Support NeoGAF

[FinalAres]

So...this occurred to me today, and I was hoping the fine intelligent people at Neogaf could explain this to me.

Disclaimer: do not support objectification of women in videogames. Do not buy the "they're not real women" argument. It makes me feel ill.

But why is it that amongst the gaming community a game like MGS is criticised for showing Quiet in basically no clothing, but nothing is made of you routinely killing people? Obviously that's a war game, but what about something like GTA where it's more obviously murder? The people I kill in those games I never think of as real people...which is exactly the argument a lot of gamergate types use for objectified video game characters.

Sorry if stupid. Just wanted to know the difference. If you can't tell I'm genuinely embarrassed to post this, and I'm sure a few of you will come back and tell me I'm right to be.

Close if I'm a KKK Witch.

 

[Übermatik]

Violence is indiscriminate.

*Edit* (Sort of).

 

[FinalAres]

Violence is indiscriminate.

First post.

 

[James Scott]

In MGSV you're a super soldier killing people in the desert.
It makes sense for there to be violence.
It doesn't make sense for a sniper to be naked in the desert.

 

[Inbachi]

I don't have a problem with either but I can separate fantasy from real life.

 

[Plumpbiscuit]

Violence is indiscriminate.

*Edit* (Sort of).

 

[Fancy Clown]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

 

[Mihos]

Violence is indiscriminate.

Violence is never indiscriminate... unless you are saying motive is a lie.

 

[Soren01]

Because SJWs

 

[Hux1ey]

So...this occurred to me today, and I was hoping the fine intelligent people at Neogaf could explain this to me.

Disclaimer: do not support objectification of women in videogames. Do not buy the "they're not real women" argument. It makes me feel ill.

But why is it that amongst the gaming community a game like MGS is criticised for showing Quiet in basically no clothing, but nothing is made of you routinely killing people? Obviously that's a war game, but what about something like GTA where it's more obviously murder? The people I kill in those games I never think of as real people...which is exactly the argument a lot of gamergate types use for objectified video game characters.

Sorry if stupid. Just wanted to know the difference. If you can't tell I'm genuinely embarrassed to post this, and I'm sure a few of you will come back and tell me I'm right to be.

Close if I'm a KKK Witch.

I think it's mostly from the US, a very prudish country mostly due to religion. Showing people on TV getting their heads blown off is fine but if a nipple is shown the whole world implodes.

Quiet is kinda ridiculous though, but I just shrug it off as silly, people getting outraged by it is silly.

 

[thekonamicode]

In MGSV you're a super soldier killing people in the desert.
It makes sense for there to be violence.
It doesn't make sense for a sniper to be naked in the desert.

How else will she breathe?!

 

[Bahorel]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

Yup. People know not to murder and yet many don't know the definition of sexual harassment/assault or rape.

 

[Übermatik]

Violence is never indiscriminate... unless you are saying motive is a lie.

In video games it kinda is. You kill everyone if you can.

 

[Recall]

In MGSV you're a super soldier killing people in the desert.
It makes sense for there to be violence.
It doesn't make sense for a sniper to be naked in the desert.

It's a video game. It can be anything you want.

I wish there was a dragon with lasers as claws that attacks by burping it's abc's...why? Because it's a video game. It isn't real.

 

[Mr.Deadshot]

Double standards. Always remembers me at this early south park episode, haha. Good times.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

What if violence isn't okay without limitations and people are having that discussion in ongoing debates

Like, you say no one criticizes violence, but what was the last game where you murdered children?

 

[DorkyMohr]

Off the cuff, violence can serve some gameplay purpose whereas how characters are portrayed is largely superficial to the game.

To take the violence out of a realistic FPS would basically be changing what the game is or negating it's existence at all.

To change the portrayal of certain characters wouldn't likely affect what kind of game it is.

 

[DOBERMAN INC]

I don't have a major problem with either but I do in the extremes of both.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

exactly. People are more likely to be influenced by the more down to earth and subtle sexism in games rather than the violence

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

Yup.

I'm not at my computer ATM op but when I am I will link some studies, over the years studies have found that latent attitudes like sexism and homophobia DO transfer from media while violence usually doesn't, as it is almost universally framed as a negative.

 

[KingV]

I think they are both fine. I don't think that it is a problem that there is objectification of women in video games, but it is a problem that it is the default state, and that there is not a ton of diversity in portrayal of female characters.

 

[FinalAres]

Yup. People know not to murder and yet many don't know the definition of sexual harassment/assault or rape.

So this specifically is what got me thinking. There have been so many pieces of research proving video game violence doesn't cause people to be more violent. Would you not also assume that someone perving over a woman in a game is not necessarily more likely to objectify women in real life.

But of course that's not the point. The point is that it's offensive.

 

[alr1ght]

That's how it is in "regular" US media as well. Kill 900 people...fine. Show a titty...hide yo kids.

 

[Recall]

What if violence isn't okay without limitations and people are having that discussion in ongoing debates

Like, you say no one criticizes violence, but what was the last game where you murdered children?

It's not real. They aren't real children. They aren't real adults.

You can't murder what wasn't alive....or can you?

 

[Aaronrules380]

So this specifically is what got me thinking. There have been so many pieces of research proving video game violence doesn't cause people to be more violent. Would you not also assume that someone perving over a woman in a game is not necessarily more likely to objectify women in real life.

But of course that's not the point. The point is that it's offensive.

Except that one is a behavior that is far more immediately repulsive to people, while the other is a behavior that many gamers already partake in to some extent even without games. It's easier to reinforce an existing behavior than to add a new one

 

[Johndoey]

It's a video game. It can be anything you want.

I wish there was a dragon with lasers as claws that attacks by burping it's abc's...why? Because it's a video game. It isn't real.

Of course it can be anything you want one's arguing that, however it's​ also a commercial product and is subject to criticism.

Besides that MGSV is a game intentionally tackling real topics and issues while at the same time having it's only real woman character be near naked for no good reason.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I honestly don't know. They're both bad, but I also like both. I'm a simple man.

 

[Zakalwe]

It's because violence in general isn't something that's problematic in the same way objectifying women is.

If you'd run with the "why is sex demonised while violence celebrated" debate I'd be with you, but violent games do not perpetuate discrimination and inequality.

 

[HeelPower]

Video game violence okay ?

Its like...widely criticized ,and plenty of games have ingame commentary about it too. More recently NieR Automata.

More famously,Spec Ops The Line.

 

[benicillin]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

Yeah, this. If you have to ask this question at all it kinda proves the point tbh.

 

[obeast]

That's how it is in "regular" US media as well. Kill 900 people...fine. Show a titty...hide yo kids.

Off topic, but I had super-liberal parents who were totally cool with essentially any amount of sex and nudity in the movies we watched at any age, but had a (irrational, imo) hard rule against any kind of casual violence.

This led to family movie viewings that were *very* awkward.

 

[hanspampel]

Violence is indiscriminate.

*Edit* (Sort of).

depends on the kind of violence and the victim
remember the GTA V hooker controversy



i would explain this with "zeitgeist" some stuff is okay, while other similar stuff isn't right now
don't try to make it logic, because there is none to apply
and this topic won't end well either way

 

[NoblesseOblige]

Violence is a simple mechanic that is easy to employ in video games. Conflict is human nature and many of the stories and settings call for it. I can't imagine the same could be said about objectifying someone on the grounds of their sex or gender

 

[daviyoung]

Violence of some description is critical to many games that rely on win/lose scenarios, which most games do. Violence is a core gameplay mechanic.

 

[Deepwater]

the non scientific way to explain it is that 99% of people won't follow up a session of GTA with a murderous road rage, but they'll probably be encouraged to go call women bitches

 

[umop_3pisdn]

I think that the more predominant anything is, the less we're able to reflect on it, because at that point we just take it as given.

As others have said, sexism seems to be more insidious.

 

[rjcc]

why is it ok to drive above the speed limit in forza motorsport, but they don't let you run over spectators? I mean, both are illegal IRL.

This is a very simple question to answer.

 

[ckaneo]

False equivalents. I don't have a problem with either.

The idea is that objectifying women has real implications on how females are treated, while killing people as Snake doesnt.

 

[benicillin]

That's how it is in "regular" US media as well. Kill 900 people...fine. Show a titty...hide yo kids.

US culture is anti-sex yes, but I would caution people from equating sex/sexuality with objectification and sexism.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

So this specifically is what got me thinking. There have been so many pieces of research proving video game violence doesn't cause people to be more violent. Would you not also assume that someone perving over a woman in a game is not necessarily more likely to objectify women in real life.

But of course that's not the point. The point is that it's offensive.

No, some studies have actually shown that sexism does.

Research has indicated that many video games are saturated with stereotypes of women and that these contents may cultivate sexism. The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between video game exposure and sexism for the first time in a large and representative sample. Our aim was also to measure the strength of this association when two other significant and well-studied sources of sexism, television exposure and religiosity, were also included in a multivariate model. A representative sample of 13520 French youth aged 11–19 years completed a survey measuring weekly video game and television exposure, religiosity, and sexist attitudes toward women. Controlling for gender and socioeconomic level, results showed that video game exposure and religiosity were both related to sexism. Implications of these results for future research on sexism in video games are discussed.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00466/full#

Or this one

Research has indicated that many video games and virtual worlds are populated by unrealistic, hypersexualized representations of women, but the effects of embodying these representations remains understudied. The Proteus effect proposed by Yee and Bailenson (2007) suggests that embodiment may lead to shifts in self-perception both online and offline based on the avatar’s features or behaviors. A 2 × 2 experiment, the first of its kind, examined how self-perception and attitudes changed after women (N = 86) entered a fully immersive virtual environment and embodied sexualized or nonsexualized avatars which featured either the participant’s face or the face of an unknown other. Findings supported the Proteus effect. Participants who wore sexualized avatars internalized the avatar’s appearance and self-objectified, reporting more body-related thoughts than those wearing nonsexualized avatars. Participants who saw their own faces, particularly on sexualized avatars, expressed more rape myth acceptance than those in other conditions. Implications for both online and offline consequences of using sexualized avatars are discussed.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321200369X?via=ihub

There are others which state the opposite however.

 

[FinalAres]

Yeah, this. If you have to ask this question at all it kinda proves the point tbh.

As soon as it was said it was like Durrington of course why was I not thinking that. But yeah, quite.

 

[Johndoey]

Most people won't kill people irl because they know it's wrong, but casual sexism is an everyday problem

.

 

[Alastor3]

Why is video game violence okay, but objectified female characters not?

Because we suck as a human race.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Because it is not part of your basic human impulse to kill and murder. It is unlikely that anyone of sound mind would view violence and have it influence their thoughts, feelings, or everyday behavior.

Sex is part of basic human impulse and how you perceive sex, and the opposite sex, is influenced by how it is packaged and represented around you.

It is not likely that somebody kills or maims another person, but virtually everybody on this planet has sex. Because rampant misogyny characterizes entire cultures, and men regularly experience no recourse for their foul or destructive everyday behavior against women, it is insincere to say that a video game that depicts violence has the same impact on a player as a video game that promotes harmful gender stereotypes.

Media does not often make you do things, but it very heavily influences how you see things. Something as basic and everyday as how men perceive women is not at all equal to a super soldier with infinite ammo single handedly dismantling an enemy regime.

Quiet is a problem because it promotes and upholds the absolute worst of female stereotypes thay affect every single woman every single day. This is why it is different.

 

[fhqwhgads]

It's a video game. It can be anything you want.

I wish there was a dragon with lasers as claws that attacks by burping it's abc's...why? Because it's a video game. It isn't real.

Your amazing dragon is fine....as long as it makes sense to be in the game. If you're making a serious game and you have your dragon, people are going to say "That makes no sense why is there a dragon who burps abcs in this serious game?" Same can be said for MGSV and Quiet's shitty fanservice only design.

 

[Interficium]

I'm not sure what you mean by "okay."

There's been plenty of consternation about objectified female characters in the industry for over a decade, and it's caused some real changes in the industry, just look at Lara Croft.

 

[JonnyDBrit]

There is a complicated history here regarding the normalisation of violence within societies - particularly with regards to the video game industry, European and American society - as a visible aspect of life, versus sex as a very private and intimate affair. Violence can be wrapped up in the cloak of necessity; you need to kill that guy to save someone from an attack; you need to break that guy's hand to stop the thief; you need to have your sword to defend against bandits. Indeed, the idea of the necessity of being able to defend one's self is expressly codified in the foundational document of the United States, who remain one of the most culturally influential nations on Earth. Even in instances where violence is not a necessary solution, the idea that it could be renders it ultimately visible and acceptable in other circumstances as well.

Sex - especially graphically - does not have that necessity; trying to dress it up as such is implicitly read as farce to any modern eye. Seeing some tits is very difficult to spin into a context where there was moral cause for it. Sexualisation is read as indulgence, and with the sexualisation of women in particular, an indulgence that has been used to oppress and belittle half the human population for what they naturally have. Thus it is at best frivolous, and at worst harmful.

Of course, this isn't necessarily how either of those things have to be, but that is where they are currently placed in the cultural context overall, not just video games. Video games just have the added bonus as a medium presumed especially aimed at a young male audience, and indulging their particular fantasies, which is thus the perspective with which most of the medium's output is analysed.

Edit: Quiet is a perfect example of such really, and probably an actual case of such indulgence. Hideo Kojima tried to find various excuses with which to justify her ridiculous outfit, and in so doing got a response that can be generally summed up as mocking laughter.

 

[FinalAres]

No, some studies have actually shown that sexism does.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00466/full#

Or this one

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074756321200369X?via=ihub

There are others which state the opposite however.

Thats interesting. And I suppose the reason there's a difference is because sexism is an every day problem.

 

[James Scott]

It's a video game. It can be anything you want.

I wish there was a dragon with lasers as claws that attacks by burping it's abc's...why? Because it's a video game. It isn't real.

While people keep saying "there are elves and dragons in this fantasy game, it doesn't have to make sense!" they do make sense in the context of the story.
Just an example, in any case.

 

[Auctopus]

Many games are based in fantasy settings or militaristic settings where violence is the answer to the issues at hands (i.e. Dragons, Villains, Wars etc.)

At the very least it's a means to end to provide a gameplay loop.

I can't think of a single situation or gameplay mechanic that is enhanced by female objectification.