Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?
I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.
In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.
Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?
I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.
In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.
If one million nerds can't speak George Lucas out of Greedo shot first, what hope is there for any creative justice? At least they're catering to someone.
Besides. What part of "appealing to everyone" leaves anyone but the creators at a lost? The only think at palpable risk here is if you're a creator who has a specific vision that they need a bigger audience than there is for (as has forever been the case in anything not self-financed, god bless Kickstarter), or people who don't want the game they're playing to be played by anyone else. The kind of people who want games that dissuade minorities and women away for some reason. And if you are that kind of person, is there any doubt why people aren't going to try and cater specifically to you?
Even the most offensive of TV shows and movies basically build clauses into themselves to ensure "every target's a fair target" - South Park comes to mind. They daren't at any point write themselves into validating the views of anyone in the opposition of what they're mocking.
Do you think that there are so many people that were offended that not catering to them would be a significant loss? Do any of them even watch the show in the first place? Is it not offending them all of a sudden going to start them watching? Even if it is - is that audience really so large? Is that what you believe? Is it not just a vocal minority?
I don't think censoring content for the sake of feminist desires is going to be the difference between sleeping in a box and having running hot water.
In the end it doesn't really matter what we think, but what the content creators/publishers think. And recent evidence has shown that if people speak loud enough they can change existing content into something that suits them specifically at the cost of others.
If one million nerds can't speak George Lucas out of Greedo shot first, what hope is there for any creative justice? At least they're catering to someone.
That only serves to reinforce my point. A man with multi billion dollar empire is able to create what he desires and appeal to no one, whereas a person/company that hinges on the success of their next project has to appeal to as many as possible.
Andy of Comix Inc said:
The kind of people who want games that dissuade minorities and women away for some reason. And if you are that kind of person, is there any doubt why people aren't going to try and cater specifically to you?
Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.
Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.
Oh, people who can't participate are sad? Oh, no. Oh what tragedy! What shiteaters! Oh, nevermind. I mean it's perfectly rational to cater to the man with the "no blacks" sign on his restaurant door, that man just... no. No, it's not a good thing to be doing. And I don't know what you mean by "affects them," if that's the case, does it not go the other way? Why does it affect you that people complain that the game should be another way? It doesn't affect them one way, so why does it affect you the opposite?
Yet when a developer/publisher does attempt to cater to said demographic, rather than just let them have their game, the internet has to kick up a shit storm about how it affects them, when it really doesn't.
Oh, people who can't participate are sad? Oh, no. Oh what tragedy! What shiteaters! Oh, nevermind. I mean it's perfectly rational to cater to the man with the "no blacks" sign on his restaurant door, that man just... no. No, it's not a good thing to be doing. And I don't know what you mean by "affects them," if that's the case, does it not go the other way? Why does it affect you that people complain that the game should be another way? It doesn't affect them one way, so why does it affect you the opposite?
I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.
You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.
I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.
You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.
I also believe that cutting people out of the loop is bad and dangerous, and that forcing people into the loop - while somewhat distasteful - is a better alternative. If there were enough games on the market that there were those that did both, I wouldn't be talking to you. But at the moment the former is the norm.
I mean, I'm over here saying everyone should be allowed at my party, and you're over there saying only white straight men can be at your party, and you think I'm the evil one? Oh, okay. I didn't realize equality was so threatening! It's not going to take away your party, though. It's just gonna put more people in it. Fuck me, right?
I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.
You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.
And that's great, but then why would you have a problem with those who also want choice, but just choose differently to you?
Andy of Comix Inc said:
I mean, I'm over here saying everyone should be allowed at my party, and you're over there saying only white straight men can be at your party, and you think I'm the evil one? Oh, okay. I didn't realize equality was so threatening! It's not going to take away your party, though. It's just gonna put more people in it. Fuck me, right?
That's not what's happening at all. This is a case of I'm having a party, everyone's allowed but it's not going to suit everyone. Now I'm not trying to stop anyone from organizing a party their way, yet people are telling me how to organise my party.
Now you can say "It's not going to take away your party" but If you're telling I can't have things at my party then you are taking away my party.
I have no problem with people complaining. I have a problem with people actively trying to stop things that aren't meant for them.
You speak of the idea that games are for everyone but given your recent arguments it's become clear that's not what you want. You believe games are for you and those that agree with you.
Because there's no alternative. Or, not enough alternative.
If a girl wants to play a game that speaks to her in the same way male-centric games speak to their audience, her choice is... uh... um... I dunno, something by Anna Anthropy? I don't mind her philosophies but geez, do you want girls to have to play her games, too? Oh no...
So yeah, at the moment the choice is a "for everyone" game, like an RPG with character creation 'n junk, like a Pokemon, some kind of more fluid piece like Mirror's Edge that just kind of tangentially brushes up against anything even remotely gender-oriented, or... she can dive into Call of Duty and be called a slutwhore? She can play a Dead or Alive and look at women be objectified for a bit? Like there's too much of one thing and not enough of the other. Is crying for balance so awful to you?
I don't like the idea of taking anything away from anyone, but geez, I mean if you're making a game and its like that easy to add in, I dunno, a female avatar or whatever, and you're like "nope I'm makin' this game for the mens y'know that'd cut into my budget by like a whole lunchbreak"... I'm gonna feel justified in complaining. Just sayin'.
Because there's no alternative. Or, not enough alternative.
If a girl wants to play a game that speaks to her in the same way male-centric games speak to their audience, her choice is... uh... um... I dunno, something by Anna Anthropy? I don't mind her philosophies but geez, do you want girls to have to play her games, too? Oh no...
So yeah, at the moment the choice is a "for everyone" game, like an RPG with character creation 'n junk, like a Pokemon, some kind of more fluid piece like Mirror's Edge that just kind of tangentially brushes up against anything even remotely gender-oriented, or... she can dive into Call of Duty and be called a slutwhore? She can play a Dead or Alive and look at women be objectified for a bit? Like there's too much of one thing and not enough of the other. Is crying for balance so awful to you?
I don't like the idea of taking anything away from anyone, but geez, I mean if you're making a game and its like that easy to add in, I dunno, a female avatar or whatever, and you're like "nope I'm makin' this game for the mens y'know that'd cut into my budget by like a whole lunchbreak"... I'm gonna feel justified in complaining. Just sayin'.
Great way to illustrate why you claim you never see anyone show facts and figures - its because you plug your ears and yell "lalalalala" whenever anybody does.
You need to actually read attentively what you reply to. Your numbers do not answer my question in the slightest. I thought you would have figured it out but I'll have to give the answer to you.
A: The study analyzes portrayal of characters, in case you didn't notice there are a brickton of games without characters. secondly what about a game with only one main character which happens to be male, is that somehow women unfriendly? Or what about the fact that if you have a game with 4 sexualized chicks shown in the magazine and an other game with a non-sexualized female lead the study would show that only 20% of the women are non-sexualized while the percentage of game with characters would be 50%.
B: The abstract you copy pasted talks about what was found in magazines. They couldn't have used a more retarded methodology even if they tried. By doing that they severely biased their sample. Most expert/hardcore gamers are men and since magazines like that tend to be read by the hardcore crowd obviously said magazines will focus on advertising/giving information about male-oriented games.
This is the exact quote.
"The problem isn't that women get put in skimpy outfits or kidnapped or anything like that. It's that this has been primarily what happens to them [in video games]."
Not 100% clear. You've clarified now, sa'll good.
Norithics said:
You questioned my premise by blindly listing a bunch of recent games you did no research into at all and said that based on the synopsis there weren't any of these things.
I did the work of showing you that six times out of eight, yes, those things did happen, in the exact games you listed.
Now now, there's no need for more exaggeration and sensationalism.
I asked for your opinion on a casually selected group of games as an informal example of why I think extreme assertions (like the one I believed you to be making) are incorrect.
I tell you what I've even break it down on your misleading terms:
Sweet Fuse: At Your Side - By your admission no problem, 0 out of 1.
Lost Planet 3 - By your admission no problem, 0 out of 2.
Killer Is Dead - Knowing Suda51 any potential issues will be thematically justified or tongue in cheek parody/humour.
But because I can't be 100% sure of that I'm going to be kind and just give you that one, 1 out of 3.
One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2 - One, I do not feel it is fair to blame the video game industry for the "mistakes" of the manga industry. Two, from what I've just read about One Piece, Nami (the character you linked) seems to be a capable character, active within the story.
But again, I can't be 100% sure so I'll be very kind and give you that one, 2 out of 4.
Rayman Legends - The Nymphs (the characters you linked) are effectively gods of the Rayman universe. They created the world and Rayman. The parts of the design that are common to them (wide hips and large breasts) show fertility and are thematically justified. Still I can't be 100% sure so I'll be extremely kind and give you that one, 3 out of 5.
Etrian Odyssey IV: Legends of the Titan - You could find issue with only one character. Not only does the character's design appear to be based on a belly dancer (giving legitimate reason for the skimpy clothes). Not only are the character's appearances customisable (meaning the design could possibly be edited by the player). But there is only one character you have a problem with, out of what appears to be a large cast of female characters. Your assertion isn't correct within this one game, 3 out of 6.
Final Fantasy XIV Online: A Realm Reborn -
Okay, using the harness/subligar armor set as an example is clearly unfair, Norithics, since it's actually more revealing on men than women, last time I checked. (I haven't played a male character in FFXIV, but the armor seems to be identical to its equivalent in FFXI.)
He does go on to say that some of the armors are slightly more revealing on females (the emphasis being slightly - go on, take a look), but they're certainly not sexualised, 3 out of 7.
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow Ultimate Edition - The wiki page you linked me to said that not only did the character you have an issue with guide the PC through the entire game, but she plays an active and integral role in the plot, 3 out of 8.
Norithics said:
Now you've done every single possible thing- moving goalposts,
See above.
If the wiki page you linked me doesn't tell the full story then please do.
Norithics said:
Now, even if I agreed with all of that, it still doesn't make my assertion wrong. It just means that there are reasons for them to exist. So the onus is on you, now, to prove that those girls weren't either wearing skimpy clothing or getting kidnapped and killed for Protagonist Fuel. Which would be pretty impressive to me, because I have eyeballs.
And I played Lords of Shadow.
But mostly the eyeballs thing.
"It just means that there are reasons for them to exist."
"So the onus is on you, now, to prove that those girls weren't either wearing skimpy clothing or getting kidnapped and killed for Protagonist Fuel."
With one sentence you admit your judgements are assumptive and could be baseless, with the next you say the responsibility is exclusively on me to prove that's the case. What happened to your responsibility to be honest and thorough?
Zachary Amaranth said:
You spelled "descriptive" wrong. He didn't "dismiss" anything.
Your arrogance is embarrassing.
When I say "extreme" I mean "extreme." And asserting that sexism is rampant throughout the video game industry (especially relative to other industries), that female characters are primarily used for sexualisation and objectification, that you cannot avoid games with sexualisation and objectification, etc. Are all extreme assertions.
Whatever your views on feminism in gaming, I do wish people would stop bringing up this ridiculous argument. It's like if I drive over a bridge and it collapses, and then the engineers tell me, "Well, if you want a decent bridge so much, you should just build your own!"
Why should I? I don't have the money. I don't know anything about civil engineering, and I doubt I'd have much aptitude for it. Why should I prioritise it over the things I'm actually skilled at? And while we're at it, should everyone who saw the bridge and said, "Wow, that bridge is really badly constructed" be forced to help with rebuilding efforts?
Let's face it, most people will never be in a position of authority when it comes to video game design. Most people will never have the business acumen to set up a company, or the inspiration for the next indie hit. Most people will never be writers or designers on a triple-A title. And I say this as a woman considering going into the video game industry! But if I do, I'll be working in localisation, and I'll still have absolutely no influence on the content of anything being put out.
That means that if I play games, I have to rely on the companies who do have the finance and the expertise and the connections needed to create a video game. Whether or not you agree that more games should include well-rounded female characters, the fact is that if those companies don't make them, I can't play them.
And on a final note, I'd also like to remind you that preferring smaller breasts says little about you as a man and doesn't confer upon you some kind of maturity or class that you seem to think you posess over men who prefer curvy women or big chests.
Who the fuck needs reminding of that? There is a pervasive belief that to be male implies an inherent obsession with breasts the size of hot air balloons, that is all.
Preference for ANY physical attribute, large or small, is not an indicator of "maturity or class". Nor is a wide range of preferences as opposed to a narrow one. Finding oneself attracted to a large variety of sexual characteristics is not a sign of broadmindedness, it's just the way nature made you. It's as much an indicator of "maturity and class" as having freckles.
You might as well "remind me" that water is wet. I realize this is an imperfect medium of communication and misunderstandings can and do happen, but I cannot say how you pulled this "class and maturity" business from what I wrote.
Retrograde said:
They can design characters that look that way and know that their audience is mature enough to know that prominent sexual characteristics don't write off the value of a woman, as they apparently do for western audiences.
Yes, let's pretend it's not the overt pandering that people take issue with. Let's pretend they believe "prominent sexual characteristics write off the value of women". That'll be a good straw man to knock over. Listen to him rustle! Ha ha!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
