The final proof...

[generals3]

In response to your first: The big difference here is that most of the time they're predominantly a male fantasy, and inadvertently a female sexual fantasy. Actually I won't even limit it that much, they're primarily intended to portray someone you'd want to be, not just someone you'd want to have sex with. Unfortunately I'm having trouble thinking of a perfect example for this for a female main character, but Alyx Vance is a good example for this for side character. She's strong and capable, and while some people find her attractive, you can tell clearly from her design and character that nothing's being thrown in just be be sexualized. Or take Tali, I find her accent far more attractive than I have any right to, but the accent isn't intended to be lusty. Those are characters that are just inadvertently attractive, and aren't designed to appeal to guys.

Now the opposite of that is very common in female characters, sexual characteristics take up the majority of the focus of the character. For example in Mass Effect with the number of ass shots that Miranda gets, the game is trying to shove the sexualization in your face. You probably wouldn't see that many close ups of guy's firm butts in the game. The sorceress who started this thread fits firmly into this category.

My point is, even if power fantasies can be attractive, when done properly the fantasy comes first and the attraction comes second. For most characters there should be some overlap, a quality being desired for its own sake, not just because it attracts all the guys. Of course I really don't think that every character needs to be a power fantasy, or really any, but the sheer number of female characters that get sexuality as their primary aspect is considerably more prominent than how many male characters. Actually, I'd be happy if you could show me a single male character who does it.

Actually i don't really like the word "attraction" in this context. Simply because attraction is a consequence of many elements. For instance "intelligence" is an attractive trait and thus by default cause attraction. (well ok, if everything else fails it won't be able to make up for the other unattractive traits but if all else remains the same more intelligence will increase the attractiveness. Mainly for women) And i would also like to add that there is no such thing as quality being desired for its own sake. A quality is only beneficial if you consider it a quality and if you do there is a reason.
Secondly one of the problems we can encounter is the fact both women and men find different perks more important when it comes to attractiveness and both respond differently to sexualization. For instance traits not considered as sexual are more important for women than men. And nudity has a bigger impact on arousal for males than females. As such you don't even need to sexualize male characters for them to be sexual fantasies.

Second: Oh, completely. I agree with just about everything in that. I'd even go as far to say that the reason why being strong and intelligent is seen as attractive to a lot of women is similar to the reason why guys want it. And I'm going to tie my previous point into this, there are things besides large breasts and asses that guys find attractive in women. Things to the same effect of intelligence, craftiness and strength (talking a broad definition of strength here). And I'm going to tie in my previous point to this, these are qualities that overlap and can be appreciated by in both a sense of attraction and idealization.

The thing is, when you get situations like the ass shots and massive boobs it is clear that those are put in there solely for people who're attracted to women. Which... can be fine, so long as there's even close to the same amount of attention given to the opposite gender

While they may like them they're lower on the priority scale than for women. We prioritize signs of fertility and not genetic awesomeness. Doesn't mean we don't care at all about intelligence or humour or whatever, but just care less.

And i totally disagree that there is an inherent need to give the same amount of attention to the opposite gender. That's not how marketing works. You choose your target and try to satisfy that target.

 

[aguspal]

Oh well damn it.

This again. Oh no. Aaaaa run for your lifes.


*TAKES COVER*

 

[Vegosiux]

Oh for cryin' out loud, let's just go back to stick figures and call it a day.

Will even mean people won't have to sink money into GPUs as often anymore.

 

[HalfTangible]

"The final proof"? REALLY?

Dude, most feminists are not represented by this guy anymore than most gamers are represented by the people who were threatening to rape Anita Sarkeesian(sp?) for a series of internet videos, or the Columbine shooters. And that's assuming he/she is completely wrong in the first place.

As to the clothing thing: The issue is less the way the characters are dressed and more how they pose/are presented to the player. Google pictures of, say, Zangief versus Mai Shiranui. The former conveys a shitload about the character in a single frame from his pose [usually "Im strong and tough and gonna rip your body apart"]... whereas the latter is generally posed like she's checking herself out. Both of them are clad in little and show off a lot of their body, but whereas the former is communicating a lot about his character in every frame... Learning just about anything about the latter requires that you look it up.

That's not to say Mai isn't a deep, interesting character... I've never played the games, she could be the deepest character in it for all I know. But you would never get that from looking at pictures of her. (seriously, google her, you'll see what I'm talking about)

Heck, even that wouldn't be that big of an issue if it weren't so prevalent.

 

[Zeles]

are any of you artist?
have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe this isn't sexism and just the art style the artist was going for. You know an over the top super deformed body types in a fantasy world.

*Raises hand*

I'm not a professional, and am still learning, but I've been trying really hard to improve on how realistic I make my proportions while trying to find a style of my own. So, looking at the Sorceress, the thought did occur to me.

HOWEVER

I think when a character is designed to look like that, it's acceptable, UP TO THE POINT WHERE SHE BREAKS HER BACK TO LOOK AT THE VIEWER.
Looking at all the characters, it sort of makes sense for all of them to be a bit out of proportion- that appears to be what the look is going for. But none of the others are so ridiculously bent out of shape.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Let me make my position perfectly clear, I like the TnA just as any teenager would but at the same time, I'm more interested in the gameplay that she exhibits

I thought along the same lines as a lot of people that I would not play as the sorceress at all due to the overemphasized cleavage but looking at the gameplay and her use of barriers, transformation spells and her air dash, I'm more inclined to play her at some point

The issue of female design and their use as simply fanservice is something to discuss but as long as the gameplay does not do anything that can be considered shameless (clothes being ripped up by attacks) I really don't have a problem.

Plus, lots of women in anime, manga, games and television have had oversexualized characteristics that still have personalities and story arcs ( the aforementioned Bayonetta being one), I see no issue with having overtly sexy characters as long as they are at least well written or given good gameplay.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Actually i don't really like the word "attraction" in this context. Simply because attraction is a consequence of many elements. For instance "intelligence" is an attractive trait and thus by default cause attraction. (well ok, if everything else fails it won't be able to make up for the other unattractive traits but if all else remains the same more intelligence will increase the attractiveness. Mainly for women) And i would also like to add that there is no such thing as quality being desired for its own sake. A quality is only beneficial if you consider it a quality and if you do there is a reason.

Fair enough, what I essentially mean is not for the sake of being an object of lust. Something that comes more directly from the trait, intelligence results in greater understanding, strength gives you more freedom to interact with the world, etc...

Secondly one of the problems we can encounter is the fact both women and men find different perks more important when it comes to attractiveness and both respond differently to sexualization. For instance traits not considered as sexual are more important for women than men. And nudity has a bigger impact on arousal for males than females. As such you don't even need to sexualize male characters for them to be sexual fantasies.

Depends, there's many ways though that guys can be sexualized in games that would probably do far more for a lot of women than being smart, funny or strong. One sec, I'm going to ask one to get an example.

Okay, here's what she says would work with a lot of the women she knows (although not particularly for her):
- Tight pants, accentuating the ass and showing off the definition of his package
- Very low cut shirts or shirtless with defined abs, but not a hulking beast of a man
- Confident, teasing attitude
- "making eyes" (I'm guessing this would be akin to giving sexual gazes to the player character)
A very large part of it seems to do with how they'd interact with the characters, acting in an alluring, roguish manner. As well as how they carry themselves and show their body.

She also gave me a link to an artist who does a lot of drawings of sexualized guys, which can be seen here [http://neemeister.deviantart.com/art/Jason-150021275?q=gallery%3Aneemeister%2F1661593&qo=22]. And while that one is rather tame, the Man for Every Season [http://neemeister.deviantart.com/art/Man-for-Every-Season-Calendar-104258603] calender goes a fair bit farther with that. Also, I feel this quote from her is prudent "90% of the men in [the artists] Gallery look like they just are asking to be fucked".

This obviously isn't every woman's opinion or taste, but I think that it makes a good enough point that guys can be sexualized for women in senses far beyond being smart, strong and funny. Those just don't get nearly any attention. I imagine this is largely due to the fact that game publishers are afraid of making guys uncomfortable by playing as female protagonists, much less have attractive shirtless men seductively make advances on them.

While they may like them they're lower on the priority scale than for women. We prioritize signs of fertility and not genetic awesomeness. Doesn't mean we don't care at all about intelligence or humour or whatever, but just care less.

And i totally disagree that there is an inherent need to give the same amount of attention to the opposite gender. That's not how marketing works. You choose your target and try to satisfy that target.

You can say that, but then that just further reinforces the idea that gaming is a boys club and that effort should be made to ensure that it remains one. Something I don't buy into at all, if you're clearly marketing your products to a single gender, you shouldn't be surprised when the other gender gives less attention to it

EDIT: Also relevant and pictured below is the reportedly very sexualized statue of a man in the controposto stance and reflects a mischievous play of dominance (her words, she also happens to have taken some art history classes). However this was in ancient greece and might not be entirely applicable as it was men doing the sexualization

Spoiler

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Wow... the sorceress is even worse in that one. Is everybody noticing the placement of the staff there? I can't believe people are trying to turn this into a power fantasy or draw a false equivalence to guys. Or maybe there's some vast reservoir of male characters in games grinding their ass and groin against objects that I've completely missed out on.

Do people even realize what it means to equate this and muscular game characters under power fantasies? Apparently a guy's power fantasy is to be strong and powerful, while a girl's is to be something that a guy would lust after.

The comparison to how males are sexualized in games and media is ridiculous, precisely because heterosexual men and heterosexual women don't find the same things sexually exciting. I don't think some of the men making this argument quite realize that these guys with their muscles and powerful stances are being put into the game for their own benefit, to help the power-fantasy along.

There's not much to be said about the sorceress grinding her ass and genitals against her own staff though; you can have every woman in every video game grinding against every phallic shaped object and precisely zero women would have been objectified or harmed in the act. That's because a two-dimensional representation of an allegedly human woman isn't actually a woman, and making her do all sorts of hypersexualized things on screen doesn't really prove much other than that the developers/publishers don't have a high opinion of their target audience. It's nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy aimed at the lowest common denominator -- the kinds of sexless losers who would actually be turned on by that.

I wasn't being entirely serious with the guys grinding their genitals comparison, I was more referring to any sort of female equivalent to that. And while it's true no one is harmed, or objectified, it's a fairly large statement on what kind of demographic you intend to be playing this game. The gaming world is unfortunately a little too over-saturated with sexualization solely intended for straight males

 

[go-10]

You just said this style was all the rage back in the 80's. Whatever, it's sexist or it's not sexist, up to you, but daring and unique it is not. It's thin girl, large breasts, large ass. Oooo, creativity.

I think it's terrible.

yeah the 80's, which have been done and over with for quite a while mind you. Also in recent games look for character designs similar to that, and no Scarlet Blade crap I mean actual games

*Raises hand*

I'm not a professional, and am still learning, but I've been trying really hard to improve on how realistic I make my proportions while trying to find a style of my own. So, looking at the Sorceress, the thought did occur to me.

HOWEVER

I think when a character is designed to look like that, it's acceptable, UP TO THE POINT WHERE SHE BREAKS HER BACK TO LOOK AT THE VIEWER.
Looking at all the characters, it sort of makes sense for all of them to be a bit out of proportion- that appears to be what the look is going for. But none of the others are so ridiculously bent out of shape.

why should ANY character in a fantasy universe behave with the rules of reality? This is something that has always bothered me, if its a FANTASY why does it matter if anything in that world wouldn't make sense in real life? For all we know magician in the Dragon's Crown universe have 400 vertebrates like some snakes do, point is it doesn't matter because its fantasy so reality needs to check out at the door, and if you can't relate because its fantasy... really?


mind you this doesn't mean I'm fond of the design its just that I don't pretend like the end of the world because some dude put Hitomi Tanaka in a witch costume

 

[grey_space]

I only bring this up because the sorceress is nothing but eye candy. To try to argue she isn't is disingenuous. But she's one character. If all the female characters were huge sluts like dead or alive there's a little bit more room for debate there, but calling this game sexist implies that a game is not even allowed to have a sexualized female character without being labelled as sexist. Making every female character in a game an excuse to show off jiggle physics is immature, but I think pretending that women are NEVER sexualized ever or never sexualize themselves is just as immature in a different way.

And that's not to say that there's no room for immature tit-fests either. I think people are quick to correlate sexualization with Misogyny when really these things don't hurt anybody. I'll understand if women don't see the appeal in it, but if the developers want to pander to a male demographic that's their prerogative.

.

Ya I agree. I think the game is immature and the fucking jiggle physics is really grating on my eyes so I won't be playing it. If guys(or girls) want to buy this game and fap or giggle at cartoon t'n'a then more power too them.

Each to his own. But this game is certainly not improving the fair representation of women in the media, but I wouldn't say its dragging it backwards either.

 

[zefichan]

Saying videogames using the trope of damsel in distress encourages toxic views of women in RL isn't something to be taken lightly.

Indeed, mostly since it's true. There are very few groups in the western civilization more sexist than male gamers for a reason (one of the few: Catholic priests. Before you cry about OMG ANTI-CATHOLICISM - I AM catholic culturally). I know sports clubs where this discussion you are having wouldn't fly, and where people flat out admit things are sexism. Gamers, meanwhile, shriek and threaten women who say that with rape and death (See Sarkeesian - the entire attacks on her proved her right 100%. Gamers managed to be worse than Bronies when it came to her...).

Wow, screenshots of those characters have been floating around for ages and NOW people are taking offense?

People have taken offence for ages, gamer nerds just attacked them since the beginning. Basically the same mudflinging you guys are doing now.

why should ANY character in a fantasy universe behave with the rules of reality?

You'd be the first to shriek if any female character you liked was suddenly obese, so your logic just committed suicide right there.

There is something called internal realism, which is very important. Look up why.

 

[generals3]

Saying videogames using the trope of damsel in distress encourages toxic views of women in RL isn't something to be taken lightly.

Indeed, mostly since it's true. There are very few groups in the western civilization more sexist than male gamers for a reason (one of the few: Catholic priests. Before you cry about OMG ANTI-CATHOLICISM - I AM catholic culturally). I know sports clubs where this discussion you are having wouldn't fly, and where people flat out admit things are sexism. Gamers, meanwhile, shriek and threaten women who say that with rape and death (See Sarkeesian - the entire attacks on her proved her right 100%. Gamers managed to be worse than Bronies when it came to her...).

That's just silly. People attacked her because she made an insane claim with 0 evidence concerning video games. Yes gamers are very protective about their hobby, exactly because populist liars love to make ludicrous claims about the impact of games on RL. Soon we'll be told playing GTA makes us all extremely violent psychopaths who think its fun to kill people with a dildo. And yes the internet overreacts as well and that has nothing to do with gamers being sexist misogynistic pigs.

 

[generals3]

Snip

Two points:

One: I didn't say men couldn't be sexualized. However it has a much lesser impact and simply isn't worth it. On top of that male characters are actually sexually appealing through non-sexualized traits, that's something much harder to achieve with female characters. Let's not ultimately forget that sexualization comes at a cost, it makes quite some consumers not take the game seriously anymore, so it has to be done with a clear objective. Obviously emphasizing on a woman's ass is gonna be much more beneficial than doing so on a man's ass. Not only because there are more male gamers but because such things have a bigger impact on males.

Two: "You can say that, but then that just further reinforces the idea that gaming is a boys club and that effort should be made to ensure that it remains one. Something I don't buy into at all, if you're clearly marketing your products to a single gender, you shouldn't be surprised when the other gender gives less attention to it"

Efforts shouldn't be made to ensure it remains one. Efforts should be made for the gaming industry to make money and if males are more prominent consumers obviously targeting them is more profitable. And i don't buy the vicious circle theory because if there was a way to make a shit ton of money by making women-centric games it would have probably already been done.

 

[Easton Dark]

You just said this style was all the rage back in the 80's. Whatever, it's sexist or it's not sexist, up to you, but daring and unique it is not. It's thin girl, large breasts, large ass. Oooo, creativity.

I think it's terrible.

yeah the 80's, which have been done and over with for quite a while mind you. Also in recent games look for character designs similar to that, and no Scarlet Blade crap I mean actual games

One that came to mind immediately from the most popular game played today.

Spoiler: Within here

Basically, the sorceress is a clone of Miss Fortune with a stick she can grind against.

Also instantly thought of was this witch from an anime I never watched... but she has the symptoms of oversized, but underclothed, witch gear, with big breasts, ass, and with purple hair.

If required I could go through comic heroines I know.

 

[Kopikatsu]

are any of you artist?
have any of you thought that maybe, just maybe this isn't sexism and just the art style the artist was going for. You know an over the top super deformed body types in a fantasy world.

*Raises hand*

I'm not a professional, and am still learning, but I've been trying really hard to improve on how realistic I make my proportions while trying to find a style of my own. So, looking at the Sorceress, the thought did occur to me.

HOWEVER

I think when a character is designed to look like that, it's acceptable, UP TO THE POINT WHERE SHE BREAKS HER BACK TO LOOK AT THE VIEWER.
Looking at all the characters, it sort of makes sense for all of them to be a bit out of proportion- that appears to be what the look is going for. But none of the others are so ridiculously bent out of shape.

I forget what it's called, but there is a name for stances that fly in the face of anatomy for the sake of a 'dramatic' or 'powerful' stance/scene. (Powerful in this context doesn't relate to physical strength). One of LoL's artists discussed it recently, stating that most of their splash images use this kind of technique, but I don't remember their name right now.

 

[Filiecs]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.

Here's a crazy idea: How about we let people make the games they want to make?

1. A game does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of its designer(s).
2. When you are creating a game you are creating a brand new world! Any break from realism is only a problem if you claim your game is realistic.
3. Unless a game is supporting the generalization of women by saying/having ALL/most the women in their game look/act a certain way as well as claiming that their game is based on reality, it's not discriminatory. This is the same for men, too. The job of a game is to be fun and interesting, not necessarily realistic.
Example: A game where all the males of a tribe are fat and have have giant muscles and all the women are stupid and have big boobs is not sexist because its not claiming to be realistic.
4. A "sexist" game cannot cause adults in the real world to be sexist.
5. If you're embarrassed to play videogames just because a group of videogames has their women big breasted to try and increase sales, then you probably have some insecurity issues.

This extends to pretty much all other art forms as well. Unless the work is trying to make a statement about our world or claims to be realistic in how it presents males and females AND still generalizes, it can't be sexist.

For all we know, those characters shown could look the way they do just because that is the way the world they live in works. One thing is for sure, their designs are certainly interesting.

If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

 

[Scott Rothman]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.
If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is that when people try to point out criticisms they have with the game, people LOSE THEIR SHIT. Just look at this thread and how quickly it devolves into personal attacks because someone suggested they found contant distasteful.

 

[Scott Rothman]

And I don't know about you guys, but I love Kotaku. I didn't realize there was so much animosity towards it. Any particular reason why?

 

[go-10]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.

Here's a crazy idea: How about we let people make the games they want to make?

1. A game does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of its designer(s).
2. When you are creating a game you are creating a brand new world! Any break from realism is only a problem if you claim your game is realistic.
3. Unless a game is supporting the generalization of women by saying/having ALL/most the women in their game look/act a certain way as well as claiming that their game is based on reality, it's not discriminatory. This is the same for men, too. The job of a game is to be fun and interesting, not necessarily realistic.
Example: A game where all the males of a tribe are fat and have have giant muscles and all the women are stupid and have big boobs is not sexist because its not claiming to be realistic.
4. A "sexist" game cannot cause adults in the real world to be sexist.
5. If you're embarrassed to play videogames just because a group of videogames has their women big breasted to try and increase sales, then you probably have some insecurity issues.

This extends to pretty much all other art forms as well. Unless the work is trying to make a statement about our world or claims to be realistic in how it presents males and females AND still generalizes, it can't be sexist.

For all we know, those characters shown could look the way they do just because that is the way the world they live in works. One thing is for sure, their designs are certainly interesting.

If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

You sir have won the internet today, the thread can now be closed and all arguments are now invalid. Hope you don't mind but I'm gonna copy paste your message every time I see a "sexism blah blah" discussion comes up on the internet

 

[Fishes]

The comparison to how males are sexualized in games and media is ridiculous, precisely because heterosexual men and heterosexual women don't find the same things sexually exciting. I don't think some of the men making this argument quite realize that these guys with their muscles and powerful stances are being put into the game for their own benefit, to help the power-fantasy along.

First off: Emotional reactions to visual stimuli are not governed by logic. Second: If you are going to drop the false equivalency line in an emotional debate, you might wish to look up special pleading.

As example of special pleading:

When femininity is being objectified, it is sexist regardless of the intent of the one doing the objectification. When someone points out the ways in which men are also objectified, suddenly intent is crucial when deciding if something is or is not sexist.


Logically there is no difference between putting a topless men in a game, and putting topless women into a game. I think you yourself state as much. (not in those words, so sorry if it is projection) Is there a major distinction emotionally? Yes there is of course a huge difference. American society expects men to view physical objectification as a positive. On the other hand American society expects women to view it as a negative. That is huge, it just isn't logical.

For the record, I am not questioning your position on sexism, or sexualization, or objectification. I am pointing out that logical fallacies don't have a place in emotional arguments. The moment you bring such a standard, you invalidate both sides. Feminism included.

Once someone says: "The existence of fictional content harms no one that does not actively make an effort to to interact with it. As game developers do not force people to interact with their content, all interactions are consensual and thus acceptable." the logical debate is over, and everyone starts talking about how they feel, and how their individual biases and preferences should be prioritize over the biases and preferences of others. Assuming of course no one is forced to interact with the fictional content.

Standards of logic have no place in that debate, because everyone on both sides waited for logic to leave the building before they started the conversation. If you wish to criticize the entire debate by calling it illogical that is fair. Insensitive but fair. Criticizing just one side however is just special pleading, AKA inherently fallacious.