Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[Eve Charm]

Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an entire industry showing a bias toward a specific group, often based on stereotypes and assumptions, and sometimes based on self-fulfilling logic.

If it were this, it would be a problem. What it is 90% of the time tho, Market data and market testing and previous sales numbers show, catering their game toward other groups, DOES NOT get them profits or as much of a profit as catering towards another group. Studios can't waste a Triple A or even an A budget making a game for an audience that -on paper- is just as big but when it comes to money from sales is -no where near as close-

Which is another reason it's problematic. Again, as editors on this site have said constantly, that's why increasing budgets and greater production values for AAA problems create a vicious circle.

That's also why they spend their time talking to US, the players, so that we can be aware of what's happening, since much of the change depends on US to fix because publishers have no incentive to do so.

Yes but your forgetting gaming got to where it was today and where it has been for the last decades ALREADY listening to their customers, which back then was Mostly your 13-35 male audience, and still is that audience.

The problem is, there is no "US" it always boils down to a "YOU" While they may not be catering to you, they are catering to a ton of people that lets the business succeed and become the powerhouse it is today.

Maybe they'll be better kickstarters and indies or something like this http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/08/square-enix-partners-with-indiegogo-to-form-its-own-kickstarter-like-service/ will pay off in the long run where " If there is a market ready to pay for something and pay in advance some of it, They'll know they can safely make it."

 

[King Zeal]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

 

[UberPubert]

Not really. Again, exclusion has nothing to do with importance. If a luxury liner is difficult for people of a certain region, demographic, or group to obtain, then yes, they are being excluded.

But only in the most benign way possible, and that is the great disconnect between the definition of exclusion and how you keep using it. This exclusion is not bad or a problem.

A lack of action is basically ignorance or apathy, which is one of situations exclusion creates. Accounts from people in the industry, for one. As I said, Jim Sterling has given plenty of examples on his show that I won't retread here.

Which accounts, specifically? And remember: They have to be examples of the publisher actually handing the development team finished content to implement into their games.

And do feel free to retread Mr. Sterling's examples, I don't keep up with everything the man does.

In short, as I said, the law is changing, but what you said, that it's almost certain that you'll be arrested, or sued, is untrue. In some places, the law makes an effort to afford that protection, but in MOST places in the US, it isn't.

I said the harassed could probably sue, a far cry from almost certain, and 9/16 states isn't bad, if leaning on the side of improbable (though without any accounts to the contrary we can't be certain they wouldn't either).

That's increasingly untrue. http://kotaku.com/we-need-better-video-game-publishers-472880781

Great. An anonymous source on a for-profit gaming tabloid on a single account of a biased author's opinion piece. They can't cite sources or even make poignant examples, how are we supposed to glean anything from this exactly? I can even bring myself to believe or agree with some of it, but without proof or even a hint of credibility I'm less than convinced.

I'm not blaming the entire consumer base. I said that consumers contribute to a biased system. That's not the same thing as saying ALL consumers do it. Even a statistical minority, however, is more than sufficient to provide a toxic environment.

That's a subjective observation though, and one I certainly don't agree with. I'm familiar with the reputation of competitive games and participated in more than a few myself, and while I can of course recall a few choice encounters with less than pleasant individuals I'd call the overall experience lukewarm and quiet.

 

[Eve Charm]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

 

[King Zeal]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

On the contrary, the default demographic in most games for a campaign is the white, heterosexual male. Again, editors n this very site have talked about it time and time again. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9489-The-Racism-Blame-Game While some games offer you the chance to pick the character you want, that comes with problems of its own. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it's an idea still in its infancy.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

That's a strawman argument, and flatly false.

But only in the most benign way possible, and that is the great disconnect between the definition of exclusion and how you keep using it. This exclusion is not bad or a problem.

That's your opinion others, such as many of the people being excluded, don't agree.

Which accounts, specifically? And remember: They have to be examples of the publisher actually handing the development team finished content to implement into their games.

What does finished content have to do with anything? I'm talking about a publisher telling a developer flat out what to and not to put in their games.

And do feel free to retread Mr. Sterling's examples, I don't keep up with everything the man does.

And I don't have time to look through all of his videos and articles to do that. If you don't either, that's fine.

I said the harassed could probably sue, a far cry from almost certain, and 9/16 states isn't bad, if leaning on the side of improbable (though without any accounts to the contrary we can't be certain they wouldn't either).

32 states lacking transgender discrimination statutes IS bad. It's not AS bad as 0 out of 50, but "not bad" is stretching it. And unfortunately, transgender harassment is a constant problem when it comes to restroom rights. As I said, it's changing, but it's still pretty terrible.

Great. An anonymous source on a for-profit gaming tabloid on a single account of a biased author's opinion piece. They can't cite sources or even make poignant examples, how are we supposed to glean anything from this exactly? I can even bring myself to believe or agree with some of it, but without proof or even a hint of credibility I'm less than convinced.

Believe what you want. But again, Jim Sterling, the guys at Extra Credits, and other people here and there have spoken out about it. I'd love to give more specific citations, but like I said, I lack the time.

That's a subjective observation though, and one I certainly don't agree with. I'm familiar with the reputation of competitive games and participated in more than a few myself, and while I can of course recall a few choice encounters with less than pleasant individuals I'd call the overall experience lukewarm and quiet.

Well, that's your unique experience. Sites like Fatuglyorslutty.com has hundreds of examples different ones.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I think you're going to have to just be SOL then. Not every creative decision is going to match your tastes. Now if someone does want to make whatever game it is you're looking for and publishers give them the finger, then I can agree that's an idiotic process. But oppression and sexism doesn't describe what I see going on here.

And that exact scenario has happened before.

I don't dispute that. I'm against it when it does happen.

Besides, that, I didn't say anything about "every" creative decision matching my (or any group's tastes). I was talking about that specific game. In short, the game may have tried to take a step in the right direction, but it was a weak step. I give them a C+ for effort, but it's not an example of an inclusive game in the slightest.

Fair enough. They tried but you can't please everybody of course.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

 

[Eve Charm]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

On the contrary, the default demographic in most games for a campaign is the white, heterosexual male. Again, editors n this very site have talked about it time and time again. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9489-The-Racism-Blame-Game While some games offer you the chance to pick the character you want, that comes with problems of its own. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it's an idea still in its infancy.

So you really want to say gaming hasn't gotten more inclusive in the past 10 year? Last of us and Bioshock infinite are the two main big triple A titles of the year that have Female escort characters. If Last of Us was made 10 years ago, Elli would be replaced with a barely legal blonde with big knockers i.e Ashley R.E.4 and Elizabeth's Victorian style dress would be switched out for some red skimpy dress i.e. Ada wong, Maria or Eileen Silent hill series and rather then being helpful to the main character and being the main story, They'd end up being nothing but a burden and getting kidnapped half the game.

It is getting better, Now it's a slow moving process but the reason being, the characters I describe before, ARE NOT BAD CHARACTERS. An weaker female character in a video game, is not the same as committing mass murder, While you can say it isn't gender equality right to cast the characters like that, It's not wrong.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

That's a strawman argument, and flatly false.

I don't think it's a strawman, I think it's logic.
Games having only male characters options = females are upset that they aren't represented in game.
Games having both male and female character options = females are still upset about not being represented enough in game.
Wouldn't logic be Games having only female character options = Happy female gamers??? or do people just want to complain about everything

I'm gonna take a shot here but it feels like people want everyone to tell a company like Ubisoft who makes a game called assassin's creed every year that is highly popular and sells really making them a profit well and marketed towards males to stop that but go back to making games like Imagine babyz because that isn't for that male demographic even tho it would sell like crap and cost the company millions. Nope not a chance. And before claiming ubisoft never tired to "Reach middle ground" they did basically push the hell out of the vita version of AC with a female lead character. And what they got for it was even still being packed in with a limited edition white bundle it didn't sell well, but hell they tried.

 

[00slash00]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

I disagree completely. There's a difference between sexy and just objectifying and I will always consider exaggerated features to be extremely immature. There is no justification for a plate armor bikini and a male rogue needs to be as agile as a female rogue. There's no reason for her armor to be more revealing than his. But if we're going to talk about real life benefit of skimpy armor then let's also discuss the real life consequences of exaggerated features. It isn't a coincidence that most dancers have a small butt and small breasts. Large breasts hinder agility and more importantly, characters like Ivy would not only not be able to move around as freely as she does, she would likely suffer from crippling back pain

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

I disagree completely. There's a difference between sexy and just objectifying and I will always consider exaggerated features to be extremely immature. There is no justification for a plate armor bikini and a male rogue needs to be as agile as a female rogue. There's no reason for her armor to be more revealing than his. But if we're going to talk about real life benefit of skimpy armor then let's also discuss the real life consequences of exaggerated features. It isn't a coincidence that most dancers have a small butt and small breasts. Large breasts hinder agility and more importantly, characters like Ivy would not only not be able to move around as freely as she does, she would likely suffer from crippling back pain

Well That's just your personal opinion, that's fine, but keep in mind that you can objectify anything and it really comes down to the person, you may find something objectifying that most people don't find objectifying, and thus the only one objectifying that something is you. More often than not the male rogue armor is just as revealing as the female rogue armor, and again these are not for practical purposes its just for artistic emphasis . Now if we were going to discuss real life consequences I can go into vast amount of detail about how impractical, deadly, and grossly inaccurate A LOT of character designs are, but you have to understand that in most games what the character is wearing is largely aesthetic and holds no practical purpose what so ever, and comparing it with practical reasoning in the real world is just pointless, unless the game is steeped in realism, and most games that claim to be, really aren't.

 

[Qtastic]

complex aspects of human social or personal experience being wholesale "evolved"

That is a GROSS oversimplification of evolutionary psychology. Nowhere have I ever heard any evolutionary psychologist attempt to attribute traits solely to evolution. Evolutionary psychology studies evolution's impact on psychology; it does not attempt to explain all psychology solely with evolution.

 

[King Zeal]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

On the contrary, the default demographic in most games for a campaign is the white, heterosexual male. Again, editors n this very site have talked about it time and time again. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9489-The-Racism-Blame-Game While some games offer you the chance to pick the character you want, that comes with problems of its own. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it's an idea still in its infancy.

So you really want to say gaming hasn't gotten more inclusive in the past 10 year? Last of us and Bioshock infinite are the two main big triple A titles of the year that have Female escort characters. If Last of Us was made 10 years ago, Elli would be replaced with a barely legal blonde with big knockers i.e Ashley R.E.4 and Elizabeth's Victorian style dress would be switched out for some red skimpy dress i.e. Ada wong, Maria or Eileen Silent hill series and rather then being helpful to the main character and being the main story, They'd end up being nothing but a burden and getting kidnapped half the game.

It is getting better, Now it's a slow moving process but the reason being, the characters I describe before, ARE NOT BAD CHARACTERS. An weaker female character in a video game, is not the same as committing mass murder, While you can say it isn't gender equality right to cast the characters like that, It's not wrong.

I think there's a misunderstanding. As I said, it's an idea still in its infancy. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

As for if it's gotten more inclusive in the past 10 years, considering that more and more women are playing, I would like to think so, but I don't know if it's because of the AAA industry or in spite of it. When I read the vidogame markt consumer report in 2005, gamers outside of the 15 - 30 demographic were MUCH smaller, but that was before the Wii, social gaming, and mobile gaming made it big. I would like to see more data before I pat AAA games on the back.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

That's a strawman argument, and flatly false.

I don't think it's a strawman, I think it's logic.
Games having only male characters options = females are upset that they aren't represented in game.
Games having both male and female character options = females are still upset about not being represented enough in game.
Wouldn't logic be Games having only female character options = Happy female gamers??? or do people just want to complain about everything

[/quote]

But that's why it's a strawman. I know what you're getting at, but the logic here is flawed. Having both male and female characters doesn't mean that representation is equal. As an example, take some examples of high level MMORPG armor--both men and women can wear the same armor, but women have a much more sexualized and skimpy design. It's great that women were included, but there's still room for improvement.

Well That's just your personal opinion, that's fine, but keep in mind that you can objectify anything and it really comes down to the person, you may find something objectifying that most people don't find objectifying, and thus the only one objectifying that something is you

But in terms of character design and characteristics, each trope has its own origin and meaning. For example, let's talk about a common form of objectification: poses. A pose is something models and photographers use to convey the meaning they want. Sometimes, that message is to draw attention to the sexual qualities of the person primarily for the benefit of the audience. That's objectification, even if the audience doesn't notice.

I personally don't feel that objectification is not universally, 100% bad, either. Some people might enjoy it and choose to portray themselves that way. But, the problem with fictional characters is that a fictional character cannot "choose" insofar as they have free will. They can only behave as it befits their creator.

 

[Qtastic]

Still not the point, though. The brain scans in question are still typically given to men and women years after their personal sexual habits have been formed based on the culture they live in.

Did you read the links?

For that argument to be true, a person who is a complete blank slate, like a small child raised by wolves or something, would have to show the same signs of objectifying one gender over another.

1. You can't seriously believe in true blank slates. This kind of behaviorism is dead.

2. People from different walks of life all had this experience.

End of the day, if you invest in behaviorism over modern cognitive science, than I am wasting my time.

 

[00slash00]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

I disagree completely. There's a difference between sexy and just objectifying and I will always consider exaggerated features to be extremely immature. There is no justification for a plate armor bikini and a male rogue needs to be as agile as a female rogue. There's no reason for her armor to be more revealing than his. But if we're going to talk about real life benefit of skimpy armor then let's also discuss the real life consequences of exaggerated features. It isn't a coincidence that most dancers have a small butt and small breasts. Large breasts hinder agility and more importantly, characters like Ivy would not only not be able to move around as freely as she does, she would likely suffer from crippling back pain

Well That's just your personal opinion, that's fine, but keep in mind that you can objectify anything and it really comes down to the person, you may find something objectifying that most people don't find objectifying, and thus the only one objectifying that something is you. More often than not the male rogue armor is just as revealing as the female rogue armor, and again these are not for practical purposes its just for artistic emphasis . Now if we were going to discuss real life consequences I can go into vast amount of detail about how impractical, deadly, and grossly inaccurate A LOT of character designs are, but you have to understand that in most games what the character is wearing is largely aesthetic and holds no practical purpose what so ever, and comparing it with practical reasoning in the real world is just pointless, unless the game is steeped in realism, and most games that claim to be, really aren't.

The only reason I mentioned real world consequences is because you were arguing that skimpy female armor made sense because women often need to be more agile in games. If you're coming up with rationale for why skimpy armor makes sense then it's only fair that I do the same for why exaggerated features don't make sense. Also, if you're arguing the male characters are dressed skimpy to the same degree and frequency as female characters...well I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I can think of a few examples, like Kratos, where men are extremely under dressed, but I can think of far more examples for women. The reason people joke about chainmail bikinis is because it's so common in fantasy games for men to be covered in armor from head to foot and women to have armor covering their nipples and crotch and not much else. Even in the case of Kratos, you don't see his dick bouncing around when he runs and yet breast physics have become the standard for female characters

 

[King Zeal]

Still not the point, though. The brain scans in question are still typically given to men and women years after their personal sexual habits have been formed based on the culture they live in.

Did you read the links?

Which links?

1. You can't seriously believe in true blank slates. This kind of behaviorism is dead.

I didn't say I did. I said that would be a necessary control group to prove your argument.

2. People from different walks of life all had this experience.

How different are we talking here?

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

I disagree completely. There's a difference between sexy and just objectifying and I will always consider exaggerated features to be extremely immature. There is no justification for a plate armor bikini and a male rogue needs to be as agile as a female rogue. There's no reason for her armor to be more revealing than his. But if we're going to talk about real life benefit of skimpy armor then let's also discuss the real life consequences of exaggerated features. It isn't a coincidence that most dancers have a small butt and small breasts. Large breasts hinder agility and more importantly, characters like Ivy would not only not be able to move around as freely as she does, she would likely suffer from crippling back pain

Well That's just your personal opinion, that's fine, but keep in mind that you can objectify anything and it really comes down to the person, you may find something objectifying that most people don't find objectifying, and thus the only one objectifying that something is you. More often than not the male rogue armor is just as revealing as the female rogue armor, and again these are not for practical purposes its just for artistic emphasis . Now if we were going to discuss real life consequences I can go into vast amount of detail about how impractical, deadly, and grossly inaccurate A LOT of character designs are, but you have to understand that in most games what the character is wearing is largely aesthetic and holds no practical purpose what so ever, and comparing it with practical reasoning in the real world is just pointless, unless the game is steeped in realism, and most games that claim to be, really aren't.

The only reason I mentioned real world consequences is because you were arguing that skimpy female armor made sense because women often need to be more agile in games. If you're coming up with rationale for why skimpy armor makes sense then it's only fair that I do the same for why exaggerated features don't make sense. Also, if you're arguing the male characters are dressed skimpy to the same degree and frequency as female characters...well I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I can think of a few examples, like Kratos, where men are extremely under dressed, but I can think of far more examples for women. The reason people joke about chainmail bikinis is because it's so common in fantasy games for men to be covered in armor from head to foot and women to have armor covering their nipples and crotch and not much else. Even in the case of Kratos, you don't see his dick bouncing around when he runs and yet breast physics have become the standard for female characters

No, I never used the word NEED, and I was arguing that part of the purpose of skimpy armor is to emphasize agility, not to make one agile but to appear as such. I said more often than not male rogues are often just as skimpy compared to the female rogue, I was not speak in terms of anything else, Kratos is not a rogue. As for chainmail bikinis that varies from game to game, Going off of the MMOs, and other RPGs I've played, a big bulky set for men rarely translates to nipple caps, and plated thongs. It usually translates to more midriff, cleavage, maybe thigh, but the shoulders, head, and boots are usually just as bulky. In any case its usually a type of exaggerated sexual dimorphism, emphasizing masculine and feminine features of the characters. On the subject of breast physics vs penis physics, breast tend to usually move around a bit more than a penis, not every good comparison.

 

[King Zeal]

No, I'm pretty sure a penis flops around more than breasts. Unless covered up. Which brings us back to the cleavage problem.

 

[Eve Charm]

As for if it's gotten more inclusive in the past 10 years, considering that more and more women are playing, I would like to think so, but I don't know if it's because of the AAA industry or in spite of it. When I read the vidogame markt consumer report in 2005, gamers outside of the 15 - 30 demographic were MUCH smaller, but that was before the Wii, social gaming, and mobile gaming made it big. I would like to see more data before I pat AAA games on the back.

Ok so it is clearly agreeable that gaming is getting more inclusive, and I will agree it's not out of spite, but as the market needed to be to include all the new gamers. Gaming is getting better, Triple A and A are getting more friendly and these empowerment fantasies will and frankly have been staying more in the lower A or niche title lines for the most part...

But the hard truth and the truth people are going to have to accept that as it stands Now and at least for a while until the Buying market shift the female or minority games purchased are Dwarfed by the Male game in sales. Probably going to have to deal and bear with a bunch of male empowerment games before a few female ones get made. If they can't sell and make a profit to the bigger bubble they won't even try the smaller one.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That is a GROSS oversimplification of evolutionary psychology.

And that is a gross oversimplification of my post.

Nowhere have I ever heard any evolutionary psychologist attempt to attribute traits solely to evolution.

While both males and females share a natural preference for ?bluish? contrasts, the female preference for ?reddish? contrasts further shifts her peak towards the reddish region of the hue circle: girls? preference for pink may have evolved on top of a natural, universal preference for blue. We speculate that this sex difference arose from sex specific functional specializations in the evolutionary division of labour. The hunter-gatherer theory proposes that female brains should be specialized for gathering-related tasks and is supported by studies of visual spatial abilities. Trichromacy and the L-M opponent channel are ?modern? adaptations in primate evolution thought to have evolved to facilitate the identification of ripe, yellow fruit or edible red leaves embedded in green foliage. It is therefore plausible that, in specializing for gathering, the female brain honed the trichromatic adaptations,
and these underpin the female preference for objects ?redder? than the background.
- Hulbert and Ling, 2007

In this case, the evidence is a relatively simple attitudinal survey of comparative colour preference based in two cultures with significant cross-cultural ties. From this relatively simple evidence (which is not even particularly adequate to demonstrate the existence of gender differences in colour preference) we suddenly have a grandiose story about the entire history of human evolution.

..when actually, all you need is a very basic sociological account of gender socialization.

Then, of course, there's this little gem..

The only thing I can think of that might potentially explain the lower average level of physical attractiveness among black women is testosterone.
- Satoshi Kanazawa

..which kind of cuts right to the problem here.

You don't need to "attribute traits solely to evolution", you already do so when you ignore far more coherent sociological evidence in favour of positing far reaching and unevidenced evolutionary explanations for phenomena which are only expressed socially.

There is evolutionary psychology which is less shit than this, and I already acknowledged it. But far too much space is taken up by this kind of reductionist garbage.

Evolutionary psychology studies evolution's impact on psychology; it does not attempt to explain all psychology solely with evolution.

And how does this relate to my critique?

I don't think we should just presume that any part of human psychology is magically there because of evolution, and in that regard I don't particularly care whether we're talking about "all" or "part" of it. I think it's something that needs to be evidenced, whether through the identification of actual genes which create expression or through establishing that phenomena can only be explained through genetic expression, and that genetic expression forms a logically substantiated and coherent theory.

Back in the real world, that's how science works. You don't set out to prove things you already "know" to be true, you arrive inductively at probable or logically consistent rules through observation.

 

[00slash00]

I'm fine with sexuality in gaming. I'm not fine with a character's sexuality looking like it was designed by a 13 year old boy, between masturbation sessions. A well designed character can look sexy while still being fully clothed

Well people have different interpretations of what sexy is. Yes female characters can be sexy fully clothed, doesn't mean the less clothed ones are juvenile interpretations of sexy, exaggerated features have been in art for along time, and usually have meaning beyond sexual attraction. Also some the skimpy clothes are their less to be attractive but more of a way to emphasize agility, women are often depicted as more agile than man, thus their armor often reflects this.

I disagree completely. There's a difference between sexy and just objectifying and I will always consider exaggerated features to be extremely immature. There is no justification for a plate armor bikini and a male rogue needs to be as agile as a female rogue. There's no reason for her armor to be more revealing than his. But if we're going to talk about real life benefit of skimpy armor then let's also discuss the real life consequences of exaggerated features. It isn't a coincidence that most dancers have a small butt and small breasts. Large breasts hinder agility and more importantly, characters like Ivy would not only not be able to move around as freely as she does, she would likely suffer from crippling back pain

Well That's just your personal opinion, that's fine, but keep in mind that you can objectify anything and it really comes down to the person, you may find something objectifying that most people don't find objectifying, and thus the only one objectifying that something is you. More often than not the male rogue armor is just as revealing as the female rogue armor, and again these are not for practical purposes its just for artistic emphasis . Now if we were going to discuss real life consequences I can go into vast amount of detail about how impractical, deadly, and grossly inaccurate A LOT of character designs are, but you have to understand that in most games what the character is wearing is largely aesthetic and holds no practical purpose what so ever, and comparing it with practical reasoning in the real world is just pointless, unless the game is steeped in realism, and most games that claim to be, really aren't.

The only reason I mentioned real world consequences is because you were arguing that skimpy female armor made sense because women often need to be more agile in games. If you're coming up with rationale for why skimpy armor makes sense then it's only fair that I do the same for why exaggerated features don't make sense. Also, if you're arguing the male characters are dressed skimpy to the same degree and frequency as female characters...well I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I can think of a few examples, like Kratos, where men are extremely under dressed, but I can think of far more examples for women. The reason people joke about chainmail bikinis is because it's so common in fantasy games for men to be covered in armor from head to foot and women to have armor covering their nipples and crotch and not much else. Even in the case of Kratos, you don't see his dick bouncing around when he runs and yet breast physics have become the standard for female characters

No, I never used the word NEED, and I was arguing that part of the purpose of skimpy armor is to emphasize agility, not to make one agile but to appear as such. I said more often than not male rogues are often just as skimpy compared to the female rogue, I was not speak in terms of anything else, Kratos is not a rogue. As for chainmail bikinis that varies from game to game, Going off of the MMOs, and other RPGs I've played, a big bulky set for men rarely translates to nipple caps, and plated thongs. It usually translates to more midriff, cleavage, maybe thigh, but the shoulders, head, and boots are usually just as bulky. In any case its usually a type of exaggerated sexual dimorphism, emphasizing masculine and feminine features of the characters. On the subject of breast physics vs penis physics, breast tend to usually move around a bit more than a penis, not every good comparison.

And why does appearing more agile translate to skimpy outfits for women but not for men? You still haven't backed up your statement about male rogues dressed just as skimpy as female rogues. Give me some examples of male rogue characters that dress as skantily clad as their female counterparts. I mentioned Kratos because he is among the few male characters I can think of that has an outfit comparable to the kinds that are standard for female characters. As I said before, an outfit does not need to be skimpy in order to look feminine or sexy and there is no reason why a male knight is a wall of armor and a female knight has so much more exposed skin. They exist to pander to adolescent male gamers. So you're saying breasts bounce more than penises and thus breast physics make more sense than dick physics? Well if you're going to throw realistic limitations in to this debate again then I will again say that the absurdly busty women wouldn't be doing much running in the first place because of the pain their large breast size would be causing them. But taking realism out of this debate, breast physics are often extremely exaggerated so if we're going to exaggerate breast physics, why not exaggerate dick physics as well?