Sexualized characters that were done right.
- Thread starter Erttheking
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Probably. To be clear my interpretation of the word is as follows:Darth Rosenberg said:
That just feels unnecessarily limiting.Darth Rosenberg said:
To me it seems as though the rest of society is using a general word to talk about something specific. Like asking for an eating utensil when what you really want is a spoon. In this case it's wanting to talk about visual sexualisation under the banner of sexualisation which isn't inherently visual.Darth Rosenberg said:
For the most part yes, however she's a little too perfect. What flaws does she have? That's what leads me to the sexualisation observation.Darth Rosenberg said:
Oh I understand perfectly well why people will have a problem with it. They want to see their wants and wishes fulfilled in media and things aren't going their way, the media isn't catering enough to their tastes. That's exactly why they have a problem with it and call it "a problem" i.e. something that is wrong and needs immediate fixing.CloudAtlas said:
I personally find that mindset short-sighted and self-centred. Anyone who understands the causes and understands the big picture should also understand that there is no right or wrong in this industry and no problems - there are only people's purchasing decisions, i.e. what sells and what doesn't. For example Jim will have you believe that EA's practices are horrible and evil (etc etc) but that only hints that maybe Jim doesn't know why EA (and other publishers/devs) continue to do what they do. Consumers drive their practices.
Hmm maybe I didn't word that well enough for you to understand. The thing that people are call a problem - I do not call it that. I simply refer to it as another pattern/trend. Does that make sense now?CloudAtlas said:
*shrug* I just know somone here once said they didn't see the big deal because all of it was just "apreciating the beuty of women" like...thanks dude....I get it now, its about your feelings...sorry to be such a meanieZachary Amaranth said:
[quote/]
Actually, men don't even need to be a minority to get their "undies in a twist." Just look at the reaction to Twilight. The franchise that launched a million cries of outrage.[/quote]
and it wasn't even for them
[sub/]inb4 "but most things arent for females!" the difference is our selection is tiny beyond com roms...and practically non existant for games[/sub]
not exactlywulf3n said:
its more like...another "point" that boils down to the same thing, the refusal to acknowledge an issue...this makes up like 50% of gender arguments
[i/]"its not a thing, go away, stop being mean to the things I like"[/i]
Are the arguments of both side really that different though.Vault101 said:
When you boil it down both sides are really just fighting for games to be what they want by criticizing those that want something different and their arguments.
The only real difference is one side already has what they want while the other doesn't.
Everyone just wants to enjoy their hobby.
false equivalency...another thing used in de-railing arguments....wulf3n said:
no..I don't believe they are, not all "arguments" are equal, or even "arguments" at all, especially when their coming from a....different place...
[spoiler/][img/]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/pir_anha/581997/232001/232001_640.jpg[/img][/spoiler]
I mean as much as I hate to use this example, I don't go up to a black person and say [i/]I think its unfair that I can't use the word N***, my grandfather used to use it all the time, and it upsets me that I can't[/i] <-I sure as fuck shouldn't act like thats a totally reasonable argument with acutal weight5
You know just saying something doesn't make it true right?Vault101 said:
If that's what you choose to believe so be it.Vault101 said:
[spoiler/][img/]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/pir_anha/581997/232001/232001_640.jpg[/img][/spoiler]
haha.
Yeah, that doesn't actually relate to this situation at all.Vault101 said:
This isn't about the "validity" of an argument or "fairness" this is about the inherent selfishness of humanity. Everyone just wants games that appeal to them. Both sides do, as demonstrated by your posts.
you basically implied both "sides" had vaild reasons and weight in their arguments (and by "sides" I'm referring to someone who tells you there isn't a problem because it doesn't affect them), which comes under false equivalencywulf3n said:
[quote/]Everyone just wants to enjoy their hobby.[/quote]
and everyone wants free ice cream too, is it mean of me to imply theres a problem with things people like? shall we sit around the campfire singing kumbaya?
[quote/]If that's what you choose to believe so be it.[/quote]
I'm just saying someone's own experience can add or remove weight from what they say, of course what they say is more important, but fucked if someone is going to tell me "problems don't real" because they get miffed they can't have a share of the oppression pie [footnote/]of coarse as I just did there I don't like dictating what people reasons may be..but I feel like Ive seen time and time again its never actually about a real point, its "you make me feel like the bad guy in the grand narrative of life" and that bothers me[/footnote] if somone had an actual argument then that would be cool, but de-railing is not an argument
[quote/]
Yeah, that doesn't actually relate to this situation at all.
This isn't about the "validity" of an argument or "fairness" this is about the inherent selfishness of humanity. Everyone just wants games that appeal to them. Both sides do, as demonstrated by your posts.[/quote]
yes you're right, this is about selfishness , the person being upset they can't use the n word and the guy dismissing ANY idea of sexualisation being bad through intellectual dishonesty is being self centered, the same people who get their undies in such a twist over "PC" [i/]what do you mean I can't use derogatory terms anymore!! what about my feelings??[/i]
also are you implying there is some agenda that if it gets its way ALL games will become PC positive feminist propaganda? because thats some other level BS trotted out by people who for some reason have a problem with entertainment being more inclusive...and it aint gonna happen
It's good women are finally earning money, but asking for 50/50 equality in media (especially videogames) comes across as a bit ridiculous considering extremely few women are interesting in actually MAKING games. They are asking purely to be catered to.Angelblaze said:
In that regard they are sitting idly by and asking for change to happen, not actually driving it.
If that is what I implied then I apoligise. What I was trying to say was "validity" is a relative term. That to everyone their argument is valid, otherwise they probably wouldn't put it forward.Vault101 said:
edit: And that most if not all are just trying to make games better from their perspective. That's what I meant by both side basically having the same argument.
Mean, no. But it's understandable that a person will get defensive when someone criticises something they like/want. Not necessarily excusable, but understandable.Vault101 said:
One day, hopefully.Vault101 said:
Of course, however I doubt many actually see their argument as a "derailment". I mean all arguments are essentially trying to show the other side their position in the hopes everyone comes to a shared understanding, in essence, ending the debate. I understand that it's frustrating having to explain the same thing countless times, I just don't think dismissing their "argument" as something malicious is all that helpful.Vault101 said:
I think everyone is just trying to make the games industry their kind of better. Now that's going to cause a lot of contention as "better" in this case is so drastically different for both sides.
I didn't really think of that, though It does raise an interesting gray area. We think of the use of the derogatory term in that scenario as still being used as derogatory, but what if it's more said person uses that word because they want to be a part of that culture? Is it still as bad? Do we still dismiss them as a racist, or do we accept their intent as naivety over hate, and try convince them otherwise.Vault101 said:
No, even if that were the case I wouldn't be that bothered if the agenda got it's way. I mean it would essentially be just changing one agenda for another, at least this would offer a little variety for a while.Vault101 said:
All I'm trying to imply is that I don't think it's healthy for the gaming community to keep treating everything as though it is founded by some malicious intent.
Now my initial response was a lot more confrontational than I was intending. What I should have said was if it's not about his feelings then whose feelings is it about, and by extension is it still ok to ignore his feelings?
I honestly think some people don't care and get irritated when others start sayign theres a problem...but thats just me and neither here nor therewulf3n said:
[quote/]
Mean, no. But it's understandable that a person will get defensive when someone criticises something they like/want. Not necessarily excusable, but understandable.[/quote]
it is understandable but still...
if you have a thing you like...there will ALWAYS be somone out there who will interpret to be problematic in some way shape or form..and some of them might even have fair points, but there comes a point where things are entertainment, and not propaganda to fill an ideology. You have to be [b/]honest[/b] with yourself (which is really really hard) as to weather or not thease points are fair, and if you don't agree then thats fine, if you do agree then thats fine too, you can still enjoy the thing, or if you feel you can't then thats fine too. I don't mind the game Metro last light but boy its got some serious lady issues
just because someone out there said Frozen was actually sexist doesn't nullify other arguments as to weather or not something is sexist and doesn't justify "not dealing with female characters cause its too hard"
[quote/]
Of course, however I doubt many actually see their argument as a "derailment". I mean all arguments are essentially trying to show the other side their position in the hopes everyone comes to a shared understanding, in essence, ending the debate. I understand that it's frustrating having to explain the same thing countless times, I just don't think dismissing their "argument" as something malicious is all that helpful.
I think everyone is just trying to make the games industry their kind of better. Now that's going to cause a lot of contention as "better" in this case is so drastically different for both sides.[/quote]
no its not always malcious, but again when you encounter it enough times it gets irritating, and you get sick of trying to appease peoples feelings
[quote/]
I didn't really think of that, though It does raise an interesting gray area.[/quote]
and it was essentially my entire point
[quote/]We think of the use of the derogatory term in that scenario as still being used as derogatory, but what if it's more said person uses that word because they want to be a part of that culture? Is it still as bad? Do we still dismiss them as a racist, or do we accept their intent as naivety over hate, and try convince them otherwise.[/quote]
well obviously not everyone is malicious, and while I'm not an expert on who should and should use the N-word (since you know..I'm white) I'm not sure somone like Quinen Tarantino gets a free pass just because he genuinely doesn't mean ill by it, he doesn't dictate to black people what they should and shouldn't feel offended by....but anyway that issue is one I don't dare touch.
[quote/]
All I'm trying to imply is that I don't think it's healthy for the gaming community to keep treating everything as though it is founded by some malicious intent.[/quote]
is that what people actually say or people interpret the criticism? in a similar (but more extreme way) how some people think that "clearly feminists hate men" <-uhhh no buddy, we didn't say that at all....like you know, projection?
[quote/] extension is it still ok to ignore his feelings?[/quote]
well I'd explain why his feelings are not a good argument..but again people don't like to hear that
Edit:
Are you sure, are you really sure you're not applying a double standard here? Also, what happened to money being the one and only driving force behind everything, as you're so fond of claiming all the time? Shouldn't that mean that being a paying customer is not only enough, but all that matters?
Also, why aren't you responding to the other instances where I showed you that you make inconsistent arguments? Like the one where you're first claiming it's all about the money, always and exclusively, and consequentially poor female representation in video games is necessarily solely the result of the market not wanting that, but later go on to state that poor female representation is (also) the result of a dearth of women in game development, i.e. NOT due to market demands?
So what is it now? Are game writers writing few and underwhelming female characters because they're male and don't know any better? Or because their audience are immature idiots who don't want any better?
Or what about a third option? Game developers just believing that good, strong female characters just don't sell, without really giving it a try? Perhaps not unlike the movie industry, regardless of evidence to the opposite (Hunger Games, Twilight, Gravity)? Do you preclude the possibility that beliefs which may or may not be based on reality inform these decisions?
Please don't make that lame argument. 99% of male gamers don't develop games themselves either, and are only asking "to be catered to". Yet no one ignores there wishes.Aaron Sylvester said:
Are you sure, are you really sure you're not applying a double standard here? Also, what happened to money being the one and only driving force behind everything, as you're so fond of claiming all the time? Shouldn't that mean that being a paying customer is not only enough, but all that matters?
You're quoting the wrong person here, but whatever. Your view is still shallow and superficial. And, well, self-contradictory...Aaron Sylvester said:
No, you "didn't word that well enough for me to understand" - you worded it in a self-contradictory way.
Also, why aren't you responding to the other instances where I showed you that you make inconsistent arguments? Like the one where you're first claiming it's all about the money, always and exclusively, and consequentially poor female representation in video games is necessarily solely the result of the market not wanting that, but later go on to state that poor female representation is (also) the result of a dearth of women in game development, i.e. NOT due to market demands?
So what is it now? Are game writers writing few and underwhelming female characters because they're male and don't know any better? Or because their audience are immature idiots who don't want any better?
Or what about a third option? Game developers just believing that good, strong female characters just don't sell, without really giving it a try? Perhaps not unlike the movie industry, regardless of evidence to the opposite (Hunger Games, Twilight, Gravity)? Do you preclude the possibility that beliefs which may or may not be based on reality inform these decisions?
Oh boy, time for a history lesson then. Males played the dominant role in creating gaming as we know it. They created it for entertainment, pushing the limits of technology, creating an industry, etc. Nobody ignores the wishes of male gamers because gamers were already made BY males FOR males ground-up. There was an early time when games were marketed towards both young girls and boys but the male consumer base simply roared ahead and that's why things are the way they are.CloudAtlas said:
It's still the primary driving force but games still need to be made by someone, they don't just appear out of thin air you know. I assumed that people could at least apply basic logic around what I was saying.CloudAtlas said:
Those are adjectives. You need a bit more than that.CloudAtlas said:
You understood my point - mission accomplished there. How much you want to dwell on my choice of words after understanding the point is of no significance to me.CloudAtlas said:
Try not to think of things in such black-and-white. Consumer decisions are the driving force of basically everything that you would call "negative" or "a problem". That is purely what I'm discussing here. The "bad" stuff.CloudAtlas said:
I think it has more to do with gaming in general having poor writing because marrying two concepts (telling a story and letting the player interact/play) is not particularly easy, and it's easy to let the story have a back seat if the gameplay is good enough to rake in sales. Most consumers seem to consider a good story as the icing on the cake, not the core of the cake. That's what consumer patterns have shown so far anyway. A game can have no story whatsoever and still make millions with raw gameplay - what is this telling devs and publishers?CloudAtlas said:
More of a case of strong female characters simply not being NECCESSARY because when people play a game, the character they are playing as can often be a blank cardboard "default" character...and the "default" gender in gaming is still considered male e.g. 99% of all enemies and cannon-fodder in games are male/masculine. That's one factor.CloudAtlas said:
Then another factor is the gaming audience categorized by demographics. The "core" demographics (FPS, RTS, Arcade Fighter, RPG, MMO, MOBA, etc) still have a primarily male demographic.
Unfortunately if you ask me to dig up statistics of that I can't find any because the industry seems to be extremely scared of releasing statistics that look completely skewed. There was a survey on this very website on what genders people are, turns out something like 80-85% of this forum community is male...that's sort of a hint. I think that thread was deleted by admins because I can't find it any more.
Movies are a lot better off in that regard, but let keep this about gamingCloudAtlas said:
For many games, story and characters are very important though; at times even their main selling points. Those are the games that absolutely need good characters. And those are exactly the kind of games that most of the debate about the portrayal and quality of characters beyond a superficial level is revolving around.Aaron Sylvester said:
Eva from MGS3, Chloe from Uncharted 2 and James Bond from 007 games.
All of them uses charm in order to help their mission.
All of them uses charm in order to help their mission.
An obvious example of 'Sexualisation' would be in the marketing of clothes to young girls. I think it's very safe to say sexualisation's main cultural currency/value is visual (obviously not saying it's exclusively visual - else you couldn't have poorly written and objectified female characters in literature). I'm trying to think of a female game character who is known, and criticised, for being sexualised, based wholly on their character - and I can't think of one (not saying they don't exist. but sexualised female characters with objectified or incongruous designs have been, and still largely are, an endemic problem).wulf3n said:
So as for Alyx and the cited definition:
1. Alyx is not rendered with sexual characteristics.
2. She has no sexual associations. (other than those the player projects)
Alyx is idealised, which isn't the same thing at all. She's designed to be likable, attractive in a non-threatening, non-sexual way (presumably to both genders), and helpful. She personalises our interactions with the story and world, and gives the player something to care about on a personal level.
(she's obviously also Valve's sometimes rather painfully obvious Tutorial-Bot/Player Goal Vending Machine)
So, Alyx is not sexualised. She is not objectified. She is idealised. That could absolutely be perceived as a weakness of character design, but given the era she was created, she was an immense breath of fresh air, which is why she'll always be regarded so highly.
What we have is a gendered status quo that's being challenged. You have a culture of sexism from the industry to the playerbase. When females wander into these male environments, they're often not welcomed or treated equally. And you're asking why women aren't just "driving" change? It's nothing more than a boy's club whining about having to let girl's into it: a traditionally male dominated culture is now being forced to 'share' - and its response is hostile, to say the least (from the voice chat harassment aimed at them in MP FPS's, to death and rape threats aimed at various female commentators and/or those in the industry).Aaron Sylvester said:
Females are now 'allowed' to play games and consume various forms of pop culture. But that doesn't mean they are represented by a given medium or reflected by it. It'll likely take decades to begin to assert representative parity within the games industry. Women are trying to change things - but it's being met with resistance from an entrenched, conservative male culture.
Here's the thing. Art/Modelling and Marketing teams are different from the Writing teams. So if the writer pours heart and soul into a character then someone decides she should be in tight clothing what does it matter?
I mean, are you really gonna look at my face and tell me that one persons brilliant writing is immediately negated because someone decided tight clothes would sell more copies? No, marketing is full of people who only want to move units. Art teams want to create shit that's good to look at, make interesting designs. The writer shouldn't have to be told his work is meaningless because of someone elses decision.
I mean, are you really gonna look at my face and tell me that one persons brilliant writing is immediately negated because someone decided tight clothes would sell more copies? No, marketing is full of people who only want to move units. Art teams want to create shit that's good to look at, make interesting designs. The writer shouldn't have to be told his work is meaningless because of someone elses decision.
It absolutely matters if it objectifies a character incongruously. As has been said elsewhere, it doesn't really matter if a crappy fighter sexualises its busty female roster for the benefit of young hormonal males - it owns its [tedious, festishistic] sexism, and owns up to it. Put Alyx Vance, for instance, in a skimpy outfit and suddenly how she's valued, how she's perceived, changes. As it is, she is relatable to both sexes. If she were objectified, she'd be there primarily for male pleasure and therefore exclude female (or gay male) gamers (or, as often happens, those gamers would simply have to tolerate the exclusive objectification).Gankytim said:
If videogames want to be accepted as art then there needs to be more cohesion of creative vision. Usually the visual design and script compliment each other, as should cut-scene direction and so on. I think Miranda Lawson's a generally well written character, but the outfit is ridiculous, and some of the dialogue scene direction is [infamously] exploitative.
So yeah, a cohesion of character realisation should matter.