clearly collected data on gender and so it should not be hard to sort by gender to view any significant differences in gaming/system preferences. If I just read that PDF above, it looks like they asked some dumb questions and don't define questions quite so clearly.

The question at the end of the day is what it would mean if the numbers were really different. If the ratio of FPS gamers was something crazy like 90%/10%, would that justify objectifying women? It would certainly be a wise business decision on behalf of companies trying to make money. But also remember, I can't rightly say that exaggerating female proportions is actually objectifying them. I believe it can exacerbate objectification if combined with other factors. I do believe that if men had an equivalent to breasts that were appropriate to display in a videogame that it would also be exaggerated and that we do see this with muscles and chisled chins with regularity. I'd say that the role of the character is what objectifies them. If the character is capable and practical and has big breasts, who has a right to say that she's being objectified. Who has a right to say what dimensions a female character should have? Our society is to the point that women actually undergo surgery to obtain larger breasts and so we know that there is a desire for these kinds of exaggerations. Is that desire to be readily trivialized in lieu of ones who do not share said desire? Is it possible that in some small way, people seeing a beautiful game character with exposed skin and cry objectification are actually doing the same thing that people who call real-life scantily clad women sluts are doing? It's something to consider. Impossibly huge breasts? We have women that make that happen surgically. Rail thin? We have women who actively pursue those dimensions. Scantily clothed in public? Go to college much? There are extremes in gaming, of course, because actual physics do not apply.

All I know is that I enjoy playing a capable and ruggedly handsome man. Were I female, I would want to play as a beautiful and capable female. It's the capable part that I see getting left out in games as objectification. We see unrealistic portrayels of females in every form of media and in real life, so I'm not certain why video games make it worse or should be treated differently.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I only really wish to chime in regarding one regularly repeated piece of information that is misleading and will touch on some other concepts following it.

The gamer ratio being male/female as 53%/47% does not mean that the FPS ration is 53%/47% or that the gamers playing Uncharted or anything else would follow that ratio. The last study that actually broke up console ownership by sex actually put 80% of all female console gamers in the study as Wii gamers. This was 2008/2009 when the demographic divide was 60%/40% and it isn't entirely unlikely that the evening of the gaming ratio isn't related to the rapid integration of smart phones and iOS games at our fingertips over the past 5 or so years.

I'm not saying this makes objectification of women ok. They are clearly objectified in a ton of games as defined here by Jim and the men are not. This is only to point out that the real market audience of games like Gears of War may still be significantly more male than female. The question is, does that make it ok? Does that change anything here? If the ratio were as wildly out of whack as 90%/10% would that justify the kind of silliness we've seen in the DOA titles? Would making female friendly games encourage female participation or is there an actual different in gaming styles between the sexes (whether evolved or culturally based, doesn't functionally matter)? Are movies that objectify women wrong for doing so or are they justified for meeting a niche market?

I'd also posit that women have body parts that lend themselves to exaggeration. Breasts, ass, legs, hip ratios, these are easily demonstrated and easily exaggerated. There's not a ton you can exaggerate on a man that is desireable to people other than muscles, a toned ass and perhaps some kind of bulge in ye' ol' panteloons region. To that effect, I would like to believe that if men had things that were so easily exaggerated that they would be as well, and, guys would probably want it to be. In the same vein, I have known women who want to look the way the women look in these games and will actually surgically change themselves to exaggerate their own features in this way. It is merely an interesting concept that women physically do this to themselves as well. Just something to think about.

The source being the ESRB website, yeh.

Stats that just say "gamer" are sketchy. Any set of stats that sees my friend Kim, who only has Angry Birds and maybe bejewelled on her iphone, or, my aunt and uncle who have a wii and 2 games, as being 1:1 with someone who has a vast and ever extending library of games... is a bullshit set of stats, and is rightly ignored by anyone serious about pushing a game onto the market.

You could make a game with sexualised male characters and/or sensibly armoured/clothed female characters... you could make anything you want(provided it's not heading into overtly illegal territory). If the market doesn't want it, you fucked up. That's what all the moralising can't override.

If you want financial backing for anything you have to prove that there is a market for it. In this case, it's a little hard to prove. You can't do it with a questionable stat.

 

[Lightknight]

The source being the ESRB website, yeh.

Stats that just say "gamer" are sketchy. Any set of stats that sees my friend Kim, who only has Angry Birds and maybe bejewelled on her iphone, or, my aunt and uncle who have a wii and 2 games, as being 1:1 with someone who has a vast and ever extending library of games... is a bullshit set of stats, and is rightly ignored by anyone serious about pushing a game onto the market.

Exactly, unless other questions are asked the numbers aren't really applicable to specific games. It is really surprising to me to see people like Jim using the number like it applies to everything. Jim really pays attention to the things he says and will actually change his opinions when confronted with legitimate counterpoints. So I'm not sure why this misuse of the numbers is still being practiced. What's funny is that study probably has the answers. It looks like they asked the right questions but we don't have access to their raw data. If we did, we could extrapolate far more valuable data than the crap they gave us.

You could make a game with sexualised male characters and/or sensibly armoured/clothed female characters... you could make anything you want(provided it's not heading into overtly illegal territory). If the market doesn't want it, you fucked up. That's what all the moralising can't override.

If you want financial backing for anything you have to prove that there is a market for it. In this case, it's a little hard to prove. You can't do it with a questionable stat.

I also agree with this. At the end of the day, we can complain all we want but these companies are in the business of making money. That being said, I hardly think a scantily clad woman who swoons every time the man shows up is going to make or break a game sale. If that's the case, then the game isn't all that good, is it? I don't think a woman showing up to battle in bikini armor makes a game better. It really suspends belief even if sexy.

On the other hand, I disagree that men aren't already "sexualized" in games. Again, I must contend that males don't have the same kind of features that women have which are traditionally objectified. If we had the equivalent to breasts where attraction is concerned, I believe that that feature would be exaggerated as well.

 

[Lightknight]

Well, I wasn't say that the stat is wrong. How they define gaming has evolved to include more video gaming arenas and they're not 100% wrong for doing so. That stat is correct if you understand their definition, I was only saying that it does not necessarily correlate with trends in any particular game genre. For example, if 80% of female gamers are still primary Wii console owners (as they were in 2009), then the FPS market would be significantly skewed towards males as the other consoles traditionally get the big titles (before the WiiU).

Keep in mind that the study also states that 46% of gamers have purchased or plan to purchase one or more games in 2012. That does kind of beg the question of how they defined gamers in the study but it does not call into question the actual numbers they pulled in. Unless the other 54% rely heavily on free-to-play games then I wouldn't call them gamers. Not if they can go years without owning a game.

Even free to play is better than the new game that those people are looking to purchase is this years new version of angry frut ninja birds.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said free to play. What I meant was a free game. For example, I downloaded the free version of Angry Birds back in the day. I played it quite regularly too and I'm not sure if that was my only gaming experience besides Solitaire and whatnot that this survey wouldn't have called me a "gamer". As is, of course I play a tremendous number of other games on pretty much every machine possible, but had that been it...

I was just trying to include games like farmville that are technically free to play. The point of the discussion though, was to apply it to traditional game types like the DOA that Jim shows or Halo or Gears of War or Call of Duty or any other such AAA mainstream games. This means that 54% of those responders are people who are NOT the target market of console games. This is a significant point to miss.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

The source being the ESRB website, yeh.

Stats that just say "gamer" are sketchy. Any set of stats that sees my friend Kim, who only has Angry Birds and maybe bejewelled on her iphone, or, my aunt and uncle who have a wii and 2 games, as being 1:1 with someone who has a vast and ever extending library of games... is a bullshit set of stats, and is rightly ignored by anyone serious about pushing a game onto the market.

Exactly, unless other questions are asked the numbers aren't really applicable to specific games. It is really surprising to me to see people like Jim using the number like it applies to everything. Jim really pays attention to the things he says and will actually change his opinions when confronted with legitimate counterpoints. So I'm not sure why this misuse of the numbers is still being practiced. What's funny is that study probably has the answers. It looks like they asked the right questions but we don't have access to their raw data. If we did, we could extrapolate far more valuable data than the crap they gave us.

You could make a game with sexualised male characters and/or sensibly armoured/clothed female characters... you could make anything you want(provided it's not heading into overtly illegal territory). If the market doesn't want it, you fucked up. That's what all the moralising can't override.

If you want financial backing for anything you have to prove that there is a market for it. In this case, it's a little hard to prove. You can't do it with a questionable stat.

I also agree with this. At the end of the day, we can complain all we want but these companies are in the business of making money. That being said, I hardly think a scantily clad woman who swoons every time the man shows up is going to make or break a game sale. If that's the case, then the game isn't all that good, is it? I don't think a woman showing up to battle in bikini armor makes a game better. It really suspends believe even if sexy.

On the other hand, I disagree that men aren't already "sexualized" in games. Again, I must contend that males don't have the same kind of features that women have which are traditionally objectified. If we had the equivalent to breasts where attraction is concerned, I believe that that feature would be exaggerated as well.

I agree on most points.

The male body really is more utilitarian in it's nature, I'm not convinced it's an apples to apples comparison.

I don't think it's for anyone to decide objective quality, is it? If you want to be powerful, save the day and be sexually charismatic in a game... I'm not of the opinion that that's wrong(hell, it's only parroting more films than you could possibly shake a stick at). It's a perfectly understandable fantasy to have. I roll my eyes everytime someone suggests it's weird. It's not weird, it's very easily understandable. If you don't understand it, you're probably not trying to.

I, like I think you do, tend to favour more realistic fantasy. Meaning, little-to-no-magical elements if possible, armour that makes sense and logical damage based on the power of a hit. I think it's stupid when you have to slash somebody 30 times to take them out. If you land a good hit, that person should be dead. But... there are people who like that stuff.

And, I'm not going to argue with anyone who thinks this is aesthetically pleasing.

Spoiler

Because it just is.

 

[Lightknight]

I agree on most points.

The male body really is more utilitarian in it's nature, I'm not convinced it's an apples to apples comparison.

I don't think it's for anyone to decide objective quality, is it? If you want to be powerful, save the day and be sexually charismatic in a game... I'm not of the opinion that that's wrong(hell, it's only parroting more films than you could possibly shake a stick at). It's a perfectly understandable fantasy to have. I roll my eyes everytime someone suggests it's weird. It's not weird, it's very easily understandable. If you don't understand it, you're probably not trying to.

I would take this a step further and say that this is likely a beneficial evolutionary trait that makes us more fit for survival as a species. It's why I go to the gym even though I'm already married or why I learned how to cook before.

I, like I think you do, tend to favour more realistic fantasy. Meaning, little-to-no-magical elements if possible, armour that makes sense and logical damage based on the power of a hit. I think it's stupid when you have to slash somebody 30 times to take them out. If you land a good hit, that person should be dead. But... there are people who like that stuff.

By any chance, did you ever play the Bushido Blade games? My absolute favorite fighting game of all time. Get a solid hit to the arm? You can't use it. Solid Hit in the leg? You limp. Solid strike to the torso/head, you're dead. Best fighting game ever. No health meter, no shield nonsense. Just your own blade and footwork between you and death. It was also a 3D environment when that was rare.

I do find myself consistently playing as warriors in most games where magic is the option. FPS games are also more pleasing to me if a shot to the face means game over. So you may have me pegged there though I hadn't considered it. I'll mention that I also worked my way through college as a professional blacksmith specializing in blades. So when I see bikini armor I do cringe as to who would have ever made that and why. I see a woman in breast patterned plate armor and I think... Ok, at least it's functionally armor albeit unnecessarily ornate. If they're wearing skin tight chainmail I generally just have to let go of the fact that chainmail is reinforced with a heavy inner garment that would make breast all but unnoticeable. But large swaths of exposed skin? They must be more afraid of losing a nipple than being gutted.

This isn't to say I can't also enjoy fantasy games. But my disbelief can only be suspended so far.

And, I'm not going to argue with anyone who thinks this is aesthetically pleasing.

Spoiler

Because it just is.

Definitely aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I don't revise anything. My point was that consumers rarely go lobby for other people's preferences. You justified your choice for wanting others to have BMW's because it'd make the streets more pleasant to drive on.

Actually, you did. You claimed that the main reason that BMW owners buy BMWs is for status and exclusivity. I explained some other reasons, which you simply dismissed.

In any case, the general point is incorrect. I support, for example, a women's right to buy tampons and other products I have no need for. I support taxes that help other people, which I pay for, despite not directly benefitting from them.

Unless you don't like driving on pleasant streets it's obvious it is for you that you're lobbying. That it happens to make others happier is just a happy coincidence.

No, it's not. Public safety is an important thing to me, not just for my own benefit. This is the reason we have things like seatbelt laws. Many people have been horrifically injured and killed in car accidents. Having more cars with better braking performance and other safety features doesn't just benefit me, it benefits everybody.

Your argument about political parties is similarly dubious. Many of us believe in free speech and freedom of assembly. That means lobbying for the rights of political parties which we don't necessarily agree with. Just as the civil rights movement was successful because most people empathized with other people, even though it wasn't in their own self-interest.

The ACLU legally defended the Ku Klux Klan. Do you think that was because the typical ACLU member agreed with them? Hell, why don't I just quote the ACLU itself?

?The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups?particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly.?

If i lobby for a certain sets of games it may make other consumers who have the same preferences happy as well, but it's not for them i do it.(though i may use others as an extra justification for my argument, which what i'd call "abusing emotional response to altruism", a very common type of emotional appeal) The altruistic consumer is a very rare breed.

It's interesting how you use the word "consumer" - it's quite objectifying. It just reduces people to being walking wallets. I consider myself a human being primarily, not an object of consumption.

You claimed the monetary reasons are BS. If you wanted to use other arguments to defend your opinion you should have done so. You tried to recycle my own argument against my own point.

OK, well show me the market studies that show that ridiculous sex-object representations of women in gaming sell better than those that don't include them. Call of Duty is one of the biggest-selling games on the planet, and it doesn't include women with enormous, gravity-defying breasts. In fact, it's pretty much a sausage-fest.

But let's push it a bit further than shall we. What about how few games feature black people? What about muslims? Etc. There is no inherent need to include everyone. If a game decides to have only important male characters you'd need a damn fine argument to say WHY that is bad because by default it isn't.

Did you even watch Jim's video or read the comments here?

The argument is [strong]not[/strong] about the lack of inclusion of female characters in games. The argument is that they [strong]are[/strong] depicted, but when they are depicted, they tend to be represented as sex objects much more than male character. You're missing the point so much here.

The equivalent argument with regards to black people would be not be that they aren't included in games, but that when they are, they are typically represented as watermelon-eating Black Sambos. Or that Muslims are represented as comical terrorists.

Ok let me clarify something. If you make a game you don't target all women nor all men for that matter. You target potential costumers. If the potential costumers happen to be predominantly men than that's what you want to target.

Again, show me the evidence that the ridiculous representation of women in games drives sales to male gamers.

The cosmetic industry also largely ignores men despite men accounting for 49% of the population and let me tell you there is a good reason for that, because said 49% is in general much less interested in beauty products.

You're kidding, right? Male cosmetics is a huge industry. Have you never seen all the ads for Gillette razors, or colognes, or hair-replacement surgery? The cosmetics industry realized long ago that males were an under-tapped market, and has put a lot of effort into marketing toward males.

So while you may have 3.6 billion women and 3.4 billion men (random number, didn't feel like googling the real number because it is largely irrelevant) you'll probably have something like 3 billion potential female costumers and 1 billion potential male costumers. Which would totally justify a much bigger focus on the female segment.

Indeed.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I agree on most points.

The male body really is more utilitarian in it's nature, I'm not convinced it's an apples to apples comparison.

I don't think it's for anyone to decide objective quality, is it? If you want to be powerful, save the day and be sexually charismatic in a game... I'm not of the opinion that that's wrong(hell, it's only parroting more films than you could possibly shake a stick at). It's a perfectly understandable fantasy to have. I roll my eyes everytime someone suggests it's weird. It's not weird, it's very easily understandable. If you don't understand it, you're probably not trying to.

I would take this a step further and say that this is likely a beneficial evolutionary trait that makes us more fit for survival as a species. It's why I go to the gym even though I'm already married or why I learned how to cook before.

I, like I think you do, tend to favour more realistic fantasy. Meaning, little-to-no-magical elements if possible, armour that makes sense and logical damage based on the power of a hit. I think it's stupid when you have to slash somebody 30 times to take them out. If you land a good hit, that person should be dead. But... there are people who like that stuff.

By any chance, did you ever play the Bushido Blade games? My absolute favorite fighting game of all time. Get a solid hit to the arm? You can't use it. Solid Hit in the leg? You limp. Solid strike to the torso/head, you're dead. Best fighting game ever. No health meter, no shield nonsense. Just your own blade and footwork between you and death. It was also a 3D environment when that was rare.

I do find myself consistently playing as warriors in most games where magic is the option. FPS games are also more pleasing to me if a shot to the face means game over. So you may have me pegged there though I hadn't considered it. I'll mention that I also worked my way through college as a professional blacksmith specializing in blades. So when I see bikini armor I do cringe as to who would have ever made that and why. I see a woman in breast patterned plate armor and I think... Ok, at least it's functionally armor albeit unnecessarily ornate. If they're wearing skin tight chainmail I generally just have to let go of the fact that chainmail is reinforced with a heavy inner garment that would make breast all but unnoticeable. But large swaths of exposed skin? They must be more afraid of losing a nipple than being gutted.

This isn't to say I can't also enjoy fantasy games. But my disbelief can only be suspended so far.

And, I'm not going to argue with anyone who thinks this is aesthetically pleasing.

Spoiler

Because it just is.

Definitely aesthetically pleasing.

I loved Bushido Blade. I wish they had grounded it in feudal Japan rather than giving it silly modern settings and a gun, but it's exactly what I like in a game. Weapons should feel deadly, and the more concerned you are that you could die at an given moment, the more involving I personally find it.

I wish someone would revive that style of play.

Do you have steam? If you do, please pm me how to find you. You seem like a reasonable dude, and that's always good to play with.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Perhaps I might see it, however I can't personally nor do I know of any other male who can even remotely be described as constantly leering, nor do I personally know a single woman who has ever complained that they are being leered at 24/7. I just don't buy it.

I said neither of those things.

I didn't say that men were constantly leering, nor did I say that women get leered at 24/7. I just said that many women get leered at every day. It might be only for 5 minutes per day. And it doesn't mean that the man leers at everything he sees. But women are pretty consistently leered at. Men, not so much.

That seems quite trivial to me. Is that really something you find to be of great concern?

Yes, I do.

Women have to deal with this shit every day. The ways people interact with each other are important. I'm assuming you aren't female, because if this actually happened to you as often as it does to women, it could definitely affect your mental health. For most women, the safest assumption is that you need to protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you. This is not something men generally have to fear.

Sure, in most cases it might simply be looking. But how would a woman know that it is not going to turn into something much worse?

 

[generals3]

I don't revise anything. My point was that consumers rarely go lobby for other people's preferences. You justified your choice for wanting others to have BMW's because it'd make the streets more pleasant to drive on.

Actually, you did. You claimed that the main reason that BMW owners buy BMWs is for status and exclusivity. I explained some other reasons, which you simply dismissed.

In any case, the general point is incorrect. I support, for example, a women's right to buy tampons and other products I have no need for. I support taxes that help other people, which I pay for, despite not directly benefitting from them.

Nono, i said that BMW's are semi-luxurious cars (and this is a european perspective because i'd say that in a country like somalia it is a luxury car plain and simple) and that the status it confers to owners may drive them to be actively disadvantaged from spreading its ownership. This however was not even part of the main point i tried to confer in the beginning when i brought up the example when discussing with the other poster. The main point was that consumers rarely lobby for others because they want to lobby for others. They lobby for themselves and their own desires. If you desire safer streets for instance you may lobby to spread BMW's because you think they're safer cars, but at that point you don't lobby to allow others who want BMW's to be able to afford them, you lobby for your own little selfish desire of having safer streets. Which is not wrong mind you. There is nothing wrong with thinking about yourself. I don't expect you to lobby for more RTS (or any game genre you don't care about in the case you care about RTS's) so other players who do like said games have more games to play. I wouldn't call you an asshole for not actively lobbying for it. Which is what happened to me, i was called an asshole for not lobbying for privileges of others. Selfish, yes, totally, guilty as charged, but asshole?!

No, it's not. Public safety is an important thing to me, not just for my own benefit. This is the reason we have things like seatbelt laws. Many people have been horrifically injured and killed in car accidents. Having more cars with better braking performance and other safety features doesn't just benefit me, it benefits everybody.

Tell me one thing. Do you put as much importance to public safety in places you never go or would never go? (lets say zimbabwe) If not, let me let you think about why not.

And you used an argument which i just said is commonly used by people lobbying for themselves. You're trying an emotional appeal through alleged altruism. I would use it too when i was lobbying for something that i value. That wouldn't change the fact that i'm lobbying for something I value and not just because others value it. Like i said, the fact it benefits "everybody" is just a happy coincidence and you're using it to add strength to your lobbying.

Your argument about political parties is similarly dubious. Many of us believe in free speech and freedom of assembly. That means lobbying for the rights of political parties which we don't necessarily agree with. Just as the civil rights movement was successful because most people empathized with other people, even though it wasn't in their own self-interest.

And you'll notice that whenever these rights are threatened people get scared and use slippery slope arguments. Slippery slope arguments which basically involve "if this trend continues it may fuck ME up" (or "YOU" if it is used to convince someone else, in which case you're appealing to the other person's egoism)

The ACLU legally defended the Ku Klux Klan. Do you think that was because the typical ACLU member agreed with them? Hell, why don't I just quote the ACLU itself?

What's the ACLU?

It's interesting how you use the word "consumer" - it's quite objectifying. It just reduces people to being walking wallets. I consider myself a human being primarily, not an object of consumption.

But i'm talking about the behavior of people when they're objects of consumption. I'm talking about how people interact with the goods and services market. I'm not talking about how you interact with your family or teacher, nono, about how you interact with the market. Thus how you behave as a consumer.

OK, well show me the market studies that show that ridiculous sex-object representations of women in gaming sell better than those that don't include them. Call of Duty is one of the biggest-selling games on the planet, and it doesn't include women with enormous, gravity-defying breasts. In fact, it's pretty much a sausage-fest.

I don't need to show market studies at all. You're the one making the claim it doesn't, and i'm merely stating the obvious fact that if companies with dedicated marketing teams think it sells what a random poster on a forum claims will hold little weight. You want companies to change their methods, it's up to you to prove they're wrong. I have nothing more to prove than say: look at the state of the gaming market. And if the state of the gaming market wouldn't disagree with you than you wouldn't be complaining now would you?

Did you even watch Jim's video or read the comments here?

The argument is [strong]not[/strong] about the lack of inclusion of female characters in games. The argument is that they [strong]are[/strong] depicted, but when they are depicted, they tend to be represented as sex objects much more than male character. You're missing the point so much here.

The equivalent argument with regards to black people would be not be that they aren't included in games, but that when they are, they are typically represented as watermelon-eating Black Sambos. Or that Muslims are represented as comical terrorists.

I'm sorry but you interrupted a conversation I had with someone else which had already derailed from discussing Jim's video in particular. You need to be specific about what you're complaining about.

First of all: sex OBJECTS? You can't be represented more or less as a sex object. Either you're represented as one (like that one rape game did) or not. You can be sexualized or objectified to certain degrees, but the being or not being a sex objects is binary. You shouldn't try to appeal to emotions by using such loaded terms. I've had too many people try to manipulate me with such appeals for me to fall for it. Women are sexualized, correct. Objectified? Not so sure, the only people who seem to think that equate sexualization with objectification which i take as evidence it's a myth. That would be like i dunno watermelonising black people? Making them appear to like water melons more than white people? I personally wouldn't think that to be inherently wrong. Silly yes, but that's about it. And muslims being represented as terrorists is commonly done. Ever noticed how muslims always end up being on the wrong side of a conflict in games? I mean take C&C Generals: Awesome US vs Propaganda loving Chinese Hackers vs Self Blowing Up, toxins using terrorist middle easterners. (ok it wasn't specified they were muslims but based on the demographic make up of the region it's quite clear what EA went for)

Again, show me the evidence that the ridiculous representation of women in games drives sales to male gamers.

See above.

snip

I'll admit i poorly expressed myself. I had specific segments of the cosmetic industry in mind when making that comment. But any way, it was more about explaining the marketing principle rather than making an analogy.

 

[Lightknight]

Please understand while reading my responses. I'm trying to constructively criticize your argument here. I agree that women are objectified to an entirely unnecessary degree and would love to see more realistic women in the gaming world.

@generals3, I apologize for hopping into your discussion with Aardvaarkman. I found it too interesting to pass up. Perhaps my points can help refine or clarify your argument

Your argument about political parties is similarly dubious. Many of us believe in free speech and freedom of assembly. That means lobbying for the rights of political parties which we don't necessarily agree with. Just as the civil rights movement was successful because most people empathized with other people, even though it wasn't in their own self-interest.

Exactly whose civil rights do you feel are being infringed on here? Are you defending the rights of lines of code not to be forced to be arranged to look like exposed cleavage? Do you believe that humans have a right to have media tailored to their wants and desires? Even at the cost of others wants and desires?

Lobbying to make developers change their work would do more to attack the developer's civil rights than not trying to force them to change is harming anyone else's rights. It'd be like demanding that Alexandros of Antioch put a shirt on Venus de Milo so that his artwork would also appeal to people who are otherwise insulted by nudity.

Granted, Venus de Milo is tasteful art, but the comparison sticks.

It's interesting how you use the word "consumer" - it's quite objectifying. It just reduces people to being walking wallets. I consider myself a human being primarily, not an object of consumption.

Consumers are the only people that matter or should matter to companies producing a product for them. You do not design a remote control to be ergonomic for dolphins when your target market is solely comprised of humans. You can consider yourself a human all you want, but it is frankly unethical to demand that companies not distinguish between consumers of their products and non-consumers.

OK, well show me the market studies that show that ridiculous sex-object representations of women in gaming sell better than those that don't include them. Call of Duty is one of the biggest-selling games on the planet, and it doesn't include women with enormous, gravity-defying breasts. In fact, it's pretty much a sausage-fest.

While I applaud your challenge of conventional wisdom, it is a generally accepted and proven fact that sex does sell. Do you have any reason to believe that this is no longer the case or that video games are somehow exceptions to the rule? I don't think the premise of your argument should be that sexually exploitative styles are bad business. You will likely lose there unless you can show a financial incentive to not exploit human nature to gravitate towards sexually pleasing images. Take the Dragon Crowns game for example. Most of us were entirely unaware of this title before the audacity of the sexualized designs proved news worthy. Would you say this move helped or hurt their sales? I'd say it bought PR and marketing that only incentivizes the practice all the more.

The argument then, can only be successfully fought along the lines of ethics. "Yes, it makes them more money but it is unjust" for whatever reasons you can produce. If the proportion of male/female consumers buying the game is particularly skewed to one or the other gender, would it still be morally wrong to portray the other gender in an objectifying way?

I do personally have a problem with female characters whose only role is to be sexually pleasing. It's weird, creepy even. Like having a digital harem. But no one's rights are being harmed. I like seeing more capable women in games, women I can actually respect are more attractive to me than a big breasted bimbo. I see no reason why creating legitimate female characters would harm business. It's even fine to make them attractive. While sex does sell, there has to be diminishing returns at some point, especially when done at the cost of actual character.

The argument is about the lack of inclusion of female characters in games. The argument is that they [strong]are[/strong] depicted, but when they are depicted, they tend to be represented as sex objects much more than male character. You're missing the point so much here.

I agree with this sentiment. But please keep in mind that I believe they are represented as sex objects moreso by their roles in the games than their apparel or ridiculous proportions. Saying that they're sex objects because they're designed to be really sexy is actually somewhat like calling a girl in form-fitting "Juicy" brand shorts an objectifier of women. If you would call girls who dress rather sexually out on objectifying themselves and other women, then you'd at least be being consistent here even if I'd disagree with you.

Again, show me the evidence that the ridiculous representation of women in games drives sales to male gamers.

Please show us evidence that video game marketing works differently than other products. I recently passed a jewelry store in the mall that had a life sized add in the walkway of a female soccer player in skin-tight shorts. Her body was faced away from the camera with her face turned towards it, entirely emphasizing her ass that was next to a completely unrelated photo of a watch (while she was wearing no such apparel). Tell me, why do you think they did that? It certainly got my attention. That's why. We are evolved to be attracted to those things. They are, for all intents and purposes, taking advantage of biological predispositions. Here's an honest question, the original Tomb Raider games were fun and even innovative all by themselves. But do you think they would have sold as well or recieved anywhere close to as much marketing back then if she was just a random guy? Do you think the magazines with her on the cover as a pinup would have sold anywhere as well as they did comparatively?

You're kidding, right? Male cosmetics is a huge industry. Have you never seen all the ads for Gillette razors, or colognes, or hair-replacement surgery? The cosmetics industry realized long ago that males were an under-tapped market, and has put a lot of effort into marketing toward males.

I think you know what the poster meant. I'm pretty sure specific markets like makeup or pantyhose would suffice as the argument. But any kind of product where the customer base tends to one side generally warrants direct catering. Should we be mad that men can't get a job as panty hose models? I don't think so. Do some men wear pantyhose? Most certainly.

Indeed.

The studies mentioning that the gaming market is distributed 53%/47% men/female is significantly misleading. Less than 50% of the individuals who identified as gamers in that study had even purchased or were planning to purchase even one game for that year. Likewise, a 2009 study showed that 80% of female console gamers' consoles were the Wii. This is a significant hole where 360 and ps3 titles could only count on 11% and 9% (respectively) of their target market to be female. The thing was, the huge AAA titles were mostly on those consoles and not the Wii due to processing differences. That information could be extrapolated to tell us around what the target market would look like. If we account for the fact that just over 59% of males had the 360 (38%) or ps3 (21%) as their primary console (with the Wii coming in at around 41%) and accept that the ratio was 60%/40% (male/female) at the time of that study then the result is pretty skewed towards men being the vast majority of the people using those systems. 60% of male console gamers compared to 20% of female console gamers. That's a huge gap without even knowing the exact numbers. If there were 100 total gamers, 60 would be men, 40 would be women. 60% of the men would be 36 men while 20% of the women would be 8 (total size would be 44). That's just over 18% of 360/ps3 owners being female regardless of what the numbers actually are. That's a significant group, but in the clear minority.

Please note that, with that in mind, Nintendo is a LOT more female friendly.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that that proportion has significantly changed since 2009? Women did go from 40% of the total percentage of "gamers" to 47% during this time but we've also seen a rapid adoption rate of smart phones and game apps during that time (Angry Birds, for example, came out in December of 2009 and you see where we are now with iOS gaming).

 

[Subscriptism]

Perhaps I might see it, however I can't personally nor do I know of any other male who can even remotely be described as constantly leering, nor do I personally know a single woman who has ever complained that they are being leered at 24/7. I just don't buy it.

I said neither of those things.

I didn't say that men were constantly leering, nor did I say that women get leered at 24/7. I just said that many women get leered at every day. It might be only for 5 minutes per day. And it doesn't mean that the man leers at everything he sees. But women are pretty consistently leered at. Men, not so much.

That seems quite trivial to me. Is that really something you find to be of great concern?

Yes, I do.

Women have to deal with this shit every day. The ways people interact with each other are important. I'm assuming you aren't female, because if this actually happened to you as often as it does to women, it could definitely affect your mental health. For most women, the safest assumption is that you need to protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you. This is not something men generally have to fear.

Sure, in most cases it might simply be looking. But how would a woman know that it is not going to turn into something much worse?

The temptation to resort to inflammatory language is now strong.

You see I know a lot of women and not once have I heard a single complaint that the odd person looking at her made her feel uncomfortable, nor do I think it is even remotely reasonable to assume that every fucking man that glances in your directions is out to rape you. The price for being a coward is living a life in fear.

"...protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you." Now we come to the crux of the issue, you really think that most men are just one dark alley away from sexual assault? That is fucking disgusting if you think that's true and you are despicable for saying it.

 

[Lightknight]

I loved Bushido Blade. I wish they had grounded it in feudal Japan rather than giving it silly modern settings and a gun, but it's exactly what I like in a game. Weapons should feel deadly, and the more concerned you are that you could die at an given moment, the more involving I personally find it.

Yeah, I also found the gun silly and out of place.

I wish someone would revive that style of play.[/quote] It sold really well and both 1 and 2 got re-released in Japan in 2007/2008. I have no idea who still has the license to it (still square-enix perhaps?) but I'd love a 3rd title from them. I've actually mentioned this a number of times over the years.

I guess Chivalry is the closest thing we have nowadays and thankfully there are no guns.

Do you have steam? If you do, please pm me how to find you. You seem like a reasonable dude, and that's always good to play with.

Absolutely.

 

[MrsBloo]

"Those are some pretty cool facts that you kinda just...made up..."

I'm pretty sure its a fact that you don't know every female on the planet to be able to say such a thing as, "but stuff like this only serves to further cement the idea that you're stepping into a male hobby rather than something that is more inclusive"<- that is the opinion in the matter here. lol

Actually, Im not offended. more disappointed in a fellow artist/female gamer. Like stated before, if you can read correctly, it was how you represented yourself. &like you, i just wish to share my opinion to YOU but unlike you i wanted to state it to YOU instead of behind your back. Let alone I did not say you spoke for all artists but that you lacked the criticized respect to a fellow artist enough to feel the need to down talk his art.

"Video game characters don't choose what they wear, though. When I see a character, I look at the design and presentation choices the artist made, and how they fit in with the other character, the theme, etc."

^^see how you came about this so nice and like an educated gaming artist, and an adult compared to this,

"?Also, this is the first time I?ve seen that character and holy s**t, ahahahahahaha. That?s actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, f**king lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he?s in jail now. This is amazing."

^^ i believe this statement is that of a child ^_~

&might i add, its pretty hard to tell any ones personality based off looks. I wouldnt think you had a personality at all. ;D just kidding friend <3Anyway, may i ask, Have you played the game to know the traits or Story background to know who this character is to represent? (Or for any of the characters for that matter) Or are you prematurely expressing your opinion on a characters basis based on looks alone? Its not like there is much facial expression in some of the games you chose to work with. (whether you designed them or not, you had a voice in that factor but only until recently you decided to state something?)(let alone if you are talking about the style of art would you not rather attack the artistic point of view of calling THAT art ART?, instead of attacking one of the artists who follow that path of art?)

"If there was some emotion or sense of personality beyond the pose, it might have conveyed some more depth to the character beyond the ridiculous sexypose. And frankly, if you're going for something as outlandish as that, it feels like a huge missed opportunity to provide a more interesting character."

^^and that is your opinion. &here is mine, his art intrigue me and makes me want to play to know their background story. because I am into this type of art.

*Might I add, I've viewed you portfolio and As I am sure you are capable of more art than listed, AS a fellow artist, I can say i like your detailing in portraits, though id like to see more than you. Your art personally is not my cup of tea, however. But I can respect your ability as an artist and support your worth because it came from you and every piece of art is hard work.

"Little things like that can make a huge difference in how your art is perceived, and that's what I hope more artists to become mindful of."

Have you ever thought to come about it like an adult, maybe would help you with this goal? ^_^

For the record, "this is why you were not sought for in character design and only what you were educated in, environmental art" I said this because this is what you listed yourself as. If you wish to be noted as anything else, state so, and do not label yourself as other.

Hope this doesnt upset you friend ^_^
xoxo

 

[Lightknight]

If by "female friendly" you mean they make casual games, with little to no learning curve, then yes i woud agree. But i would also say that the few female gamer friends i have would punch you in the face for saying it. Because they don't consider people who play the WII to be real gamers either... with a few obvious exceptions.

Actually, I moreso meant that Nintendo products are typically less exploitative of female sexuality. I understand the sentiment that some women look at casual gamers in disdain as somehow holding back their image as hardcore gamers. For example, my wife and I play Call of Duty all the time. It's her favorite kind of game and she almost never touches the wii. Though she does enjoy her DS on trips (guess it's been replaced by the Vita recently though).

But women in aggregate, they do prefer the wii, or at least 80% of all female gamers did in 2009. As such, they were also significantly more likely to play what you'd call casual games because of it. Aggregates are just trends and do not account for everyone. Women as a group certainly don't have a "hive mind" but they also express different trends than males do in a variety of areas and preferences. Why they express differences? That's besides the question but could be either biological, economic or sociological factors (or more likely, a combination thereof). If you, like me, know women who fall outside of the norm then it in no way negates that there is still a norm and the person you know is outside of it.

It would likewise be folly to dismiss casual gaming. It is to hardcore gaming as television shows are to movies or magazines are to novels and is every bit as valid a source of entertainment. I'm not sure why game-class warfare is required here.

 

[MrsBloo]

Polite Snip

Maybe that was one too many hits to put at Chemical Alia, but I also feel that this is one of the best post in the whole thread. I wish it could just be re-pasted every time we have this discussion

In fact, I almost feel that this is the conclusion most of these threads eventually arrive at. Good work to you.

*As i can agree maybe i "unloaded a full automatic on her", i do believe i put the safety on lol jussstttt kiiidding

As a female gamer & artist I am tired of hearing other female gamers/artist fight for something they believe is for ALL women when clearly, its of that type of person(s). And no one wanted to tell her, only post comments on the article. But I simply wanted to be nice and bring it to her attention she was acting a fool and could have came about it way more mature. or atleast stopped a sentence ahead. (which im sure we all can do.) let alone if she is to be one female to represent the population(whether she wants to or not), now, no thank you. I rather have a female be able to see possibilities from all types of females and not what only she is into. After all companies dont make products for one single person. its to please the audience. If one single person, male or female wants to make a difference in the these industries then they should learn the only way to do it is, know what you can, get known, create it yourself and see how the general or overall audience will react. Just stop down talking others because it makes it harder for some to look at your work with respect because they know that artist will not return that same respect.

(isnt this the topic on this thread?;D lol my bad i meant to post my last post in a different thread)[though her last statement was from here which is why i got them mixed up]Also as for comics, Im a comic geek and heroism started with men saving women, I do not expect comics to totally change to mend to some females wants. I am not saying its okay, but i respect when this thing came into play this was just how the time was, it was the day an age and that was its birth place. but Comics HAVE adapted to time. Hello WONDER WOMAN, Cat woman, Harley Quinn, Im not going to name all, but some of my Favs. DC obviously ;P lol but if women really wanted to be created equal we need to stop making such a big deal of these things and putting special treatment towards us. Because it isnt sexist until only one opinionated female states it is. comics show a lot of different type of girls and their wills as such. Just like in real life. Some girls want to be wooed and swept of their feet even expect this of men, while others dont need men at all to feel empowered. There are even women out there who just simply enjoy taking care of their loved ones, in a domestic way, because THEY want to. After all as an adult you are the only one in charge of your actions.

 

[ThreeName]

Yes, I do.

Women have to deal with this shit every day. The ways people interact with each other are important. I'm assuming you aren't female, because if this actually happened to you as often as it does to women, it could definitely affect your mental health. For most women, the safest assumption is that you need to protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you. This is not something men generally have to fear.

Sure, in most cases it might simply be looking. But how would a woman know that it is not going to turn into something much worse?

Gee, I dunno, maybe through rationalism and not being utterly paranoid? An actual knowledge of statistic? Logic? Fuck, take your pick.

And on that "Men don't need to worry about being sexually assaulted while women do", yes that is true. But men do have to worry about being physically assaulted, something women do not. Women are not going to get punched for looking the wrong way in a bar. Women do not have to worry about getting king-hit while walking down the street.

I'm all for discussion of gender issues, but in order for it to happen you really need to recognise both sides.

Also "they often want to sexually assault you", that's disgusting. Words cannot describe how fucked that sentence is.

 

[The Material Sheep]

Yes, I do.

Women have to deal with this shit every day. The ways people interact with each other are important. I'm assuming you aren't female, because if this actually happened to you as often as it does to women, it could definitely affect your mental health. For most women, the safest assumption is that you need to protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you. This is not something men generally have to fear.

Sure, in most cases it might simply be looking. But how would a woman know that it is not going to turn into something much worse?

Lol just noticed this little gem. You know... I understand that not all people who hold similar positions are like this, but damn it that is straight up misandry or w/e you call it.

Men, a blanket term, often want to sexually assault women. You are pretty much just stating men are "often" mindless raping apes. I know plenty of guys, this is PROVABLY not the case. That is just straight up sexism, and it is HILARIOUS. Every female knows enough males in her day to day life that aren't like this unless she lives in the most VILE of places.
Either way this isn't a logical conclusion to have given how that is clearly not the case in most of our society.

There are bad men, and by yourself in certain places you should always be cautious. Thinking all men are rapists or have the emotional/mental capability to rape you is just a vile and disgusting way to view half the population of the world. I'm sorry but it's just provably wrong, and you truly believe that to be the case you need to get help and talk to someone.

Just this all purpose generalization. All women should be afraid of men, because men are nothing but muscles and a dick that want to rape you. Yeah... that people is an example of acceptable hate speech. Gotta love it.

 

[Aramis Night]

Perhaps I might see it, however I can't personally nor do I know of any other male who can even remotely be described as constantly leering, nor do I personally know a single woman who has ever complained that they are being leered at 24/7. I just don't buy it.

I said neither of those things.

I didn't say that men were constantly leering, nor did I say that women get leered at 24/7. I just said that many women get leered at every day. It might be only for 5 minutes per day. And it doesn't mean that the man leers at everything he sees. But women are pretty consistently leered at. Men, not so much.

That seems quite trivial to me. Is that really something you find to be of great concern?

Yes, I do.

Women have to deal with this shit every day. The ways people interact with each other are important. I'm assuming you aren't female, because if this actually happened to you as often as it does to women, it could definitely affect your mental health. For most women, the safest assumption is that you need to protect yourself from men, because they often want to sexually assault you. This is not something men generally have to fear.

Sure, in most cases it might simply be looking. But how would a woman know that it is not going to turn into something much worse?

As a guy, i seem to get threatened with assault every day. The fact that it rarely happens actually causes me to take such threats less seriously, not more so. Most other men who see me walking down the street make it rather clear to me that if not for society having the ability to impact them negatively as a result, they would love to hurt me. I'm mindful of it, but i don't think it has made me less rational. Statistically i'm at least 5 times more likely to get assaulted walking down the street as a women does.

Also men leering at a woman =/= wanting to sexually assault her. The vast majority of men just want sex with a WILLING partner. We have pretty much made any overt attempts on the part of men to let a woman know that they would like to have sex with her illegal, if she chooses to make it so. Leering, as bad as it is, is about the only method left for a guy to indicate interest, though i understand that is being made illegal as well(falls under harassment). I wish the only harrassment i rec'd was from people i don't find attractive clumsily trying to hit on me. I would trade all the threats of assault i get daily for that any day.