• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

RPS ambushes Blizzard director for objectification of women in Heroes of the Storm

You completely misunderstood my comment and took it (literally) out of context. I used the term to describe the way that Blizzard was treating us, not the way that any of us is acting.

I apologize.

Still, I take issue with the notion that Blizzard is treating their fans like underdeveloped man-children by creating sexually attractive characters to appeal to them. The implication I take away is that there is or should be something shameful about enjoying sexually provocative or erotic design.

That may not have been your intention, but I see others use that kind of language constantly to belittle and discredit people on the other side of the debate.
 

Mesoian

Member
All in all, this seems to be less of a hypersexualization issue and more of an artistically bankrupt issue. Of all the alts for this game seem to be playing in pop culture references in efforts to be jovial and less serious when where they should have started is having more visually impressive outfits that reflect the worlds each character is from.

I'll agree that the interview is a bit knee jerk and ambushing your interviewee over something as subjective as art is kind of a shitty thing to do, but these secondary designs could have been a lot more interesting in the end.

But, as is the case with 90% of examples wrought by this conversation, we need better designers and better authors if we're going to get anywhere.
 

Kadayi

Banned
I still need you to wrap your head around the really shitty ideas behind your comparison. A more fitting idea would be comparing the topic at hand to men in real life forcing women to dress in a certain way. Do you think men should have the right to dress women how they want?

Are all game designers men?
 

Kadayi

Banned
Most of them are. The ones for this game certainly are. (See, that didn't help your argument)

I'm not making an argument, I'm merely making an observation.

But still I'm curious as to how you know the Blizzard team working on this project is exclusively male? Or are you merely speculating?
 
She is attracted to Nathan Drake on the other hand.

Heck, I'm attracted to Nathan Drake...'dat half tuck...

halftuckawe.jpg
 
He asked some questions, he got some interesting answers. What's the problem here?

This type of journalism requires the reader to stop out of their comfort zone of pre-conceived notions and approach an issue from a new perspective.

Most gamers, just like most people, can't do that. Hence why Fox News and IGN are so popular.

You and I might understand that the constant, lazy objectification of females as one-dimensional sex toys is bad for the industry in multiple ways, but others don't.
 
And did you seriously ignore the other articles that Patricia Hernandez wrote about things like Farcry 3: Blood Dragon? Seriously, I don't think I'm that far off that she wasn't just trying to troll people with that Animal Crossing thing when you take into account the other articles she's done showing how she doesn't have any clue what she's talking about!

Sorry, but you really need to stop reaching for whatever it is you need to make your argument work. It just isn't there. The fact that she references the censorship of Tharja's butt in the David article proves that it's made in response to it. There's no reason to assume otherwise. As for the Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon article, it seems like you're projecting your own personal views onto the validity of her articles. The article was perfectly justifiable. If I may ask, why is it not okay to question the joke in BD? What makes the joke absolutely and utterly acceptable and beyond reach by critics?
 
Are all game designers men?

In most cases yes. In most games, the lead designers are men. In most games that have this kind of controversy, most of them are made by men. Dragon's Crown, Bayonetta, various MOBAs, Mario, Zelda, Other M, etc. There are uncommon exceptions, such as Skullgirls, but they are exactly that - exceptions.

So I pose to you - if real-world comparisons are in, then the apt comparison would be men forcing women to dress how they like in real life.
 

darkpower

Banned
Sorry, but you really need to stop reaching for whatever it is you need to make your argument work. It just isn't there. The fact that she references the censorship of Tharja's butt in the David article proves that it's made in response to it. There's no reason to assume otherwise. As for the Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon article, it seems like you're projecting your own personal views onto the validity of her articles. The article was perfectly justifiable. If I may ask, why is it not okay to question the joke in BD? What makes the joke absolutely and utterly acceptable and beyond reach by critics?

Really? You're actually going to try that? If the large amount of people who protested against her reaching in that article didn't clue you in to how out of touch you're being to anything either I or anyone else is saying about anything, then I'm at a loss of what to tell you. I've made my point countless times, and I've been more than fair to other points of view (which your claims that I'm not being fair don't have any substance what so ever).

Please come up with a better argument to debate me than "you're trying to squelch debate", because I think I've made it rather clear that such an accusation doesn't hold any water.
 

TaroYamada

Member
Yeah, I don't plan on answering fake questions that are asked out of an earnest desire to be given a reply.

The fact is that you got exactly what you should have gotten. You just happen to not like it. Blizzard is a company that wants to do something - namely, use a style that receives criticism. If they want to do something, then they inherently want to experience it all. If they don't want to put themselves in the line of criticism, then they have no right to do what they want to do. They either have characters that anyone is well within their right to criticize or they don't have them at all. Those are literally the only two options that they can have.

It wasn't fake, it's alright if you think that but I've never seen somebody argue that by adopting a specific artistic direction a company or developer was essentially trolling and hoping for specific negative reactions out of a community, which is basically what you're arguing. I wanted clarification because the argument is rather alien and illogical to me.
 
Really? You're actually going to try that? If the large amount of people who protested against her reaching in that article didn't clue you in to how out of touch you're being to anything either I or anyone else is saying about anything, then I'm at a loss of what to tell you. I've made my point countless times, and I've been more than fair to other points of view (which your claims that I'm not being fair don't have any substance what so ever).

Please come up with a better argument to debate me than "you're trying to squelch debate", because I think I've made it rather clear that such an accusation doesn't hold any water.

Good point. In that case, I guess misogyny never happened in video games, because there is ALWAYS a group of people ready to attack any article. Your argument requires that misogyny is inherently absent from gaming, and that's bullshit.

Now, please, pretend like you have an argument to make - what makes her point invalid, beyond the idea that majority rules?

You know what, let me do your job, I'll list some ideas for your criticism that I found in the comments.

1. "It's a joke. By definition it exists to entertain. If someone gets offended by it, that's on them."
2. "I'm gay, I'm not offended." - If you are gay, of course.
3. "Free speech"

That seems to be the argument. Assuming the comment section reflects the critics, I'm going to assume that she was spot on in saying that it was a homophobic joke to some degree. The prevailing criticism is "I don't care, shut up, stop crying". It doesn't address her points, and many people even make the argument that people who see homophobia in jokes like that are just trying to wash over video games and make everything politically correct. They must have not been paying attention, because the majority of video game heroes are already politically correct by default, because white, heterosexual male video game characters are all painted in their games as pretty solid and well-defined characters. The reason why it's a problem with non-white/non-hetero/non-male characters is that there doesn't exist as positive a norm as the aforementioned group gets to latch onto. If a black or gay or female character is the star of a game and is a legitimately non-stereotypical depiction of their group, it's a big deal. It's only a big deal because it's so rare. Ideally, it shouldn't be a big deal, but gaming is still in an age where developers are either too afraid to make normal characters that don't fit into that one group or they don't care.
 

Kadayi

Banned
In most cases yes. In most games, the lead designers are men. In most games that have this kind of controversy, most of them are made by men. Dragon's Crown, Bayonetta, various MOBAs, Mario, Zelda, Other M, etc. There are uncommon exceptions, such as Skullgirls, but they are exactly that - exceptions.

Please Blizzard aren't some Asian outfit. Culturally Japan and the like and the games they produce aren't necessarily reflective of western design mores. People are always running to DoA or Tera etc etc and using those as a stick to point out how terrible the objectification of women is in games (and in respect to those sort of games I'd agree), but there's almost zero regard given to specific cultural frame by people like yourselves, Vs blithely broad brushing the entire development industry as some homogeneous entity that is somehow accountable for the perceived transgressions of all. I can't think of any mainstream AAA western developer whose out there really whose pushing the boat out in terms of sexual vulgarity in truth. Railing on Blizzard over the roller ball costume and hysterically denouncing them is really a case of ignoring the elephant sat in the room. However I doubt whether Team Ninja (or any other Asian developer for that matter) give much of a fuck about Nathan Graysons tears in truth.

So I pose to you - if real-world comparisons are in, then the apt comparison would be men forcing women to dress how they like in real life.

So like the fashion industry then?
 

Kadayi

Banned
How strong is an argument that has to create decoys?

Strong enough that you clearly incapable of addressing it Snitch.

I already pointed out the the whole Asian conundrum. But because that factor doesn't suit your particular worldview and effectively unbalances your limited proposition you've ignored it.
 
Strong enough that you clearly incapable of addressing it Snitch.

I already pointed out the the whole Asian conundrum. But because that factor doesn't suit your particular worldview and effectively unbalances your limited proposition you've ignored it.

Yeah, sorry. As is what happens in debates held by adults and/or intelligent human beings, I shall not allow you to fucking derail the discussion of video games to things that aren't video games (AKA "the only fucking thing anyone can do on your side because their arguments are garbage").

Your LoReal shit is stupid because it ISN'T THIS TOPIC. It's not even in this fucking spectrum. What the fuck is your stupid fucking makeup argument doing in a discussion about video games? Are you implying that Blizzard is collaborating with makeup companies to keep women down? If not, why is that any relevant than ANY single occurrence of sexism in any industry?
 

Seeds

Member
Again, just like with LordJim's reply, you seem to want to brush my reply off just for the sake of it.

I already responded back to him with similar arguments, so you can read that if you haven't already. I'm going to respond to some of the points that only you mentioned:

1. Peach in 3d land is not a throwback to Super Mario Bros. 2. Super Mario Bros. 2 only had Peach as a playable character for an entirely different reason, and that was because it was based on a game that wasn't Mario in the first place, and that version already had female characters in them. I can assure you that wouldn't be the case if they build the game from the ground up as a Mario game. Secondly, I was talking about mutiplayer mario games specifically and making a comparison how previous ones didn't have Peach in them. I suppose it still doesn't make much of a difference if I would include all mario platformers regardless.

Game director Koichi Hayashida revealed that Peach wasn't in the original plans for the game, but Koizumi brought up the idea and told the team that they should "definitely" include her.

"I think she adds a lot to the sense of competition when you get in multiplayer," said Koizumi. "You can have different people choosing different characters based on their personality or whoever they like. And princess Peach is just really a lot of fun to play!"


Peach was added for the same reason we could play as Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2. She plays and looks different.

2. I know Pikmin 3 was in development for the wii, I was looking forward to it. The addition of a female pilot was revealed much later however. Along with one of Nintendo's staff talking SPECIFICALLY about why Nintendo has been including more female characters in their games around the time of its reveal (along with mario 3d land and a third game). He/she said, if it was up to Miyamoto, there wouldn't have been playable female characters but a different staff that was in charge of this decision, decided to have the inclusion of female characters to give more choice to players.

And they reached this conclusion without all the complaints we're getting now.

Hence my point still stands. All the changes I'm seeing would have happened regardless of these complaints.

I'm getting tired of people who apparently don't know how to read or that they already made up their mind before reading my comments. With the second option, they're just trying to find any ammo to prove their point. Do me a favour and don't bother responding if that's what you're doing.

You should try expressing yourself better if you're having problems with people misreading your posts.
 

RpgN

Junior Member
Game director Koichi Hayashida revealed that Peach wasn't in the original plans for the game, but Koizumi brought up the idea and told the team that they should "definitely" include her.

"I think she adds a lot to the sense of competition when you get in multiplayer," said Koizumi. "You can have different people choosing different characters based on their personality or whoever they like. And princess Peach is just really a lot of fun to play!"


Peach was added for the same reason we could play as Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2. She plays and looks different.


And they reached this conclusion without all the complaints we're getting now.

Hence my point still stands. All the changes I'm seeing would have happened regardless of these complaints.


You should try expressing yourself better if you're having problems with people misreading your posts.


It seems you have problems with reading then, because you keep repeating the same answer about Peach already being playable in Super Mario Bros. 2 despite me already giving you an answer for why she was included in there and why it's not the same situation. And regarding what Koizumi said, it doesn't proof your point. It actually proves my point in that she wasn't originally planned to be added in the first place! And why didn't Koizumi suggest her inclusion in Super Mario 64 DS in the past? How about New Super Mario Bros. games? Or heck, how about her being playable in more Mario platformers besides the mutiplayer ones?

The conclusion that they reached, did not come out of thin air. Adding playable female characters in 3 different games around the same time, commenting on female characters during the time it was a hot topic, is not doing it just because they felt like it. Otherwise, if no one complains, they could have continued adding mostly playable male characters for the next twenty years and not feeling the need to respond about female playable characters, as if it's a unique situation. It's very convenient that they did so around that time regardless of wether it's because of the complaints from a small whiny community or knowing it's a problem that needs to be addressed thanks to the awareness that has been raised by Anita and ''male knights''.

Again though, don't draw conclusions in absolute terms (like how many people seem to do). Nintendo already has games with female characters in them (more than many devs), their games are appealing to the female audience, but there is still room to offer more playable female characters. I believe they might become more aware of it and add more female characters in their games if they can fit them in there, such as a game with multiple playable characters. Or games where choosing genders becomes more widespread like Animal Crossing and Pokemon.

You have no point to stand on, you just ignore everything that you're being told, minimise the examples that are being giving to you, repeat the same answer you have already given and say your point still stands.

Sorry, but I'm done responding to you until you respond to me with the same attention and I care I put into reading and responding to your replies. And I'm really sorry that I might sound more aggressive because of it.
 

Kadayi

Banned
Yeah, sorry. As is what happens in debates held by adults and/or intelligent human beings, I shall not allow you to fucking derail the discussion of video games to things that aren't video games (AKA "the only fucking thing anyone can do on your side because their arguments are garbage").

Your LoReal shit is stupid because it ISN'T THIS TOPIC. It's not even in this fucking spectrum. What the fuck is your stupid fucking makeup argument doing in a discussion about video games? Are you implying that Blizzard is collaborating with makeup companies to keep women down? If not, why is that any relevant than ANY single occurrence of sexism in any industry?

Please you were the one were the one asking for comparisons. Getting tetchy just because they go against you is your weakness: -

So I pose to you - if real-world comparisons are in, then the apt comparison would be men forcing women to dress how they like in real life.

The fashion industry is largely dominated by male designers. Do you feel that they conspiring to dictate the way women dress, or do you think perhaps that women choose what they wear themselves because the market caters to a wide variety of tastes? Are women thralls to fashion or are they human beings with free will? I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Like it or not, at the end of the day no one's being 'forced' to play MOBAs, and if one doesn't suit your particular tastes for whatever reason then feel free to not play it. As markets grow invariably when a gap arises a product arrives to fill it.

I think this whole thing is largely misguided. Firstly because the 'design' is hardly as exploitative as it's made out to be. Secondly because in large part as highlighted earlier a large amount of the more questionable female character design comes from Japan & Korea, so railing on western developers is rather fruitless. It's tilting at windmills.
 
Please you were the one were the one asking for comparisons. Getting tetchy just because they go against you is your weakness: -



The fashion industry is largely dominated by male designers. Do you feel that they conspiring to dictate the way women dress, or do you think perhaps that women choose what they wear themselves because the market caters to a wide variety of tastes? Are women thralls to fashion or are they human beings with free will? I'm inclined to go with the latter.

Like it or not, at the end of the day no one's being 'forced' to play MOBAs, and if one doesn't suit your particular tastes for whatever reason then feel free to not play it. As markets grow invariably when a gap arises a product arrives to fill it.

I think this whole thing is largely misguided. Firstly because the 'design' is hardly as exploitative as it's made out to be. Secondly because in large part as highlighted earlier a large amount of the more questionable female character design comes from Japan & Korea, so railing on western developers is rather fruitless. It's tilting at windmills.

...Well, no, if you had actually read the discussion you would have known that I was taking someone else's comparison - that people who criticize sexualized female characters also oppose the right for women to dress sexually in real life - you would have seen that my point was not to make any such comparison.

But no, I won't address your argument so long as you are going to try and introduce the fashion industry. I will address the portions of it that do not (shortly).
 

Valnen

Member
While "messages" aren't always explicitly intended, Blizzard made theirs painfully clear in their response. Ugly bit of sexism that perpetuates the stereotype of gaming as the exclusive domain of underdeveloped man-children. Worse, Blizzard has done this in a calculated way with total awareness of what they're doing and why they're doing it.

They're free to do what they like, of course, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get called out on it.

When you resort to insults like "man child" toward people that disagree with you, you've already lost your argument.
 
Top Bottom