Violence in games vs Sexism in games?

[Something Amyss]

What's considered attractive, especially by marketers trying to land on a universal ideal, isn't what always works. Just because romance novels tend towards lithely muscled men with come hither smiles and deep v-necked shirts doesn't mean every woman goes for that, or that it's the peak of attraction for them.

It's also worth consideration that what sells might not be the cover of the book but the contents.

Which brings me to an interesting question.

And since I was trying to draw comparisons to the stereotypical assumptions that game developers make about what men are attracted to, I wanted to go for more stereotypical portrayals of what women were attracted to.

The issue I have here, is the question of whether the situations are equal.

Let me explain:

When the issue of sexism in games comes up, it is met with hostility and antipathy. People who bring it up are accused of trying to ruin guys' fun and of removing all boobies and asked what's wrong with a little fan service.

Do you honestly think there would be parity if we changed the covers of romance novels? Would women threaten death and rape and other violence, like male gamers have in their entitled little outrage?

My point is this. The difference between the situations is one of definitive reinforcement vs one of implied approval. We as the gaming community have time and again demonstrated the attitude that is stereotyped: that we're so in love with our pixelated boobies that we will rape you, kill you, and kick your dog if you even talk about how it's a problem to women in the industry (Who by the same argument, either don't exist or are invading the treehouse).

Can you point to an area of reinforcement on that level offered by women that fits the stereotype of "what women want?"

It seems pointless to argue equal weight if the ground itself isn't equal.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes, because there are absolutely no women in the game industry.

Entirely male profession, no females are ever involved in any of these games people are talking about.

All the fault of men.

Is there any reason that strawman even if it was someone's actual argument would make a solid counterpoint? There's women in the industry. And? Unless you demonstrate a significant leadership or marketing role that puts them directly in charge, it still falls to men. And since almost nobody disputes the disparity of men and women in tech jobs, I'd think it was a given that you cannot make that burden of proof.

Have you worked in the industry?

Have you studied the industry?

Do you have any basis for your claims other than "lol, I hate men"?

The reason why it's not a valid counter point is that it has absolutely nothing backing it. There's no burden of proof if you've brought nothing to actually counter beyond the notion that all men are evil and it's all their fault.


And frankly, such arguments don't really work outside tumblr.

 

[The Lunatic]

Unless of course you count the redesign she went through and that despite having been a Doctor, a Vet, A presidential candidate and an Astronaut in recent times

Those totally don't count.

She was an attractive doctor, an attractive vet, an attractive presidential candidate and an attractive astronaut.

It's completely different!

How dare some women be attractive and successful role models!

 

[Saetha]

Snip

The issue I have here, is the question of whether the situations are equal.

Let me explain:

When the issue of sexism in games comes up, it is met with hostility and antipathy. People who bring it up are accused of trying to ruin guys' fun and of removing all boobies and asked what's wrong with a little fan service.

Do you honestly think there would be parity if we changed the covers of romance novels? Would women threaten death and rape and other violence, like male gamers have in their entitled little outrage?

My point is this. The difference between the situations is one of definitive reinforcement vs one of implied approval. We as the gaming community have time and again demonstrated the attitude that is stereotyped: that we're so in love with our pixelated boobies that we will rape you, kill you, and kick your dog if you even talk about how it's a problem to women in the industry (Who by the same argument, either don't exist or are invading the treehouse).

Can you point to an area of reinforcement on that level offered by women that fits the stereotype of "what women want?"

It seems pointless to argue equal weight if the ground itself isn't equal.

But as you yourself said, what may be attractive to the target demographic isn't what's on the cover, but what's inside - the contents. In the situation where women are the target, the contents are romance novels. In the situation where it's men, the contents are video games with sexualizations of women. I imagine if skimpy-armored women only showed up on the cover of video game, not too many guys would complain if they disappeared. In the same vein, if all the covers of romance novels got replaced with pictures of sensibly clothed and average looking men, women wouldn't really complain either - because the cover's not what matters. Said novels, and said video games, might pull in less sales, but that's not the content. But if you combed through all those romance novels, and changed the male heroes in them from the traditional archetype to something more average? Something that didn't match up with the perfect ideal many women read those novels for? Well, yeah, I imagine you'd get plenty of complaints. I mean, look at the peak of the Twilight craze, and how many women would go crazy if you so much as implied Edward was a bad character and a poor example of true love.

Now, I understand this isn't a perfect analogy to make - the main man of a romance novel is... well, basically the entire point of the romance novel, while sexualized women in games are often just eye-candy that can be easily removed or altered without changing much. But they're still contents of the game, not just box art or a novel cover.

And actually, now that you bring this up, I'd love to see what happens if a large influx of men suddenly started buying up romance novels and got involved in the... community? (I'm not sure if there really is a "romance novel community" atleast not to the extent that there's a video game community, but you understand my point) If men saw the same or similar archetypes of their gender everywhere they looked, would they have the same reaction women have to video games? Would women have a "no boys allowed" reaction, as many gamers apparently do? I do think there's a general archetype of "male romance hero... guy" - conventional good looks, sexual prowess, a willingness to sacrifice for the heroine while asking nothing in return, a big... well, you know. While it's not quite as insulting as the chainmail bikini types, it's still a clear archetype, and I imagine that, after awhile, many men would grow tired of seeing it. Hell, I've grown tired of seeing it, and that sort of thing's supposed to appeal to me.

I don't think this analogy really works at all, since there aren't many instances of men trying to move into a "female space," but you can find plenty of examples of the opposite - which is not to say that women should be banned from doing so or something, only that of course one can't pull up any examples of women resisting change to sexist stereotypes in their media, because no one's ever pushed for those sexist stereotypes to change.

EDIT: I realized I said absolutely nothing about the fanfic community and the culture surrounding that. And there is, in fact, a fanfic community and culture - they tend to vary from fandom to fandom, but... well, to be frank, fanfic culture is batshit insane, and in more ways that it's tendency objectify men and fetishize homosexuality.

 

[Uhura]

I don't know what your ideal male lead character with no power fantasy behind him looks like, but I bet he'd be fucking boring.

Uhh, ok? This has literally nothing to do with anything I have said in this thread. I'm not shitting on power fantasies or saying that they are wrong or that we need to get rid of them.

 

[Erttheking]

Kratos looks dead, his skin is gray and his muscles are over the top. Geralt is really pale too and his face is kinda busted up. Can' say much about Sam Fisher since I didn't find any shirtless pics of him.

How the fuck are Kratos and Geralt male power fantasies? Maybe I'm missing something, but honestly, my aspiration in life is not to become a creepy dude with dead looking skin and weird tattoos. Geralt is basically just some guy who gets manipulated and pushed around all the time - he's a good fighter but the majority of the time he's just a pawn, something you'd know if you spent more than a few hours playing it. I'm sure lots of men love to play The Witcher and fill his shoes but its certainly not a power thing.

It's not that no woman finds those guys attractive (because some women do).

And its not that no men have "power fantasies" about being Kratos (because some men do). Not anywhere near all of them though, just like SOME women find him attractive, but not all of them. Your argument works both ways.

How is Kratos a power fantasy? His entire goal in life is to run around slaughtering every last person of significance in Greek mythology with blades on the ends of chains and a big ass sword. The climax of the third game is him wailing on Zeus, the most powerful god in the world, until he becomes a red stain on the ground. How is he NOT a power fantasy? And I have to argue against the Witcher not being a power fantasy too. Regardless of how much he is manipulated, he is pretty much one of the only people in the world of the Witcher who can make any form of impact on the world and leaves trails of bodies everywhere he goes. When people fight him, they die. He can kill those who deserve it when no one else can touch them. That's pretty much what a power fantasy is.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If I can play an FPS, and not shoot someone based on my experience, then how would playing a sexist video game (Let's say Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum-Laude, which for the record was just a terrible game) make me mistreat women?

I do understand sexism does exist, but I'm still unsure how sexism in the media will cause sexism in real life. Through desensitization?

Were I to try and argue in support of such a distinction, I my logic would probably be something like:

Violence in video games is simulated and, in general, somewhat abstract. While violence is common in games, it is relatively uncommon in normal life and there are a host of social mechanisms working to keep things that way. As a result, simulated violence generally will not foster actual violence with any regularity.

By contract, sexism is incredibly common in every day life and there exist a host of mechanisms that ensure it remains a feature of even the most egalitarian societies. These range from basic research that points out cases where men and women differ mentally or physically, dating traditions, basic reproductive drive, etc. When a video game depicts sexism as being acceptable, it reinforces the already myriad mechanisms doing that in your normal life.

In short, video game sexism is "worse" simply because sexism is a regular facet of life and it offers just another avenue that suggests such actions are perfectly acceptable.

It should be said that I'm not likely to make such an argument simply because pointing to video games as villains in the case of sexism is remarkably silly if your aim is to combat sexism. Even if you win a particular battle, it was against an opponent that had no power (with respect to other forces) to affect the phenomenon. That isn't to say one might be wrong for being offended but rather that such action in a game is a symptom rather than a cause.

 

[generals3]

Remember, when the decision is all about maintaining the status quo and antiquated gender roles/representation it is sound business practice and a sign of wise leadership and strong focus on the consumer. When the issue is DRM, always-online or "dumbing down" of games it is shitty business practice perpetuated by publishers that lack leadership and are out of touch with reality.

Because it can't just be a case of publishers being equally inept in both cases... Not when it is us emotional, pushy women wanting more representation.

Did I ever say DRM, always-online or "dumbing down" of games are "shitty business practices perpetuated by publishers that lack leadership and are out of touch with reality"? If anything i'm one of those who dislikes the dumbing down of games but fully realizes it's a sound business decision.

Don't confuse the statement from someone who actually studied business and looks at the business side of things from a relatively emotionally detached way and those who think that their opinion = sound business. (Something we learned in marketing 101 is that the greatest error a marketeer could do is relying too much on their own ideas/opinions)

I can handle that my preferences are not always the ideal business decisions and i have learned to live with the idea i'm a niche audience. Maybe it is time for you to do the same?

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

I think we have different definitions of what a power fantasy is. Really, a ton of video games are about power fantasies because they're about you tearing down the legions of your enemies by the hundreds, if not the thousands. That's what people play the game for. You're coming out of nowhere that people indulging in power fantasies is a bad thing. I'm not sure why. Playing video games at all is indulging in a fantasy of one kind or another.

I said one of the only people. Not the only person, one of the only people, and I wasn't talking about all powerful kings when I meant people who couldn't do anything. The average civilian is powerless in the world of the Witcher, and can't do much of anything to change the world around them. Geralt can, Geralt can make life a little bit better and a little bit safer for commoners. He can stop a woman from being lynched, he can save a town from monsters, and he eventually has a hand in deciding the fate of a kingdom. He is a man who has an impact on the world. Does the entire world revolve around him? No. Would the world turn out massively different if it wasn't for him? Yes. People relish in being able to make a difference like that.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

And since I was trying to draw comparisons to the stereotypical assumptions that game developers make about what men are attracted to, I wanted to go for more stereotypical portrayals of what women were attracted to.

The issue I have here, is the question of whether the situations are equal.

Let me explain:

When the issue of sexism in games comes up, it is met with hostility and antipathy. People who bring it up are accused of trying to ruin guys' fun and of removing all boobies and asked what's wrong with a little fan service.

Do you honestly think there would be parity if we changed the covers of romance novels? Would women threaten death and rape and other violence, like male gamers have in their entitled little outrage?

My point is this. The difference between the situations is one of definitive reinforcement vs one of implied approval. We as the gaming community have time and again demonstrated the attitude that is stereotyped: that we're so in love with our pixelated boobies that we will rape you, kill you, and kick your dog if you even talk about how it's a problem to women in the industry (Who by the same argument, either don't exist or are invading the treehouse).

Can you point to an area of reinforcement on that level offered by women that fits the stereotype of "what women want?"

It seems pointless to argue equal weight if the ground itself isn't equal.

I'm not sure you got what I meant when I said drawing a comparison between the two. To be honest, looking at it now my wording didn't exactly fit what I was trying to say. I was referring to how in an earlier post I was trying to give an example of what someone would try to portray if they were trying to grab the female audience with sexualized men in the same way that they're doing it with women (and more about what they definitely wouldn't do ie: Kratos, Marcus Fenix).

Although maybe you did understand what I was talking about and I'm just confused because I don't disagree with anything you're saying in response to it. I definitely wasn't trying to make the two out to be equal

 

[Saint of M]

Since most of you have said what I wanted to say much better then I could, how about this: What about Violence adn Sexisom debates country to country (the Escapist has a global fanbase, no?).

Here in the US violence is much eaiser to tolerate then sex, sexisom, sensuality, or sexuality. You can see this with our media as long as its bloodless, or the magority of the gory action is with aliense (bonus points if their blood is not the mid to darker shades of red), or robots. This is why Optimus Prime can decapitate Bone Crusher or Megatron rip Jazz in half in Transformers, or James Bond have a high use of guns, bombs, sharks, and other spy gear on badguys, and why we see two predators get the "Head Bite" in Alien Vs Predator and still get fairly low film ratings (as in you don't need a parent to accompany the younglings for the most part to see it). If they cut stuff out its for time constraints.


Yet you look at American Psyco or Sucker Punch, they were walking a tight rope of not getting one rating higher (Adult Only and just about, NC-17 and R respectfully) simply for the sex and sensuality (not the fact Batman kills people gruesomely in the former, and four attempted rape scense in the latter). Add Homosexuality and things go bonkers (the fact we got Haku and Zabuza portrade the way they were in the cut version of Naruto is nothing short of a miracle people, especially considering what happened to Outlaw Star and Sailor Moon).



I have no idea why as The US seems just as interested in Sex as Europe and well, from what I heard Europe tends to be more comfortable with sex, sexuality, and sensuality then violence. Not to say they don't enjoy violence as these sre the people we got things like Robin Hood, James Bond, King Arthur, and Le Fem Lakita for crying out loud.

How's the rest of the world on this, especially on sexism in general?

 

[Jesse Billingsley]

If any bad behavior comes from gaming, it comes from playing shooter titles online due to the competitive nature of those communities.

On the topic of sexism, do you mean sexism in the way of game content like a lack of strong female leads or playable protagonists? Or do you mean in the way of how male players view female players?

 

[carnex]

What's different between violence, and sexism?

Because violence is something we all can take part in. Men, and women can both beat the drek out of eachother, kill one another, and so forth just fine. It's pretty inclusive!
I come from a long line of women who enjoy watching wrestling, for instance.
Violence is often fun, and exciting to watch!
Hell, I relished watching Michelle Waterson on Bully Beatdown years ago, and I like watching women wrestle, and am glad it's tarting to get half decent again.

Sexism isn't inclusive. It's the opposite of that. It draws a line in the sand, and divides people. The industry perpetuates it, the players perpetuate it, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the negative stuff, and believe me, women are as far as videogames go.
It feels like it's starting to go away, some, and I bet talking about it is the only reason for it. How long this resurgence of worthwhile female playable main characters in their own games that aren't shallow, sex symbols, and/or there to look sexy at the same time lasts, I don't know, though.
It's still not exactly common yet, mind you, but I feel like there's some progress.

I just want to point out that sexism is discrimination based of sex of group or person. It's not only male on female, neither in definition nor in reality. Your reasoning really falls apart here.

But really, problem comes from agendas, confirmation bias and slippery slope arguments. Males and females tend to enjoy different aspects in games and generally in entrainment. Males are, generally, much more visual than women while women are much more contextual. FFS, we tend to enjoy different erotic and pornographic content. Therefor games are often geared towards one audience or other. It's simply easier that way for developers. Even games when they try to marry both aspects, like Uncharted series for example, are dominantly bought by young males even if movies that game is based on have largely equal representation among sexes in audience.

You don't see men complain about games geared towards women (other than "hardcore" who complain about their casual mechanics). You can do whatever you want to male characters, most males won't care. And even those who complain about it would be drowned by other males.

But mostly of all, problem comes from culture of oversensitivity. Last example would be Lustausers scandal and creators apology. There is NOTHING that indicate Third Reich Luftwaffe to anyone who bothers to take a look. Skull is common symbol for military units, pilot wears generic pilot suit, cockpit doesn't look like anything from that era and badge on pilots cap looks like USAF badge more than any other from WWII. But even if it was Nazi pilot with all markings and regalia, we already played that role numerous times. It might make people feel uncomfortable, but those people should realize that there is nothing in this world that protects them from feeling offended. And, seriously, if one day that comes to be I hope someone releases some bio-agent that specifically targets human DNA to wipe us out.

To end this rant I say what I always say
"You have right to be offended, but you don not have right not to be offended"

 

[Rebel_Raven]

What's different between violence, and sexism?

Because violence is something we all can take part in. Men, and women can both beat the drek out of eachother, kill one another, and so forth just fine. It's pretty inclusive!
I come from a long line of women who enjoy watching wrestling, for instance.
Violence is often fun, and exciting to watch!
Hell, I relished watching Michelle Waterson on Bully Beatdown years ago, and I like watching women wrestle, and am glad it's tarting to get half decent again.

Sexism isn't inclusive. It's the opposite of that. It draws a line in the sand, and divides people. The industry perpetuates it, the players perpetuate it, it sucks to be on the receiving end of the negative stuff, and believe me, women are as far as videogames go.
It feels like it's starting to go away, some, and I bet talking about it is the only reason for it. How long this resurgence of worthwhile female playable main characters in their own games that aren't shallow, sex symbols, and/or there to look sexy at the same time lasts, I don't know, though.
It's still not exactly common yet, mind you, but I feel like there's some progress.

I just want to point out that sexism is discrimination based of sex of group or person. It's not only male on female, neither in definition nor in reality. Your reasoning really falls apart here.

But really, problem comes from agendas, confirmation bias and slippery slope arguments. Males and females tend to enjoy different aspects in games and generally in entrainment. Males are, generally, much more visual than women while women are much more contextual. FFS, we tend to enjoy different erotic and pornographic content. Therefor games are often geared towards one audience or other. It's simply easier that way for developers. Even games when they try to marry both aspects, like Uncharted series for example, are dominantly bought by young males even if movies that game is based on have largely equal representation among sexes in audience.

You don't see men complain about games geared towards women (other than "hardcore" who complain about their casual mechanics). You can do whatever you want to male characters, most males won't care. And even those who complain about it would be drowned by other males.

But mostly of all, problem comes from culture of oversensitivity. Last example would be Lustausers scandal and creators apology. There is NOTHING that indicate Third Reich Luftwaffe to anyone who bothers to take a look. Skull is common symbol for military units, pilot wears generic pilot suit, cockpit doesn't look like anything from that era and badge on pilots cap looks like USAF badge more than any other from WWII. But even if it was Nazi pilot with all markings and regalia, we already played that role numerous times. It might make people feel uncomfortable, but those people should realize that there is nothing in this world that protects them from feeling offended. And, seriously, if one day that comes to be I hope someone releases some bio-agent that specifically targets human DNA to wipe us out.

To end this rant I say what I always say
"You have right to be offended, but you don not have right not to be offended"

Look, I feel my definition stands as far as videogames go. Women are getting the bulk of the mistreatment here so far as the videogame industry goes, which is the topic at hand, more or less.

"It's easier" doesn't make up for treating women as a second class gamer. It really doesn't.

Men generally don't complain because they're almost constantly getting placated because they have the variety of games that pander to what they're interested in.
They don't complain about games made for women because they pretty much are never forced to play them to play games, unlike women who generally have to play games geared towards men, or not game.

Oversensitivity? No, it's a lack of marketing towards women who, despite it, are a large amount of gamers. People are going to get sick of it if they haven't already.

 

[Something Amyss]

Do you have any basis for your claims other than "lol, I hate men"?

I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion.

But you mean do I have any basis for my claims of a dearth of women in the field and in leadership positions besides the general lack of women in technical fields and the admission of the industry?

Because those seem to be a pretty solid basis, no hatred of men required.

The reason why it's not a valid counter point is that it has absolutely nothing backing it.

This confuses me. Are you admitting your counterpoint has nothing backing it? OR are you saying the strawman you knocked down, the one not being claimed by anyone, has nothing backing it? In both cases, it's your words that have no basis.

except I went in for what some here are admitting is a more extreme example. Just because I decided to go in, I could have decided to stop and leave when it was uncomfortable.

You can stop dieting if you're hungry. That you did it as a challenge predisposes you to continue it.

And yet the same arguments are rolling on here almost.

Almost only counts in horseshoes and nukes. And you need to elaborate. They're saying what, specifically, that in any way serves as a counter example?

except if you actually check the model hasn't changed a huge amount over the years.

Over the last twenty years, maybe. Her proportions have changed greatly since inception.

So again, can you provide an actual example?

Unless of course you count the redesign she went through and that despite having been a Doctor, a Vet, A presidential candidate and an Astronaut in recent times. Nope because in the past it was one way it's not possible for it to have changed. How dare history not be as progressive as modern times!

My bad, I thought we were talking about the primary points of criticism. Honestly though, if you're just going to make up my argument, why even quote me?

So about that He-Man thing, has he changed much ?

Does he need to?

Also every kids show had similar forced PSAs they're actually a running joke today on youtube.

Not even close to every show.

Also to counter point the Knockout point. Drake and Josh, who was often the butt of the comedy again ?

Care to provide some context in so much as to how this is a counterpoint to anything, or a "knockout" point?

But as you yourself said, what may be attractive to the target demographic isn't what's on the cover, but what's inside - the contents. In the situation where women are the target, the contents are romance novels. In the situation where it's men, the contents are video games with sexualizations of women. I imagine if skimpy-armored women only showed up on the cover of video game, not too many guys would complain if they disappeared. In the same vein, if all the covers of romance novels got replaced with pictures of sensibly clothed and average looking men, women wouldn't really complain either - because the cover's not what matters. Said novels, and said video games, might pull in less sales, but that's not the content. But if you combed through all those romance novels, and changed the male heroes in them from the traditional archetype to something more average? Something that didn't match up with the perfect ideal many women read those novels for? Well, yeah, I imagine you'd get plenty of complaints. I mean, look at the peak of the Twilight craze, and how many women would go crazy if you so much as implied Edward was a bad character and a poor example of true love.

For this to work, the T&A has to be a fairly fundamental portion of the gaming itself then.

Also, I said myself it was the contents, but the covers were brought up as the example of objectification, so they are absolutely relevant here. When given as the example, one addresses them.

One also has to consider that, as I also said myself, covers of books are not necessarily indicative. There are less "magnificent" romance novel characters, just as a science fiction novel's cover can turn a 5'2" and rather average brunette into a leggy blond amazon with boobs larger than my head. And yeah, not everyone in romance novels fits the cover description. It's part of why this argument sucks so hard. Video games, on the other hand, tend to use real character models or representations of them.

Now, I understand this isn't a perfect analogy to make - the main man of a romance novel is... well, basically the entire point of the romance novel, while sexualized women in games are often just eye-candy that can be easily removed or altered without changing much. But they're still contents of the game, not just box art or a novel cover.

Yes, "romance novel" was always a bad example, though, as it's a genre tantamount to porn. It's neither a medium itself nor is it directly comparable. But that's how hard it is to dig up parallels and pretend that "men are objectified, too!" They literally have to run to things like erotica, because the very nature of the material is objectification.

Would women have a "no boys allowed" reaction, as many gamers apparently do?

They obviously would, because all things are equal.

But one must also consider the context. What happens when straight males influx into something? Usually, the entire market gets turned over to them. At that point, women might be bothered. But then, the parallel would be a hard one, since women aren't trying to dominate games, they're just trying to exist in the community and get some games.

I don't think this analogy really works at all, since there aren't many instances of men trying to move into a "female space," but you can find plenty of examples of the opposite

And if you think about why, you get back to the heart of the issue.

I mean, why would men want to "lower themselves" to doing "women's" things? It's considered humiliating and degrading and men tend to self-reinforce this. That doesn't mean the comparison is unfair in a "male as default" society.

 

[carnex]

Look, I feel my definition stands as far as videogames go. Women are getting the bulk of the mistreatment here so far as the videogame industry goes, which is the topic at hand, more or less.

"It's easier" doesn't make up for treating women as a second class gamer. It really doesn't.

Men generally don't complain because they're almost constantly getting placated because they have the variety of games that pander to what they're interested in.
They don't complain about games made for women because they pretty much are never forced to play them to play games, unlike women who generally have to play games geared towards men, or not game.

Oversensitivity? No, it's a lack of marketing towards women who, despite it, are a large amount of gamers. People are going to get sick of it if they haven't already.

I think I mentioned this to you in some of previous discussions.

There are games geared toward males, games geared towards women and games who don't have gender they are geared towards. But in reality male and female gamers in general tend do enjoy different type of games and pay for their games differently. If you are gamer that is in minority audience of certain type of games, you are screwed but it's not due to some conspiracy or agenda, it's because you are not economical audience.

There are tons of games geared towards women. Those games are not on billboards and prime time advertisements since vast majority of those games can not justify that marketing budget and strategy. When large gender neutral games get at least 33% females among fist week purchases you'll see changes across industry but prior to such event it makes no sense to take your company in that direction. Unless you want to sink it that is.

Life is not fair, it's not meant to be and it newer will be. As owner of company you want best for yourself and your investment. It's normal to toss those that don't contribute aside. If you don't you'll get trampled by competition, especially in industry as young as gaming.

And yes, oversensitivity. I get offended , rightfully, on almost daily basis due to few major factors. But it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone is entitled to look after their own best interest as long as they do not cross the legal line. What you do not have right to is to be protected from being offended. That is censorship and I will suffer my burden to be able to do and say whatever i want. I suggest you do the same.

 

[Saetha]

Snip

For this to work, the T&A has to be a fairly fundamental portion of the gaming itself then.

Also, I said myself it was the contents, but the covers were brought up as the example of objectification, so they are absolutely relevant here. When given as the example, one addresses them.

One also has to consider that, as I also said myself, covers of books are not necessarily indicative. There are less "magnificent" romance novel characters, just as a science fiction novel's cover can turn a 5'2" and rather average brunette into a leggy blond amazon with boobs larger than my head. And yeah, not everyone in romance novels fits the cover description. It's part of why this argument sucks so hard. Video games, on the other hand, tend to use real character models or representations of them.

Uh... I brought this up because you said "Would women rant if you took all the hot guys off of romance covers?" And I said no, and guys probably wouldn't rant if you took all the hot chicks off of video game covers, rather than the game itself. But women probably would if you took all the hot guys out of the books themselves, which I feel is more comparable to taking all the sexualized women out of video games - not perfectly comparable, but a better analogy than comparing them to the men on the cover rather than in the actual book itself. I'm not sure why you're talking to me about cover representation, because I dismissed that analogy and substituted one I thought was better.

Now, I understand this isn't a perfect analogy to make - the main man of a romance novel is... well, basically the entire point of the romance novel, while sexualized women in games are often just eye-candy that can be easily removed or altered without changing much. But they're still contents of the game, not just box art or a novel cover.

Yes, "romance novel" was always a bad example, though, as it's a genre tantamount to porn. It's neither a medium itself nor is it directly comparable. But that's how hard it is to dig up parallels and pretend that "men are objectified, too!" They literally have to run to things like erotica, because the very nature of the material is objectification.

Okay, first of all, you've obviously read very few romance novels if you think it's mostly erotica and objectification. You've definitely read very few romance novels if you think that's why people read them. As someone who's read quite a few romance novels and a hell of a lot of amateur fiction like fanfic - no, actually, very little of it is about smut, and the ones that are usually get clearly labeled. I mean, women consume porn, too. They don't need a special genre for that. Romance novels aren't about sex really - that's just the sort of... not goal, but finish line. The "Congratulations, you're a couple now!" point, just like popping the question often is. Oh, sex pops up a lot, of course, but it's not about that. Romance novels are really more about emotion, which is why they contain very little plot and action. I actually know very few romance novel heroines that are objectified, because romance novels do not necessarily objectify, just like how video games do not necessarily objectify. Romance novels are not "tantamount to porn" just because they revolve around romantic and sexual interaction, and they're a valid comparison to bring up, thank you.

Would women have a "no boys allowed" reaction, as many gamers apparently do?

They obviously would, because all things are equal.

But one must also consider the context. What happens when straight males influx into something? Usually, the entire market gets turned over to them. At that point, women might be bothered. But then, the parallel would be a hard one, since women aren't trying to dominate games, they're just trying to exist in the community and get some games.

I don't think this analogy really works at all, since there aren't many instances of men trying to move into a "female space," but you can find plenty of examples of the opposite

And if you think about why, you get back to the heart of the issue.

I mean, why would men want to "lower themselves" to doing "women's" things? It's considered humiliating and degrading and men tend to self-reinforce this. That doesn't mean the comparison is unfair in a "male as default" society.

Wait, wait wait. Uh... so, in the first comment, you claim that of course women would feel uncomfortable, because every time men invade a women-centered medium, it gets turned over to them. But then in the second comment, you claim that men don't invade women-centered media because they think such girly things are "beneath" them? What? What's your basis for the first comment, then? Hell, what's your basis for either comment? Maybe men don't invade women-centered media because they're simply aren't enough of them that enjoy such things, for there to be a noticeable influx of men? Or maybe men don't invade women-centered media, but women invade men-centered media, because feminism has taught women it's alright, even admirable, to pioneer male-dominated territory, but men have nothing encouraging them to do the same? All these have just as much validity as the one you posited, considering how the sources for all of them were pulled out of the arguer's ass.

And really, how do you explain things like MLP: Friendship is Magic? That's a clear example of men - grown men at that - moving into a space intended for little girls. If men thought girly things were beneath them, bronies wouldn't exist at all. But since they do exist, by your claims, MLP should've turned into a testosterone-fueled gore fest. But it's not. It's still about colorful pony girls running around doing... whatever ponies do. The medium (Or work, since that would be more accurate) didn't get turned over to men, and the men don't seem to have any problem with that. Really, I can't think of a single example where a female-dominated space was invaded by men and mutated so that it served them instead it's original demographic. It sounds like you just made that up.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Look, I feel my definition stands as far as videogames go. Women are getting the bulk of the mistreatment here so far as the videogame industry goes, which is the topic at hand, more or less.

"It's easier" doesn't make up for treating women as a second class gamer. It really doesn't.

Men generally don't complain because they're almost constantly getting placated because they have the variety of games that pander to what they're interested in.
They don't complain about games made for women because they pretty much are never forced to play them to play games, unlike women who generally have to play games geared towards men, or not game.

Oversensitivity? No, it's a lack of marketing towards women who, despite it, are a large amount of gamers. People are going to get sick of it if they haven't already.

I think I mentioned this to you in some of previous discussions.

There are games geared toward males, games geared towards women and games who don't have gender they are geared towards. But in reality male and female gamers in general tend do enjoy different type of games and pay for their games differently. If you are gamer that is in minority audience of certain type of games, you are screwed but it's not due to some conspiracy or agenda, it's because you are not economical audience.

There are tons of games geared towards women. Those games are not on billboards and prime time advertisements since vast majority of those games can not justify that marketing budget and strategy. When large gender neutral games get at least 33% females among fist week purchases you'll see changes across industry but prior to such event it makes no sense to take your company in that direction. Unless you want to sink it that is.

Life is not fair, it's not meant to be and it newer will be. As owner of company you want best for yourself and your investment. It's normal to toss those that don't contribute aside. If you don't you'll get trampled by competition, especially in industry as young as gaming.

And yes, oversensitivity. I get offended , rightfully, on almost daily basis due to few major factors. But it is what it is. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and everyone is entitled to look after their own best interest as long as they do not cross the legal line. What you do not have right to is to be protected from being offended. That is censorship and I will suffer my burden to be able to do and say whatever i want. I suggest you do the same.

I'd like some proof that women aren't the "economical audience." Moreover, I'd like proof they -can't- be, since, well, if they aren't marketed to, they'll be less likely to buy.

It doesn't -matter- why it happens, especially if we keep allowing it to happen. Nothing'll change if we keep allowing these excuses to maintain power. And in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty much an agenda, and discrimination. A wide spread idea of ignoring potential customers for no sane reason I can think of.

A "ton" of games marketed towards women. Have a list? I'm sure it'll be glutted with pastel colored games that generally insult gamers looking for something challenging, or something made for people above the age of 5. I'd like to think I'm generally in the know about gaming, aside from scouring indie games, which frankly doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream gaming industry.

So, where's the information you have to back up women haven't already hit the 33% area? Pretty sure that times have changed enough that women do game, and that 33%'s coming if it hasn't already. You saying they -can't- get to 33%? 'm sure they could if the industry gave a crap about 50% of the world.

Don't give me that "life's not fair" bull. That's a massive copout, and we both know it.

I don't really care if you call it over sensitivity. Frankly all these excuses sound like "Ef' you, got mine!" not particularly giving a damn about other people. I sense a serious lack of empathy here. How, exactly, does allowing discrimination to continue helping anything, or anyone, anyhow?

The end result is the end result, and the end result reeks of discrimination.

Also, I'm not trying to censor you. In fact I'm trying to fight censorship. Lets not pretend that developers being told to change what they want to make isn't such, if not close.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

I'd like some proof that women aren't the "economical audience." Moreover, I'd like proof they -can't- be, since, well, if they aren't marketed to, they'll be less likely to buy.

Well if we take it that 60% of gamers are male (as has been put forward recently) then if you look at what's considered being a gamer now then technically that includes markets such as the hidden object game market and the mobile market. Now if we take away those parts which are often more female dominated but mostly less profitable (unless your name is King.com) and look at what's considered the core and well you only need to see the COD sales to realise that the Dudebro crowd in the core is huge.

It doesn't -matter- why it happens, especially if we keep allowing it to happen. Nothing'll change if we keep allowing these excuses to maintain power. And in the grand scheme of things, it's pretty much an agenda, and discrimination. A wide spread idea of ignoring potential customers for no sane reason I can think of.

Again I'd argue maybe it's better for companies to release products aimed a the female gamer demographic rather than turn all games into giant mass appeal items that have to tick every box. Why ignore a potential customer ? Because you have information suggesting they won't become a customer, or they won't without serious changes that could alienate a large amount of the existing consumers ? Not everyone is a customer for every product.

A "ton" of games marketed towards women. Have a list? I'm sure it'll be glutted with pastel colored games that generally insult gamers looking for something challenging, or something made for people above the age of 5. I'd like to think I'm generally in the know about gaming, aside from scouring indie games, which frankly doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream gaming industry.

Here's what could pass as a list here [http://www.alawar.com/] A large majority of those games are aimed at a female audience and that's from one studio. In terms of bigger budget there's Sim city and "The Sims" also Bejeweled and Candy Crush Saga due to the attempted use of social aspects to the game.

Again welcome to the broader definition of being a gamer.

So, where's the information you have to back up women haven't already hit the 33% area? Pretty sure that times have changed enough that women do game, and that 33%'s coming if it hasn't already. You saying they -can't- get to 33%? 'm sure they could if the industry gave a crap about 50% of the world.

Don't give me that "life's not fair" bull. That's a massive copout, and we both know it.

Should the industry give a crap ? Yes
However the industry shouldn't just try to broaden the appeal of it's existing products it needs to actually provide products for the demographic not go for more mass appeal games.

Also, I'm not trying to censor you. In fact I'm trying to fight censorship. Lets not pretend that developers being told to change what they want to make isn't such, if not close.

This is what should be being fought. However remember as has been shown people are just as capable and trying to change an artists vision claiming to be doing it for the greater good when it's still said artists vision they're being told to change.

So what if guys are 60%? 40%, near half's, money is no good? I mean that's almost twice the potential income companies have now.

I'm not arguing that all games should be made into mass appeal sorts. Some can, sure, but all? No.
I wholeheartedly agree that games should be aimed at women more often instead of aimed for mass appeal.
Sure, not everyone's a customer for everything, but that's hardly an excuse to ignore 40% of customers, is it? Money's money. Why ignore sources of it when they can be cultivated along with existing groups?

Yeah, that list of yours isn't exactly a rich, diverse, fulfilling library of games, IMO. Even adding the sims, and bejeweled. All gamers need variety, male, and female alike, IMO. It's a safe bet to think so, anyhow, IMO. I mean, I play Style Savvy: Trendsetters, Scribblenauts, and Senran Kagura, for instance. 3 games that are worlds apart. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other, so I enjoy being able to go from Pokemon Y to Pokemon Trozei.
Being away from home, and the more female friendly atmosphere of handhelds impacted my gaming greatly.
I try to squeeze in console gaming when I can, and it's just as diverse in genre, if not more so. I can't say I'm a huge fan of PC gaming, and my phone sucks too much for using that for gaming.

Again, I agree that the industry needs to provide for the variety of gamers instead of making mass appeal games. Mass appeal has it' place, but so does everything else, and all are pretty important, IMO.

The reasons behind the change of developer's vision isn't all that important to me, it's the fact they're being tampered with that does matter. Greater good, agenda, what ever, it's pretty harmful to the gaming industry, IMO. Games need to get back to the near anything goes stuff. Creativity, innovation, etc.

 

[asdfen]

I say let creators create then have someone rate that stuff so people who are sensetive are aware that they are getting headshotting snowball pissing boob flashing game.
Personally I will enjoy both a violent game and a game full of sexism as long as its there for a purpose - like good humor or like in sniper elite violence it is a game mechanic and it works. People enjoy different things so let developers carry out their vision. Dont like it? Dont play it. Its that simple.