• 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.

The argument that sex, (in most cases sexism) sells games is inherently flawed

Mega

Banned
Because these characters are totes actual women and not characters that are amalgamations of a team of men's fetishes. There's totes no difference at all.

Why do you talk like this to everyone who disagrees with you? Everyone is either a confused moron or a dirty waifu-crazed pervert and you're here to SCHOOL them, and it comes through in your repulsive tone. Do everyone a favor and give it a rest if you can't stop such enormous condescension, because it makes that much more unconvincing. And no, this is not tone policing. I'm telling you your demeanor, regardless of the merits of your argument, is terrible and off-putting.

It should be heavily reduced considering the effects it continues to have on this medium imho.

There is no evidence of any so-called effects other than tangentially related anecdotes. It all boils down to it should be done because some people don't like it.
 
chris-evans-gif-2.gif
*questions sexuality*

oh my
 
Why do you talk like this to everyone who disagrees with you? Everyone is either a confused moron or a dirty waifu-crazed pervert and you're here to SCHOOL them, and it comes through in your repulsive tone. Do everyone a favor and give it a rest if you can't stop such enormous condescension, because it makes that much more unconvincing. And no, this is not tone policing. I'm telling you your demeanor, regardless of the merits of your argument, is terrible and off-putting.

For what it's worth, I don't agree with this post at all. Nothing about Eden's arguments, or tone, in my eyes would feel out of place to me in a basic Media Studies course. Nothing here is crazily radical stuff, really.
 

Mega

Banned
For what it's worth, I don't agree with this post at all. Nothing about Eden's arguments, or tone, in my eyes would feel out of place to me in a basic Media Studies course. Nothing here is crazily radical stuff, really.

Read the thread. He's been called out multiple times for essentially telling others they're stupid, confused, dudebro, you just want your waifus you pervert, read my OP cuz you clearly didn't get it, etc.
 

RalchAC

Member
Lulu's cleavage is really out of place tho

Lulu's design clashes quite badly with her personality IMO. It felt like they were initially going for some kind of "femme fatale" vibe with some animations but her personality is not like that at all in the actual game.
 

depths20XX

Member
Is "heroically idealized" the new "male power fantasy"?

Never seen it used really until this thread. Seems to be used in the same way.
 
Lulu's design clashes quite badly with her personality IMO. It felt like they were initially going for some kind of "femme fatale" vibe with some animations but her personality is not like that at all in the actual game.

Yeah, especially when she's very much the onee san of the group. Just super strange.
 

Mega

Banned
In the 90s, it was pretty every game with a female protagonist on the cover who wasn't named "Dora"...

We have better representation these days, but that doesn't mean it's not worth talking about still, or that blatant examples of grotesque sexualization (although hey, that can be fun too, let's just have some moderation and consideration) are counter-acted by all the modern heroines (those young, size-zero-waist, tastefully attired, young women) who manage to save the day without being powered by boob physics.

This is not true. It wasn't every game. I'd say instead there weren't many female lead characters, period.

It's weird that you're saying it was worse in the 90s and someone a few posts up said it was better in the 90s. Just like some are saying sexism now is rampant while offering the same examples, and others think it's gotten a lot better and it's not so bad. I take the approach it's not that bad had continues to get better without resorting to thinking the industry must be turned on its head to appease a vocal minority that erroneously believes this will make sales skyrocket. My earlier post was that this is a lazy route and we need entire new games like Splatoon and Overwatch, not a cheap coat of paint on Assassin's Creed and Street Fighter to make a trivial minority happy.
 

Opa-Pa

Member
So Eden has put the effort to personally reply to tons of posts with actual data and references for what he says, no matter how basic the argument he's arguing, but you draw the line at a couple of snarky replies?

For what is worth, if I got called a "shitposter" in other threads for daring talk about female objectification in games and had to explain basic, tired concepts that have already been covered thousands of times, like that fictional women have no agency on what they wear or how they're designed after 10+ pages of discussion, I (and many other users, I imagine) would reply in a much less friendly manner lol. Come one now.

Is "heroically idealized" the new "male power fantasy"?

Never seen it used really until this thread. Seems to be used in the same way.

I'm pretty sure they're supposed to communicate the same concept.
 

4Tran

Member
So really, all you're asking for here is for the women to stop showing so much skin. But you're not being puritanical or sex negative?
First off, video game characters aren't real women. Next, one of the problems with sexual objectification is that women should be titillating at all times, regardless of whether that kind of appearance is warranted. And as sex positivity is about how sex is a natural part of human existence, sexual objectification is itself is not sex positive.

Is "heroically idealized" the new "male power fantasy"?

Never seen it used really until this thread. Seems to be used in the same way.
They're mostly the same, except that female characters can also be heroically idealized.
 

Astral Dog

Member
I think while wanting equality in fanservice is a noble pursuit,Crossing the videogame industry is a bit more focused and inmature than the Movie industry and will not ever be as Mainstream as Movies(with a few exceptions like iOS games, Mario and,eeeer Grand Thef Auto .funny enough thats what the market wants) with games made by male developers for teenage boys it makes sense there is an inequality.

Though we are making progress,and i believe there us ton of fanservice for girls and gays too,just a bit hidden ;)
too much fanservice could be a bit off putting too.depending on the game
 

Euphor!a

Banned
So Eden has put the effort to personally reply to tons of posts with actual data and references for what he says, no matter how basic the argument he's arguing, but you draw the line at a couple of snarky replies?

For what is worth, if I got called a "shitposter" in other threads for daring talk about female objectification in games and had to explain basic, tired concepts that have already been covered thousands of times, like that fictional women have no agency on what they wear or how they're designed after 10+ pages of discussion, I (and many other users, I imagine) would reply in a much less friendly manner lol. Come one now.



I'm pretty sure they're supposed to communicate the same concept.

Actual data? You must be joking...
 
AFAIK "Sex Sells" was a term that was coined in the early 20th century at the dawn of advertisement. It's not an idea about that sex ALWAYS sells more, but just that sex sells. Sex works to sell something if other things fail. I believe the term to be depressingly true, given that it's the creative entertainment industry with little to say, who use sex to sell more than any other.

The root cause is that most games don't have interesting stories to tell or anything interesting to say. Most video game narrative and plot are based around coming up with an excuse to engage with the game design. Most game design revolve around destroying; eliminating, deducing, beating or otherwise overcome some sort of obstacle or challenge. That is one of the reasons why video game stories often revolve around capable Hero archertypes; Particularly in action games. These characters can kill thousands of people and not give two shits about it. The value of violence of entertainment is a lot like the allure of sex; We cannot come up with anything better, so this is what we'll do.

I don't have a problem with either grotesquely violent video games or sexualized video game characters. I enjoy it a lot. But I enjoy it a lot some of the time, and the rest of the time I am bored. I am bored with most games stories, as I am with most Hollywood movies.
But I don't dislike the characters just because she is dressed poorly. I wouldn't have liked Quiet more had she been covered up. I am not less likely to play Nier Automata because you can see her panties. I don't care. I am completely desensitized amist the blurs hardcore porn exposure being thrown into the vicinity at every turn.

"According to the American Psychological Association, sexualization occurs when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness." " Is what the wiki says about one of the proposed definitions of sexualizations; A relatively new co-opted meaning that has been adopted in the west in only the last few decades. It goes without saying that this definition is only one, and shouldn't be held as gospel.
The words within imply the fluidity of the beholder and the context of the individuals placement in culture around the world. There are many famous people who are sex objects despite having not been seen as revealing or outwardly sexualized in dress- This trend is disturbing particularly in the field of corporate paedophelia, where young pre-teen starts have these disgusting memes along the lines of "is she 18 yet?".
There is a deep and problematic level of sexualization into anything that is attractive, because people inherently sexualize whatever they are attracted to at a rudimentary base level. This is horrifying and one of the symptoms of rape culture, of opression of women around the world. Women are to be controlled, contained and kept under wraps because some men cannot deal with their primal urges. This has been the par for course for humanity for the last 10,000 years and it reflects in how we set up many of our social constructs like marriage and monogamy to try and protect ourselves from ourselves due to illogical and predatory basic instincts from our ancestors.

In contrast, I'd say- And I don't know if anyone else feel the same way; I am much, much more attracted to a pretty face than a sexualized body. If you ask me who I find the most sexually attractive; Lara Croft standing in the blizzard covered in head to toe, or some lollipop crotch pic of Bayonetta, I'd say Lara Croft.
To me, sexualization is not a question of showing skin, but how sexually attractive someone is. The moment you sexualize someone in your own mind- That is sexualization. You cannot confine, box or compartmentalize sexualization into a coined term used in one rudimentary way.
The physical characteristics and the silhouette of the character leaves everything for the imaginiation.
Lara Croft breasts, hips, and tight silhouette is completely visible despite her clothes supposedly being designed for the blistering cold. You don't need to see anything beyond enough to leave the rest up to the imagination. This is also the fascination with celebrity nude sex tapes and leaks- People are fetishizing seeing naked pictures of famous people because they've sexualized them just for being pretty or handsome. It's not because they are the most beautiful, it's not because they've sexualized themselves. It's because we sexualize constantly.
Human sexuality itself is confined into seeking procreation. Our species has evolved from trying to fuck everything all the time. That is part of the problem. And as a result you have many situations there are completely asexual, but have sexual tensions none the less.

Cultural customs tells us that all over the world, what is sexually charged is very different. In India it is taboo to kiss people in publicly. That is seen as sex, and that is apparantly why in Bollywood movies, that people dance and sing all the time, to deal with sexualization.
In a lot of the muslim (and western world) the difficult debates about females and headwear continues as arguments for and against female rights as opposed to what is appropriate and what it is not. I don't presume to have the answers to the questions here; I am just saying- Let us not take a western-approach only to explain what sexualization is and can only be.
What is the end game here? Why does sexualization cause harm? Well, people, through over exposure get bombarded with seeing beautiful people, and as a result they feel very shitty about themselves.
I hope that we can all understand the deeper underlying point.
Many teenagers feel terrible about their own bodies because porn warps their self perception; they don't know the difference between porn and sex, and as a result they grow up in a distorted reality brimmed with unrealistic expectations of the other sex, as well as self loathing over their own body.
But in the context of movies, tv and video games, I'd argue that just having incredible handsome characters like Nathan Drake over and over and over and over and over, has the potential to make people also feel very badly about themselves.
I don't think that people feel significantly worse about themselves regardless if they see Nathan Drake as half naked swole or not. At the end of the day, he has a standard of handsomeness that most people who play as him, and bought the game to be as him, won't look anywhere as him.

But this is everywhere, no? I think a lot of famous singers, actors and entertainers are incredible attractive. It seems to me that there is a massive skew towards making it seem that famous people are largely beautiful, and as a result; you as a normal balding person with slight crook on your nose, curly hair and imperfect features, are not part of any club that gets to be represented.
I don't think it's a sole origin, but I think that there are lots of men who enjoy video games who feel terrible about themselves and their own bodies, and I think that self hatred is part of what is being channeled into making some of these men so angry.
Has anyone here been through the experience of being perceived as largely unattractive at one point in your life, to making changes or having changes that meant you were suddenly seen as attractive? Did it change your life drastically too, and how many many people treated you differently? It is a cruel mind fuck how poorly unattractive people are treated. If you're a woman or a man with an unfortunate face, you're in for a rough a life. Particularly if you're a woman.
Few things will isolate you as much as being seen as ugly, and this goes down to the levels of the incredible petty wth people standing in line at the supermarket and going to the prettier cash register.
We must not lose face of that millions and millions of people feel terrible due to beauty ideals in general as a base rule in culture.

And culture is part of the problem. Cultures make people feel bad themselves if they cannot live up to the ideals in the culture, and it devalues the self. We're not good at understanding proportions when ideals have been grafted towards our entire lives.

I've been saying it before, but I'll say it before; Some of you are completely underestimating the body image effects of "swole" male characters. There is an epidemic of teenagers and men who destroy themselves with steroids. I'd rather not elaborate further; But the consumption of steroids today is outragous, and I am convnced that video games, movies and tv have a lot to do with that.
And constantly I am seeing posts arguing like that you can easily attain such a body if you want to be build. The hypocricy here is staggering, and I don't know what the objective is to compartmentalize it in such a manner.

The video game industry make mostly terrible stories, have mostly terrible characters and nothing to say. We're still at a point where the story is shoehorned in to serve the game design. Games is still a young medium, and as it gets better and more mature, the character portrayals will be more nuanced. We need diversity, and we ned more types of people making video games for other audiences, so other types of people will be drawn in and expand games.
We don't need to remove volence, sexualized characters or swole buff military dudes- They have their place and I like them when they are good.
I just want people to stop hating themselves to the point where they become a detergent to themselves and others because they feel so miserable about themselves fueled by the poisonous body images.

I don't think you can take the bias towards things you are attracted to away; So how can you foster a deeper inner self confidence that erodes in men and women finding peace with what they look like and who they are, without letting the outside stimuli make them feel terrible? And I'd like to ask others in this thread; Have any of you had the experience of growing up or being perceived as unattractive for a part of your life, to then turning into a object of desire? Did that change how people view you, how people see you and how they treat you? Was that significant? And did the way other people treated you, alter how you felt about yourself?
 

molnizzle

Member
First off, video game characters aren't real women. Next, one of the problems with sexual objectification is that women should be titillating at all times, regardless of whether that kind of appearance is warranted. And as sex positivity is about how sex is a natural part of human existence, sexual objectification is itself is not sex positive.

Shaming others for being titilated by sexual objectification isn't sex positive either, and that's exactly what Eden and many in this thread are doing. You said it yourself—video game characters aren't real women. It's perfectly okay for some of them to exist for the sole purpose of titlation. It's perfectly okay for a predominately straight, male development team to develop a game targeted at a predominately straight, male audience.

Is there perhaps too much of that going on in this industry? Could we do with a lot more diversity? Sure. Obviously. But we can ask for that without shaming those who currently enjoy the titilation on offer. There's nothing wrong with them liking it, and there's nothing wrong with creators providing it for them.
 

AESplusF

Member
the videogame industry is a bit more focused and inmature than the Movie industry and will not ever be as Mainstream as Movies

The video game industry is roughly twice the size of the film industry, games are already very mainstream.

The medium itself is young, film has over a century of history, video games have half that.
And in case you didn't know, films faced a massive amount of feminist criticism, and they still do.
 

Oersted

Member
I don't have an issue with "sex sells". Sex is fun and natural. Its the objectification and degrading thats the issue and its wrong that those who deeply oppose sexual selfexpression and agenda currently define what sex is.
 

Mega

Banned
So Eden has put the effort to personally reply to tons of posts with actual data and references for what he says, no matter how basic the argument he's arguing, but you draw the line at a couple of snarky replies?

For what is worth, if I got called a "shitposter" in other threads for daring talk about female objectification in games and had to explain basic, tired concepts that have already been covered thousands of times, like that fictional women have no agency on what they wear or how they're designed after 10+ pages of discussion, I (and many other users, I imagine) would reply in a much less friendly manner lol. Come one now.


You mean poor data and unrelated references in a rush to draw sloppy unsupported conclusions?

A couple snarky replies... right.

I didn't know becoming highly invested in a debate was a free pass to act like a jerk for everyone that engages you regardless of the fact they're not acting in the same equally poor fashion. Good to know. What happened in other threads and who called whom a shitposters is not my problem when I'm here arguing sincerely and yet being called a waifu-crazed dudebro pervert for no good reason. If you're being a dismissive and disingenious jerk poster who devolves to calling every disagreeable gaffer confused, ignorant and stupid, you deserve to have it brought to your attention that you're a mess.
 

Arkage

Banned
Just to throw a spanner in your anecdotes, but what has really changed is simply you have grown up. The teenager you used to be hasn't ceased to exist. It's just other boys now instead of you.

Consider the fact you have a wife a progression from the days of playboy mags, seeing boobs and getting titillated through "things boys do". Sure. This can naturally happen for a lot of men once they actually get to have sex with a woman/women, but hey, many still enjoy visual stimulation and so forth even if they have a partner. Whether it's in movies, tv-shows or even games.

Many teenage boys are still navigating through puberty and the worlds of sex and women that you've long since left. What may have changed these days is the ease of access to full blown adult entertainment at the click of a mouse. Rather than magazines or softcore scenes on VHS tapes in the 80s and 90s (which were often harder to get, and not always as "hardcore"). However, this is one reason education needs to be damn fucking good these days, and sadly it is not. Hence my hellbent involvement in somewhat trying to steady the boat from going from 0 to 100 within gaming as I know for a fact many of the younger eyes that can't help be titillated by games, are probably inexperienced, ill-educated and getting all shamed and bent out of shape constantly being told online they are sadists, sexists, misogynists and so forth for liking "waifus" or whatever it is they like. There is of course many adults in those positions too, some of which just have a sexual vice enjoying fantasy/roleplaying with make believe characters/worlds, so in that sense again jumping right to shaming just because it's someone in their 20's/30's+ isn't always sex-positive appropriate move.

I'm not here to judge the values of teens or adults who like cleavage in their games. I quantified that demographic as teenage horny boys as partially a joke but, by and large, it's accurate. Trying to dress it up as something more than staring at digital boobs is really not speaking honestly.

I'm only really "taking a side" from the marketing perspective in that during the 80/90s games might have seen a real benefit to female sexualization because young males were their primary audience. But the demographics are much different these days, so pretending as if that's still a valid line of argument is shaky ground at best.

But then, if we assume there is no clear economic incentive one way or the other, the topic changes to what's best for society, which is where the shaming arguments come into play, with incoming proclamations from both sides where criticizing cleavage is sex-negative, and praising cleavage is patriarchal oppression. I don't really have a dog in that fight, beyond the fact that I'm glad there are now many more games representing women with normal clothes.

I would agree that attacking the consumers of any said product is the wrong way to go, but most articles I see criticizing sexism and misogyny target the company itself. The bigger issue is how consumers start creating self-value around their gaming purchases. As in, I bought game X, I think it's great, this person criticized game X, therefore they are criticizing me. People love identifying themselves via the products they purchase or wear, and so any criticism of that product is viewed as an attack upon the consumer, even though that wasn't the intention. I'm not sure that's a problem that can be solved in a consumerist capitalist society like ours.
 

Mega

Banned
Shaming others for being titilated by sexual objectification isn't sex positive either, and that's exactly what Eden and many in this thread are doing. You said it yourself—video game characters aren't real women. It's perfectly okay for some of them to exist for the sole purpose of titlation. It's perfectly okay for a predominately straight, male development team to develop a game targeted at a predominately straight, male audience.

Is there perhaps too much of that going on in this industry? Could we do with a lot more diversity? Sure. Obviously. But we can ask for that without shaming those who are currently enjoy the titilation on offer. There's nothing wrong with them liking it, and there's nothing wrong with creators providing it for them.

Fully agree with this sentiment. The shaming should go away. Im all for broadening of the type of games on offer without making a certain segment of the gaming population made to feel bad for liking hetero male targeted sex, nudity, etc.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I'm not here to judge the values of teens or adults who like cleavage in their games. I quantified that demographic as teenage horny boys as partially a joke but, by and large, it's accurate. Trying to dress it up as something more than staring at digital boobs is really not speaking honestly.

I'm only really "taking a side" from the marketing perspective in that during the 80/90s games might have seen a real benefit to female sexualization because young males were their primary audience. But the demographics are much different these days, so pretending as if that's still a valid line of argument is shaky ground at best.

But then, if we assume there is no clear economic incentive one way or the other, the topic changes to what's best for society, which is where the shaming arguments come into play, with incoming proclamations from both sides where criticizing cleavage is sex-negative, and praising cleavage is patriarchal oppression. I don't really have a dog in that fight, beyond the fact that I'm glad there are now many more games representing women with normal clothes.

I would agree that attacking the consumers of any said product is the wrong way to go, but most articles I see criticizing sexism and misogyny target the company itself. The bigger issue is how consumers start creating self-value around their gaming purchases. As in, I bought game X, I think it's great, this person criticized game X, therefore they are criticizing me. People love identifying themselves via the products they purchase or wear, and so any criticism of that product is viewed as an attack upon the consumer, even though that wasn't the intention. I'm not sure that's a problem that can be solved in a consumerist capitalist society like ours.

I can't disagree with your last paragraph, as at times that is really the crux of a lot of arguments. However, it happens, that bond between the product and the buyer. Often at times in the world of make believe it is because a game, or movie or TV shows resonates with someone and maybe even helps them through a tough time in their life. I wouldn't be surprised to see stats of how many suffer from pretty bad depression and anxiety end up being big gamers. Gaming as an interactive medium does indeed cater for and help a lot of people who are struggling in the real world. That's what escapism can do. Obviously trying to get to the bottom of your issues and solve them is often the end goal, rather than just dissolving into games and never facing anything in the real world, ever again. It is what it is though, often a vessel for those that are struggling and maybe don't know how to get help in the real world. I think in relation to sex and sexuality a lot of younger males who've had poor sex education and struggle to interact with females end up getting lost in many make believe worlds where they play the role of the bad ass male who always gets all the females.

Anyway, going off on a slight tangent but in a sense it's relative. Many associate themselves closely to games and series they like, and often for those that may have confidence issues around their bodies or sexuality they get a bit of that from gaming characters. Which are often idealised hero tropes and hugely successful male leads who save the world while getting the girl.

You said another thing, that demographics are different, which is true. However, largely that is due to growth in the variety of people gaming, not so much less males or boys gaming. Which is why there is still a ton of service for the male gamer. As you and everyone else, even CE will know, games ARE getting more diverse. They have been for a long time, and not just via indie titles. The AA market is making a comeback and even the big boys do take more risks. It's an ever improving balance, I agree, but the answer to diversity is to bring in more to the market, not to go on a hunt to shut down what's already there or due to come out. If a developer like Guerilla can shake it up so can any other. Devs and publishers will take note of this and they will listen to feedback. It just has to be constructive if we've to successfully be heard, not destructive, shaming and at times borderline smear campaigns on devs. I have criticised Kojima fine, but no, I don't just call people perverts and sexists unless there is great evidence to backup such accusations.
 

4Tran

Member
Shaming others for being titilated by sexual objectification isn't sex positive either, and that's exactly what Eden and many in this thread are doing. You said it yourself—video game characters aren't real women. It's perfectly okay for some of them to exist for the sole purpose of titlation. It's perfectly okay for a predominately straight, male development team to develop a game targeted at a predominately straight, male audience.
I think that it really depends on the time and place. There's nothing necessarily wrong with titillation, but you really shouldn't drop a character like Cindy in Final Fantasy XV or have Quiet rolling around in the rain in MSGV because they're so out of place. If you want to show some skin on a character who actually goes into combat, then do so while she's in her bedroom about to have sex; and not on the battlefield.
 

Astral Dog

Member
AFAIK "Sex Sells" was a term that was coined in the early 20th century at the dawn of advertisement. It's not an idea about that sex ALWAYS sells more, but just that sex sells. Sex works to sell something if other things fail. I believe the term to be depressingly true, given that it's the creative entertainment industry with little to say, who use sex to sell more than any other.

The root cause is that most games don't have interesting stories to tell or anything interesting to say. Most video game narrative and plot are based around coming up with an excuse to engage with the game design. Most game design revolve around destroying; eliminating, deducing, beating or otherwise overcome some sort of obstacle or challenge. That is one of the reasons why video game stories often revolve around capable Hero archertypes; Particularly in action games. These characters can kill thousands of people and not give two shits about it. The value of violence of entertainment is a lot like the allure of sex; We cannot come up with anything better, so this is what we'll do.

I don't have a problem with either grotesquely violent video games or sexualized video game characters. I enjoy it a lot. But I enjoy it a lot some of the time, and the rest of the time I am bored. I am bored with most games stories, as I am with most Hollywood movies.
But I don't dislike the characters just because she is dressed poorly. I wouldn't have liked Quiet more had she been covered up. I am not less likely to play Nier Automata because you can see her panties. I don't care. I am completely desensitized amist the blurs hardcore porn exposure being thrown into the vicinity at every turn.

"According to the American Psychological Association, sexualization occurs when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness." " Is what the wiki says about one of the proposed definitions of sexualizations; A relatively new co-opted meaning that has been adopted in the west in only the last few decades. It goes without saying that this definition is only one, and shouldn't be held as gospel.
The words within imply the fluidity of the beholder and the context of the individuals placement in culture around the world. There are many famous people who are sex objects despite having not been seen as revealing or outwardly sexualized in dress- This trend is disturbing particularly in the field of corporate paedophelia, where young pre-teen starts have these disgusting memes along the lines of "is she 18 yet?".
There is a deep and problematic level of sexualization into anything that is attractive, because people inherently sexualize whatever they are attracted to at a rudimentary base level. This is horrifying and one of the symptoms of rape culture, of opression of women around the world. Women are to be controlled, contained and kept under wraps because some men cannot deal with their primal urges. This has been the par for course for humanity for the last 10,000 years and it reflects in how we set up many of our social constructs like marriage and monogamy to try and protect ourselves from ourselves due to illogical and predatory basic instincts from our ancestors.

In contrast, I'd say- And I don't know if anyone else feel the same way; I am much, much more attracted to a pretty face than a sexualized body. If you ask me who I find the most sexually attractive; Lara Croft standing in the blizzard covered in head to toe, or some lollipop crotch pic of Bayonetta, I'd say Lara Croft.
To me, sexualization is not a question of showing skin, but how sexually attractive someone is. The moment you sexualize someone in your own mind- That is sexualization. You cannot confine, box or compartmentalize sexualization into a coined term used in one rudimentary way.
The physical characteristics and the silhouette of the character leaves everything for the imaginiation.
Lara Croft breasts, hips, and tight silhouette is completely visible despite her clothes supposedly being designed for the blistering cold. You don't need to see anything beyond enough to leave the rest up to the imagination. This is also the fascination with celebrity nude sex tapes and leaks- People are fetishizing seeing naked pictures of famous people because they've sexualized them just for being pretty or handsome. It's not because they are the most beautiful, it's not because they've sexualized themselves. It's because we sexualize constantly.
Human sexuality itself is confined into seeking procreation. Our species has evolved from trying to fuck everything all the time. That is part of the problem. And as a result you have many situations there are completely asexual, but have sexual tensions none the less.

Cultural customs tells us that all over the world, what is sexually charged is very different. In India it is taboo to kiss people in publicly. That is seen as sex, and that is apparantly why in Bollywood movies, that people dance and sing all the time, to deal with sexualization.
In a lot of the muslim (and western world) the difficult debates about females and headwear continues as arguments for and against female rights as opposed to what is appropriate and what it is not. I don't presume to have the answers to the questions here; I am just saying- Let us not take a western-approach only to explain what sexualization is and can only be.
What is the end game here? Why does sexualization cause harm? Well, people, through over exposure get bombarded with seeing beautiful people, and as a result they feel very shitty about themselves.
I hope that we can all understand the deeper underlying point.
Many teenagers feel terrible about their own bodies because porn warps their self perception; they don't know the difference between porn and sex, and as a result they grow up in a distorted reality brimmed with unrealistic expectations of the other sex, as well as self loathing over their own body.
But in the context of movies, tv and video games, I'd argue that just having incredible handsome characters like Nathan Drake over and over and over and over and over, has the potential to make people also feel very badly about themselves.
I don't think that people feel significantly worse about themselves regardless if they see Nathan Drake as half naked swole or not. At the end of the day, he has a standard of handsomeness that most people who play as him, and bought the game to be as him, won't look anywhere as him.

But this is everywhere, no? I think a lot of famous singers, actors and entertainers are incredible attractive. It seems to me that there is a massive skew towards making it seem that famous people are largely beautiful, and as a result; you as a normal balding person with slight crook on your nose, curly hair and imperfect features, are not part of any club that gets to be represented.
I don't think it's a sole origin, but I think that there are lots of men who enjoy video games who feel terrible about themselves and their own bodies, and I think that self hatred is part of what is being channeled into making some of these men so angry.
Has anyone here been through the experience of being perceived as largely unattractive at one point in your life, to making changes or having changes that meant you were suddenly seen as attractive? Did it change your life drastically too, and how many many people treated you differently? It is a cruel mind fuck how poorly unattractive people are treated. If you're a woman or a man with an unfortunate face, you're in for a rough a life. Particularly if you're a woman.
Few things will isolate you as much as being seen as ugly, and this goes down to the levels of the incredible petty wth people standing in line at the supermarket and going to the prettier cash register.
We must not lose face of that millions and millions of people feel terrible due to beauty ideals in general as a base rule in culture.

And culture is part of the problem. Cultures make people feel bad themselves if they cannot live up to the ideals in the culture, and it devalues the self. We're not good at understanding proportions when ideals have been grafted towards our entire lives.

I've been saying it before, but I'll say it before; Some of you are completely underestimating the body image effects of "swole" male characters. There is an epidemic of teenagers and men who destroy themselves with steroids. I'd rather not elaborate further; But the consumption of steroids today is outragous, and I am convnced that video games, movies and tv have a lot to do with that.
And constantly I am seeing posts arguing like that you can easily attain such a body if you want to be build. The hypocricy here is staggering, and I don't know what the objective is to compartmentalize it in such a manner.

The video game industry make mostly terrible stories, have mostly terrible characters and nothing to say. We're still at a point where the story is shoehorned in to serve the game design. Games is still a young medium, and as it gets better and more mature, the character portrayals will be more nuanced. We need diversity, and we ned more types of people making video games for other audiences, so other types of people will be drawn in and expand games.
We don't need to remove volence, sexualized characters or swole buff military dudes- They have their place and I like them when they are good.
I just want people to stop hating themselves to the point where they become a detergent to themselves and others because they feel so miserable about themselves fueled by the poisonous body images.

I don't think you can take the bias towards things you are attracted to away; So how can you foster a deeper inner self confidence that erodes in men and women finding peace with what they look like and who they are, without letting the outside stimuli make them feel terrible? And I'd like to ask others in this thread; Have any of you had the experience of growing up or being perceived as unattractive for a part of your life, to then turning into a object of desire? Did that change how people view you, how people see you and how they treat you? Was that significant? And did the way other people treated you, alter how you felt about yourself?
Alot of people (specially teenage boys.and i tell you by personal experience too) play videogames because they want to be those awesome, cool, heroic,well built characters that (sometimes) get the gurl and kill the bad guys. Change the character to an everyday dude and many of them will lose interest. They play videogames because they want an escape from their depressing,grey reality and have fun in a colorful world that they can control.

There are ways you can overcome this (Mario is an universally lived game character and he is a fat,short plumber without characterization) but understand there is a place for these kinds of experiences/characters in the game industry,because we crave them. And with money and risk aversion in the middle this is more difficult to solve.

This can make a very good argument for lack of diversity and homogenization in videogames though that is not a new thing.

And im not sure i understand your criticism of game stories when a strenght can be gameplay design over an story.instead of forcing poor told tropes in your games written by amateur/unexperienced writters to make your videogame more attractive.
Other thing to consider is that many gamers are fond of these game characters,regardless of how they are written some have achieved iconic status and are loved,wich means some companies must be doing something right after all.


Why didn't you answer me Walrus :'(
 

molnizzle

Member
I think that it really depends on the time and place. There's nothing necessarily wrong with titillation, but you really shouldn't drop a character like Cindy in Final Fantasy XV or have Quiet rolling around in the rain in MSGV because they're so out of place. If you want to show some skin on a character who actually goes into combat, then do so while she's in her bedroom about to have sex; and not on the battlefield.

This is my opinion as well—but who am I to say that someone else shouldn't enjoy Quiet rolling around in the rain? Personally I used the PC mod that gave her the starting outfit the whole time because I found the bikini thing stupid. Some people liked it though, and I'm not self-centered enough to say that the character shouldn't exist because I found her costume was juvenile and embarrassing. Quiet wasn't for me. That's fine.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Sure they could've, dude is ripped. Part of that "heroically idealized male insert" is to be muscular and considered physically attractive by women. Hell, you've made the exact opposite argument before when people bring up how most male video game characters have impossibly muscular and attractive bodies. When the argument suits you, those characters are only there to make male players feel powerful. When it doesn't suit you, they weren't designed for men in the first place.
Agin you're kissing the point, it's that films are better about this and fan service in general because they're actually overt about it instead of just casting an attractive lead. No such scene exists in Uncharted.



...earlier in the thread you literally had an argument with me about how these fictional characters should now be considered actual women as
Read the context of those posts. As the excuse was "games are escapism and these are fictional characters." Implying that characters aren't based on anyone at all when more and more characters are based on their actors.
Why do you talk like this to everyone who disagrees with you? Everyone is either a confused moron or a dirty waifu-crazed pervert and you're here to SCHOOL them, and it comes through in your repulsive tone. Do everyone a favor and give it a rest if you can't stop such enormous condescension, because it makes that much more unconvincing. And no, this is not tone policing. I'm telling you your demeanor, regardless of the merits of your argument, is terrible and off-putting.



There is no evidence of any so-called effects other than tangentially related anecdotes. It all boils down to it should be done because some people don't like it.
Because it's incredibly tiring explaining basic feminism 101 to grown ass dudes. There's nothing intelligent to be gleaned from comparing real women to video game characters designed by men and thus trying to get an inkling about how someone behaves towards real people compared to critiquing shittastic character designs.
 

4Tran

Member
This is my opinion as well—but who am I to say that someone else shouldn't enjoy Quiet rolling around in the rain? Personally I used the PC mod that gave her the starting outfit the whole time because I found the bikini thing stupid. Some people liked it though, and I'm not self-centered enough to say that the character shouldn't exist because I found her costume was juvenile and embarrassing. Quiet wasn't for me. That's fine.
Anyone can criticize a game!
 

Astral Dog

Member
The video game industry is roughly twice the size of the film industry, games are already very mainstream.

The medium itself is young, film has over a century of history, video games have half that.
And in case you didn't know, films faced a massive amount of feminist criticism, and they still do.
Hmm interesting,but im not really convinced . Im talking about the popular console games here,you think the whole family will play games the same way they watch a movie on theatre on Netflix?
 

gatti-man

Member
Sex does sell games to a certain demographic. When I was younger it definitely sold me. Now I'm ambivalent however I do appreciate good art and sexualized characters both ways (I'm heterosexual only). Let me explain:

Hot Ryu and the chun li bikini I liked them both and appreciated them both. Why? Because games are about escapism for me and it's not like either we're behaving like they were cut from hentai.

What I'm trying to say is sexual outfits are fun but the context and use is a fine line. Also developers must realize when they sexualize their characters that there are people very turned off by it too. But to suggest sexualization doesn't sell games it most certainly does.
 
The individual unaffected by sex appeal in marketing always reminds me of the libertarian's rational actor - an idealised person that doesn't exist except in the hypothetical. Of course it works.

Corporations are motivated purely by profit. If sex sold less than the alternative, they'd have cut it out by now.
 

Laiza

Member
Y'know, I am extremely sick and tired of reading the exact same arguments that heavily conflate sexualization with sexuality.

Let's set the record straight once more: Sexualization is something that is done to a character. Sexuality is something that a character expresses. The former only has anything to do with the latter when it is done so in a manner consistent with the character's characterization. This means NOT writing the character as the kind of naive 'oh-I-didn't-know-dressing-like-this-would-provoke-that-reaction' bullshit you so often see in, for example, a crapton of japanese games.

If you want to convince me that a character is deliberately choosing to wear an outfit that heavily sexualizes herself, you must show it to me. You must prove to me that you actually put some thought into it and write the character accordingly. She must own up to her own decisions and be accepting, or at least possess some foresight, of the consequences. Anything less and the braindead pandering becomes extremely apparent.

Me heavily disliking braindead sexy outfits on characters who are all business does NOT make me a prude. It means I have more sense and put more thought into these things than the writers involved obviously do. I love sex, but it needs to be treated with at least some level of respect, not thrown out in tasteless and gaudy fashion for a cheap buck.

I think that it really depends on the time and place. There's nothing necessarily wrong with titillation, but you really shouldn't drop a character like Cindy in Final Fantasy XV or have Quiet rolling around in the rain in MSGV because they're so out of place. If you want to show some skin on a character who actually goes into combat, then do so while she's in her bedroom about to have sex; and not on the battlefield.
Also this.

Like half the thread has also already proven that the fans will sexualize any character, so why do the developers need to do it themselves? At least do it in appropriate contexts, and not in situations where it makes absolutely no sense.

The individual unaffected by sex appeal in marketing always reminds me of the libertarian's rational actor - an idealised person that doesn't exist except in the hypothetical. Of course it works.

Corporations are motivated purely by profit. If sex sold less than the alternative, they'd have cut it out by now.
This would make sense if we weren't living in a world heavily dominated by men and masculine sensibilities.

The trope that "sex sells" is more a self-perpetuating idea than anything backed up by market realities at this point. Try getting rich off of selling porn, see how far that takes you. I think you'll find that, despite your incessant belief, the market is not quite so forgiving as you tend to think it is.
 

AESplusF

Member
Hmm interesting,but im not really convinced . Im talking about the popular console games here,you think the whole family will play games the same way they watch a movie on theatre on Netflix?

You are neglecting the fact that movies have had time to get there, video games have not.

Surely you've played card games or board games with your family?
 

Audioboxer

Member
Agin you're kissing the point, it's that films are better about this and fan service in general because they're actually overt about it instead of just casting an attractive lead. No such scene exists in Uncharted.




Read the context of those posts. As the excuse was "games are escapism and these are fictional characters." Implying that characters aren't based on anyone at all when more and more characters are based on their actors.

Because it's incredibly tiring explaining basic feminism 101 to grown ass dudes. There's nothing intelligent to be gleaned from comparing real women to video game characters designed by men and thus trying to get an inkling about how someone behaves towards real people compared to critiquing shittastic character designs.

What? A large part of your first post is talking about representation, sexism and misogyny? Then you talk about straight white males. All of this is dealing with real life, so why are you now trying to play some card of don't compare real women to video game characters because of who may have designed them? Considering you pointed out men there, does that remark also apply when it's women who design characters you find shittastic?

You're all over the place at times, it gets confusing. You say it's called feminism 101 when you're explaining it to "grown ass dudes". What's it called when you're explaining it to grown ass women? I've seen women disagree with you too.

Ergo, you don't have to "explain" anything to anyone like it's a mission CE. Argue your case but try and not make it some self-fulfilling prophecy to get everyone on your side. If you accept that maybe you won't find yourself talking down to others based on what body organs they may have. As it should be no surprise to you many women enjoy and are fond of characters you do not like and find shittastic. I therefore wonder if your tone and some of your remarks change when you address them?

Seriously man, I just don't get some of it. For as much as your heart might be in the "right" place with many things you say, your head seems to be very rigid and one dimensional when it puts out your thoughts. I honestly think some of the weight of what you seem to be carrying will be burdening yourself. I say that not to be critical, but genuinely worried at the levels of stress you seem to get tied up in around any topic of sexual content in gaming. I'm not sure if you feel the same way about books, TV shows and movies, I rarely see you discuss them.
 

molnizzle

Member
The trope that "sex sells" is more a self-perpetuating idea than anything backed up by market realities at this point. Try getting rich off of selling porn, see how far that takes you. I think you'll find that, despite your incessant belief, the market is not quite so forgiving as you tend to think it is.

Likewise, the market doesn't necessarily punish a product for having "out of place" sexualized characters. From a corporation's perspective, there's only potential profit to be gained. They (rightly, in my opinion) assume that the small number of people who will purchase a game specifically because of sexualization outnumber those who will refuse to purchase a game for the same reason. I think their logic is sound there, and I'm sure they have data to back it up. There's no downsides for them.

You gave a great explanation of why you don't like sexualization, and that's fine. I'm not crazy about it either. Some people do like it, though, and it's perfectly fine for creators to cater to those individuals if they so choose. "Braindead pandering" has just as much right to exist as the nuanced, thoughtful portrayals of sexy characters.
 

Mman235

Member
Corporations are motivated purely by profit. If sex sold less than the alternative, they'd have cut it out by now.

The point is that most of the biggest franchises don't actually overtly sell on "sex" in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises

Unless you want to vouch for the sexiness of Mario characters and Tetris blocks.

Nevermind that the implication that marketing somehow has a perfect grasp of what works or no faulty biases is wrong in itself, especially when we're just barely starting to move on from things like "don't put female characters on box-art" (despite there being several other reasons for many games with female protagonists not selling that went beyond the character's gender, not least the catch 22 of those games frequently getting much less marketing)
 

Arkage

Banned
The AA market is making a comeback and even the big boys do take more risks. It's an ever improving balance, I agree, but the answer to diversity is to bring in more to the market, not to go on a hunt to shut down what's already there or due to come out. If a developer like Guerilla can shake it up so can any other. Devs and publishers will take note of this and they will listen to feedback. It just has to be constructive if we've to successfully be heard, not destructive, shaming and at times borderline smear campaigns on devs. I have criticised Kojima fine, but no, I don't just call people perverts and sexists unless there is great evidence to backup such accusations.

I agree with the rest, so I'm just pasting the discussion point. Part of this problem is how people interpret "going on a hunt." If it's to shut down a game, I think the vast majority of gamers agree not to forcefully shut a developer or game down regardless of the content unless it's breaking laws in some way, or at least I never see calls for that kind of thing. But boycotting a game, or criticizing it... where should those tactics fall and lines be drawn? Some spend their time boycotting MGS5 due to Quiet, while others spend their time boycotting Feminist Frequency due to their criticism of Quiet. Do both circumstances count as a form of going on the hunt to "shut down what's already there?" And in that case, what could the proposed solution to your problem be, other than to never criticize a specific product? One could argue that Horizon was only made the way it was made due to the devs listening to specific criticisms of gaming culture in the first place.
 

Mega

Banned
There's nothing intelligent to be gleaned from comparing real women to video game characters [/B]designed by men and thus trying to get an inkling about how someone behaves towards real people compared to critiquing shittastic character designs.

Who's this? I know you're not talking about me.

I don't think you're accomplishing reaching out to anyone successfully and have probably pushed more people in the opposite direction. Are you right and everyone else wrong? Or have you considered changing your methods and line of argument rather than assuming no one is understanding your basic Feminism 101?

If you want to convince me that a character is deliberately choosing to wear an outfit that heavily sexualizes herself, you must show it to me. You must prove to me that you actually put some thought into it and write the character accordingly.

Why should anyone do that? If someone wants to make a game that's parts serious business mixed with B movie or erotic movie levels of shlock, why the heck not? They don't need to convince you that the character has some deep motivation for wearing an outfit. There aren't any mandates in place for this stuff. To date, I wish Kojima had told everyone to fuck off and either accept or move on that he loves his fantastical sexual pandering regardless of how out of place anyone thinks it is. In recent years there have been so many bonkers shows with utter randomness mixed into the plot. But when it comes to sexuality suddenly the bar has to be set high and it all needs to be ultra realistic and refined and respectful and situation-appropriate... and I just don't agree, at all. Who the hell said it has to be this way? It doesn't.

She must own up to her own decisions and be accepting, or at least possess some foresight, of the consequences. Anything less and the braindead pandering becomes extremely apparent.

No, she doesn't.

Me heavily disliking braindead sexy outfits on characters who are all business does NOT make me a prude. It means I have more sense and put more thought into these things than the writers involved obviously do.

You're assuming the writers or the publisher or a committee didn't put the exact amount of thought into a character they wanted and that you alone know better if said character doesn't meet your criteria.

I love sex, but it needs to be treated with at least some level of respect, not thrown out in tasteless and gaudy fashion for a cheap buck.

Why? According to whom? Literally everything else is played up for laughs, thrills, excitement, impulsive consumption, you name it. Sexuality/sex should be no different.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I agree with the rest, so I'm just pasting the discussion point. Part of this problem is how people interpret "going on a hunt." If it's to shut down a game, I think the vast majority of gamers agree not to forcefully shut a developer or game down regardless of the content unless it's breaking laws in some way, or at least I never see calls for that kind of thing. But boycotting a game, or criticizing it... where should those tactics fall and lines be drawn? Some spend their time boycotting MGS5 due to Quiet, while others spend their time boycotting Feminist Frequency due to their criticism of Quiet. Do both circumstances count as a form of going on the hunt to "shut down what's already there?" And in that case, what could the proposed solution to your problem be, other than to never criticize a specific product? One could argue that Horizon was only made the way it was made due to the devs listening to specific criticisms of gaming culture in the first place.

Not so much going after devs by trying to get them "shutdown". The only thing I have to say there is understand what you're saying. Calling everyone perverts and sexists carries some weight to those definitions. Unless there is actual evidence it is true, and you aren't just saying it in some edgy joking way, take heed that there are real people at the end of your comments. I know a lot of it is hyperbole when it comes to calling Kojima a literal piece of shit, or some woman hater, but still, if we all want to discuss issues with the gaming industry and the level of discourse that often goes on don't feed the negative stereotype we already have.

That is kind of my point with fellow gamers as well. Same rules apply. Going to dial 100 and blindly calling gamers sexists and perverts really doesn't add much constructive to the debate unless again, there is real evidence to condemn someone morally, not just for feeling they enjoy some adult or sexual content.

Criticising, boycotting, saying you're not buying and so on, absolutely fine. I said earlier constructive criticism does indeed help the industry and devs. It's the destructive scorch the earth approach that is often borne out of frustration and demands which can be toxic and often leads to shaming, guilt tripping and widespread accusations.
 
Y'know, I am extremely sick and tired of reading the exact same arguments that heavily conflate sexualization with sexuality.

Let's set the record straight once more: Sexualization is something that is done to a character. Sexuality is something that a character expresses. The former only has anything to do with the latter when it is done so in a manner consistent with the character's characterization. This means NOT writing the character as the kind of naive 'oh-I-didn't-know-dressing-like-this-would-provoke-that-reaction' bullshit you so often see in, for example, a crapton of japanese games.

A character is designed. It is designed to be beautiful and attractive. It doesn't CHOOSE to express sexuality. It has the hair, silhouette, animation, textures, shading and rigging BECAUSE it is intentionally and purposefully designed t be beautiful. It IS sexualization when people are sexually attracted to a character. It is not a coincidence that nearly every video game character is unbeliveable well put together and attractive. That is not a coincidence. To be attractive is to be desired and feithsized and is to be sexualized, because attractiveness is what we fetishize the most in most societies.

An artist designs a character with intention. That is why there is anger and ridicule when a character doesn't look pretty like in the case of FemRyder in the MEA fiasco. Don't kid yourself into thinking that all of these beautiful characters are beautiful for any other sake that they are supposed to harbor good will and likability from the people who are supposed to engage with them, with the end goal of buying the product.

ERGO- Beautiful characters are by definition exploiting human beings inane sexual urges and sexualization of EVERYTHING they are attracted to.
 

wuth

Member
The point is that most of the biggest franchises don't actually overtly sell on "sex" in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises

Unless you want to vouch for the sexiness of Mario characters and Tetris blocks.

Nevermind that the implication that marketing somehow has a perfect grasp of what works or no faulty biases is wrong in itself, especially when we're just barely starting to move on from things like "don't put female characters on box-art" (despite there being several other reasons for many games with female protagonists not selling that went beyond the character's gender, not least the catch 22 of those games frequently getting much less marketing)

I can't speak for everyone in the entertainment marketing industry, but I can tell you that our metrics for 'what works' are sketchy at best and not quality science at all. There are just so many cooks in the kitchen that we often have to drop all good ideas to instead cater to the lowest common denominator.

This topic, in particular, is something that comes up a lot when dealing with studios. People in these threads parroting things like 'sex sells because it always does' are not privy to the actual conversations being had around things like key-art, social media posts, or even trailer metrics. It is just not as simple as 'sex sells' or 'teenage boys like boobs.' God, if people only knew the insanity of what goes on behind the scenes.
 

Crossing Eden

Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Who's this? I know you're not talking about me.

I don't think you're accomplishing reaching out to anyone successfully and have probably pushed more people in the opposite direction. Are you right and everyone else wrong? Or have you considered changing your methods and line of argument rather than assuming no one is understanding your basic Feminism 101?
If people get offended by those being tired of repeating themselves over and over when it comes to women being represented equally, even worse, pushed more into wanting sexism to prevail, then I can't help them. No i'm not the only one with the right idea ITT.

Is "heroically idealized" the new "male power fantasy"?

Never seen it used really until this thread. Seems to be used in the same way.
Both existed before this thread but are used a bit differently in the context of gaming due to the fact that it's first and foremost an interactive medium.

A character is designed. It is designed to be beautiful and attractive. It doesn't CHOOSE to express sexuality.
The characters in the OP at no point express any sort of sexuality. And the ways in which Quiet does is well, animalistic, she looks like a cat in heat based on bond level with the player.
 

4Tran

Member
ERGO- Beautiful characters are by definition exploiting human beings inane sexual urges and sexualization of EVERYTHING they are attracted to.
This doesn't work because attractive is not equivalent to sexualized. A character is sexualized if her or his design and presentation have a primary function of titillation.
 
Lulu's design clashes quite badly with her personality IMO. It felt like they were initially going for some kind of "femme fatale" vibe with some animations but her personality is not like that at all in the actual game.

Yeah, especially when she's very much the onee san of the group. Just super strange.

What's funny, is there was one time it matched up perfectly and it's when you can choose to flirt with her at Guadosalam and she gets really amused and says something along the lines of "I'll add you to the list" and it was the only time her personality matched up with her outfit.

I wish that came out more from her because it wasn't like...sexy seductress or generic anime older sexpot whose every word drips with "suck yo dick", it was her being supremely confident and elevated above Tidus' boyishness in regards to her appeal or sexuality.

I'm not above saying that I love her outfit though; I just won't defend it because it's obvious what it's for.
 
Obviously sex can sell, but the way people treat "sex sells" as a trump card is pretty ridiculous. It's clear that games don't have to include sexual pandering in order to attract sales. If a developer wants to include a hypersexual character, that's their choice, but it's not as if they have to decide between oversexualization and the bargain bin.

I work in marketing, and "sex sells" is absolutely not an adage we rely on.
 

Pancake Mix

Copied someone else's pancake recipe
As always, Crossing Eden's extremely vocal and narrow level of passion about this topic does not negate that sex tends to sell. Consumers like it.

You're not going to "win" this argument, not really.
 

Mega

Banned
If people get offended by those being tired of repeating themselves over and over when it comes to women being represented equally, even worse, pushed more into [not] wanting sexism to prevail, then I can't help them. No i'm not the only one with the right idea ITT.

You don't understand that people have different ideas of what this means and how it can be achieved. You have one narrow interpretation of it and wish to foist it on everyone else and strongly insinuate stupidity if/when they don't agree. This is why you're not really helping anyone and just brow beating everyone with the same tired, unconvincing arguments.
 

wuth

Member
Obviously sex can sell, but the way people treat "sex sells" as a trump card is pretty ridiculous. It's clear that games don't have to include sexual pandering in order to attract sales. If a developer wants to include a hypersexual character, that's their choice, but it's not as if they have to decide between oversexualization and the bargain bin.

I work in marketing, and "sex sells" is absolutely not an adage we rely on.

Exactly. That is just not how this shit works. We're not shuffling key art around until we get the perfect booby shot- that is often coming directly from the artist and is getting far more pushback these days than previously.
 

Astral Dog

Member
You are neglecting the fact that movies have had time to get there, video games have not.

Surely you've played card games or board games with your family?
Nope.:(

B-but i was talking about popular console games bacause those are mostly the ones with actual characters and narrative,being crticized and discussed in this very thread
 

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
To me, OP reads like sexualization of females is bad and they should be covered up. And Crossing Eden, in my opinion, your follow up posts also read like that. It seems to be that you have a specific vision of female representation in gaming, and your vision is: Women cannot be sexy or provocatively sexual to be good empowering characters.

A female character can be utterly sexy, provocative, flaunts her sexuality and still be empowering to women. Female gamers I know in and out of real life, love characters like Bayonetta, Kaine, RE3 Jill, Zero Suit Samus etc etc. I mean I'm friends IRL with a female cosplayer who absolutely loves sexy women in games, and is an ardent feminist.

To me, you sound like "A woman cannot be proud or her natural attractiveness, or flaunt her attractiveness as a weapon. That is always male gaze. Women must be covered'". But
 

wuth

Member
As always, Crossing Eden's extremely vocal and narrow level of passion about this topic does not negate that sex tends to sell. Consumers like it.

Consumers don't necesserily like anything and the metrics are insanely complicated. This stuff is happening far before any marketing. I have personally seen a character go from concept to implementation based on not having time to fix the outsourced artist's lewd drawings.

These things are massive machines of insane complexity and it is not so simple as to say 'sex sells.'

To me, OP reads like sexualization of females is bad and they should be covered up. And Crossing Eden, in my opinion, your follow up posts also read like that. It seems to be that you have a specific vision of female representation in gaming, and your vision is: Women cannot be sexy or provocatively sexual to be good empowering characters.

A female character can be utterly sexy, provocative, flaunts her sexuality and still be empowering to women. Female gamers I know in and out of real life, love characters like Bayonetta, Kaine, RE3 Jill, Zero Suit Samus etc etc. I mean I'm friends IRL with a female cosplayer who absolutely loves sexy women in games, and his an ardent feminist.

To me, you sound like "A woman cannot be proud or her natural attractiveness, or flaunt her attractiveness as a weapon. That is always male gaze. Women must be covered'". But

Posts like this are why Crossing Eden always gets pissed off in the first place.
 
Top Bottom