Poll: Which is Worse (for Female Characters): Appearance or Actions/Behaviour/Role?

[DEAD34345]

I disagree with the whole concept. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a game that has scantily clad and poorly thought-out female characters, even if they exist solely for men to leer at. What is wrong (or at the very least sad, and indicative of sexism throughout the games industry/society in general) is that this is so common as to pretty much be the norm in video-games as a whole.

The fact that this question is being asked and discussed in this way at all just tells me that people are trying to prevent sexism in completely the wrong way. There are no special rules for what female characters should or should not do in order to be more appropriate (none that don't apply to men too anyway), you don't fight sexism by being more sexist.

 

[ChristopherT]

I agree with those saying the total package is what's important, that looks, personality, setting, story, the rest of the cast, all combine to either work or not. That being said, boiling it all down, ignoring the rest of it, for arguments sake, to me, personality matters more.

However, my vote goes to Appearance, because, I think it's the bigger problem at the moment. We see the character first, and so, judge based on that, and as a gaming society here, I've seen more complaints and discussion on appearance than portrayal. That, being either a gaming problem or a "that's sexist" problem, seems to me what is focused on more, and so, the worse part of it at the moment. Without being able to see past appearance we hamper further insight.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

You can do interesting things with the appearance of a character loose from their actions. Their appearance could totally be out of line with their actions for example, creating an interesting contrast. Or you could design the appearance to surprise and trick the audience.

So the appearance being "in line" with their behaviour is definitely not a must do. It depends on what kind of effect the devs want to create.

In general, the behaviour and writing of a character is the most important thing. It doesn't matter how interestingly you manipulate the appearance of a character if he / she has flat and boring writing.

 

[JimB]

To various degrees we all try to create and project an identity anyway, so there is no 'true,' immutable Self/identity cordoned off from our own and other people's influence.

That's a bit outside the scope of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sentience, and the ability to say, "I am." Bayonetta, or whoever, can only say that within the realm of illusion because she herself is an illusion. All her decisions are made by her creators, and given the specific environment of video game design, I am generally not willing to take as given than a female character's sexualized outfit is intended as a statement about the character rather than an attempt to secure my money through an appeal to my prurience.

My response was largely aimed at the peculiar notion that flirty designs tend to fundamentally reflect negatively on a characters agency and fidelity, and that a design should conform to some arbitrary idea of a 'message.'

True and fair, and I'm enjoying your thoughts so far.

An objectified/sexist design is not an objective thing that exists in a vacuum; it's defined by the context of the work, and then assimilated and interpreted (sometimes matching up to creators' vision, other times not) by players/observers who have their own set of associations to the imagery and themes.

I agree that sexism is not objective, and that a viewer's interpretation can diverge from a creator's intention, but where I disagree is that I don't think that's much of a defense of anything. Sexism can occur by accident, after all...or, well, "accident" is a bad word for the deliberate choice to include anything in a work of fiction, but you get what I mean, right? It can be a problem the creator didn't realize at the time.

As for designs appealing to the lowest common denominator? It's not just the low-brow stuff like Dead Or Alive that are technically exploitative. Perceptions of beauty are skewed across the board, from pulpy fighters to RPGs.

I agree. I thought the specific parameters of this discussion are the either/or choice of dressing skimpily or acting vapid, though.

 

[white_wolf]

Both matter, first impressions count it doesn't matter how capable the character is portrayed in the game if they are or all the girls only are dress like a stripper I find it very hard to believe them. The character needs to be dressed for the role if a male is covered head to toe do the same for the woman whose in the same work if its winter and all the men are in coats don't then give our fem npc, lead, or side kick a short sleeve shirt and a hat because the shirt in the snow defeats the purpose of the hat she'd freeze to death unlike her male sidekicks she needs coat and hat it could be stylish and different from the men if for some reason you need to call her out give it different buttons or a different color then the guys but don't forgo it because she's a girl. If you're on the beach then wear a bikini but have the men wear their swim trunks this makes sense but if they all need to change clothing because they're now going someplace new change her clothing to also fit the same situation.

I can only believe a sexualized fem character when her male character is the same take Haunted for instance both are dressed in leather and sexulized for their roles she's a stripper and he's not much better he's fem eye candy both are warriors and you know it. It works because both are the same he's not more armored and pretty much every badguy we meet is the same all prescribed to the inverse armor theory so there isn't an issue here they're both acting their parts of fighters yet underdressed equally for the part. I can suspend my belief with this. Its much more immersion breaking and harder for me to suspend that disbelief when all the guys are ready for battle and the girl isn't with her battle skirt and crop top showing as much cleavage as they can legally get away with.

Her behavior is also linked to that appearance Miranda from ME2 gave lots of people this discrepancy posing, touching herself for the sole purpose of titillation pissed people off no normal person converses like this even with her backstory people were saying it was too much or too out of place. Jacob and Femshep also had a similar issue where as Fshep will hit on him talk suggestively many more people got turned off and hated Jacob just because fshep was acting like she was in heat around him their behaviors caused players to disengage and go knock it off! You don't want the wrong actions, mannerisms, or voice acting to ruin your game's moments anymore then you should want distracting or improper clothing doing so.

And sometimes its not her look or her behavior that makes it an issue its the male gaze that can take a benign moment and turn it sexual without it needing to be it changes the context of the scene Miranda's ass shots had multiple complaints and brought the maturity and impressions of the game down for some players. The one I hate the most is shower scenes a shower scene for a man can be just that a shower for a woman it can get to be a perv ogle with the male gaze in play or it can be just a normal mundane respectful shower scene without it. Its the context of the situation, male gaze, clothing, and her behavior they need to all be thought out and worked with so if the intent is to make it sexist then you go that way but if you don't intend to do that then don't do it. Having women gamers on your playtesting, quality control, and have them give opinions on the some cut scenes and commercials that you feel might be taken the wrong way will limit accidental moments. Beyond 2 Souls and Last of us both had fem gamers involved in their creation the result great characters no sexualized moments (unless the devs intended those moments so as to move the story forward or provide insight into two characters) and a narrative that allowed both men and women to enjoy the end product.

Sexualized moments, looks, or situations need to be there to move the story forward, provide insight into two or more characters if it can't do that then chances are high it doesn't need to be there its fanservice or titillation and being that it serves no purpose you should probably leave it out.

 

[NihilSinLulz]

I think actions and role in the story/inuniverse (ie context) matter much much more than simply the aesthetic choice of how much skin is showing.

I mean let's face it, its really only context that separates the likes of uber-manly characters like Conan the Barbarian, from a very fit guy wearing just as little in a gay porno.

That said, the aesthetic choice should make sense inunverse. Bayonetta going all naked to summon demons makes sense in her game. Female characters in MMOs gaining bonus defense stats from wearing less clothing is just pandering and stupid.

 

[Darks63]

I can Deal with oversexualization or silly looking outfits if it is balanced out by at least the character being good or at least decent. However if they exist just for fanservice alone then my reaction range from often shake my head in mild contempt to facepalming.

Recently playing and beating Bayonetta was a challenge due to the balance between a decent character and rampant sexualization being out of of wack at times.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

It's the roles they play by a long shot. If a character kicks enough ass in terms of personality/what they do/how they do it, just about anything else can be overlooked, IMO, and it's universal across every sort of character, IMO.

More games need women in the lead, as playable, IMO. If it doesn't happen, this topic won't go away. In the short term, it seems to be getting better for female leads, but we'll see. It was going decently in the 80's, and 90's (especially in the girl power era), and look at where we are now.

Honestly, I don't mind fanservice too much so long as it's balanced with being awesome in general.

 

[Norithics]

To me it feels like the character herself is way more important to general agency issues, because people have varying degrees of agency.

For example, my grandmother is one of the most enabled people I know. She speaks her mind, doesn't give no damns, and never has- old age has only bolstered this. Yet at the same time that she'll tolerate no guff, she also puts on makeup. Every. Single. Day. Even if she's not going to go see anybody that day, she still does it. I've even asked her about it, and she just feels like it's something she needs to do, despite the fact that she doesn't have time or inclination for men. So somebody dressing a certain way is an easy pigeonhole, but the fact is that you can have hangups about anything that contradict the rest of you.

When I think about these issues, I try to think of them in the context of a father. I'm not one, but it puts me in the mindset of being responsible. Would I rather a daughter of mine have heroines who dress conservatively but are terribly written accessories to male characters, or ones that wear irresponsible amounts of not-clothes that nevertheless otherwise display problem-solving, independence and a well-considered viewpoint? Understanding that the world will show my child terrible things at some point in her life, I'd choose the latter, with a stern addition of "the outfit's not what gives them powers! And do the dishes."

 

[Signa]

Actions/role for sure. If a scantily clad female character with a good role/personality was turned into a real person, you'd be admonishing her for what she chose to wear. I can picture a good deal of good female characters getting pissed over that.

If a well dressed lady that was a hollow shell of a character was made real, you'd just be telling a half-brain dead girl that she should take charge of herself. I'm sure that person would say something child-like or stupid like "I'm not allowed to" or "that would make my [male protagonist] unhappy, and why would I want to make him unhappy?"

 

[Paradoxrifts]

It seems to me that the only unforgivable sin that everyone can agree upon is that a female character be considered ordinary.

And heaven forbid that a girl happen to be a just a average looking fuck-up of a human being.

 

[Tanis]

ACTIONS are worse than APPEARANCE.

I'd rather a character look like 'The Amazon' from Dragon's Crown, and act like 'The Amazon'.

Than look like Princess Peach, and act like Princess Peach.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Actions, obviously. You judge people because of their actions, not their appearance.

 

[Phasmal]

Actions I guess cause I sort of understand the desire to make your female characters walking titty-dispensers but the desire to also make them paper-thin not-people is a slightly more disturbing one.

Just write better, fools. Is it so hard to empathise and relate to women?

EDIT: Hold up, shit, wait, let me cover my bases.

THIS POST CONTAINS HYPERBOLE.

... Ok, we're good.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

In books, appearances can be hardly a page long. In movies and games, appearances are there the whole time and never change, so they're easy to get used to.

But the absurdity of how the author or screenwriter uses the woman, that's worse.

 

[144_v1legacy]

But if I meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like

Spoiler: Fyuria

I'm not going to be like "Oh, she's wearing a belt around her tits instead of a shirt, fuck her."

First of all, I should hope not, considering she's probably underage and that would be inappropriate.

Second, you'll never meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like her, because that's not an appropriate dress code in the real world, and smart, cautious, sympathetic strong women dress in a way that doesn't make people think poorly of them.

 

[Playful Pony]

I'm generally not bothered that female characters are a bit sexualized, but then I'm gay and am as prone to drooling over good looking women as anyone. It is definently more important for a character to have a good solid personality and a way of acting that makes sense, but it should also be considered that the way a character dresses can and does say a lot about that character. If she is supposed to be restrained, shy and private you would expect her clothing to reflect that. I would never show clevage in public for example, because that is the kind of person I am.

A character SHOULD look the part and not just talk the talk. Brings me more into the moment when the woman making the heart-felt speech to her fellow space pirates isn't wearing a fishnet for a dress...

But if I meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like

Spoiler: Fyuria

I'm not going to be like "Oh, she's wearing a belt around her tits instead of a shirt, fuck her."

Woa uh... I have to say that I'm firmly in the "actions/behaviour/role before appearance" camp, but that outfit... Actually it's hardly even an outfit, that getup makes your average bikini-wearing beach-goer look like Kenny from South Park. Also it makes me a bit uncomfortable that she kinda looks... Ten.

 

[Fox12]

Well, in truth, the question itself in innately sexist. That's right, I'm gonna be THAT guy .

But seriously, does it matter what form of sexism is worse? That's like arguing about what different forms of racism are worse. Even if one person is less racist than another, it's still racist.

To answer the question though, I would argue that the first examples are, in fact, more sexist. If you write a strong, interesting, independent female character, and then you dress her up like a stripper, that's in some ways even more demeaning. JRPG's and western fantasy games seem particularly keen on this. In essence you're taking a good character and dragging them through the mud.

While the second examples on the list are bad, they seem to be the result of bad writing, and not an active attempt to demean women in any way. Zelda is actually a strong character on occasion. The first examples, however, seem to be more proactive in their blatant sexism. The female characters in question are sexed up to appeal to an audience of adolescent men, and are basically walking fanservice. At some point a person had to make a concious decision to dress these characters this way. Some argue that these characters are just comfortable with their sexuality, but I don't take that seriously. You can have characters who are comfortable with their sexuality, and handle the subject of sexuality with maturity, without having the characters become fanservice.

Surely an idealistic, brave and competent person knows that a key to achieving their goals is to not give a toss what anyone thinks of how they express themselves?

I tend to agree with this argument when talking about real people, but with fictional characters I don't think it holds water. Bayonetta, for instance, is not a person and cannot express herself because she has no self to express. Someone else is making that expression for her, and given how often the argument is made that corporations are required to sell sex because that is what the market wants, I don't think we can fairly assume a female character's appearance as an expression of her sexuality is intended to make a comment about the character rather than to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Pretty much sums up my view on the subject.

 

[Mikeyfell]

But if I meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like

Spoiler: Fyuria

I'm not going to be like "Oh, she's wearing a belt around her tits instead of a shirt, fuck her."

First of all, I should hope not, considering she's probably underage and that would be inappropriate.

Second, you'll never meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like her, because that's not an appropriate dress code in the real world, and smart, cautious, sympathetic strong women dress in a way that doesn't make people think poorly of them.

First she's actually 86 years old, so she's totally legal. (Hurray Syrium lifespans!)

Second that question is the point of the thread, do you judge based on looks or actions, there's room enough in the world for both sides of the argument. And besides she's a rouge type character it wouldn't make sense for her to wear anything bulkier, would it?

 

[Robert Marrs]

I am leaning more towards appearance. I find it much more distasteful to see scantily clad women in games for no reason other than showing some skin. Its not always bad but it rarely relates to the game or context. On the other hand having shallow or crappy characters who only exist to push the plot forward or are poorly stereotyped happens to literally every kind of character out there. Its not just exclusive to female characters.