Support NeoGAF

[Crossing Eden]

I largely agree with the sentiments in the OP. The problem that a lot of people seem to have is that the issue isn't phrased properly. When people say "sex sells", what they really mean is "sexual objectification sells". And the latter is true only to a limited degree: there are some games (and other products) that can benefit from sexual objectification, but there are a ton which are not going to benefit in a meaningful way. Generally speaking, if a game has a lot of other merits, it would be better off leaving out the objectification.

That's why I put (in most cases sexism), because I'm referring to out of place sexual objectification and people are tripping over themselves to argue the absolutely shocking idea that people find others attractive.

It's so annoying that you want your puritanical, conservative design values to spread far and wide to the industry.

Ahhhhh there it is. "You don't like my sexy waifus how dare you!"

Designs like this are puritanical and conservative now?

I don't think you've ever genuinely met someone who's conservative about sexuality. Especially considering you adhere "women should have more contextually appropriate and equalized designs" with "ugh, so puritanical"

Your links of online harassment and the depictions of sexy images in games have no direct relation to the discussion of game sales. This is what I was saying earlier. You draw these ridiculous conclusions without realizing the material you're citing doesn't actually support what you're saying. Correlation isnot causation. That simple concept escapes you and we get threads like this one.

People trip over themselves to constantly downplay the amount of women that play games and you don't think that the constant treatment of this medium as if it was a boy's club has had any negative effects? I can think of many ways that it has, such as, a generation of gamers who don't know what sexuality actually is because they conflate it with objectification.

 

[Basketball]

Looks it comes down to this

Nobody wants to play as ugly characters in games ... some might be the exception
it's true that the majority does not

male and female characters alike

Cool character designs is a bit different tho

It's just the same stuff like in Hollywood

 

[Euphor!a]

That's why I put (in most cases sexism), because I'm referring to out of place sexual objectification and people are tripping over themselves to argue the absolutely shocking idea that people find others attractive.

No, you did that to twist your incorrect argument into something less incorrect, but still wrong.

 

[4Tran]

That's why I put (in most cases sexism), because I'm referring to out of place sexual objectification and people are tripping over themselves to argue the absolutely shocking idea that people find others attractive.

I know, and I agree. The issue I'm pointing out is that the phrase "sex sells" is poisoned to begin with, and that the people who coined it were using it inclusively as cover for sexual objectification.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I dont know why people keep bringing up Overwatchs cover art

That game sold on more than its cover art. Hell, the other female character that was in the reveal trailer is what some would probably consider a sexist representation.(Widowmaker.)

Saying "Ha! Look at Overwatchs cover art and it sold millions despite the tame female representation!" is missing out on the huge marketing cycle that involved showing attractive, sexy characters.

 

[YankeeDonB]

Something I'm a little hung up on in this topic - as far as pernicious cultural practices go, why isn't endlessly reinforcing the stereotype that only pretty/handsome characters can be agentive heroes more of a concern than occasional inclusion of pointlessly sexed up male gaze bait side characters?

When engaging with eye candy, we typically do so in the mind set of acquisitive objectification. This can have negative effects if these are the only representations available, but tends to happen in a frame of mind divorced from the daily weel of decisions, work relationships, friendships, etc. People go and look at porn by themselves, then get back to business.

But when the primary player identification characters are all perfect tens (whether dressed semi-sensibly or not), doesn't that reinforce a damaging physiognomic stereotype that only attractive people can do and be good? And isn't that one we're a lot more likely to export out into our daily interactions? Identification narratives have a lot more to do with persistent self image than does interest in titilation...

As for sex selling, duh, of course it does, at least some of the time. And that is clearly NOT restricted to Japanese IPs (and the drum beat that it is is pretty blinkered and culturally offensive).

 

[molnizzle]

Real talk: I bought Overwatch because of the fan art.

 

[RM8]

I don't understand why people keep mentioning that people don't want to play as ugly people. How on earth did you equate non sexualized with ugly? A character (male or female) could wear proper clothes and have a purpose beyond being ogled by the camera, and it wouldn't be a sexualized design just by virtue of not being an amorphous monster. Literally no one wants to make everyone ugly in gaming, I've never seen an argument being repeated so many times when it's not addressing anyone's point.

 

[4Tran]

I dont know why people keep bringing up Overwatchs cover art

That game sold on more than its cover art. Hell, the other female character that was in the reveal trailer is what some would probably consider a sexist representation.(Widowmaker.)

Saying "Ha! Look at Overwatchs cover art and it sold millions despite the tame female representation!" is missing out on the huge marketing cycle that involved showing attractive, sexy characters.

Overwatch was purposefully designed to be more inclusive and to have less objectification than previous Blizzard titles. They may not have been completely successful (and in fact have a long way to go), but it is a move in the right direction.

 

[Makki]

Real talk: I like some sexualization in my characters, both genders. The industry shouldnt fear it, but balance it.
All the OP examples hide benath a bunch of bulky garnments, shits boring to look at by my standards.

 

[Griss]

I almost wholly agree with you, however the main issue I can see with this is that a lot of these female characters aren't sexualized in isolated moments. It's in a very real way the full depth of their character, as I believe is the case with Cindy and Quiet who seem to exist wholly to titillate. When Cindy in particular comes from a game without a lot of good female representation, I can see why this would make someone feel uncomfortable, disappointed or even angry.

I'm not saying it's wrong to titillate or even to have a character who exists only to titillate but simply that there are some valid complaints to be had here.

Quiet is far more than a sexualised character, she's the only fully realised character in that entire game, and her story is the only coherent story with proper character development in the game. It's funny that the people who hate her design are the ones reducing her to her physical looks rather than the totality of who and what she is in the game.

As for Cindy, she's purely sexual fanservice, 100%. But when it comes to a fictional character rather than a real person, what's wrong with that? I certainly appreciated it. Not every character has to be deep. Some characters only exist to give you a mission, some to fight you and die... why can't some characters just exist to be attractive?

You say that you don't see that this is wrong but that there are valid complaints. The only 'complaint' that there is is an argument of taste. Certain people saying 'I don't like this in the game' (CrossingEden) and other like myself saying 'I do like this in the game.' The presence of eye-candy characters doesn't imply in any way that the creators of a particular movie / game / whatever think that a woman is only worth what she looks like, it simply indicates that they know that men appreciate women's beauty, irrespective of all the other 100s of genuine and meaningful ways to measure a woman's worth.

 

[Mega]

I dont know why people keep bringing up Overwatchs cover art

That game sold on more than its cover art. Hell, the other female character that was in the reveal trailer is what some would probably consider a sexist representation.(Widowmaker.)

Saying "Ha! Look at Overwatchs cover art and it sold millions despite the tame female representation!" is missing out on the huge marketing cycle that involved showing attractive, sexy characters.

No, man, you don't understand. The artists drew them to be pure and respectful and action-y, therefore THESE designs are okay by my strict requirements. Never mind they all look like the real world equivalent of professional models and Hollywood actresses!

Ahhhhh there it is. "You don't like my sexy waifus how dare you!"

LOL

I have never used the word "waifu" nor bought a "waifu game." I hardly consume anime. What's the deal with your obsessive hatred with this shit?

Not that it matters, but I have a Caribbean background, hence why I think you'recoming across as a conservative prude. Because in my culture, you are and we don't take kindly to your kind telling us what is/isn't okay. It's a very stifling and controlling American POV.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

These are the kind of discussions that I find strange on NeoGaf.

I think this forum is rather unbalanced, because I can complain that I think a character with cleavage hanging out and a belly showing with tight pants is "too sexualized" and I'll be told to grow up or that she's not sexualized at all. An example would be some characters from Gravity Rush.

Then I go here and people are posting pictures of characters that are modestly dressed and saying they aren't sexualized (I agree).

What I'm trying to say is, I don't know how to even effectively communicate any ideas about this topic on this forum without being slammed in some way.

 

[Kinyou]

I dont know why people keep bringing up Overwatchs cover art

That game sold on more than its cover art. Hell, the other female character that was in the reveal trailer is what some would probably consider a sexist representation.(Widowmaker.)

Saying "Ha! Look at Overwatchs cover art and it sold millions despite the tame female representation!" is missing out on the huge marketing cycle that involved showing attractive, sexy characters.

I believe most people bring up overwatch as an example that sex does indeed sell.

 

[Crossing Eden]

No, you did that to twist your incorrect argument into something less incorrect, but still wrong.

It's not an incorrect argument, look at the content of the most popular games. Look at active things being said by devs, such as why more and more women are being designed without the male gaze specifically in mind.

I know, and I agree. The issue I'm pointing out is that the phrase "sex sells" is poisoned to begin with, and that the people who coined it were using it inclusively as cover for sexual objectification.

Which is exactly the point of this thread.

I don't understand why people keep mentioning that people don't want to play as ugly people. How on earth did you equate non sexualized with ugly? A character (male or female) could wear proper clothes and have a purpose beyond being ogled by the camera, and it wouldn't be a sexualized design just by virtue of not being an amorphous monster. Literally no one wants to make everyone ugly in gaming, I've never seen an argument being repeated so many times when it's not addressing anyone's point.

Because people don't understand or outright ignore heroic idealism.

 

[chillybright]

Overwatch was purposefully designed to be more inclusive and to have less objectification than previous Blizzard titles. They may not have been completely successful (and in fact have a long way to go), but it is a move in the right direction.

It also has way more attractive sexy figures than all previous blizzard titles.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Overwatch was purposefully designed to be more inclusive and to have less objectification than previous Blizzard titles. They may not have been completely successful (and in fact have a long way to go), but it is a move in the right direction.

Inclusive in the sense that there are characters from multiple regions, and there are more female characters than usual.

The huge majority are also sexy and attractive. Being more inclusive doesnt necessarily reject the notion that sex sells.

I see that Eden has moved the goal posts to the games that have sold the most.

 

[Inferno313]

Quiet is far more than a sexualised character, she's the only fully realised character in that entire game, and her story is the only coherent story with proper character development in the game. It's funny that the people who hate her design are the ones reducing her to her physical looks rather than the totality of who and what she is in the game.

As for Cindy, she's purely sexual fanservice, 100%. But when it comes to a fictional character rather than a real person, what's wrong with that? I certainly appreciated it. Not every character has to be deep. Some characters only exist to give you a mission, some to fight you and die... why can't some characters just exist to be attractive?

You say that you don't see that this is wrong but that there are valid complaints. The only 'complaint' that there is is an argument of taste. Certain people saying 'I don't like this in the game' (CrossingEden) and other like myself saying 'I do like this in the game.' The presence of eye-candy characters doesn't imply in any way that the creators of a particular movie / game / whatever think that a woman is only worth what she looks like, it simply indicates that they know that men appreciate women's beauty, irrespective of all the other 100s of genuine and meaningful ways to measure a woman's worth.

hahaha, jesus griss, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had today.

 

[Griss]

Something I'm a little hung up on in this topic - as far as pernicious cultural practices go, why isn't endlessly reinforcing the stereotype that only pretty/handsome characters can be agentive heroes more of a concern than occasional inclusion of pointlessly sexed up male gaze bait side characters?

When engaging with eye candy, we typically do so in the mind set of acquisitive objectification. This can have negative effects if these are the only representations available, but tends to happen in a frame of mind divorced from the daily weel of decisions, work relationships, friendships, etc. People go and look at porn by themselves, then get back to business.

But when the primary player identification characters are all perfect tens (whether dressed semi-sensibly or not), doesn't that reinforce a damaging physiognomic stereotype that only attractive people can do and be good? And isn't that one we're a lot more likely to export out into our daily interactions? Identification narratives have a lot more to do with persistent self image than does interest in titilation...

As for sex selling, duh, of course it does, at least some of the time. And that is clearly NOT restricted to Japanese IPs (and the drum beat that it is is pretty blinkered and culturally offensive).

Damn, I like this post a lot. I think the normalisation of 'good' or 'heroic' people as always 'beautiful' people is way more harmful than fanservice, for all the reasons you described.

I think it actually can contribute to the fact that ugly people have been shown to be assumed to be less morally sound by impartial observers. The beauty bias is real and our media doesn't help. I'd love to see a game starring a real hopeless uggo like myself.

hahaha, jesus griss, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had today.

Huh, I didn't even think that would be controversial. Did you beat the game and all the chapter 2 missions? Did you feel that Venom or any other character had any real character development as Quiet did? The only time I felt any emotion in that story was at the denouement of Quiet's arc.

 

[molnizzle]

Which is exactly the point of this thread.

Sexual objectification also sells.

It also has way more attractive sexy figures than all previous blizzard titles.

Yeah. Pre-release marketing of Mercy and Widowmaker portrayed Overwatch as Waifu Fortress 2 pretty early on.

 

[Kinyou]

hahaha, jesus griss, thanks for the biggest laugh I've had today.

He's right though. The bar isnt very high in MGS5 but from all the characters she actually has the most realised arc.

 

[MoonFrog]

That's why I put (in most cases sexism), because I'm referring to out of place sexual objectification and people are tripping over themselves to argue the absolutely shocking idea that people find others attractive.

I'm not tripping over myself. I think a) you are overdefining sex, b) ignoring the other ways sex might sell, and c) I take it that gratuitous, obvious objectification does sell, but it is not the only thing that sells, which doesn't somehow mean it doesn't sell. I also take it that d) it is incredibly hard to untangle the various attractive features of a product and what exactly sells it.

(Basically, I think duckroll had the right of it on the first page or so).

...

When I think of the power of sex to move commercial products, I don't think it is helpful to reduce it to just certain forms of sexy stuff. Heck, with all the discussions of anime on this board, I'd think that would be a fairly common opinion here. Plenty of waifu are much more sexual by means of social constructs and personality fetishes rather than being pretty much naked with dream bodies (plenty of those exist too but...).

 

[Wulfram]

Designs like this are puritanical and conservative now?


I don't think you've ever genuinely met someone who's conservative about sexuality. Especially considering you adhere "women should have more contextually appropriate and equalized designs" with "ugh, so puritanical"

What us the moral difference between these sexy women designed largely by men, largely to appeal to men, and the ones you object to?

 

[CamHostage]

Here are the top selling games from the last three years:

2016'S best selling games:
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare
Battlefield 1
The Division

What evidence is that sex is selling video games based on these factors? Can't even say violence is solely selling games as besides the shooters, all of these games aren't even violent.

Eh, but it's not a strictly binary system. If I make a game called "Titty Tetris", it won't automatically become the best-selling Tetris game every because sex sells. It's a combination of factors and interests and audiences and marketing tactics.

The thing about "sex sells" is that it's an assumption. Producers assume they can reach an audience by playing up parameters of their product that might appeal to different market sectors.

The old addage "sex sells" says that you put hot chicks on the covers of product, it is visually stimulating and has potential to make money; you back that up with the market analysis that only products with hotties on the cover sell (even though many products depicting hotties also fail) and that products with uggos on the cover (which...do not exist) account for 0% of the market share.

The math does itself!

one emphasizes sexualization the other emphasizes a heroic silhouette not unlike a male hero. JUST having her butt slightly in the frame isn't sexualization. Learn how posing and line of action works.

Agreed, and you're always going to have an argument over what's a sexualized and not a sexualized image (particularly since dudes can fantasize just about anything if they put their minds to it.)

But in the reverse, everybody could do to learn how posing works. Design schools train on the same standards of beauty and gender identification that has for centuries eroticized the female form. Whether her butt is in frame because it makes her hotter or because it shows off her lithe and quick battle maneuvers, they posed her that way because that's a striking and silhouettable pose for the female form.

Now, whether they could have done it differently or if they were wrong for doing it this way, that's a different discussion, but I'd prefer we get through the semantics first. Were Michaelangelo and Botticelli and artists throughout the eons all collectively sexist pigs for generalizing the way the female form is best depicted in art? I don't think that's a fair statement at all. (And as a man, I'd be a total hypocrite for saying that since I quite enjoy a well-drawn curve.) But it would help conversation and possibly encourage a wider variety of artistic expression if we educated ourselves that this generalization exists. We gain an understanding by examining our entertainment to see how often this generalization is employed in character design and casting. We may be surprised to see how unconsciously this generalization is employed in even the most innocuous of character designs. And perhaps we can endeavor some changes if we acknowledge this generalization persists and that our art need not be bound by it if an artist goes against the status quo.

...Also, this particular image comparison has a major flaw in that they intentionally lit up both of character's booties.

 

[4Tran]

It also has way more attractive sexy figures than all previous blizzard titles.

Nah, that title goes to World of Warcraft. It's also important to note the difference between sexy and sexual objectification.

Inclusive in the sense that there are characters from multiple regions, and there are more female characters than usual.

The huge majority are also sexy and attractive. Being more inclusive doesnt necessarily reject the notion that sex sells.

It's inclusive because the Overwatch designers wanted to explore a larger range of female body shapes and ages. However, it can be argued that this is merely a first step, and that Blizzard has a long way to go before doing it properly.

 

[Euphor!a]

It's not an incorrect argument, look at the content of the most popular games. Look at active things being said by devs, such as why more and more women are being designed without the male gaze specifically in mind.

Yes, it is. Sex sells. Just because Call of Duty doesn't sport a squad of Quiets and Mario won't bang Peach if he ever actually finds her doesn't prove your point.

Sex sells never, NEVER, meant that "sex" would lead to record breaking sales that would eclipse everything else.

 

[The Lamp]

Video game companies do market research to determine the guardrails on the game design for their target market. Sometimes the target market doesn't WANT a prominent female on the game cover (which is sexist). It depends on the game and market. This debacle happened with Ellie on the TLOU cover. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens.

 

[RM8]

What us the moral difference between these sexy women designed largely by men, largely to appeal to men, and the ones you object to?

For one that they bring some variety to the medium where the default tends to be slutty Halloween costume / porno parody costume, which makes games more inviting for more people.

 

[Death Penalty]

You say that you don't see that this is wrong but that there are valid complaints. The only 'complaint' that there is is an argument of taste. Certain people saying 'I don't like this in the game' (CrossingEden) and other like myself saying 'I do like this in the game.' The presence of eye-candy characters doesn't imply in any way that the creators of a particular movie / game / whatever think that a woman is only worth what she looks like, it simply indicates that they know that men appreciate women's beauty, irrespective of all the other 100s of genuine and meaningful ways to measure a woman's worth.

The valid complaint in regards to XV is a near total lack of female portrayal in the game in a positive light. Of the three "primary" female characters only one of them demonstrates any true degree of competence and she's barely a presence in the game. Of the other two, we have Cindy who is a pinup girl come to life and Iris whose sole personality trait is idolizing the male lead. You could possibly consider Gentiana, but she has maybe three or four lines in the whole game before she herself

Spoiler

transforms into a scantily clad Shiva harem.

I don't have a probably with sexualization or even with characters who exist wholly to titillate, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable complaint when that's the strongest female trait demonstrated in a game through its entirety, especially when Final Fantasy has a decent female fanbase.

 

[YankeeDonB]

Damn, I like this post a lot. I think the normalisation of 'good' or 'heroic' people as always 'beautiful' people is way more harmful than fanservice, for all the reasons you described.

I think it actually can contribute to the fact that ugly people have been shown to be assumed to be less morally sound by impartial observers. The beauty bias is real and our media doesn't help. I'd love to see a game starring a real hopeless uggo like myself.

Right, evil = ugly is the flip side of the coin, and a damaging and largely ignored trope Western media has been running with for centuries if not millennia...

 

[Jarmel]

Isn't this like one of the basic marketing principles in the history of marketing?

 

[Kinyou]

Designs like this are puritanical and conservative now?

Considering how you got mad over Aloy showing midriff in one of her outfits i don't think the accusation is without merit. You come off as sex negative
Is there any sexualised character you approve off?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Damn, I like this post a lot. I think the normalisation of 'good' or 'heroic' people as always 'beautiful' people is way more harmful than fanservice, for all the reasons you described.

I think it actually can contribute to the fact that ugly people have been shown to be assumed to be less morally sound by impartial observers. The beauty bias is real and our media doesn't help. I'd love to see a game starring a real hopeless uggo like myself.

Right, there are studies for that.

http://www.businessinsider.com/studies-show-the-advantages-of-being-beautiful-2013-6
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/10/trust-only-skin-deep

Fact is, people want their characters to be attractive, and good looking. This includes characters being sexy(As attractiveness goes hand in hand with sexiness, and to deny that is folly.)

Sex sells. It always has sold. It will continue to sell. Sexual Objectification is bad, but even that can sell. It certainly sold in the past, whether in movies or in games. But the general notion of 'sex sells' is still there.

 

[YankeeDonB]

The valid complaint in regards to XV is a near total lack of female portrayal in the game in a positive light. Of the three "primary" female characters only one of them demonstrates any true degree of competence and she's barely a presence in the game. Of the other two, we have Cindy who is a pinup girl come to life and Iris whose sole personality trait is idolizing the male lead. You could possibly consider Gentiana, but she has maybe three or four lines in the whole game before she herself

Spoiler

transforms into a scantily clad Shiva harem.

I don't have a probably with sexualization or even with characters who exist wholly to titillate, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable complaint when that's the strongest female trait demonstrated in a game through its entirety, especially when Final Fantasy has a decent female fanbase.

If only Aranea had been a main party member :-(

 

[Jarmel]

If only Aranea had been a main party member :-(

I would have gladly traded Gladio for her.

 

[Neff]

I know, and I agree. The issue I'm pointing out is that the phrase "sex sells" is poisoned to begin with, and that the people who coined it were using it inclusively as cover for sexual objectification.

I don't think anyone who uses the term is trying to hide the fact that they like looking at attractive people. We're conditioned for it as a species, after all.

 

[Death Penalty]

If only Aranea had been a main party member :-(

Truth. Such truth. I always like seeing you in Final Fantasy threads and I really liked your previous post in this thread. I'd have quoted it, but there just isn't much to add, you wrote extremely eloquently.

 

[Griss]

The valid complaint in regards to XV is a near total lack of female portrayal in the game in a positive light. Of the three "primary" female characters only one of them demonstrates any true degree of competence and she's barely a presence in the game. Of the other two, we have Cindy who is a pinup girl come to life and Iris whose sole personality trait is idolizing the male lead. You could possibly consider Gentiana, but she has maybe three or four lines in the whole game before she herself

Spoiler

transforms into a scantily clad Shiva harem.

I don't have a probably with sexualization or even with characters who exist wholly to titillate, but I think it's a perfectly reasonable complaint when that's the strongest female trait demonstrated in a game through its entirety, especially when Final Fantasy has a decent female fanbase.

Oh, okay, sure, I can get on board with that.

But as far as I see it, that's not a complaint with the existence of Cindy, but rather a complaint about the lack of another, decent, proper female character. I'd happily make that argument, because it's clear that Luna was supposed to be that character and they fucked it up monumentally. That's the failure of writing and female representation in FFXV, not Cindy.

 

[chillybright]

Nah, that title goes to World of Warcraft. It's also important to note the difference between sexy and sexual objectification.

Nah low polygon wow characters are leagues behind those overwatch asses.

 

[Mega]

Considering how you got mad over Aloy showing midriff in one of her outfits i don't think the accusation is without merit. You come off as sex negative
Is there any sexualised character you approve off?

Precisely. From my cultural perspective, this is as sex negative as it gets without being an evangelical Republican. We hate this mentality.

And it's bullshit. Design slender, very attractive girls (modeled primarily after white bodies) but cover them up... PROGRESS!

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Nah low polygon wow characters are leagues behind those overwatch asses.

I mean sure, WoW just has a bigger quantity of sexy females

But Overwatch got dat quality.

Considering how you got mad over Aloy showing midriff in one of her outfits i don't think the accusation is without merit. You come off as sex negative
Is there any sexualised character you approve off?

Seriously? That puts eden in a new light.

 

[Wulfram]

For one that they bring some variety to the medium where the default tends to be slutty Halloween costume / porno parody costume, which makes games more inviting for more people.

Hmmm, Evie, Aloy, Emily and Lara are all pretty standard examples of conventional female attractiveness. Having an Asian protagonist like Faith in a western game is good, but otherwise she's the same.

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

Sex sells... period.

I mean, Contigo (i think it was) specifically created ads that showed women in tight sports lycra and apparel drinking from cups to sell more cups, and their research showed that type of advertisement had more appeal than any other.

I don't know why it then becomes hard to believe that when it comes to games. Dead or Alive was knocking on Tekken's level of popularity a few gens back.

 

[RM8]

Hmmm, Evie, Aloy, Emily and Lara are all pretty standard examples of conventional female attractiveness. Having an Asian protagonist like Faith in a western game is good, but otherwise she's the same.

I didn't say they were ugly. No one is advocating for the ugly-fication of characters.

Dead or Alive was knocking on Tekken's level of popularity a few gens back.

And they're on entirely different tiers now, despite DOA going the sexy route.

 

[YankeeDonB]

Truth. Such truth. I always like seeing you in Final Fantasy threads and I really liked your previous post in this thread. I'd have quoted it, but there just isn't much to add, you wrote extremely eloquently.

Ah, thanks, back at you. I've been laying low post XV, but when VIIR news starts popping I'll ride again!

For some reason, even though I'm enjoying Nier:A more than I did XV, I don't have as much to say about it...

 

[Death Penalty]

Oh, okay, sure, I can get on board with that.

But as far as I see it, that's not a complaint with the existence of Cindy, but rather a complaint about the lack of another, decent, proper female character. I'd happily make that argument, because it's clear that Luna was supposed to be that character and they fucked it up monumentally. That's the failure of writing and female representation in FFXV, not Cindy.

Holy crap I completely forgot about Luna in my argument about the "three main females" in XV. I'll just brush that embarrassing mistake off by saying it's indicative of the quality of her presence in the game and have a laugh.

Beyond that we seem to be on the same page except for me thinking Cindy's design is trashy as heck, but I'm comfortable with there being different strokes for different folks.

Ah, thanks, back at you. I've been laying low post XV, but when VIIR news starts popping I'll ride again!

For some reason, even though I'm enjoying Nier:A more than I did XV, I don't have as much to say about it...

Ah man, cannot WAIT for the true VII hype train. I'll see you there!

 

[Griss]

Considering how you got mad over Aloy showing midriff in one of her outfits i don't think the accusation is without merit. You come off as sex negative
Is there any sexualised character you approve off?

Seriously? Do you have a link for that? That would tell you almost all you need to know about where this guy is coming from.

If one outfit out of 15 very grounded and nonsexualised costumes that shows a small amount of midriff is considered unacceptable, that's well into the realms of sex-negative puritanical dogma, imo.

And it's funny because the Carja Blazon was by far my favourite outfit, lol.

 

[pizzacat]

I like video games

 

[Kinyou]

Seriously? Do you have a link for that? That would tell you almost all you need to know about where this guy is coming from.

If one outfit out of 15 very grounded and nonsexualised costumes that shows a small amount of midriff is considered unacceptable, that's well into the realms of sex-negative puritanical dogma, imo.

And it's funny because the Carja Blazon was by far my favourite outfit, lol.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=227103334#post227103334

 

[Crossing Eden]

No, man, you don't understand. The artists drew them to be pure and respectful and action-y, therefore THESE designs are okay by my strict requirements. Never mind they all look like the real world equivalent of professional models and Hollywood actresses!

You realize there's a difference between a design being sexualized, (she's wearing a skin tight suit), and a pose with a line of action that emphasizes said sexualization. Again, you don't know what line of action means.

The way the eye is guided through the cover art is not to emphasize her figure, compared to Scarlet Johanssen where the line of action is literally there to emphasize her figure with a wood pose.

It's to emphasize her pose. This is what it looks like when a line of action emphasizes the butt.

compared to:

at this point the model becomes the problem more so than the pose itself

or for an absolutely appropriate direct comparison:

compared to

at a first glance, they're similar, but following line of actions one can see the differences in intention. The end goal isn't to emphasize Tracer's figure, but what she's doing, things like subtle

it's not just the pose either, it's the like subtle particles at the bottom and further cropping drive the point home:

And with that, that's about as much as I'll touch on the Tracer shit.

Considering how you got mad over Aloy showing midriff in one of her outfits i don't think the accusation is without merit. You come off as sex negative
Is there any sexualised character you approve off?

It appears you missed the point of my criticism but good to know you're trying to keep track and play detective gaf. And yes it is.

Maybe you wanna try and provide an explanation for when an exposed midriff with your armor is sensible?.

Considering that each outfit gives her a shit ton of armor by the end game. This is heavy armor:

that armor's progression literally adds armor everyone else but that vital spot. Doesn't make much sense considering how much thought went into the other outfits.