Sexism in gameplay

[Lovely Mixture]

In Ico, you are a boy who is leading a girl by the hand through a maze of a temple because there is absolutely nothing she can do to help herself. She can't jump or climb without being instructed to, she can't defend herself or even hide, and she can't help you figure anything out. She's a mindless puppet you are literally dragging through the game who has no purpose except being an extra burden to watch out for.



Not only that, the guy from Team Ico leading the development of The Last Guardian [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Guardian#Development] stated that the reason they're going after a male protagonist in the game instead of a female (to break their boy's club streak) is because girls are weaker than boys and might not be able to tackle the physical labors the game would put her through. And not only that, some parts of the game would feature her climbing up stuff, and that would be terribly awkward to be seeing up her skirt during those times. Because God forbid she just wear trousers, and I never would have guessed that in a game where the main character has teamed up with and rides a giant griffin there would be some unusual or fantastical feats of physical prowess. You need some degree of realism to keep that giant griffin in check, amirite?

You wouldn't catch an American or European developer saying something like that in a million years. And if they did say it, they'd be promptly removed from the project and their studio would begin cleaning up the mess as soon as possible. And yet it came out of Japan, just last year. Not that I'm saying everything that comes out of Japan is sexist, however if I had to put every part of the industry on a spectrum of "sexism," I think most Japanese developers would land themselves on the more "sexist" end.

Anyway, now to your challenge of finding games that have sexism in gameplay. Well Ico as I mentioned, there isn't really anything you can call dragging a completely incapable female character throughout a game by the hand except sexist. As cool as the environments and storytelling might be, you really can't get around how messed-up that is. Also, and I don't know if it's true, but I heard in the early Pokemon games that featured female pokemon, the females always had slightly lower stats than the male pokemon of the same level. And...that's all I've got for now. Toodles~

In Ico, you are a boy who is leading a girl by the hand through a maze of a temple because there is absolutely nothing she can do to help herself. She can't jump or climb without being instructed to, she can't defend herself or even hide, and she can't help you figure anything out. She's a mindless puppet you are literally dragging through the game who has no purpose except being an extra burden to watch out for.

Well Ico as I mentioned, there isn't really anything you can call dragging a completely incapable female character throughout a game by the hand except sexist.

No no no, Ico is not sexist. Two children, caring for each other is not sexist. And you have not done your research on the game (are you Sarkeesian by chance?)

1. Without her you cannot unlock the doors, ergo without her Ico is trapped.
2. Losing her results in a game over, she is the ONE thing keeping the castle from being petrified (such a useless burden eh?)
3. She is frail and confused for a reason, she has been literally imprisoned by her mother for her entire life in an abandoned castle and IN A CAGE. She is understandably terrified of the shadow sprites and has no idea that there is an world outside the castle.
4. There are several huge plot heavy moments in which she acts on her own accord and helps Ico.


Shadow of the Colossus is not sexist, there is no problem with a person risking his/her life for a loved one REGARDLESS of gender. If Shadow of the Colossus is sexist, so is the story that your avatar comes from.

Their justification on the Last Guardian bit? Yes, I think that's sexist or at least incredibly short-sighted and stupid, I'm disappointed in them for that. But it does not retroactively make their previous games sexist, that's not how things work.

 

[Lilani]

No no no, Ico is not sexist. Two children, caring for each other is not sexist. And you have not done your research on the game (are you Sarkeesian by chance?)

1. Without her you cannot unlock the doors, ergo without her Ico is trapped.
2. Losing her results in a game over, she is the ONE thing keeping the castle from being petrified (such a useless burden eh?)
3. She is frail and confused for a reason, she has been literally imprisoned by her mother for her entire life in an abandoned castle and IN A CAGE. She is understandably terrified of the shadow sprites.
4. There are several huge plot heavy moments in which she acts on her own accord and helps Ico.

Shadow of the Colossus is not sexist, there is no problem with a person risking his/her life for a loved one REGARDLESS of gender. If Shadow of the Colossus is sexist, so is the story that your avatar comes from.

Their justification on the Last Guardian bit? Yes, I think that's sexist or at least incredibly short-sighted and stupid, I'm disappointed in them for that. But it does not retroactively make their previous games sexist, that's not how things work.

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get but probably 1/4 through the game before putting it down, and I haven't gone back since. Yes, I understand how two children caring for each other during an adventure is cute and compelling, but that isn't what I experienced. All I remember is dragging this useless little fucker all over a stupid temple while doing just about everything for her except breathing. All those other nuances I didn't know about, and I might care about her greater role in the grand scheme if she wasn't such a helpless little shit who won't even run away when she's in danger. I don't care if she has no way to fight, but surely a bit of running without being dragged along isn't beyond her abilities.

Also, pretty much all of the roles you described could just as easily be filled by a magic staff or any other inanimate object. Holding up the castle through magical powers? Totally sounds like something a magic staff can do to me. And it wouldn't be the first time shadow people went after a magic object in a story. And some staves have been known to do things "on their own" to help protagonists at key points.

Also, if the rationale behind having a male protagonist in Last Guardian is that a girl couldn't or shouldn't be able to do it, then yes. That does make it sexist in a way. "A male character just seemed to fit best" is a lot better of a reason for having a male protagonist than "Girls are weak and it's awkward looking up their skirts."

 

[Boogie Knight]

I got the white Assassin's Creed Vita because as a whole it had more value than getting the regular Vita to play Persona 4: The Golden. However, I did play a marginal amount of Assassin's Creed: Liberation and I thought it was a tad curious that playing dress up was a core mechanic. Don't get me wrong, swapping out guises in a game that theoretically is about sneaking about and stabbing sounds like a good idea. Yet, the fact that this mechanic was introduced with the first female Assassin protagonist made me scratch my head a little. May not be sexism since the "don't bomb us" disclaimer insists that it was made by a multicultural team of many beliefs and such, but did anyone have a chat about how it might look bad?

 

[Batou667]

Always will? That doesn't necessarily follow. I think at this point in our society's development that equality is all but inevitable. Nothing short of some ultra-conservative or religious cultural revolution would get women back in the kitchen.

Umm, yes, it always will, unless you can forsee a future where achievement, aggression, ambition, logical thinking and individuality, all hallmarks of "male thinking" suddenly are adverse to success.

Ah, but now we're not talking about sex any more, we're talking gender roles. I think that gender roles can, and will, change, and at any rate the qualities you listed aren't exclusively male.

 

[MagunBFP]

I got the white Assassin's Creed Vita because as a whole it had more value than getting the regular Vita to play Persona 4: The Golden. However, I did play a marginal amount of Assassin's Creed: Liberation and I thought it was a tad curious that playing dress up was a core mechanic. Don't get me wrong, swapping out guises in a game that theoretically is about sneaking about and stabbing sounds like a good idea. Yet, the fact that this mechanic was introduced with the first female Assassin protagonist made me scratch my head a little. May not be sexism since the "don't bomb us" disclaimer insists that it was made by a multicultural team of many beliefs and such, but did anyone have a chat about how it might look bad?

So a good game mechanic (and I'll take your word for it as I haven't played it at all) should have not been included because they were introducing a female character? Or possibily they should have delayed the female character until the next release after the dress up mechanic was implemented... don't you think then people would be saying a) if the female assassin came first that the developers saw the female assassin and decided she needs to play dressup? SEXIST! or b) if the dressup came first that people would say the developers saw dressup and thought "girls like to play dressup? SEXIST!

It's pretty much a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing. The developer might not be sexist, but as soon as someone "sees" sexism it really doesn't matter what they intended or were thinking, they just get the label, and we get yet another "is this sexism?" threads

 

[Boogie Knight]

No no no, Ico is not sexist. Two children, caring for each other is not sexist. And you have not done your research on the game (are you Sarkeesian by chance?)

1. Without her you cannot unlock the doors, ergo without her Ico is trapped.
2. Losing her results in a game over, she is the ONE thing keeping the castle from being petrified (such a useless burden eh?)
3. She is frail and confused for a reason, she has been literally imprisoned by her mother for her entire life in an abandoned castle and IN A CAGE. She is understandably terrified of the shadow sprites and has no idea that there is an world outside the castle.
4. There are several huge plot heavy moments in which she acts on her own accord and helps Ico.


(not sure if I accidentally undid the quotes thing)

Okay, this really bugs me when an individual argues that something is not sexist by throwing up a series of bullet points which read waaaay too much into something. Especially the "they're useful" argument. Slaves are useful, but that doesn't make the institution any less demeaning and dehumanizing. However, I think there are people who are extremely thin skinned and are also professional agitators so they will see sexism/racism/homophobia in otherwise innocuous things. Not waving a banner for women's rights doesn't make one sexist, nor does having a female character who is fragile and vulnerable.

The permanently offended will look at any fictional character of their group identity and raise cane if that character doesn't project the desired strong image. Bluntly, I think this speaks more to their shallow nature and inability to face insecurities. The single greatest cure to the -isms in fiction is good characters with layers and depth of all races, colors, and creeds. However, the single greatest obstacle to that cure is not entrenched bigotry but the hard reality that good characterization is so rare, because that kind of talent is inherently rare.

Further, from what I've played of the Team Ico games, they're minimalist fairy tales. They're flights of fancy, and it may not be the best vehicle for communicating nuanced characters because it uses readily available archetypes as a shorthand. Might theses archetypes be less than forward thinking? Oh hell yes, but damning the games for not advancing a social/political agenda is not where the battle needs to be fought. And people who want to defend these games to think more deeply rather than come up with lame arguments in the futile effort of proving a negative.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get but probably 1/4 through the game before putting it down,

Then perhaps re-assess your "knowledge" of it?

To be perfectly honest, I didn't get but probably 1/4 through the game before putting it down, and I haven't gone back since. Yes, I understand how two children caring for each other during an adventure is cute and compelling, but that isn't what I experienced. All I remember is dragging this useless little fucker all over a stupid temple while doing just about everything for her except breathing. All those other nuances I didn't know about, and I might care about her greater role in the grand scheme if she wasn't such a helpless little shit who won't even run away when she's in danger. I don't care if she has no way to fight, but surely a bit of running without being dragged along isn't beyond her abilities.

It's not supposed to be a cute adventure, it's a rather grim story of two children who have been abandoned. One who is young but has partially lived his life, another who older but has been left alone her WHOLE life. It was frustrating? Yeah that's the way it would be, you're in charge of two children.

Also, pretty much all of the roles you described could just as easily be filled by a magic staff or any other inanimate object. Holding up the castle through magical powers? Totally sounds like something a magic staff can do to me. And it wouldn't be the first time shadow people went after a magic object in a story. And some staves have been known to do things "on their own" to help protagonists at key points.

And? It doesn't change Yorda's importance to the story, it doesn't change that she's a character. You don't have a magic staff or magic object, you have her and her power alone and you're relying on it. Yorda isn't an object, you call out to her and keep her safe, you don't just pick her up and put her down.

Also, if the rationale behind having a male protagonist in Last Guardian is that a girl couldn't or shouldn't be able to do it, then yes. That does make it sexist in a way. "A male character just seemed to fit best" is a lot better of a reason for having a male protagonist than "Girls are weak and it's awkward looking up their skirts."

You are just repeating yourself, I told you I agree with it.

Okay, this really bugs me when an individual argues that something is not sexist by throwing up a series of bullet points which read waaaay too much into something.

Seriously? I'm reading too deep? You're gonna pull that card?

Especially the "they're useful" argument. Slaves are useful, but that doesn't make the institution any less demeaning and dehumanizing.

Sure? But how do you argue she's a slave?
And she's not just "useful" she's core to progression of the game, big difference there. And there's nothing to suggest Yorda is a slave.

However, I think there are people who are extremely thin skinned and are also professional agitators so they will see sexism/racism/homophobia in otherwise innocuous things. Not waving a banner for women's rights doesn't make one sexist, nor does having a female character who is fragile and vulnerable.

The permanently offended will look at any fictional character of their group identity and raise cane if that character doesn't project the desired strong image. Bluntly, I think this speaks more to their shallow nature and inability to face insecurities. The single greatest cure to the -isms in fiction is good characters with layers and depth of all races, colors, and creeds. However, the single greatest obstacle to that cure is not entrenched bigotry but the hard reality that good characterization is so rare, because that kind of talent is inherently rare.

Yes ok that's valid. What's your point?

Further, from what I've played of the Team Ico games, they're minimalist fairy tales. They're flights of fancy, and it may not be the best vehicle for communicating nuanced characters because it uses readily available archetypes as a shorthand. Might theses archetypes be less than forward thinking? Oh hell yes, but damning the games for not advancing a social/political agenda is not where the battle needs to be fought. And people who want to defend these games to think more deeply rather than come up with lame arguments in the futile effort of proving a negative.

So, my argument is meaningless because I'm not defending something that helps the socio/political agenda? Because Ico is minimalistic, it doesn't deserve defending? Because it's minimalistic, you don't think it's worth defending? And I fail to see how my arguments are "lame", I've addressed his points, and he's admitted to not playing more than 25% of the game.

Not deep enough for you? What high-horse are you on?

 

[MagunBFP]

WOW!!! Sexist much? Achievement, Aggression, Ambition, Logical Thinking and Individuality are all male qualities?

You ever heard anyone attribute them as female qualities?

I really hope I'm missing some kind of subtext/sarcasm font here because otherwise you're suggesting that there are no aggressive women? That there are no ambitious, or logical women? That all women are just sheep and lack individuality?

Funny, I tell that all the time to people who assert up and down that "Men and women have differences and we need to accept that!", but it never goes over well.

As we are so often reminded anything a man can do a woman can do as well, if success relies on these qualities and women can't be successful because these qualities are gender-reliant then you are clearly making a case for a massive difference between the genders.

Except I'm not the one that believes that. It's the "Men and women are different and we need to accept that!" broad brush painters that tout that philosophy.

I'll admit I've never heard them described as female qualities, but neither do I associate them specicifically with males... as you may have noticed I just refer to them as qualities. Some guys have them, some women have them, some guys don't, some women don't. Saying that these are exclusively the domain of men is sexist, kinda no two ways about it.

The rest of your response sounds like you're agreeing with me... women can embody these "male" qualities, you do believe that anything men can do women can do as well, and that there are people who have incorrctly come to the conclusion that mentally and emotionally men and women are not capable of the same things (physical differences are a self-evident truth, so physically its hard to argue against) So I'm going to assume we're on the same page, Yay us! (I like it when people agree with me).

 

[Batou667]

I've not heard yet the "Men and women are fundamentally different mentally!!" crowd attribute them to female traits. Have you?

The "men and women are fundamentally different mentally" crowd can sod off, frankly, and that applies equally to the EvoPsych bigots as it does to the "women are more NURTURING and CARING and therefore SUPERIOR" subset of feminists.

Men and women are different. Some of this may be mentally hard-wired. A lot of it is social. Certainly there's enough wriggle-room for women to be heads of state and men to be nurses or nannies and both be perfectly OK and not some harbinger of The End Times.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

No no no, Ico is not sexist. Two children, caring for each other is not sexist. And you have not done your research on the game (are you Sarkeesian by chance?)

1. Without her you cannot unlock the doors, ergo without her Ico is trapped.
2. Losing her results in a game over, she is the ONE thing keeping the castle from being petrified (such a useless burden eh?)
3. She is frail and confused for a reason, she has been literally imprisoned by her mother for her entire life in an abandoned castle and IN A CAGE. She is understandably terrified of the shadow sprites and has no idea that there is an world outside the castle.
4. There are several huge plot heavy moments in which she acts on her own accord and helps Ico.

And despite your four bullet points, the girl is still entirely dependent on the boy to even get her to move and she is utterly incapable of doing basic things such as running away when monsters come at her. See, I get what you are saying and I think ICO is kind of a good game (I found it a bit dull, but I see why people like it) but that doesn't excuse the terrible handling of the female lead and the fact that throughout gameplay she exhibits no individuality and is little more than an object the male lead needs in order to escape (honestly, as far as gameplay is concerned she might as well have been an item called "the key" that you had to pick up and lug around).

Whatever or not it is intentional or unintentional sexism can be discussed, but make no mistake about just how terrible the girl is in terms of gender study.

I do take offense from the latter half of your post though. I am not a "professional agitator" or "permanently offended" and you perfectly mirror the mentality that JudgeGame posted about [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.399636-Critics-Ruin-Video-Games-Good] just two days ago (link to the article he refers to here [http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/?p=8393]). A discussion about the potential (unintended) sexism in games in general or a single game in particular does not mean that we are "offended" or that we hate gaming, only that we see a problem in how women are portrayed in games. We want to talk about this because we love games and want to feel like we are a part of the community. But by brushing our concerns off as unfounded and us as "permanently offended", you are only demonstrating just how closed and isolationist the gaming community can be. You don't have to agree with us but the least you can do is acknowledge that we have the right to our personal experience and a right to express that experience without getting slandered or dismissed out of hand.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

snip

Boogie Knight removed the quotes tags from my quote for some reason, I'm the one who made those bullet points. Everything else is his/her own.

And despite your four bullet points, the girl is still entirely dependent on the boy to even get her to move and she is utterly incapable of doing basic things such as running away when monsters come at her.

And I've explained why that is the case, a person being helpless is not grounds for saying that they are filling a sexist role.
If you're arguing if she's "too helpless." Then I'd say it's arbitrary.

and the fact that throughout gameplay she exhibits no individuality

Which makes her role in the story all more powerful when she does take action on her own.

and is little more than an object the male lead needs in order to escape (honestly, as far as gameplay is concerned she might as well have been an item called "the key" that you had to pick up and lug around).

If you look at it purely from a gameplay perspective sure, but then you could just replace all the characters with blocks and be done with it. She's a character, he's a character, they rely on each other to escape.

but that doesn't excuse the terrible handling of the female lead
.......

Whatever or not it is intentional or unintentional sexism can be discussed, but make no mistake about just how terrible the girl is in terms of gender study.

Whether she's a good case for gender study or how well she handles as a female lead is not my argument. I'm merely arguing that it's not sexist, and the flaws of seeing certain things as sexist when you cherry pick.

 

[Cheesepower5]

He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

 

[Lovely Mixture]

He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Yes, but you would agree that there is a "right way" to argue right? I like valid criticism, it makes argument more interesting.

But what I see a lot of critics do (even those that I respect) is omit information (either intentionally or inadvertently) that refutes their claims. And (from what I've seen) it's most usually when they are making claims of sexism, racism, and even fascism.

Anita does it, Moviebob does it, Roger Ebert does it now and then, anti-defamation practitioners do it.

 

[Cheesepower5]

He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Yes, but you would agree that there is a "right way" to argue right? I like valid criticism, it makes argument more interesting.

But what I see a lot of critics do (even those that I respect) is omit information (either intentionally or inadvertently) that refutes their claims. And (from what I've seen) it's most usually when they are making claims of sexism, racism, and even fascism.

Anita does it, Moviebob does it, Roger Ebert does it now and then, anti-defamation practitioners do it.

That was actually aimed at Gethsemani and you sort of ninja'd me, but whatever, I'll bite.

It's probably human nature to omit information like that. I highly doubt Roger Ebert, Anita Sarkeesian or whomever actively goes and thinks "I think X is in the wrong, but Y goes against my view, so let's pretend Y never happened." It's just a subconscious thing we all do in some way, in order to affirm our own views. And of course, anyone trying to claim games are wahtever -ism of the day will run into hindrance. It is very difficult to definitively say one game is that, let alone the whole medium. It doesn't mean that games are never sexist, or that they never can be.

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want. If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

That was actually aimed at Gethsemani and you sort of ninja'd me, but whatever, I'll bite.

Oh lol. Dang it man, I checked the timestamp to make sure. I hope I didn't seem overzealous in that case.

It's probably human nature to omit information like that. I highly doubt Roger Ebert, Anita Sarkeesian or whomever actively goes and thinks "I think X is in the wrong, but Y goes against my view, so let's pretend Y never happened." It's just a subconscious thing we all do in some way, in order to affirm our own views.

Huh. I don't know if that's a more positive or negative view of humanity compared to mine.

I think what you're saying makes sense, but I think justifying it like that ignores the problem. People should do research, they should question their own views (as painful as it may be, even for myself).

And of course, anyone trying to claim games are wahtever -ism of the day will run into hindrance. It is very difficult to definitively say one game is that, let alone the whole medium. It doesn't mean that games are never sexist, or that they never can be.

Well I certainly hope no one is making that claim, and they keep the open mind.

 

[Lilani]

Then perhaps re-assess your "knowledge" of it?

I wouldn't finish a book if got 1/4 of the way through and wasn't enjoying it. Does that mean I am wrong because I haven't finished it? Is it my fault the author failed to connect with me in that time? The beginning of a story is supposed to lay the groundwork for the middle and end. To set the rules and get you engaged to see things through to the end. I was not engaged at all by the beginning. If getting to the end meant dragging that useless thing to the end, I wasn't going to have it.

It's not supposed to be a cute adventure, it's a rather grim story of two children who have been abandoned. One who is young but has partially lived his life, another who older but has been left alone her WHOLE life. It was frustrating? Yeah that's the way it would be, you're in charge of two children.

Again, I didn't feel like I was in charge of two children. I felt like I was in charge of one child and a sandbag.

And? It doesn't change Yorda's importance to the story, it doesn't change that she's a character. You don't have a magic staff or magic object, you have her and her power alone and you're relying on it. Yorda isn't an object, you call out to her and keep her safe, you don't just pick her up and put her down.

But the fact that you can replace her with an object and have the result be the same says a lot about her character, don't you think? I can't think of any story I've enjoyed where that would work, or where I would want that to happen at all. And if we're talking about a story about two children, it should be even less so. Any time you've got a child whose role and impact on the story would remain the same if replaced by an object, you've got some serious characterization issues. You haven't just missed the mark, you've gone over the fence and into the next county.

Also, if the rationale behind having a male protagonist in Last Guardian is that a girl couldn't or shouldn't be able to do it, then yes. That does make it sexist in a way. "A male character just seemed to fit best" is a lot better of a reason for having a male protagonist than "Girls are weak and it's awkward looking up their skirts."

You are just repeating yourself, I told you I agree with it.

I thought you had said just because the creators are sexist doesn't mean the product is, and I was responding to that.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

He is just as right to. His opinion that ICO isn't sexist as you are that it is. The people who've been saying anything can be seen as sexist are right. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but it shouldn't be accusations. You are not being slandered or dismissed out of hand (he's taking the time to argue, after all.)

Lovely Mixture certainly isn't dismissing it out of hand, but Boogie Knights more or less is by saying that anyone who calls sexism is "permanently offended" or a "professional agitator". If the discussion is on the level that Lovely Mixture keeps it, where we discuss the parts that might be sexist without resorting to ad hominems, it is on the level I want it to be.

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want. If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves.

Here's the problem though: I loved The Witcher, despite its' "sex cards". I loved the Hitman games, despite their insistence on putting strippers and prostitutes everywhere for no good reason. I've liked many games despite how they've portrayed women. That's why I, and many others, speak up about what we perceive as sexism in games: Because we want to make these games even better and more appealing to even more people. We don't want to bash Team ICO, IO Interactive or CD Projekt Red, we want to start a discussion so that they get a chance to look at areas that might be improved.

In the end, the developers decide what they want to put in a game. That doesn't mean that we, as consumers, can't discuss what the developers should do with the product they want us to buy.

EDIT: Also, I won't be responding to Lovely Mixture since Lilani is already having the same discussion with him and it wouldn't be nice to him to force him to have it twice simultaneously.

 

[FavouriteDream]

To all the feminists, boob-lovers or whatever: Play what appeals to you. If nothing does, don't play or make it. Not all games need big DD tat-tas and not all games need perfect feminist role-model, I don't think any games NEED anything, people can make what they want.

I'm not a feminist, although I am a boob lover (who isn't?) but I just wanted to point out that this line of rhetoric isn't very valid because all it is doing is side stepping a perceived issue. It's almost like saying to an African American in the '60s to just go to establishments that let them shop there and to ignore the ones that don't. I realise that this is a horrible analogy because no one is being physically hurt here - but if people think there is a social inequality being portrayed in an aspect of our culture they should be allowed to comment on it and to seek change. Telling them to just suck it up and play the games that aren't sexist isn't really a point worth making.

If anyone feels something needs to be done in the games industry, they need to find like-minded people and do it themselves

But there is nothing wrong with voicing concerns over the way things are portrayed in video games. This isn't about feminists wanting to only ever play games where gender equality is rampart - it is about people being concerned about the way the gaming industry as a whole is portraying females. I think in suggesting they just make their own games that appeal to their needs instead of asking for change in other games is missing the point a little.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Lovely Mixture certainly isn't dismissing it out of hand, but Boogie Knights more or less is by saying that anyone who calls sexism is "permanently offended" or a "professional agitator". If the discussion is on the level that Lovely Mixture keeps it, where we discuss the parts that might be sexist without resorting to ad hominems, it is on the level I want it to be.

Yeah, there's a degree to which anyone can reasonably be upset at something they find unfortunate implications in. But you still have to accept that some people won't find it offensive or won't see the implications.

Here's the problem though: I loved The Witcher, despite its' "sex cards". I loved the Hitman games, despite their insistence on putting strippers and prostitutes everywhere for no good reason. I've liked many games despite how they've portrayed women. That's why I, and many others, speak up about what we perceive as sexism in games: Because we want to make these games even better and more appealing to even more people. We don't want to bash Team ICO, IO Interactive or CD Projekt Red, we want to start a discussion so that they get a chance to look at areas that might be improved.

In the end, the developers decide what they want to put in a game. That doesn't mean that we, as consumers, can't discuss what the developers should do with the product they want us to buy.

EDIT: Also, I won't be responding to Lovely Mixture since Lilani is already having the same discussion with him and it wouldn't be nice to him to force him to have it twice simultaneously.

I can understand that. It's natural, as a consumer, to have to put up with things you don't like to get the things you do. I'm not a fan of obnoxious, out of place fanservice shots either, but I'll put up with that or other minor gripes to get an enjoyable experience. I'm glad you're not trying to outright bash the games, but the fact is movement won't happen without someone dedicated enough to make it. (In games, a lot more than just one person, actually.)

I don't mean to tell you to not be offended, I just feel there are more effective ways to make games the way you want them than trying to convince everyone to get offended on your behalf. I suppose I should be the last person to tell someone they should do something instead of complain, though, I'm not a model of initiative either.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Also also: "But the thing is video games are special because of their interactivity". No. All art is to be judged by the same standard.

But art isn't really considered entertainment. Games were primarily entertainment. In that way, games are absolutely sexist on both sides.

I don't think that games should be judged by an artistic standard first. They didn't start out as art - this particular consideration is recent, and I think it's happening because gamers want the hobby to be looked upon differently.
The Modern Museum of Art has or had a their own display with their own critera for judging which games are considered artistic.

I think that we're in for a ton of crappy games if we start considering what games are good based on art. I also think that sexism in video games will get worse whether or not we think of games as entertainment or art. I think that's a human thing.