Poll: Should Writer/Creators feel shame for Sexualization?

[grassgremlin]

Le' snip

I'm not going to touch on your highly offensive response about ugly girls because . . . wow.
Guess you can't be attractive and a feminist?

Here's some reading material

http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-write-empowering-female.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/01/character-design-style-of-substance.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/02/authorship-blame-and-neutrality.html

Read and Learn then we can debate some more.

The truth is the argument is mainly Laziness

 

[grassgremlin]

This is 100% the wrong question

You raise a good point, but at this time I can't change the poll.
I honestly would like to change it to "should fans feel ashamed" but creating another poll on the same subject would be redundant for me.

Others are welcome to bring the issue to light, though.

 

[Ikaruga33]

No one owes you anything, fuck off.
If I want to make a game with big titty ninjas, I can do that. It's my game, fuck off. I can choose to make the guys half naked buff dudes, but I can also choose not to.
No one has the right to act like the moral police and shame other people for their own creative choices.

 

[L. Declis]

Well, my personal opinion is no.

And people who say men are not sexualised, I remember thinking that I spend a lot of time looking at Snake's ass in skin tight outfits, Vamp, Raiden (naked), most female characters have a cleavage, and most men spend their time shirtless. Haven't got a problem with it; I hope when I'm 80, I have an arse as nice as his.

However, the main reason I'm bothering to chip in is that I have recently become friends with four video game artists in China. I had a look at what they're drawing. Every woman has giant knockers, or you can see most of everything, and there isn't one you'd call objectively ugly.

I asked them why do they always draw both men and women sexy or attractive? Why never ugly ones?

They responded that there is no point, really. If you have control, and the look reflects what you want, then why should you choose ugly over pretty? May as well make the entire experience look as good as possible; you don't like crappy backgrounds, so why boring, ugly people?

 

[Batou667]

Doesn't matter to who? It certainly matters to some of us.

Well... do you also spend time on IMDB's forums talking about how porn is stopping film being taken seriously? Do you go to book forums and talk about how 50 Shades of Grey is holding back the medium?

If not, then that suggests that it doesn't matter, at least not as much as some people are claiming. And, why is sexualisation in games considered something that affects the entire medium by association, while sexual sub-genres are allowed their niche when we're talking films, books, or music?

You say that so ominously. I'm not sure if anyone here has suggested these nefarious "corrective" measures (unless these "corrective" measures ammount to promoting a diversity of viewpoints in gaming, in which case I stand guilty as charged, and we can move on to the sentencing phase).

Perhaps I'm being phenomenally thick, but how will "calling out" and "shaming" developers for the inclusion of "problematic" material in games promote diversity? Seems to me that this will curtail diversity by promoting a single vision of what a morally-correct gaming industry ought to look like.

This is a major issue I've had with the liberal progressive element in gaming from Sarkeesian onwards. You can lobby to have elements you don't like removed from games, *or* you can push for more diversity. You can't achieve both at once because they contradict each other.

Again, I don't think anyone is arguing that sexuality in games is inherently bad (least of all me, considering the first line of my post is saying that sexuality in characters doesn't inherently bother me). However, I think the way it is sometimes portrayed (that is, contextually) is bad.

Fine, and everybody's entitled to an opinion. But why is this such a pressing issue that *must* be discussed ad nauseum, rather than something we just accept as a matter of personal taste? Case in point, Jim Sterling's "stupid sexy Bayonetta" video is five and a half minutes long, and he doesn't mention gameplay until the 4:30 mark. We have a HUGE, and I'd say disproportionate, obsession with analysing the life out of a handful of hot issues in gaming, and it's starting to detract from the actual games.

I'm pretty sure that no where did I presuppose that challenging cultural norms is at the top of the list of considerations when making a game, only that perhaps it should be a little higher on the list. Handwaving away criticism because 'it's just a game' is a disservice to the medium in my opinion. You may not care one lick, but don't presume to tell me what my priorities should be when looking at games in a critical way.

I'm being a realist. Perhaps some indies might be able to justify spending five evenings a week coding a text adventure with the goal of challenging the public perception of living with AIDS - and frikkin' fine, more power to them - but the big studios are there to make money. We should be neither surprised nor outraged when mainstream gaming caters to the mainstream and employs lowest-common-denominator tactics.

We're in a gaming forum. Bemoaning people talking about culture criticism of games in a gaming forum is senseless. Yes, I'm relatively sure most of us know that human trafficking is the bigger problem compared to depictions of human trafficking, but again, that doesn't mean that the way a game depicts such a heinous act should be free from a critical eye.

Sure, but looking at the wider context should inform us of whether a certain cause is worth getting on our soapboxes about, and if we're committed to fighting, where the battles are better off being fought. GamerGate has been a perfect example of both sides setting their sights too low.

 

[Denamic]

Humans are sexual creatures. It's vital for the survival of our species. Sexualisation is not inherently bad. What matters is how you do it.

 

[Clarkarius]

Creators should be concerned with creating stronger characters as a whole. Flat characters who only exist to be sex objects or back ground dressing are the result lazy writing and mindless audience pandering. Likewise if a character is properly developed and the subject matter is handled maturely certain design decisions can be justified if it makes sense for the character to dress in that manner within that world. But this can be a very fine line to tread and can still lead to controversy, as demonstrated by the whole Bayonetta debate, where a well developed character, whose sex is defining part of their character has received both praise and ire in equal measure.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I have no strong convictions on what writers and creators should or shouldn't feel.

 

[FPLOON]

Should Writer/Creators feel shame for Sexualization?
Oh glob, I fucking hope not... That doesn't sound right at all!!

But "more" seriously, let these Creators/Writers do whatever they fuck they want, in terms of sexualization... I mean, it can't be "fanservice" if they don't have any [established] fans to begin with or, especially, if they're only doing it for themselves... Maybe I'm not "mature" enough to truly see it as sometimes being a soulless endeavor or something like that, but as long as no one's getting hurt [physically], at least, then the only thing we can do is keep encouraging those that are willing to sexualize something that's "rarely" touched upon as well as making sure none of these Creators/Writers does something that, in terms, inadvertently censors their own creative "limitations" in a way that they, themselves, didn't choose to "dictate" in the first place...

Then again, I don't care what these Creators/Writers do in the long run as long as they don't have to do something they don't feel like doing overall...

 

[Therumancer]

Le' snip

I'm not going to touch on your highly offensive response about ugly girls because . . . wow.
Guess you can't be attractive and a feminist?

Here's some reading material

http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-write-empowering-female.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/01/character-design-style-of-substance.html
http://exploringbelievability.blogspot.com/2012/02/authorship-blame-and-neutrality.html

Read and Learn then we can debate some more.

The truth is the argument is mainly Laziness

None of which is specifically relevant because as I myself pointed out exceptions do exist. Exceptions however do not make the rule. I also said a bit more about the movement than just that, but I get the impression it's just more of your own laziness.

See, basically you can sit there and say "this is not what the movement is, we represent this huge majority of people trying to force changes on an obstinate minority" and even convince yourself it's true, but that doesn't make it reality, and that's really the whole problem here. Internet feminist crusades tend to try and present themselves as the vanguard of some kind of social reform that just hasn't hit this little corner of things yet, when really they are misguided or just causing trouble. See it's not women that really have a problem with the way women are portrayed in video games, I mean most of this is the kinds of stuff they would create themselves (or do) and just like what they read about in novels and such if they are general genera fans. It's a very specific group of people that want to try and create an issue where there isn't one.... and that's why it goes nowhere, since the gaming industry kind of knows what the majority actually is, being careful to only cater to the largest demographics. Basically the people who like things like "Bayonetta" aren't a tiny, nerdy, fringe, they are among the biggest groups out there hence why it goes to sequel land. For all the complaints Team Ninja's model keeps them making money and a well known developer (we've all heard of them) so why should they change? Rather the people who want more conservatism and/or social sensitivity from games are the fringe minority, just a very vocal one, and are pretty much persistant in their own way like say me and my fellow turn based RPG nerds. If the games industry every starts releasing more games on a professional level, then yes there will probably be games made alongside the others that fit more in line with what SJWs and feminists want as it is a pretty loud majority, you'll probably see "Conservatively Dressed Action Girl" out there right alongside Bayonetta, 40 pounds overweight, middle aged, and in a sagging sweatsuit, or whatever you'd consider reasonable to the body image you want to look at, but that won't happen until the gaming industry moves further away from the "only AAA titles, and only those titles in general that can bring in the biggest demographics". Face it, your going to get more interest in, and move more units of these games to both men and women than a game following these alleged feminist principles. As I've pointed out, you'll notice girls like a lot of these characters enough to run around cosplaying as them and stuff, it's not like this environment of hostility against women, with female gamers and fangirls feeling like they are undersiege actually exists. You hear rants about it online, but other than that it's pretty much non-existent.

 

[BarkBarker]

You should feel shitty for poorly expressing the libido and sexuality of a being like a juvenile fucking twerp yes. DOA as a clear example, fucking high level fighting game there, doesn't even need the tits ass and shallow character story attempts. The game is fucking solid on its own merits, you waste money effort and focus on this excess and it makes me feel like you think so shallowly of me, that I must see a carnal invitation to be here. Worse it makes me feel like you lack faith in your core game and the marketing skills of your team, don't know how to get around to people and appeal to them? give them some honkers to stare at,beefcakes all around! It is boring drivel that infuriates me to no end, worse are the nunb nuts who think this is what most of that gender are or should be like and it warps their view, not all the time but unfortunately it happens. If I wanted porn while I play my video game, I DO HAVE A MULTI SCREEN SET-UP YOU KNOW.

 

[CaitSeith]

This is a "no right answer" question. Each case is different, as it depends less in the character looks, and more in its goal (pandering? Message? Artistic concept? Throw back to nostalgic tropes?) Even our Escapist's SJW (MovieBob) said that there are valid points in both sides when it comes to empowered sexualized female fighters.

 

[Calbeck]

Sexualization is a storytelling tool. To say it cannot be used is to return to the days where Ricky Ricardo and his wife Lucy had to sleep in separate beds lest "I Love Lucy" imply the two were having sex at night.

 

[Jux]

Doesn't matter to who? It certainly matters to some of us.

Well... do you also spend time on IMDB's forums talking about how porn is stopping film being taken seriously? Do you go to book forums and talk about how 50 Shades of Grey is holding back the medium?

If not, then that suggests that it doesn't matter, at least not as much as some people are claiming. And, why is sexualisation in games considered something that affects the entire medium by association, while sexual sub-genres are allowed their niche when we're talking films, books, or music?

Where did I say anything about fanservice material holding back the medium? I'm pretty sure I have said in the past that trying to silence criticism, or commentary by reviewers from a culture criticism standpoint is a disservice to the medium, or holding it back. If you're going to start off with strawmanning me, I don't see this going well for discussion value.

A couple of other things. First, I am not above criticising porn. I'm pretty sure I've done it on this very website. Not because porn is what it is, but for the way it's often shot that I find dehumanizing to the actors and actresses in it. Also, you pretty much answer your own question as to why your two examples don't affect their entire medium by association. Porn and poorly written erotica are niches, porn being restricted to adults, and stuff like 50 shades (adult romance fiction) being about 13% of the market [http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=580].

Perhaps I'm being phenomenally thick, but how will "calling out" and "shaming" developers for the inclusion of "problematic" material in games promote diversity? Seems to me that this will curtail diversity by promoting a single vision of what a morally-correct gaming industry ought to look like.

To use a hypothetical example, if 90% of the market has iusses with this problematic material, and I want less of that and more of something else, then that is diversifying the medium.

This is a major issue I've had with the liberal progressive element in gaming from Sarkeesian onwards. You can lobby to have elements you don't like removed from games, *or* you can push for more diversity. You can't achieve both at once because they contradict each other.

I can do both. As I am not calling for a ban on anything, having less of one thing and more of other stuff doesn't mean there is less diversity, so long as the thing there is less of still exists.

Fine, and everybody's entitled to an opinion. But why is this such a pressing issue that *must* be discussed ad nauseum, rather than something we just accept as a matter of personal taste? Case in point, Jim Sterling's "stupid sexy Bayonetta" video is five and a half minutes long, and he doesn't mention gameplay until the 4:30 mark. We have a HUGE, and I'd say disproportionate, obsession with analysing the life out of a handful of hot issues in gaming, and it's starting to detract from the actual games.

It's going to keep being discussed until devs and publishers start listening. And how is critical analyses detracting from the games? If you see a reviewer that leans towards this kind of commentary, and you don't like it, find a reviewer that sticks to talking about game mechanics.

I'm being a realist. Perhaps some indies might be able to justify spending five evenings a week coding a text adventure with the goal of challenging the public perception of living with AIDS - and frikkin' fine, more power to them - but the big studios are there to make money. We should be neither surprised nor outraged when mainstream gaming caters to the mainstream and employs lowest-common-denominator tactics.

If money is all they understand, then all the more reason to get louder about this until they start feeling it effect their bottom line.

Sure, but looking at the wider context should inform us of whether a certain cause is worth getting on our soapboxes about, and if we're committed to fighting, where the battles are better off being fought. GamerGate has been a perfect example of both sides setting their sights too low.

You don't want to go down that road with me dude, let's keep this on topic and off gg. And if you have a case to make about why this isn't worth arguing for, then make it. Don't just tell me 'there are better causes out there', because I am perfectly capable of arguing for that too, I have 24 hours in a day.

 

[Batou667]

Where did I say anything about fanservice material holding back the medium? I'm pretty sure I have said in the past that trying to silence criticism, or commentary by reviewers from a culture criticism standpoint is a disservice to the medium, or holding it back. If you're going to start off with strawmanning me, I don't see this going well for discussion value.

A couple of other things. First, I am not above criticising porn. I'm pretty sure I've done it on this very website. Not because porn is what it is, but for the way it's often shot that I find dehumanizing to the actors and actresses in it. Also, you pretty much answer your own question as to why your two examples don't affect their entire medium by association. Porn and poorly written erotica are niches, porn being restricted to adults, and stuff like 50 shades (adult romance fiction) being about 13% of the market [http://www.rwa.org/p/cm/ld/fid=580].

No strawman intended; I inferred your stance from this quote:

My views on 'fanservice' type stuff are conflicted. I don't buy that objectification and fetishization of characters is ok, even if it's done to both men and women, simply because when viewed with a broader lenses and put into cultural context, there is no parity. Games don't exist in a vaccuum, and while sexying up men with gratuitous crotch and ass shots (is that even what women want in fan service?) might be seen as breaking the mould, doing the same with women is just reinforcing cultural norms.

Now, while I don't see it as a particularly 'good' thing, I am certainly not calling for a ban on DoA, or the idea of fan service in general. I think that the medium would be better off with relatively less of it though.

As for the second point - are you saying that games with sexualised / sexist content aren't also a niche subset of games in general? If so, do you have anything to back that up?

To use a hypothetical example, if 90% of the market has iusses with this problematic material, and I want less of that and more of something else, then that is diversifying the medium.

...

I can do both. As I am not calling for a ban on anything, having less of one thing and more of other stuff doesn't mean there is less diversity, so long as the thing there is less of still exists.

If you're identifying certain games as "problematic" then you're de facto arguing from a standpoint that would favour them being removed and supplanted with something else. That's not increasing diversity, that's simply shifting the paradigm closer to your own preferences. An argument that promotes Y by making a case for the inferiority of X is NOT an argument for X and Y to coexist. Isn't that completely, utterly obvious?

It's going to keep being discussed until devs and publishers start listening. And how is critical analyses detracting from the games? If you see a reviewer that leans towards this kind of commentary, and you don't like it, find a reviewer that sticks to talking about game mechanics.

I mis-spoke somewhat there, because I assumed Jim's video was a review, when actually it was a ed/op piece. But without wishing to be too snarky, couldn't the line about "if you don't like it, stick to the stuff you do like" apply to the people complaining about sexualised games?

If money is all they understand, then all the more reason to get louder about this until they start feeling it effect their bottom line.

Why not simply support the franchises you feel "do it right" by buying their games, and decline to buy the games that you don't like? If enough people did that, the market would change to meet the demand.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that as for-profit businesses, publishers are well and truly speaking the language of money. Buying, or not buying, a game is the strongest message you could possibly send. Sure, they also listen to fan feedback (because future money) and try to avoid controversy or lawsuits (because lost money), but they'll overwhelmingly listen to the people who are handing over the cash. How seriously do you suppose Rockstar took the calls for its depictions of women to be changed, given it's sold in excess of 35 million copies and generated well in excess of $2bn? "Sorry, I can't hear you, due to all this MONEY in my ears!"

To paraphrase something Sleekit posted a while back before dropping off the face of R+P: for gaming to be inclusive, all we need is a diversity of games and the freedom to choose. That's it. Any demands we make of the industry on top of that are simply unrealistic and possibly unfair.

I'm pretty invested in the idea of the medium "growing up", and to allow that to happen we need to step back and stop treating it as a political football.

 

[Jux]

No strawman intended; I inferred your stance from this quote:

I wasn't clear then. I don't think it's holding back the medium, but I do think that less relative to the whole is better, if only because I find most fanservice stuff to be pretty sexist.

As for the second point - are you saying that games with sexualised / sexist content aren't also a niche subset of games in general? If so, do you have anything to back that up?

Sexualised content is not the same as sexist content. A game can have sexualised content without it being sexist. Conversely, a game can be pretty sexist without being sexualised. Games meant to be sexist (though why someone would aim to do that is beyond me) might be a niche, but you can find plenty of sexist material in games pretty much everywhere. And while I don't have peer reviewed papers on hand to reference (would you even accept that, or just quibble over what they considered sexist?), we could just start going through games ad nauseam if you really want to argue that sexist material is limited to some small corner of gaming.

If you're identifying certain games as "problematic" then you're de facto arguing from a standpoint that would favour them being removed and supplanted with something else.

Says who? I certainly think gaming would be better if there was less of it, but I'm certainly not calling for anything to be done away with completely. Little secret between me and you, but there are plenty of problematic games out there that I still enjoy. Not because of the problematic elements, but in spite of them. I'm perfectly capable of liking something and still admitting that it has some serious flaws.

That's not increasing diversity, that's simply shifting the paradigm closer to your own preferences. An argument that promotes Y by making a case for the inferiority of X is NOT an argument for X and Y to coexist. Isn't that completely, utterly obvious?

Sounds like a false dichotomy to me. See above.

I mis-spoke somewhat there, because I assumed Jim's video was a review, when actually it was a ed/op piece. But without wishing to be too snarky, couldn't the line about "if you don't like it, stick to the stuff you do like" apply to the people complaining about sexualised games?

I suppose if you think me saying that you should find reviewers whose styles of commentary you like is in any way analogous to you telling me to find games I like and stop complaining about the ones I take issue with, then sure. But in only one of these things is someone being limited in their enjoyment of playing games.

But you know what, I'll take that part about complaining back. Go ahead and keep complaining about the reviewers that tackle games from an angle of social criticism. That's your right. But if you want to show that this sort of commentary detracts from gaming, you'll need something more than 'I don't like it'.

Why not simply support the franchises you feel "do it right" by buying their games, and decline to buy the games that you don't like? If enough people did that, the market would change to meet the demand.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that as for-profit businesses, publishers are well and truly speaking the language of money. Buying, or not buying, a game is the strongest message you could possibly send. Sure, they also listen to fan feedback (because future money) and try to avoid controversy or lawsuits (because lost money), but they'll overwhelmingly listen to the people who are handing over the cash. How seriously do you suppose Rockstar took the calls for its depictions of women to be changed, given it's sold in excess of 35 million copies and generated well in excess of $2bn? "Sorry, I can't hear you, due to all this MONEY in my ears!"

To paraphrase something Sleekit posted a while back before dropping off the face of R+P: for gaming to be inclusive, all we need is a diversity of games and the freedom to choose. That's it. Any demands we make of the industry on top of that are simply unrealistic and possibly unfair.

I'm pretty invested in the idea of the medium "growing up", and to allow that to happen we need to step back and stop treating it as a political football.

Because part of being a consumer is giving feedback. If I don't buy something, but don't tell them why I didn't buy it, they're going to have no clue as to what they could do to actually get me to buy the next game. And if they choose to ignore my complaints? Oh well. So long as I don't start threatening illegal stuff on them, I'm well within my right to complain, boycott, whatever.

 

[Batou667]

Sexualised content is not the same as sexist content. A game can have sexualised content without it being sexist. Conversely, a game can be pretty sexist without being sexualised. Games meant to be sexist (though why someone would aim to do that is beyond me) might be a niche, but you can find plenty of sexist material in games pretty much everywhere. And while I don't have peer reviewed papers on hand to reference (would you even accept that, or just quibble over what they considered sexist?), we could just start going through games ad nauseam if you really want to argue that sexist material is limited to some small corner of gaming.

Sure, sexualisation and sexism aren't the same thing, but in practice there's often a large overlap (see: DoA - it's considered sexist largely because of the over-sexualisation).

No, no, I'm not here to quibble. I'm actually genuinely interested in finding out whether sex(ism/ualisation) in games is a pervasive issue, or simply a very over-reported issue. Seems to me that a lot of people are entering the discussion already "primed" to see sexism in every poorly-written plot and every half-assed female NPC, while turning a blind eye to equally hackneyed representations of males. And when the accusations of sexism aren't being applied with broad strokes, it's the same few franchises being publicly crucified ad nauseum - DoA is scarcely even relevant as a franchise these days, Dragon's Crown was a niche game, Duke Forever was crude parody that didn't sell too well. The same, few, well-worn footballs are being kicked around to score points.

A while back you might remember I did an analysis of female representation in games, and true enough, there are fewer female avatar options and far fewer female protagonists. The question of whether this is sexist, or what constitutes sexualisation, is of course much more difficult to "number crunch" as it's essentially subjective. But,

In this thread I had a go at trying to separate female depiction into image and agency

...and obviously it's a matter of opinion, since I had people replying straight away that X character is more active than I thought, or Y character is less attractive than Z, or whatever. So, to get a broader consensus, it would have to get put to a vote or survey of some kind. I'm also hoping to add more examples of female characters to get more "data points" for the grid, as I have a suspicion that the points theoretically ought to clump, representing established character tropes (villainess, sidekick, damsel, protagonist, etc). If you can think of any more female characters feel free to PM them to me, I'm aiming for about 100 before I create a survey.

Cheers

 

[Vault101]

I'd say The Witcher is in this scenario. The female characters are sexualised externally, but internally they're also fleshed-out with back stories and character arcs. But even that isn't enough to please some people, who are willing to throw the game aside merely because externally they wear some revealing clothing, Makes you wonder if the accusations of sexism isn't sometimes just as heavy if not more so on the "anti" side of the situation.

you know what? good for them

no really if they don't want to play it because of that then thats their choice, and a perfectly valid one

because sometimes you know I just get sick of it, and it just kills my motivation to bother with suck a bigass long haul game. "good" characterisation doesn't always cancel it out eather IMO (contrary to what everyone insists) in fact if anything I feel like my intelligence is being insulted even more

[quote/]or have the nerve to be a lesbian.[/quote]
are we talking about actual lesbains or "lesbains as imagined for the male gaze"? because while there is a thin line there's still a distinction

The fact that juvenile fapwank is being described as "sexy" and treated as a genuine attempt to explore sexuality makes the accusation of large swaths of the gamer population being emotionally-stunted manchildren that much more palatable.

while I wouldn't put it in such language [sub/]because I know better than to tempt my dwindling health bar[/sub] I think there is definitely a sliding scale of "maturity" in how sex/sexuality is shown...Wolfenstein The New order of all games seemed to actually aproach it like grown ups

wolfensten!!!

 

[Dragonbums]

I'm all for criticizing/analyzing the work for representations of sexualisation so on and so forth.

But going on to attack the author/writer about it personally doesn't do anyone any favors. Unless of course the person in question has a really bad history of poor characterizations of minorities, sexualities, gender, etc. (Like you keep making anti gay films, don't be surprised when people start calling you an anti-gay person.)

With that being said, when people criticize your product, that doesn't mean they are attacking you. I won't do you good in the entertainment industry taking that route.