Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[Shadowstar38]

And that's my hope for the future of games.
More shirtless elven men.

I guess I could fap to that if I had to. Count me in.

 

[scorptatious]

I'm all for strong and well developed female characters in games, at the end of the day however, I'm a guy, and I'm perfectly fine with sexy characters.

But yeah, there is such thing as too much, and characters like Ivy are a bit too much.

Of course, if it were a game like the Disgaea series, which likes to use sexuality for laughs, such as Laharl's weakness towards voluptuous women, then I'm fine with over-sexualized characters.

 

[King Zeal]

arguing that the game doesn't need top heavy women in stilettos doesn't amount ot anything but personal griping. Games don't need a lot of things that they end up saddled with, from QTE, to bland as dirt grim protagonists, to DLC. Rather then just complain that this specific example of something over used is somehow unique in not being needed, a better method would be to understand why it is included in the first place and try to use that to determine how to encourage the likelihood of it being used less.

Those things don't equate, though. There's a difference between a gameplay element to a exploitative design element. Comparing skimpy women to QTEs doesn't match up. One is a gameplay experience--another is a characterization tool.

Also, if someone understands why something was included, does that mean they now have the right to ask that it be used less?

As someone else in the thread said, if the game doesn't appeal to you to the point you don't buy it, that is fine for you, but that means your opinion on it means as much as a vegetarian's opinion on the quality of KFC chicken. At that point you aren't the audience, so no one selling the product will care too much what you have to say.

That argument doesn't work either, because people who would LIKE to be customers, but are excluded for whatever reason, have as much right to request a change. What you're claiming is like saying that Black people wouldn't have the right to ask that actors not do minstrel shows in Blackface, because they "aren't the target audience".

Furthermore, "Don't Like, Don't Buy" isn't a foolproof solution. Unless you have complaints to go with WHY you didn't buy a certain thing, marketing groups will have no incentive to find the real reason you don't want it. They can make up whatever reason they want to--kind of like how Hollywood decided that "female superheroes don't sell" after both Catwoman and Elektra flopped.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

The 13-year old version of sexy (i.e. BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS ASS ASS BOOBS sex? eww) is bad.

"Adult" sexy is fine as long as it's classy and not too overused.

I don't know... I stopped being a teenager some time ago, and I still quite like BOOBS BOOBS BOOBS ASS ASS BOOBS. Which might also be my new favorite phrase. Thanks for that.

That said, I do grow tired of it. I used to play LoL a lot, and off the top of my head, I can only think of one female character who was wearing more than a really skimpy bikini: Lux.

 

[runic knight]

arguing that the game doesn't need top heavy women in stilettos doesn't amount ot anything but personal griping. Games don't need a lot of things that they end up saddled with, from QTE, to bland as dirt grim protagonists, to DLC. Rather then just complain that this specific example of something over used is somehow unique in not being needed, a better method would be to understand why it is included in the first place and try to use that to determine how to encourage the likelihood of it being used less.

Those things don't equate, though. There's a difference between a gameplay element to a exploitative design element. Comparing skimpy women to QTEs doesn't match up. One is a gameplay experience--another is a characterization tool.

Also, if someone understands why something was included, does that mean they now have the right to ask that it be used less?

One is a gameplay element choice, the other an ascetic one. In regard to what a game "needs", neither are needed. That was my point, that arguing that any one element is needed is a pointless endeavor, when over the entire game, there are countless not "needed" any more then another, yet are included.

It isn't a matter of wanting something used more or less, but whether something has the right to be used at all. I ask you to look at the first post and the responses, tell me, are they not making arguments about what should and should not be used in games?

As said before, I don't mind if someone doesn't like the use of sexualization, after all there are enough games out there that don't and nothing stopping new games from being made without it. I just think the question of if they should at all to be overly simple and sort of selfishly asked. Yes, they should be able to use sexualizing, same as any other medium. Arguments about how much and to what extent are related, but quickly devolve into individual personal taste, which should never be the measure of if product is made. If it doesn't appeal to you, that is fine, so long as it does appeal to enough of an audience to support it's creation.

As someone else in the thread said, if the game doesn't appeal to you to the point you don't buy it, that is fine for you, but that means your opinion on it means as much as a vegetarian's opinion on the quality of KFC chicken. At that point you aren't the audience, so no one selling the product will care too much what you have to say.

That argument doesn't work either, because people who would LIKE to be customers, but are excluded for whatever reason-

Stop, right there. Sick to death of this bullshit, so need to stop it right here. No one is being excluded from any game. People are opting out based on personal preferences, and that is well their right to do. No one is forcing them to buy the product, and there are others out there for them to buy that may better suit their taste. But do not insult my intelligence by telling me that an individual's personal choice to not buy a game is in any way excluding them. It isn't any more then a chinese food place is excluding me by not selling hamburgers. Or a burger joint is excluding a vegetarian. Exclusion requires a force or effort to deny someone against their will, not the person choosing to not buy it themselves because they dislike something about it. Games are made to meet demand with traits and design shaped to meet that demand. They are voluntarily bought and played and nothing in the game denies certain people from playing or checks to see who is or is not fir to play. That some games appeal more to some people over others is not exclusion, no matter how it is spun. A person selling a red painted stick is not excluding anyone from buying it just because some people may not like the color.

- have as much right to request a change. What you're claiming is like saying that Black people wouldn't have the right to ask that actors not do minstrel shows in Blackface, because they "aren't the target audience".

The right to ask? Yes, they have as much opinion as anyone does on anything. Please don't misunderstand my stance here, the point I was arguing was that the people making the product don't have to listen, and likely wont listen to non-paying customers nearly as much as paying ones.
Your example here highlights that pretty well though. How long did it take for blackface to fade in media? Well, about the time that the use of it threatened profit margins of the people making the product, or was less profitable then some other product out there. Now its use would likely harm profits, except when used for audiences that want it, like the DBZ abridged that references and uses it for parody.
I'll say it again, it is not you don't have the right to complain, merely you have no more or less right then anyone else, and if you aren't affecting the profit of the product providers, they are less likely to listen to you.

Furthermore, "Don't Like, Don't Buy" isn't a foolproof solution. Unless you have complaints to go with WHY you didn't buy a certain thing, marketing groups will have no incentive to find the real reason you don't want it. They can make up whatever reason they want to--kind of like how Hollywood decided that "female superheroes don't sell" after both Catwoman and Elektra flopped.

I never said it was foolproof, merely the only fair option one can do in a free market. After all, this thread is about is gaming should do something. We shouldn't be the ones who determine that based on our own personal ideas of right and wrong regarding sexualizing. Oh, and it wasn't just a "don't like, don't buy", it was saying that if you don't like and don't buy, don't expect the trends to change or listen to you.
And you are right, they probably should seek out why people don't buy their product, but I imagine they have a hard time listening to small voices from atop a pile of money of the customers they already serve and meet the demand of. Yeah, it sucks they blame the female roles for the shitty movies/games they made, but there is a confirmation bias there when they look at movies from x-men to avengers and see the mountains of money made. At that point I can't imagine they care about what didn't work so much as about capturing what currently does work. Games are often the same way, as the trends show in gaming from the platformer flood in the 90's to the dirty brown chest high wall shooters of the 2000's to the open world trends of today. They don't worry about why things failed nearly as much as they try to emulate what did and does work. That is why I said they don't care about what the non-paying customer says nearly as much as the ones who do pay. I wont argue it is right, as my opinion is that it is short sighted and stupid, but I will argue that it is at least part of the reason why so few care you or him or anyone specifically doesn't like when they use skimpy costumes or sexualized characters.

 

[Candidus]

The more sexualization the better. I think DoA 5, Dragon's Crown, Senran Kagura and similar games are excellent examples of the level I prefer. KoF is not without its splendors, either...

Spoiler

Take a game that has the perfect story, perfect gameplay and perfect musical score.
Run it up against a game with decent story, gameplay and score, which also engages me on the sexual level by having titillating characters.

I'll still be playing the latter long, long after I've forgotten the name of the former.

 

[Mad World]

I don't see why a female character needs to be sexy in the first place. I mean, I'm not against it as a character trait, but, seriously, we're at like, 80% "Female characters need to be sexy" right now. Bit excessive.

Personally, I agree. It's excessive and unnecessary. However, you can't really say, "No, sexualized characters belong exclusively in this medium or that."

Personal preference.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anything is excusable as long as it has artistic purpose. Sexualization has its place in some things and has no business being in others. It's that simple. My issue is that I see inane sexualization in many video games and it detracts from the whole. Everything must have a purpose otherwise, it's empty.

In other words: sexy for its own sake is bad - sexy to serve the work as a whole is good.

 

[Bocaj2000]

Take a game that has the perfect story, perfect gameplay and perfect musical score.
Run it up against a game with decent story, gameplay and score, which also engages me on the sexual level by having titillating characters.

I'll still be playing the latter long, long after I've forgotten the name of the former.

I respect your opinion... but I'm sorry- this statement baffles me. I simply don't comprehend how you can think that way. I mean the word "perfect" is not an ambiguous word; perfect is perfect- this means that it cannot possibly get any better. And you'd take something mediocre with sex appeal before absolute perfection? I don't understand...

 

[TehCookie]

Sexualizing characters in the game is the best way for me to stop taking it seriously. In something like Dead or Alive, it's fine to take the game lightheartedly. When Mass Effect shoves Miranda's ass in the camera it ruins the game. There's a time and a place for it, it doesn't need to be completely purged but it shouldn't be forced into every game for pandering.

Also for every sexy women there must be a sexy man, I want some eyecandy too.

 

[King Zeal]

One is a gameplay element choice, the other an ascetic one. In regard to what a game "needs", neither are needed. That was my point, that arguing that any one element is needed is a pointless endeavor, when over the entire game, there are countless not "needed" any more then another, yet are included.

That's still not an equivalent. Citizen Kane didn't "need" its cinematography or memorable ending in the same way that Michaelangelo's David didn't need anatomical correctness. The two are culturally significant, however, because it possesses those elements.

That's not the same thing as asking if Ivy needs big tits.

It isn't a matter of wanting something used more or less, but whether something has the right to be used at all. I ask you to look at the first post and the responses, tell me, are they not making arguments about what should and should not be used in games?

Largely, people make arguments about what is oversaturated and what is not. I personally think we need more characters like Poison from Street Fighter. (A transgender person that is portrayed as just as sexy and attractive as a cisgender person.) This doesn't mean that something should or should not be used, but merely an observation that something is oversaturated to the point of redundancy.

As said before, I don't mind if someone doesn't like the use of sexualization, after all there are enough games out there that don't and nothing stopping new games from being made without it. I just think the question of if they should at all to be overly simple and sort of selfishly asked. Yes, they should be able to use sexualizing, same as any other medium. Arguments about how much and to what extent are related, but quickly devolve into individual personal taste, which should never be the measure of if product is made. If it doesn't appeal to you, that is fine, so long as it does appeal to enough of an audience to support it's creation.

Personal taste is fine, but there is also the matter of content producers assuming something about the audience. For example, Naughty Dog needing to FIGHT LIKE HELL to get Ellie included on the cover of The Last Of Us.

There's a difference between personal taste and just plain old pandering.

Stop, right there. Sick to death of this bullshit, so need to stop it right here. No one is being excluded from any game. People are opting out based on personal preferences, and that is well their right to do. No one is forcing them to buy the product, and there are others out there for them to buy that may better suit their taste. But do not insult my intelligence by telling me that an individual's personal choice to not buy a game is in any way excluding them. It isn't any more then a chinese food place is excluding me by not selling hamburgers. Or a burger joint is excluding a vegetarian.

This argument doesn't work because we're not talking about being excluded from a genre of game, or even a specific game. We're talking about the ENTIRE AAA INDUSTRY being predisposed to exclude certain groups of people. Using your restaurant analogy, this would be like if every restaurant in your city sold Chitterlings and Soul Food. Sure, if you don't want it, don't eat there. But, if you need to drive 200 miles to get something different, you have a right to complain.

Exclusion requires a force or effort to deny someone against their will, not the person choosing to not buy it themselves because they dislike something about it. Games are made to meet demand with traits and design shaped to meet that demand.

Not true. Speaking as someone who's worked in marketing, the ultimate goal of a company is to tell you that you like the product they made, not to make a product that you like.

The right to ask? Yes, they have as much opinion as anyone does on anything. Please don't misunderstand my stance here, the point I was arguing was that the people making the product don't have to listen, and likely wont listen to non-paying customers nearly as much as paying ones.

That argument STILL doesn't work. That's what's called a "market bubble", meaning those are customers you are guaranteed to have already. A market bubble, however, shrinks over time. Meanwhile, the people who DON'T buy your product and WANT TO have all this good money you're not paying attention to.

Your example here highlights that pretty well though. How long did it take for blackface to fade in media? Well, about the time that the use of it threatened profit margins of the people making the product, or was less profitable then some other product out there. Now its use would likely harm profits, except when used for audiences that want it, like the DBZ abridged that references and uses it for parody.

Blackface lasted for over 100 years, actually. And is often blamed for delaying the abolition of slavery. Why? Because Northerners who had never met black people before used Minstrel Shows as a measurement for what they were like.

And profitability really had nothing to do with what ended it so much as media producers stopped using it in order to not scare off the growing African-American consumer. Which, honestly, is exactly my point. By making it more inclusive to Blacks, and heeding their complaints about it, the stereotype eventually fell out of use.

I'll say it again, it is not you don't have the right to complain, merely you have no more or less right then anyone else, and if you aren't affecting the profit of the product providers, they are less likely to listen to you.

And again, that doesn't work because of the marketing bubble phenomenon I mentioned earlier.

I never said it was foolproof, merely the only fair option one can do in a free market. After all, this thread is about is gaming should do something. We shouldn't be the ones who determine that based on our own personal ideas of right and wrong regarding sexualizing. Oh, and it wasn't just a "don't like, don't buy", it was saying that if you don't like and don't buy, don't expect the trends to change or listen to you.

So what are you saying then? We should not like and buy? Because that's exactly what most of us here are doing.

And you are right, they probably should seek out why people don't buy their product, but I imagine they have a hard time listening to small voices from atop a pile of money of the customers they already serve and meet the demand of. Yeah, it sucks they blame the female roles for the shitty movies/games they made, but there is a confirmation bias there when they look at movies from x-men to avengers and see the mountains of money made. At that point I can't imagine they care about what didn't work so much as about capturing what currently does work. Games are often the same way, as the trends show in gaming from the platformer flood in the 90's to the dirty brown chest high wall shooters of the 2000's to the open world trends of today. They don't worry about why things failed nearly as much as they try to emulate what did and does work. That is why I said they don't care about what the non-paying customer says nearly as much as the ones who do pay. I wont argue it is right, as my opinion is that it is short sighted and stupid, but I will argue that it is at least part of the reason why so few care you or him or anyone specifically doesn't like when they use skimpy costumes or sexualized characters.

Yes, which is exactly WHY consumers should speak up when something bothers them. It doesn't matter if they're a minority or not.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

My stance is content creators can do whatever they want. If you don't like it enough that other parts of the content can't make up for it, don't buy it. Personally I do not particularly enjoy fanservice where it is not in character, or female characters that are certain stereotypes (for example the highranking female character who is only female so that the protagonist(s) males can be shocked after an initial vague genderless desciption - this is not funny any more, developers), but if they're decent characters and they got a nice pair a' tits I ain't complainin'.

That said, if you're female and that puts you off your favourite games, by all means tell the developers. They're looking for a bigger market and if you don't say anything they won't know how easily they could appeal to you. But don't criticise it in games you have no interest in.

 

[King Zeal]

That said, if you're female and that puts you off your favourite games, by all means tell the developers. They're looking for a bigger market and if you don't say anything they won't know how easily they could appeal to you. But don't criticise it in games you have no interest in.

I don't understand this. Is not saying, "I don't don't want to play this game because (X reason)" not a criticism?

Also, what about people who buy games but don't like a specific thing about it? Shouldn't they also voice their opinion?

 

[Candidus]

Take a game that has the perfect story, perfect gameplay and perfect musical score.
Run it up against a game with decent story, gameplay and score, which also engages me on the sexual level by having titillating characters.

I'll still be playing the latter long, long after I've forgotten the name of the former.

I respect your opinion... but I'm sorry- this statement baffles me. I simply don't comprehend how you can think that way. I mean the word "perfect" is not an ambiguous word; perfect is perfect- this means that it cannot possibly get any better. And you'd take something mediocre with sex appeal before absolute perfection? I don't understand...

I was thinking of a specific case when I said what I said.

FFXIV ARR. For me, it's absolutely perfect. Bahamut's Coil is classic-WoW hard, it looks great, it's not too grindy, the story is classic-FF-levels of good, the music is beautiful, classes are a lot of fun to play, the traditional combat model is perfect for it and has never looked better than it does serving it... I have an active subscription right now! As we speak! This time we're living in right now is time I've paid for!

But once I've capped my mythology tomes each week, what am I playing? TERA Online. Great gameplay, inoffensive music, rubbish story, all the ass my eyes can eat. Can't help it. Don't even want to help it. This is what I am. I follow the ass.

 

[Caiphus]

I don't understand this. Is not saying, "I don't don't want to play this game because (X reason)" not a criticism?

Also, what about people who buy games but don't like a specific thing about it? Shouldn't they also voice their opinion?

I think his point is, and it's probably a valid one, that a lot of people who criticise wouldn't buy the game anyway, even if their complaints were dealt with.

I'd use Twilight as an example. From what I've heard the romance in that book is bloody poor and sends shoddy messages about motherhood and sex and all that. I'm not going to go on a crusade about it though, because frankly, I wouldn't buy the bloody thing anyway.

 

[white_wolf]

I don't like it if she (and lets face it 9/10 times its a she) is the sole person in the game boss, friend, hero, npc, party member that is sexulized unless we are at a strip club and she is a stripper or we're at the beach and she's dressed for that occasion. Now if its the whole team, group, or theme of the game to have all cast be sexulized or under-dressed for the occasion, weather, or occupation then its fine.

For instance Prince of Persia Warrior Within is not ok the fem boss is deliberately and blatantly a sexual tease for the sole purpose of this. The cast of Guilty Gear is fine the majority of them are in some way sexulized or poorly dressed for their occupation.

 

[Kalith]

I think it's interesting that the *sexy* pics you chose are of girls that don't look like they're very far into puberty lolol.

I don't care either way, I love Lollipop chainsaw and I love Vi from LoL, they're both sexy to me

I do get your point though of less is more, leave the viewer using their imagination to fill in the blanks, but again, sexy is subjective so in you're opinion you are of course correct, but so am I and everyone else lol.

Mind you, I have to say that the looks of a character have pretty much zero to do with whether or not I'll play it.

 

[Creator002]

I've kind of gotten to the point where I don't care anymore when it comes to sexuality in any form of media. Just reading the discussions has burnt me out.
I say put whatever you want in games. I don't care if characters have every millimetre of skin exposed or covered. I don't care how the characters are written. I don't care what the characters represent. I just want an enjoyable gaming experience. If it makes everyone happy to have all women in games be strong characters without gender being a defining part of their character, fine. Do it. If the game is fun, I'll play it, I'll enjoy it.

 

[Depulcator]

I don't care about sexuality, I care if the game is good.

 

[lapan]

I don't like it if she (and lets face it 9/10 times its a she) is the sole person in the game boss, friend, hero, npc, party member that is sexulized unless we are at a strip club and she is a stripper or we're at the beach and she's dressed for that occasion. Now if its the whole team, group, or theme of the game to have all cast be sexulized or under-dressed for the occasion, weather, or occupation then its fine.

For instance Prince of Persia Warrior Within is not ok the fem boss is deliberately and blatantly a sexual tease for the sole purpose of this. The cast of Guilty Gear is fine the majority of them are in some way sexulized or poorly dressed for their occupation.

I don't think Guilty Gear is a good example or even the worst of it's genre. every single character in Guilty gear is over-stylized into sillyness.

Looking at the characters again the only one that seems under-dressed is Dizzy. The rest at most has shoulder-free clothes.

The males actually have less clothing on average

EDIT: Never mind, i misread your post