Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[Sepko]

Now because you still decided to go there even though it wasn't relevant to the initial point you tried to refute i'll still address this one. You said that both females and males are being idealized for the costumer, however that in no way proves they are being objectified. I mean Naomi in MGS4 looks quite hot and often had her labcoat buttons open (except in cold environments), but she was most definitely not an object, she had a huge role in the story and even manipulated the protagonist, snake. The fact a female character was idealized for male gamers doesn't imply in the slightest that she's being objectified. The illusion that female characters are being more objectified than male characters merely stems from the fact there are a lot more male protagonists which de-facto get a much bigger role than other characters. However regardless of gender protagonists will have more agency and secondary characters will have less (or often even none).

I can't remember from the quote chain what exactly I said, if I didn't say it then I'm saying it now, sexualisation and objectification are both things that happen in gaming, usually with the latter following the former. With Naomi they stopped at the needless sexualisation, because she's at least useful to the plot. It's still a problem because there's absolutely no reason why she would have her lab coat and shirt unbuttoned that far down while also not wearing a bra, at least the developers had the good sense to keep her warm whenever she went outside. Her main science lab tech outfit only looks like that for the male gamers, which many developers still think significantly dominates the games market, which really isn't the case. The female demographic in hardcore gaming has been steadily growing for quite some time now.
And you're right, it is an illusion that female protagonists are being more objectified and sexualised than males because males aren't objectified or sexualised in games. At all. Please try to understand this point that somehow continues to fly over you.
And you keep bringing up this primary and secondary character agency thing like it means something.

Actually the reason why i believe i have the i-win-argument against objectification of women in the western gaming industry is because 99% of the arguments used to imply there is objectification of women rely on intellectual dishonesty, wrong usage of the word "objectification" or are simply broken. You see, based on the innocent until proven guilty principle this would be an all win argument that the industry is innocent of objectification.

There's objectification and sexualisation in video games, I'm not seeing your point here. Intellectual dishonesty? Where? Why? This collection of words you're calling a paragraph is not telling me anything.

And please the argument is not to be more inclusive, it's to be more inclusive by not making sexist games which treat women like shit. Unless off course you think women are treated just fine in games? In which case i'd wonder what this was all about.

So it's to be more inclusive then, which is exactly what I said.
And with that last bit......what? Are you serious?

 

[the December King]

See above...

Welcome to the Escapist, ZombieRamone76!

And that was well put.

In short, the target audience is hetero male. Since these are fantasies targeted at them, they will include the things that the target likes, like sexualized female characters, big guns or swords, great combat or action, and cool effects.

I think that women should get these too, or at least female empowerment fantasies.

 

[ExileNZ]

Pretty sure Jim already did this exact same video a year or two back (and not the one he pointed to in today's vid). Not that I agree with it any less.

That aside, if I could add a wee point, it'd be that games aren't so much designed by men for men any more, but by committee for men, which is certainly no better. Because now it's not about boobs for boobs' sake, but boobs for money's sake.

Hooray for... something...?

 

[oreso]

I would think that Final Fantasy is most guilty of dolling up females while keeping males proud and aloof, but whatever.

Whoever told you that thing about Kratos was misguided.

To be fair to myself, I've only ever said some women like Kratos. Not intended to generalise at all. And besides, I was making a point from a more objective stance at the time (not about the tastes of individuals at all).

FF has been really varied, which is exactly right IMO. Again I'm amazed it isn't brought up more often, during a whole segment of FFVII Tifa takes control of the situation after Cloud has a nervous breakdown and ends up being pushed around in a wheelchair. Weak sympathetic guy character with emotional damage, plus strong self-possessed female character? Like, hello? This was years ago too?

And they have a veritable stable of sexualised guys.

 

[ZombieRamone76]

See above...

Welcome to the Escapist, ZombieRamone76!

And that was well put.

In short, the target audience is hetero male. Since these are fantasies targeted at them, they will include the things that the target likes, like sexualized female characters, big guns or swords, great combat or action, and cool effects.

I think that women should get these too, or at least female empowerment fantasies.

Greetings! And thank you very much for the warm welcome. I've read the Escapist for years but never really signed up.



As for the idea of the games being strictly male power fantasies, what I'd counter with is this: If you accept media being a circular relationship (as I certainly do)-- the idea that media is not merely a reflection of the media consumer but also influences the media consumer-- then it can't be said that games are simply giving men what they want. They're also influencing men and re-enforcing ideas put forth by the media for a long, long time. Some men have complained in this thread that they have felt pressure to be strong and brave because of how they've been portrayed in the media. I have no idea if these arguments were made in earnest or were just put forth to counter the claims that women feel impacted by their own portrayal in the media, but let's take them at their word for now: So some men are also feeling put upon by this power fantasy that is being re-enforced in media. The only way to break that cycle is to start to explore other ways of being a man in terms of representation and that can be done by also showing other sides of women in these games.

I guess my point is that while we may certainly gravitate toward certain kinds of entertainment based on gender, not a ton of this stuff is neccessarily inherent in our genes as many people want you to believe. Women aren't simply drawn to the color pink because of DNA. No, we've been brought up to associate pink for girl, blue for boy. The media ran with it, re-enforcing those early childhood lessons. A lot of what we think we know about our gender has come from the media. So media also needs to change some as we try to find a decent balance between the messages we're sending people of both genders. This certainly doesn't mean overtly "manly" games like COD or God of War aren't going to be around anymore (I see some people adopt the all or nothing stance over this as if including some games with some broader variety of media images means that there won't be any overly "masculine" war fantasies allowed-- it's not a zero sum game). I think it just makes sense to begin to include more people in AAA games and start to broaden the scope some.

The argument was once upon a time made, "Why would Jews WANT to go into exclusive gentile country clubs? It's not for them!" Besides the issue of equality (and let's leave that one on the side of the road for now because I'm not saying AAA don't let women play them through some legal mandate), a reason was that those clubs were the most oppulent with the biggest golf courses, so why can't they be for everyone? I'm sure lots of us would argue that AAA games are certainly not objectively the "best", but they do get the shiniest and biggest play grounds. So maybe we can start to not think of them as primarily for the guys. No need to ghetto-ize females from the really big games-- why not just make them a little more inclusive?

 

[generals3]

I can't remember from the quote chain what exactly I said, if I didn't say it then I'm saying it now, sexualisation and objectification are both things that happen in gaming, usually with the latter following the former. With Naomi they stopped at the needless sexualisation, because she's at least useful to the plot. It's still a problem because there's absolutely no reason why she would have her lab coat and shirt unbuttoned that far down while also not wearing a bra, at least the developers had the good sense to keep her warm whenever she went outside. Her main science lab tech outfit only looks like that for the male gamers, which many developers still think significantly dominates the games market, which really isn't the case. The female demographic in hardcore gaming has been steadily growing for quite some time now.
And you're right, it is an illusion that female protagonists are being more objectified and sexualised than males because males aren't objectified or sexualised in games. At all. Please try to understand this point that somehow continues to fly over you.
And you keep bringing up this primary and secondary character agency thing like it means something.

The sexualization isn't needless. It is there to make the character more aesthetically pleasing to the player. (at least that's what the devs/publishers think) And this is also why male characters aren't stick men. The fact the characters are being given aesthetic attention in a different way doesn't in the slightest work as an argument to prove women are being objectified. Sexualized, yes. But not objectified. And why do you imply i claimed women aren't being more sexualized? I thought i was quite clear about that since the beginning, yes they're being more sexualized, but if sexualization =/= objectification. And male protagonists are just as much objectified as female protagonists. In different ways but they are. Being depicted as a blob of muscles only good to fight is actually being objectified for instance.

There's objectification and sexualisation in video games, I'm not seeing your point here. Intellectual dishonesty? Where? Why? This collection of words you're calling a paragraph is not telling me anything.

Sure it was. It was telling you that i can claim to know the answer to this topic despite not playing every type of game equally. Just like you can claim you have the answer despite the fact you probably don't play every type of games either.

 

[Sepko]

I can't remember from the quote chain what exactly I said, if I didn't say it then I'm saying it now, sexualisation and objectification are both things that happen in gaming, usually with the latter following the former. With Naomi they stopped at the needless sexualisation, because she's at least useful to the plot. It's still a problem because there's absolutely no reason why she would have her lab coat and shirt unbuttoned that far down while also not wearing a bra, at least the developers had the good sense to keep her warm whenever she went outside. Her main science lab tech outfit only looks like that for the male gamers, which many developers still think significantly dominates the games market, which really isn't the case. The female demographic in hardcore gaming has been steadily growing for quite some time now.
And you're right, it is an illusion that female protagonists are being more objectified and sexualised than males because males aren't objectified or sexualised in games. At all. Please try to understand this point that somehow continues to fly over you.
And you keep bringing up this primary and secondary character agency thing like it means something.

The sexualization isn't needless. It is there to make the character more aesthetically pleasing to the player. (at least that's what the devs/publishers think) And this is also why male characters aren't stick men. The fact the characters are being given aesthetic attention in a different way doesn't in the slightest work as an argument to prove women are being objectified. Sexualized, yes. But not objectified. And why do you imply i claimed women aren't being more sexualized? I thought i was quite clear about that since the beginning, yes they're being more sexualized, but if sexualization =/= objectification. And male protagonists are just as much objectified as female protagonists. In different ways but they are.

You're gonna have to explain what these "different ways" men are objectified in before I tell you again that it's not objectification it's a power fantasy and idealism.
And yeah, the sexualisation with Naomi is completely needless. You could've had her top done up like a normal human female and she would've still been aesthetically pleasing, with significantly less of the whore factor. Same with the Sorceress from Dragon's Crown, she didn't need to be designed with ginormous mammary explosions, but they did so to sell game copies.

Sure it was. It was telling you that i can claim to know the answer to this topic despite not playing every type of game equally. Just like you can claim you have the answer despite the fact your probably don't play every type of games either.

Having knowledge of the Civ Games, MGS and multiplayer shooters does not make you even remotely knowledgeable on gender issues in games I can tell you that right now. If we're going by this logic I should be a super-expert with a PhD.

 

[Angelblaze]

I can't remember from the quote chain what exactly I said, if I didn't say it then I'm saying it now, sexualisation and objectification are both things that happen in gaming, usually with the latter following the former. With Naomi they stopped at the needless sexualisation, because she's at least useful to the plot. It's still a problem because there's absolutely no reason why she would have her lab coat and shirt unbuttoned that far down while also not wearing a bra, at least the developers had the good sense to keep her warm whenever she went outside. Her main science lab tech outfit only looks like that for the male gamers, which many developers still think significantly dominates the games market, which really isn't the case. The female demographic in hardcore gaming has been steadily growing for quite some time now.
And you're right, it is an illusion that female protagonists are being more objectified and sexualised than males because males aren't objectified or sexualised in games. At all. Please try to understand this point that somehow continues to fly over you.
And you keep bringing up this primary and secondary character agency thing like it means something.

The sexualization isn't needless. It is there to make the character more aesthetically pleasing to the player. (at least that's what the devs/publishers think) And this is also why male characters aren't stick men. The fact the characters are being given aesthetic attention in a different way doesn't in the slightest work as an argument to prove women are being objectified. Sexualized, yes. But not objectified. And why do you imply i claimed women aren't being more sexualized? I thought i was quite clear about that since the beginning, yes they're being more sexualized, but if sexualization =/= objectification. And male protagonists are just as much objectified as female protagonists. In different ways but they are. Being depicted as a blob of muscles only good to fight is actually being objectified for instance.

There's objectification and sexualisation in video games, I'm not seeing your point here. Intellectual dishonesty? Where? Why? This collection of words you're calling a paragraph is not telling me anything.

Sure it was. It was telling you that i can claim to know the answer to this topic despite not playing every type of game equally. Just like you can claim you have the answer despite the fact your probably don't play every type of games either.

'Male Characters aren't Stick Men'

Meet Fancypants man.
--
And yes. Women are being objectified en masse by the games industry and the comic book industry. You can claim otherwise all you like but when you take a damn good look at the whole picture, women are being OBJECTIFIED, given zero personality and literally no 'character' or 'desirable' female trait. Sexualization may not be objectification, but the two go hand in hand far too often. You can be sexualized and not be objectified (In my personal opinion, Masane from Witchblade is a good example of this. And yes, I know what you're thinking. 'A Witchblade character that isn't sexually objectified? Yes. It exists. She's good tons of desirable traits like her bravery, emotional strength and immense courage and willness to self sacrifice while being attractive and a fanservice bonanza.), and you can be objectified without being sexualized but that doesn't mean that you can't be both at once.

And male protagonists sexualized as much as female protagonists?

Tell me how many women you see lining up to screw Rufus, The Revolting Slob, Mario, etcetc. The fact of the matter is that you can claim females aren't sexualized in comparison to men at all but in the end men have numerous other different body types to pick from and deal with while women have to play bikini armor girl that always needs rescuing and has the personality of Kristen Stewart, which is to say that personality of a brick wall which is to say no personality at all.

And there are ways to make characters more aesthetically pleasing without needing to oversexualize. Many. Many. Many ways.

And, last thing here.

Have you ever wanted to be/have the powers of 'Superman', 'Batman', 'Asura', 'Kratos', or some other idealized super hero? Congratulations then. You now see the difference.

I don't wanna be Supergirl, Batgirl or...do those other two even HAVE female counter parts that fight?

Anyway those guys are power fantasies for YOU guys. There's nothing in the AAA industry for a girl like me to really want to be. The last male character - made stateside to my knowledge - that actually had me thinking about him was Fenris from Dragon Age. DA 2 was from 4 years ago to put things in perspective.

 

[generals3]

You're gonna have to explain what these "different ways" men are objectified in before I tell you again that it's not objectification it's a power fantasy and idealism.
And yeah, the sexualisation with Naomi is completely needless. You could've had her top done up like a normal human female and she would've still been aesthetically pleasing, with significantly less of the whore factor. Same with the Sorceress from Dragon's Crown, she didn't need to be designed with ginormous mammary explosions, but they did so to sell game copies.

A power fantasy and idealism can very well include objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a weak argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

Sure it was. It was telling you that i can claim to know the answer to this topic despite not playing every type of game equally. Just like you can claim you have the answer despite the fact your probably don't play every type of games either.

Having knowledge of the Civ Games, MGS and multiplayer does not make you even remotely knowledgeable on gender issues in games I can tell you that right now. If we're going by this logic I should be a super-expert with a PhD.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to consider confusing. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more than 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

 

[DrOswald]

Very good video Jim. Very informative, expertly highlighting the difference between Male and female characters.

I do have a few comments/questions.

The first major argument you make is based entirely on the intent of the author. Is it your opinion that authorial intent is the determining factor in the nature of a character? Or is there room for the person playing the game to reinterpret the character?

For an example, Bayonetta is often held up as one of the quintessential examples of objectification of women in video games. However, I have always thought that Bayonetta was closer to a female version of the typical idealized male protagonist. She has all the common traits: She is powerful, she is given a personality (her interactions with Cereza, for example, greatly deepen her personality), she owns her sexuality in a way that only male characters are typically allowed to do, she is brave and smart, and, of course, she is physically ideal. The only major difference I can find is that it is Bayonetta was assumedly created by men for men as a character to objectify (which I am sure is true to a great extent.)

From this example springs a couple of questions:

Is the character of Bayonetta a contributing factor to the objectification of women in video games even though she is portrayed more as an idealized woman than a sex object?

If Bayonetta has been created by women to appeal to women but was otherwise identical, would the character still be considered an example of objectification? Should the character still be considered an example of objectification?

My next comment/question is not directly related to the topics in the video, so please be patient with me as I frame the question.

In the video game community, there is a certain reaction to female characters. These characters are always condemned as objectification of women, etc. We praise the any female character that is non-sexual, often holding them up as examples of strong female characters even when their only defining feature is a lack of sexuality in a crowd of highly sexual female characters. On the other hand, developers are criticized for creating any hint of sexuality in a female character, even in female characters that are strong female characters in every respect. The most recent character I can bring forward as an example is Elizabeth of Bioshock infinite.

The vast majority of people loved Elisabeth, but the criticism I most often saw against her was that her dress showed off too much cleavage and that this cheapened the character. And it is true that the dress she wears is sexy. But it is hardly an objectifying sexuality. And this is only one of many examples I could bring to the table.

It seems to me that the forward thinking video game community has settled into a dangerous position against female sexuality. So many of us have been fighting for so long against negative depictions of female sexuality that we automatically react any depiction of female sexuality as a bad thing. We are essentially embracing a very old and very damaging idea: That women are not to be sexual. They are allowed to be desirable, but only in a modest, chaste, or otherwise non sexual sort of way. And if a woman is openly sexy then she has degraded herself and all other women. In short, we are ashamed of female sexuality.

What are your thoughts on this? Is this an actual problem that is happening, or am I just overreacting? And if it is a problem, what can we do to correct it?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

The quickest way to please absolutely no one is to try and please everyone, because if a game hasn't been made for someone then it has been made for no one. Which would work out all fine, if games existed trapped alone in a vacuum with only their audience and their wallets for warmth and company. Video games do not exist in a vacuum. They must compete for the same limited supply of recreational spending as any other provider delivering recreational entertainment. So what you're up against is free choice and the tendency of markets to conform themselves around those people willing to spend the most money.

So what I'm saying here is that I've never bought a game along this line of thinking, "Gee wiz golly gosh, I hope somebody else enjoys this game more than I do!"

Nor have I ever thought to myself, "I hope everyone enjoys this game just as much as I do!"

My only concern has ever been, "Will I enjoy this game?"

End of story. Roll credits.

 

[generals3]

And yes. Women are being objectified en masse by the games industry and the comic book industry. You can claim otherwise all you like but when you take a damn good look at the whole picture, women are being OBJECTIFIED, given zero personality and literally no 'character' or 'desirable' female trait. Sexualization may not be objectification, but the two go hand in hand far too often. You can be sexualized and not be objectified (In my personal opinion, Masane from Witchblade is a good example of this. And yes, I know what you're thinking. 'A Witchblade character that isn't sexually objectified? Yes. It exists. She's good tons of desirable traits like her bravery, emotional strength and immense courage and willness to self sacrifice while being attractive and a fanservice bonanza.), and you can be objectified without being sexualized but that doesn't mean that you can't be both at once.

They can be done. But i need evidence. Evidence that is never given. All i see is people saying: sexualization = objectification! Or comparing male protagonists with female secondary characters as an example male characters have more personality, importance, agency, etc. Which is an obviously intellectually dishonest argument because protagonists, regardless of gender, get more of all those traits de-facto.

And male protagonists sexualized as much as female protagonists?

Why do you repeat a strawman argument i just refuted in the quoted post? I have never claimed that and just clarified that in the post you quoted.

And there are ways to make characters more aesthetically pleasing without needing to oversexualize. Many. Many. Many ways.

Never said otherwise. But that doesn't really matter in this context. You'll notice for instance that WoW didn't go for the sexualization route. It's an aesthetic choice some devs make.

And, last thing here.

Have you ever wanted to be/have the powers of 'Superman', 'Batman', 'Asura', 'Kratos', or some other idealized super hero? Congratulations then. You now see the difference.

I don't wanna be Supergirl, Batgirl or...do those other two even HAVE female counter parts that fight?

Anyway those guys are power fantasies for YOU guys. There's nothing in the AAA industry for a girl like me to really want to be. The last male character - made stateside to my knowledge - that actually had me thinking about him was Fenris from Dragon Age. DA 2 was from 4 years ago to put things in perspective.

I don't know supergirl or batgirl nor their super powers so i wouldn't know. (and since we're talking about video games i'm not sure why that is relevant?)

Well you may wanna be The Boss (she's not the protagonist though) from MGS3. Bad ass chick who exceeds all other characters in heroism and plain bad assery.

And while you have a valid point for a complaint, that the industry doesn't care as much about you than other consumers, it doesn't say anything about objectification of female characters.

 

[Sepko]

A power fantasy and idealism can very well entail objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a laughable argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to not understand. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.

Women are being objectified en masse by the games industry and the comic book industry. You can claim otherwise all you like but when you take a damn good look at the whole picture, women are being OBJECTIFIED, given zero personality and literally no 'character' or 'desirable' female trait. Sexualization may not be objectification, but the two go hand in hand far too often. You can be sexualized and not be objectified (In my personal opinion, Masane from Witchblade is a good example of this. And yes, I know what you're thinking. 'A Witchblade character that isn't sexually objectified? Yes. It exists. She's good tons of desirable traits like her bravery, emotional strength and immense courage and willness to self sacrifice while being attractive and a fanservice bonanza.), and you can be objectified without being sexualized but that doesn't mean that you can't be both at once.

And male protagonists sexualized as much as female protagonists?

Tell me how many women you see lining up to screw Rufus, The Revolting Slob, Mario, etcetc. The fact of the matter is that you can claim females aren't sexualized in comparison to men at all but in the end men have numerous other different body types to pick from and deal with while women have to play bikini armor girl that always needs rescuing and has the personality of Kristen Stewart, which is to say that personality of a brick wall which is to say no personality at all.

And there are ways to make characters more aesthetically pleasing without needing to oversexualize. Many. Many. Many ways.

And, last thing here.

Have you ever wanted to be/have the powers of 'Superman', 'Batman', 'Asura', 'Kratos', or some other idealized super hero? Congratulations then. You now see the difference.

I don't wanna be Supergirl, Batgirl or...do those other two even HAVE female counter parts that fight?

Anyway those guys are power fantasies for YOU guys. There's nothing in the AAA industry for a girl like me to really want to be. The last male character - made stateside to my knowledge - that actually had me thinking about him was Fenris from Dragon Age. DA 2 was from 4 years ago to put things in perspective.

What she said ^

 

[Sepko]

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

The quickest way to please absolutely no one is to try and please everyone, because if a game hasn't been made for someone then it has been made for no one. Which would work out all fine, if games existed trapped alone in a vacuum with only their audience and their wallets for warmth and company. Video games do not exist in a vacuum. They must compete for the same limited supply of recreational spending as any other provider delivering recreational entertainment. So what you're up against is free choice and the tendency of markets to conform themselves around those people willing to spend the most money.

So what I'm saying here is that I've never bought a game along this line of thinking, "Gee wiz golly gosh, I hope somebody else enjoys this game more than I do!"

Nor have I ever thought to myself, "I hope everyone enjoys this game just as much as I do!"

My only concern has ever been, "Will I enjoy this game?"

End of story. Roll credits.

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

God forbid that we don't pressure developers to take big business risks through guilt tactics.

Wanting to be more inclusive to people is now a guilt tactic? Really?

The quickest way to please absolutely no one is to try and please everyone, because if a game hasn't been made for someone then it has been made for no one. Which would work out all fine, if games existed trapped alone in a vacuum with only their audience and their wallets for warmth and company. Video games do not exist in a vacuum. They must compete for the same limited supply of recreational spending as any other provider delivering recreational entertainment. So what you're up against is free choice and the tendency of markets to conform themselves around those people willing to spend the most money.

So what I'm saying here is that I've never bought a game along this line of thinking, "Gee wiz golly gosh, I hope somebody else enjoys this game more than I do!"

Nor have I ever thought to myself, "I hope everyone enjoys this game just as much as I do!"

My only concern has ever been, "Will I enjoy this game?"

End of story. Roll credits.

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.

 

[generals3]

A power fantasy and idealism can very well entail objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a laughable argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.

Detrimental? Tell me how it is detrimental. What's detrimental about portraying women in a sexualized manner so i can start pestering all those chicks in skimpy clothes about how detrimental their clothing choices are. As far as i know there is nothing inherently detrimental to sexualization. Therefor i consider the idea of one way of objectifying to be more detrimental than an other rather odd. What matters is the end result, if a character is shit it is shit regardless of why. Some are more shit than others but the reasons why are hardly relevant, what matters is how shitty they are in the end.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to not understand. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.

I hope you realize the idea that sexualization leads to objectification is a very toxic one. And Jim doesn't debunk my arguments at all. Making lots of unfounded claims doesn't make an argument, unfortunately for Jim (and you it seems). And you may also have noticed that i have often used that against you. Just like i do now, the claim that sexualization leads to objectification is unfounded and ludicrous. Sexualization can be used to objectify (if you want to create a sex object) but the former doesn't necessarily lead or imply the lather. And just claiming it does doesn't make it true.

 

[Sepko]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.

You're going to have a wonderful girlfriend, I'm sure. Unless you already have one, in which case she should run. Fast.
Also what does this have to do with how you spend your money? Do you not buy games that have respectful depictions of women or something?

 

[generals3]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Because consumers are usually so worried about other potential consumers. I doubt you'll find many BMW drivers lobbying for BMW to create cheaper cars to allow poorer people to have access to BMW awesomeness. And this goes for pretty much anything. Actually in a way this whole crusade to help the female demographic somehow reminds of the damsel in distress trope. Because that's what it looks like, white knights desperately trying to save those damsels. If women want games to cater to them it's up to them to lobby for it. I don't expect Iphone users to complain to apple about the fact their prices drive people like me away.

 

[Sepko]

A power fantasy and idealism can very well entail objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a laughable argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.

Detrimental? Tell me how it is detrimental. What's detrimental about portraying women in a sexualized manner so i can start pestering all those chicks in skimpy clothes about how detrimental their clothing choices are. As far as i know there is nothing inherently detrimental to sexualization. Therefor i consider the idea of one way of objectifying to be more detrimental than an other rather odd. What matters is the end result, if a character is shit it is shit regardless of why. Some are more shit than others but the reasons why are hardly relevant, what matters is how shitty they are in the end.

This is just getting blabbery now. It matters a great deal why a character is shit; so developers can figure out why they were shit and don't repeat their shitty mistakes. And then better characters are made. Discussions are being had about sexualisation and objectification of women in games and has thus led to a steady increase in more respectable female characters. Not on the level of male characters, but they're getting there.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to not understand. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.

I hope you realize the idea that sexualization leads to objectification is a very toxic one. And Jim doesn't debunk my arguments at all. Making lots of unfounded claims doesn't make an argument, unfortunately for Jim (and you it seems). And you may also have noticed that i have often used that against you. Just like i do now, the claim that sexualization leads to objectification is unfounded and ludicrous. Sexualization can be used to objectify (if you want to create a sex object) but the former doesn't necessarily lead or imply the lather. And just claiming it does doesn't make it true.

How is it toxic?
Also making unfounded and ludicrous claims from 4 games you've played doesn't make an argument either. Especially where really only one of them has any discussion value for this topic.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.

You're going to have a wonderful girlfriend, I'm sure. Unless you already have one, in which case she should run. Fast.

Cute. I'll be sure not to be a complete barbarian. I'll at least give her the number of the local women's shelter on the way out, but only if I can figure out how to retrieve a number from speed dial once you've entered it.

Also what does this have to do with how you spend your money? Do you not buy games that have respectful depictions of women or something?

I once joked about that. Just to see what sort of reaction I'd get you see. Good for at least half a dozen paragraphs worth of frustrated rage. But reading threads like this, with people just like you getting busy riding high in the saddle of your morality horses and evangelising like you're some sort of preacher, I could understand people not buying games they know you'd like simply to spite people like yourself.

But I'm afraid you just don't rate that highly on my giveashit-ometer to influence what games I buy. But to return on message, if one video game developer isn't willing to develop games for me in mind then I'll have no trouble finding one that does, and if no game developers are willing to develop games for me then I'm sure I can find something else to spend my money on.

Welcome to the free market, komrade.