• 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.

Strategic Butt Coverings - Tropes vs Women in Video Games

kcp12304

Banned
No, let me better illustrate what I'm saying:

A woman in real life has agency, and can choose how she sexualizes and expresses herself.

If a story is written about that same woman, is that story inherently problematic because that now fictional woman does not have real world agency (the agency now belonging to the author)? Can that woman be represented?

I think it's more about the trends of how women are commonly represented rather than how one lady is presented in a game. It's bad enough that women are less represented in video games. That issues becomes more glaring when they are represented in certain ways that relate to unhelpful gender stereotypes. They are more likely to be presented as damsels in distress, their only role being the girlfriend of the main protagonist, sexualized characters who just stand their and be sexy, etc. I think people want female characters that are as fleshed out as their male counterparts, more female protagonists, female characters whose only real characteristics are just to stand around in boob armour and be the male protagonist's love interest.

The best female characters in my mind are those that feel more like real characters, that they have their own motivations, that are important to moving the plot forward rather than having the plot play them like paper thin pawns in the story.
 

Unwanted

Neo Member
yeah i don't think you're trolling it's just a very consistent pattern that's happened where posters start out very benign and "ignorant" and eventually start saying things like "well i read some articles" and linking breibart hit pieces or kotakuinaction

fair enough.
 

dralla

Member
I started playing the Witcher 3 yesterday and I noticed the camera lingered on Yen's naked butt in the opening but when Geralt got out of the bath the camera quickly cut away right as they were about to show his. It's happened a few times since too, cutting away from Geralt's butt. It's kind of crazy how uncomfortable men are with their sexuality that they won't dare show a dudes ass.
 
I started playing the Witcher 3 yesterday and I noticed the camera lingered on Yen's naked butt in the opening but when Geralt got out of the bath the camera quickly cut away right as they were about to show his. It's happened a few times since too, cutting away from Geralt's butt. It's kind of crazy how uncomfortable men are with their sexuality that they won't dare show a dudes ass.
A damn shame too because Geralt is a hunk.
 

Savitar

Member
I started playing the Witcher 3 yesterday and I noticed the camera lingered on Yen's naked butt in the opening but when Geralt got out of the bath the camera quickly cut away right as they were about to show his. It's happened a few times since too, cutting away from Geralt's butt. It's kind of crazy how uncomfortable men are with their sexuality that they won't dare show a dudes ass.

Pretty sure you will get to see his, it even gets slapped once I believe.
 

CryptiK

Member
Just an FYI: This is the quickest way to get banned from these topics by utterly ignoring the subject on the OP.

1. She does enjoy gaming.
2. She doesn't play every game she shows in her videos.
3. She DOES play games and has a twitch account.
4. That has nothing, literally nothing to do with the points she makes, which you'd have to be blind to not see.
I dunno about number 4 she talks about context(why they wear what they do) in this video then goes and includes Arkham games if she had actual played the games she'd understand the context as to why Catwoman or Ivy etc wears that type of clothing. Using Arkham as an example then talking about how context would make it better kind of discredits her video a little imo.
 
I dunno about number 4 she talks about context(why they wear what they do) in this video then goes and includes Arkham games if she had actual played the games she'd understand the context as to why Catwoman or Ivy etc wears that type of clothing. Using Arkham as an example then talking about how context would make it better kind of discredits her video a little imo.

she does understand the context though. they're sexy asses designed to titilize. what other context is there?
 

Crocodile

Member
No, you're simplifying the issue. It is possible to represent sexy female butts without it being problematic. But it's about context and presentation. Anita touches on this in the video by saying that simply showing the butt isn't enough - contextualization and justification are needed to flesh out why the character chooses to dress as such (or why the game continues to emphasize her butt).

Besides the qualitative aspect of contextualiatization of sexy female butts, you also have the quantitative challenge of how many sexy female butts there constantly are in so many products over and over again.



No, these are not the same. While there is merit in discussing female butt design in fashion and clothing lines, there is still actual human beings who choose (ideally) for themselves what to wear and buy. This is not the same as a fictional female character wearing spandex or thongs or tight swimsuit to show off their neatly sculped 3D butt.



No, that doesn't matter that much. Of course the intention of the designer should be included, but the gender of the person doesn't necessarily mean that designing yet another sexy female butt in a video game where the camera oggles on it is not-bad. Context matters in determining whether or not something can be criticized for contributing to further skew the sexist status quo against women in games.

"Context matters" I think is the most key point in all these sorts of discussions. Not everything is equivalent, not all analogies are on point, etc. Ironically, that has been a critique levied against Anita that I can't say I disagree with (that she sometimes ignores or underplays context) but I guess it just goes to show how tricky this all can be.
 

Fliesen

Member
I am intrigued by the conclusion that - if the game design skews the player into objectifying the playable character, this stands in the way of the player properly identifying with the character.

I think this is why Rey in TFA resonated with so many people. Her clothing was so saggy, so non-sexualized. The only skin she showed was her calves and her upper arms.

The sentiment of "I want to be that person" seems to strongly conflict with the sentiment of "I want to be with that person"
 
I dunno about number 4 she talks about context(why they wear what they do) in this video then goes and includes Arkham games if she had actual played the games she'd understand the context as to why Catwoman or Ivy etc wears that type of clothing. Using Arkham as an example then talking about how context would make it better kind of discredits her video a little imo.

Even if there's an in-universe explanation that doesn't change the fact that there's a ridiculous ammount of women showing their butt all the time compared to how many men and even versus other important women NPCs that don't.

It's pervasive, and very much so is all.
 
I started playing the Witcher 3 yesterday and I noticed the camera lingered on Yen's naked butt in the opening but when Geralt got out of the bath the camera quickly cut away right as they were about to show his. It's happened a few times since too, cutting away from Geralt's butt. It's kind of crazy how uncomfortable men are with their sexuality that they won't dare show a dudes ass.
And then you take into account the fact that CDPR said they thought about giving Geralt junk but no-one wanted to model it

But you can practically see the female character's ovaries
 

Basketball

Member
Isn't catwoman a sexually provocative character

who always wore skin tight clothes in all forms of her character

Batgirl's butt is blocked by the cape as well. Everyone has a nice rear end in the game I guess.
 

Lime

Member
I dunno about number 4 she talks about context(why they wear what they do) in this video then goes and includes Arkham games if she had actual played the games she'd understand the context as to why Catwoman or Ivy etc wears that type of clothing. Using Arkham as an example then talking about how context would make it better kind of discredits her video a little imo.

The Arkham games are pretty bad when it comes to their female characters. From Arkham City's sexist slurs to Arkham Knight's damsels needing saving again and again. And that's not even addressing the design of cat woman, poison ivy, or harlequinn
 

Fliesen

Member
Even if there's an in-universe explanation that doesn't change the fact that there's a ridiculous ammount of women showing their butt all the time compared to how many men and even versus other important women NPCs that don't.

It's pervasive, and very much so is all.

Yeah, beyond Super Mario 64, the 'camera' is not an in-universe character.
The character reflects the intentions of the developer.
 
Nah, I welcome positive sexuality and women being in charge of their own bodies. What I don't welcome is people like you who believe we are just there to please them. Sure, we like to look good. That doesn't mean we're only trying to do it for you or that we even have you in mind sometimes. That's what your first comment was entirely about and you haven't really changed that tune much. Your immediate jump to "militant" and "PC" without at all taking into consideration my words is just even more telling really. You are 110% participating in exactly what you accuse me of here. Your refusal to address my actual words and continuing nature of debasing insult after debasing insult is enough for me at this point.

Have you considered the fact that people might get a tad defensive and/or go on the attack a bit if you put words in their mouths and make completely false assumptions about their character and the meaning behind their words?

There seems to be something lost in translation here. You see, in my world it's possible to admire the beauty of women and still love and respect them as much more than sex objects at the same time. When I made my original comment I was merely pointing out that these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You completely misinterpreted my original intent and went on the attack, which is why I responded the way I did to you. If, as you claim, you believe in positive sexuality then we agree on more than we disagree. However, it's difficult to have a rational discussion with you when you refuse to listen to what I'm actually saying and instead seem intent on furthering an agenda. You most certainly put words in my mouth several times. NOWHERE did I ever say that women are "only here to please me" (or men in general). That's a far cry from what I have said many times now, which is that sexuality is a real thing that takes many forms, that it doesn't exist in some academic vacuum that can be pigeon-holed. My original thoughts on the matter were as much arguing your "side" of this as my own. Your eagerness to assume the worst is telling... when you automatically jump to blanket judgments about a man's overall view of women because of a comment about "yoga pants", well, it's exactly why I view your type as militant. If you're not militant, then the least you could do is prove it by acknowledging I never actually said women are here "purely to please me". Those were YOUR words - not mine.
 

Acerac

Banned
Love Anita's videos. Even if her examples aren't always 100%, her overall points (in this case how butt-centric female characters tend to be) tend to be spot on.
 
Context does matter, but I seriously doubt that the amount of big sexy asses on display in the Arkhamverse is something that evolved naturally from character decisions. A lot of times, context can be created after the fact to justify something.
 

dramatis

Member
It's not just the clothes that are a problem. Developers do animations that emphasize the butt too, as noted in the Catwoman example. In MMOs the female characters inevitably have more sexualized animations of swinging hips and girly runs. That FF15 gif, it's an animation they would have never made for a male character.
 

aeolist

Banned
Isn't catwoman a sexually provocative character

who always wore skin tight clothes in all forms of her character

Batgirl's butt is blocked by the cape as well. Everyone has a nice rear end in the game I guess.

harley quinn wasn't created to be sexy or provocative, but they sure as hell make her like that in the games
 

CryptiK

Member
Context does matter, but I seriously doubt that the amount of big sexy asses on display in the Arkhamverse is something that evolved naturally from character decisions. A lot of times, context can be created after the fact to justify something.
except they have been part of the characters for years before the games were even a thought.
The Arkham games are pretty bad when it comes to their female characters. From Arkham City's sexist slurs to Arkham Knight's damsels needing saving again and again. And that's not even addressing the design of cat woman, poison ivy, or harlequinn
The Arkham verse is pretty tame compared to the subject matter (the comics) especially in the design department.
 

sensui-tomo

Member
It's not just the clothes that are a problem. Developers do animations that emphasize the butt too, as noted in the Catwoman example. In MMOs the female characters inevitably have more sexualized animations of swinging hips and girly runs. That FF15 gif, it's an animation they would have never made for a male character.

It gets this though.
CR-RQKEUwAUqHO0.jpg:large


not sure if its the same or not. Crotch bulge check.
 

Lime

Member
"Context matters" I think is the most key point in all these sorts of discussions. Not everything is equivalent, not all analogies are on point, etc. Ironically, that has been a critique levied against Anita that I can't say I disagree with (that she sometimes ignores or underplays context) but I guess it just goes to show how tricky this all can be.

I'd love to hear the critique levied agaisnt Anita that you agree with when it comes to over-looking or ignoring context for her various criticisms of female representation in video games.

Additionally, it is incredibly rare to see a contextual justification for the sexualization or sexist representation of women in video games. Usually the reason for why there is boobs and butts all over my monitor when I'm playing a game is never explained or justified - it's mostly just boils down to that developers thought that their male player base would dig it (or that the devs themselves dig it).

So, "context matters" might be true, but very rarely have I seen any context for all that lazy sexist representation of female characters in video games.
 
except they have been part of the characters for years before the games were even a thought.

that's a very poor excuse for continued sexualization. especially since the arkham games had some freedom to play with character designs. but hey maybe DC demanded that they be awful. I'm not being sarcastic. that is totally something DC would do.
 

Fliesen

Member
harley quinn wasn't created to be sexy or provocative, but they sure as hell make her like that in the games

aye. harley was originally literally ENTIRELY covered in clothes and makeup
latest


here's how she's depicted in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City.
latest

2096347-corset_harley_cropped.png
 

CryptiK

Member
Are you sure? Because Bruce Timm sure draws her as sexy and provocative
Yeah I dont think these people have watched the series. She was literally that in the cartoon Jokers birthday anyone?
aye. harley was originally literally ENTIRELY covered in clothes and makeup
latest


here's how she's depicted in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City.
latest

2096347-corset_harley_cropped.png
that exact costume is in arkham knight and let me tell you it does not help your point.
 

sensui-tomo

Member
There isn't even a bulge there omg

that's another issue that could be brought up actually, most male video game characters are flat or near flat even when wearing skintight clothing (like Batman)

Are you sure there isnt a bulge?(i mean how can you miss it?) Now this was only posted to show something like gif(not as fluent as cidney/cindy/Whatever) but opposite sex/gender(I'm trying not to offend anyone here)
 

aeolist

Banned
um

what

she's literally a bimbo girlfriend in a skintight suit and was notoriously sexualized in a children's cartoon

she doesn't act like a seductress, she isn't hugely endowed, and she doesn't present like a baboon. i didn't really think of her as a sexualized character when i watched the show and remembered her for other things.

the games skew heavily in the opposite direction. even if you think she was sexed up in the show you have to admit arkham harley is far, far worse.
 

Is that really provocative to people? I mean, it does show her butt, but I feel like what she's holding gives her character. I don't feel my eyes drawn to her rear.

Also, I like butts. I feel like there should be equal opportunity butts for all, but if you're telling a serious story, then maybe deemphasize the posterior.
 

Kinyou

Member
It's not just the clothes that are a problem. Developers do animations that emphasize the butt too, as noted in the Catwoman example. In MMOs the female characters inevitably have more sexualized animations of swinging hips and girly runs. That FF15 gif, it's an animation they would have never made for a male character.
I agree that it's at times way too exaggerated, but swinging hips is simply a difference between men and women walking.
 
Are you sure there isnt a bulge?(i mean how can you miss it?) Now this was only posted to show something like gif(not as fluent as cidney/cindy/Whatever) but opposite sex/gender(I'm trying not to offend anyone here)
Not... really imo. I get what you were going for tho, but I would say that character is pretty flat (although could be the angle!)
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Anyway, like most of these videos they raise good points in a silly way. Lines like "Lara Crofts butt is at the centre of the screen" are just odd when, in actual fact, Lara Croft is at the centre of the screen, so where else would her butt be? I's sure there is a focus on Lara's body in that game but it's an odd way to portray the idea. Seems to overlook the fact that women are simply built different to men too.
Yeah, talking about Tomb Raider 1 in this way makes me chuckle a bit. Games were designed so differently back then. The skimpy outfit? That was absolutely using sex to sell the game but the camera placement? Nah. It's an artifact from another era that doesn't really fit in with the other games.

I also think it's hilarious to see stuff like Golden Axe Beast Rider pulled out. It absolutely fits what she's talking about, so there's nothing wrong there, but it's like picking a shitty movie that everyone hates to prove a point about modern cinema.

Also, whoever is editing these videos needs to work on the judder issues. Really really bad in many of the sequences.
 

Oersted

Member
It is sort of telling that if you search for "Strategic Butt Coverings - Tropes vs Women in Video Games" , the only other video-result showing up is "Christopher Walkenthrough - Walken's 10 Hottest Women In Games".
 

sensui-tomo

Member
Not... really imo. I get what you were going for tho, but I would say that character is pretty flat (although could be the angle!)

yeah, angle could be the issue too, I looked at the picture from another side and can see that being true. Have to wait for the game to come out to see if that stays true or not.
 

Fliesen

Member
I agree that it's at times way too exaggerated, but swinging hips is simply a difference between men and women walking.

swinging hips are. But there's swinging hips and then there's belly dancing with every single step.

Cat woman doesn't just walk with her hips swinging. Play the game and have a female friend / female significant other watch ... i'm 90% sure she'll roll her eyes so much that it hurts.
 

Sylas

Member
Have you considered the fact that people might get a tad defensive and/or go on the attack a bit if you put words in their mouths and make completely false assumptions about their character and the meaning behind their words?

There seems to be something lost in translation here. You see, in my world it's possible to admire the beauty of women and still love and respect them as much more than sex objects at the same time. When I made my original comment I was merely pointing out that these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. You completely misinterpreted my original intent and went on the attack, which is why I responded the way I did to you. If, as you claim, you believe in positive sexuality then we agree on more than we disagree. However, it's difficult to have a rational discussion with you when you refuse to listen to what I'm actually saying and instead seem intent on furthering an agenda. You most certainly put words in my mouth several times. NOWHERE did I ever say that women are "only here to please me" (or men in general). That's a far cry from what I have said many times now, which is that sexuality is a real thing that takes many forms, that it doesn't exist in some academic vacuum that can be pigeon-holed. My original thoughts on the matter were as much arguing your "side" of this as my own. Your eagerness to assume the worst is telling... when you automatically jump to blanket judgments about a man's overall view of women because of a comment about "yoga pants", well, it's exactly why I view your type as militant. If you're not militant, then the least you could do is prove it by acknowledging I never actually said women are here "purely to please me". Those were YOUR words - not mine.

My dude you need to tone down the mansplaining. Holy shit. This post reads like something off of reddit or 4chan.
 
Top Bottom