Support NeoGAF

[Crossing Eden]

Some of the "cause it does", "deal with it, there is a demand" stuff is just straight up ignorant of how markets work.

Different segments exists. Catering to a specific audience for the cost of scaring away a different segment DOES NOT make it a smart business decision.

Remember that mythical opportunity cost?
We DO need the "receipts" for proving that the biggest selling games do so only because they show cleavage.

Which is, by the way, blatantly false in itself: the biggest selling franchises, like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and even the likes of Battlefield, or even RDR/GTA do NOT base their gamplay around sex, do not consider sexy characters as a selling point (with the exception of GTA and prostitution, obviously), and prefer to display VIOLENCE as main selling point rather than sex.

So where are these big sellers that make the juggernaughts of winter season move out of their way that focus primarily on sex and sexy females? Which are the 10+ million selller booty-hunting games that warrant such adamant position from the folks shouting "sex sells, deal with it"?

Seems to me that violence sells MUCH more , and the games industry is just about choking on blood at this point. So where is the sex?

It's genuinely a shame that the most common depictions of sex are "player does enough conversations and then maybe a mission, and then they bang." When it's much more nuanced, we should

I read your sloppy and typo-laden OP. I understood it and I disagree with it, as did many others. You're veering off into shitty territory by resorting to telling people they're "confused" for not agreeing with your shoddy premises.

Because either people are missing the point completely despite very clear laid out examples of what i'm talking about, or being intellectually dishonest.

You make tenuous connections and draw from cherry picked examples to prove the same point of your thread. You still can't even address my earlier point that the research shows men and women are drawn to very different types of games and that that's where the focus should be: new games from the ground up that cater to two very different groups. Women aren't going out in droves and buying Tomb Raider and its sequel, especially not just because they slapped a main character on the cover that you don't find offensive and which meets your strict requirements of acceptability, because they don't want to play Tomb Raider at all. Or Halo. Or GTA. Or CoD. And so on.

Read the post that I quoted above yours. MEN aren't going out in droves to buy games with sexualized women.

I could make the argument that you're sexist because you basically want a simple coat of paint via lame, safe character designs slapped onto games that by design and to their very core cater to men, as if that's all that's needed.

I like how women fitting the context of their own games is considered lame while the only reason characters like Quiet and Cidney are memorable is because of how god awful they look.

And that furthermore your deep interest in animation and character design is making you overemphasize this one area as the reason women aren't buying the games in greater numbers and drawing incorrect conclusions that sexism and sexy characters is playing a singular huge role here. You want women to play the games you, a man, enjoy playing and probably cannot come to terms with the millions of women who are already happily playing games that already cater to them, whether that's Splatoon or Candy Crush.

We're genuinely back to the "women play candy crush and not our manly games" rhetoric huh?

Like I said, "People use sex = sells to defend overt sexualization is terrible" does not automatically mean "sex doesn't sell!"

You can criticize the former while acknowledging that the latter may or may not be true.

I'm using the phrase sex doesn't sell in the specific context of out of place sexualization in otherwise serious narratives.

Don't go into the rabbit hole of people that find pixar characters attractive. You might have your mind blown that other peoples tastes do not, in fact, conform to your own.

So we're just not gonna take into account context and intent whatsoever now when arguing attraction to fictional characters?

They freely use sex though.

Yea, as an optional activity, meanwhile they portray it either humorously or disgustingly in the actual plot of the game.

You brought up Trevor? I don't care about Trevor. I would say Fenix is more attractive than Trevor, by a mile.

To bring home the point that "ugly characters can't be in games" is bullshit considering how many games have ugly male characters who're by design intended to be ugly regardless of the insanely small audience that would find them attractive because reasons compared to characters who're heroic ideals.

Using 'Sex Sells' is well, disingenuous since your main point was anything but sex sells. Because sex sells. "Sexism Sells" is something completely different. Sexism for the most part, does not sale as well as sex, sex including the umbrella of a characters attraction, whether physical or personality. My argument is and has been that Sex does, indeed sell, and that both sexes are inherent to that fact, and to use 'sex sells' makes your generalization of what sex sells means flawed when your argument is that 'sexism sells is flawed'. Sexism=/=sex. Sexism includes sex, but sex is many a thing that doesn't necessarily mean objectifying a person like sexism does.

Except we don't have any supporting evidence that sexualization is the reason these games are selling.

 

[Jyester]

Why draw Mario into the discussion? He was created when gaming was in its infancy, starring in a nonsensical King Kong-inspired jumping game. His role in the fledgling years of the industry made him extremely recognizable. You couldn't make a similar character 30 years down the line, and changing Mario's design now would certainly be detrimental to his status as a gaming icon.

Discussing Mario's appearance in the context of this thread doesn't really contribute to either side of the argument.

 

[stargateheaven]

Just ask yourself why Tracer is on the cover of Overwatch instead of Winston.

lol

 

[toddhunter]

Sex sells, violence sells better. Also soccer.

Source: every single npd chart ever. Pretty much every box art ever. Also every other market for every other product ever.

The better a game is, the less sex and violence it needs to sell. Very few games are good.

Source: Mass Effect A

 

[Crossing Eden]

Just ask yourself why Tracer is on the cover of Overwatch instead of Winston.

lol

Because she's a more iconic design than a CGI gorilla. And she looks like this on the cover:

She's not sexualized at all on the cover.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I'm using the phrase sex doesn't sell in the specific context of out of place sexualization in otherwise serious narratives.

Yes well, you and these people that you are arguing with back and forth in this thread are not really talking about the same thing, then.

 

[dan2026]

Just ask yourself why Tracer is on the cover of Overwatch instead of Winston.

lol

I would argue that a lot of Overwatchs enduring popularity is due to waifus.
The fan art is endless, the porn is endless, the SFM videos are everywhere.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Street fighter five's male cast is absolutely filled to the brim with diverse body shapes and silhouettes.

Which is typical for a fighting game. Meanwhile the same cannot be said for the women, Laura is the tallest woman in the game. And she's barely taller than Chun Li, they also all have incredibly similar body types and only one of them isn't sexualized.

It's a pretty clear dissonance that's disappointing in this day and age and part of why I didn't support it, it certainly doesn't seem like increasingly Chun Li's thigh and breast size yet again, as well as Cammy's worked out for Capcom in the end considering the sales of the game.


I'm saying that the issue is that people constantly bring up sex sells in defense of overtly sexist elements in games in an attempt to stifle discussion/criticism , like the examples in the OP. In that context, these games likely sold what they did in spite of those out of place elements, not because of them.

Virtually every single guy, including the ones designed to be "overweight" have bulging biceps, triceps, and deltoids, not to mention big pectoral muscles. The only guy we don't see this with is the skinny character who I guarantee you would be cut, if his shirt was off. None of it is realistic, and it's a poor example of "different body types".

Also, hot Ryu is a thing.

 

[Mega]

We're genuinely back to the "women play candy crush and not our manly games" rhetoric huh?

Now looks who's being intellectually dishonest, and reductive. Did I say/imply women only play Candy Crush and not "manly games" (wtf?)... or are you deliberately being a disingenious wiseass in order to dismiss my point without actually addressing the Crux of my post that a superficial character redesign and safe/neutered sexualism doesn't actually cater to female demographics the same as actually making games that they like?

 

[Mega]

Because she's a more iconic design than a CGI gorilla. And she looks like this on the cover:


She's not sexualized at all on the cover.

LOL

She's doing the classic comic book pose where her torso is twisted like crazy to show off both her ass and tits at the same time. Sex sells.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

So we're just not gonna take into account context and intent whatsoever now when arguing attraction to fictional characters?

You said that Pixar characters aren't attractive at all. You followed up with saying 'he's too stylized'. Yeah uh, there are whole industries revolving around stylized porn. Just because you don't find it attractive, doesn't mean others don't, and it definitely doesn't mean they are objectively not attractive.

Yea, as an optional activity, meanwhile they portray it either humorously or disgustingly in the actual plot of the game.

But it is portrayed, and the game does sell? Yes, we cannot attribute it selling it to just the sex, but it helps.

To bring home the point that "ugly characters can't be in games" is bullshit considering how many games have ugly male characters who're by design intended to be ugly regardless of the insanely small audience that would find them attractive because reasons compared to characters who're heroic ideals.

I never said ugly characters can't be in games?

Except we don't have any supporting evidence that sexualization is the reason these games are selling.

It's a contributing factor. There are exceptions, like Minecraft or Starcraft that sell due to mainly it's gameplay, but the majority of games tend to feature characters that have unreachable standards of attraction, which is a facet of sex, and which definitely doesn't hurt it's sales if the character is witty and attractive, like Uncharted.

 

[Village]

Virtually every single guy, including the ones designed to be "overweight" have bulging biceps, triceps, and deltoids, not to mention big pectoral muscles. The only guy we don't see this with is the skinny character who I guarantee you would be cut, if his shirt was off. None of it is realistic, and it's a poor example of "different body types".

Also, hot Ryu is a thing.

Body types are more than muscles
Its also the shape of the body

So I don't see your point, also theres art style to consider too

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

The point is that Mario is about as attractive as a pixar character, as in, not at all. He's too stylized.


That is the way sex is forced on the player. GTA sells first and foremost with violence.


Except that Stallone wasn't literally designed by a team of people be ugly. Marcus is unattractive by design just like Trevor is, take the L on that one.


Maybe read the OP instead of the title. FFS the title even says specifically what i'm talking about as does the OP.


They give women muscular appearances but at the same time the majority of them are incredibly sexualized. EVERYONE is ripped in SF but not everyone is sexualized. It's a design flaw that all the women share compared to the men that sticks out even more as they seemingly aren't allowed to have diverse body types as even returning characters got homogenized to fit the large breasts and incredibly wide hips thing.

I'm honestly not seeing the significant body shape sizes and physique in the men in SF5. More than the women, but not significantly more. Sure, you got one overweight character with muscles and a skinny character who probably has muscles underneath, but besides that all of the body shapes look pretty similar to me excluding a few really tall characters. Yeah, a few of them are not considered attractive as a Ryu, Ken, Nash, Vega, etc, but imo male characters looking like body builders in so many games isn't exactly realistic either and I feel that the developers almost always go for this appearance because they think that is aesthetically pleasing to most people.

Laura's first alternate outfit can be considered incredibly sexualized, but I don't think the majority of the females are "incredibly" sexualized, but that is another subject. Compared to most other games, especially fighters I think the body styles in the females are somewhat diverse considering that even adding any type of muscles or fairly tall, heavier women is extremely rare in video games. It's not much I know, but baby steps I guess imho.

 

[MCD]

Remember when one of Tracer's win pose was her glorious ass directly to the camera or the player?

Blizzard knew what they were doing. Their whole PR and the change they did ain't gonna convince anyone lol.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Body types are more than muscles
Its also the shape of the body

So I don't see your point, also theres art style to consider too

There's very little difference in those body types. Outside of the "heavy" character and skinny "character", both of whom are in tremendous shape.

 

[Audioboxer]

Kojima knows what he was doing. At the very least a character like Quiet spawns a load of cosplay which keeps the MGS name in the spotlight.

The desire to create an IP with instantly recognisable characters that live on after the game has largely been played and completed is what people like him are after. For better or worse I'd say pages of debate around Quiet even on GAF have achieved this.

Even Cindy in FF15 for as mundane a character as she is had both the cosplay and an absolute boatload of debate and talking on the internet. That's part of "selling an IP via sexualisation". It's not just raw sales numbers but trying to keep the IP and characters being spoken about for years to come.

Then of course there is the reality that people like looking at objectively "pretty and handsome" people in their fantasies and escapism. Whether it's TV, film, books, games or anything else.

You might have thought out your post well CE and taken time to write it, but psychology 101 gives rise to humans being a sexual species and often these desires and interests spill over into daily life. It does not mean people "fap" non-stop at stupid shit, but the mind, eyes, ears and senses "enjoy" pretty things.

The debate in gaming may have multiple sides, but borderlining on puritan or shaming rampages some take up are genuinely not healthy. You are not going to nuke sexualisation from any fantasy medium, let alone real life with actual actors. Symmetry, objective beauty, and sexiness will forever be tied to the humans who act. Some of it is simply presentation. Dressing well, cleaning yourself up, having a nice haircut and having a body which isn't falling apart or totally out of shape. Most of us can reach some of those heights with varying success.

 

[NoFoX]

Is this because of the "Death Stranding Emma Stone" thread? xD

 

[CrimsonSquall]

I'm split on this shit. On one hand, Cindy being sexualized overtly is and isn't a bad thing. I think under the frame of whether or not it would sell more or less to have here be as revealing as she is, I would say that I actually don't know. Japanese people be doing the most to grab panty shots, so sales wise her looking like that may have actually helped there. She's not even a big part of the story tho so idk.

Final Fantasy is a franchise generally trying to be as fantastically aesthetic as possible tho which is something that shouldn't be overlooked.

As for MGSV, I actually thought that Quiets reasoning for her clothes being like that fit right in with Kojimas style so I didn't see a problem with it. Don't even think it would come up if she were flat chested and had bony legs. EDIT: On second thought it actually probably would come up a lot regardless of male or female, just bc of the explanation itself

 

[hodgy100]

Remember when one of Tracer's win pose was her glorious ass directly to the camera or the player?

Blizzard knew what they were doing. Their whole PR and the change they did ain't gonna convince anyone lol.

thats what you got from the tracer thing?

then you weren't paying attention

 

[MilkyJoe]

Kojima knows what he was doing. At the very least a character like Quiet spawns a load of cosplay which keeps the MGS name in the spotlight.

The desire to create an IP with instantly recognisable characters that live on after the game has largely been played and completed is what people like him are after. For better or worse I'd say pages of debate around Quiet even on GAF have achieved this.

Even Cindy in FF15 for as mundane a character as she is had both the cosplay and an absolute boatload of debate and talking on the internet. That's part of "selling an IP via sexualisation". It's not just raw sales numbers but trying to keep the IP and characters being spoken about for years to come.

Then of course there is the reality that people like looking at objectively "pretty and handsome" people in their fantasies and escapism. Whether it's TV, film, books, games or anything else.

You might have thought out your post well CE and taken time to write it, but psychology 101 gives rise to humans being a sexual species and often these desires and interests spill over into daily life. It does not mean people "fap" non-stop at stupid shit, but the mind, eyes, ears and senses "enjoy" pretty things.

I didn't buy MGS because of Quiet...

 

[Village]

There's very little difference in those body types. Outside of the "heavy" character and skinny "character", both of whom are in tremendous shape.

Theres quite a bit actually
Do you need me to explain it to you

 

[SomTervo]

Isn't the premise of the OP and its sources not that "sex doesn't sell" but that "there's no evidence sex sells or that (de)sexualisation sells"?

And that the little evidence/research we do have suggests that it doesn't have an impact?

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

you cant make platforming game mascots that arent in tip top shape anymore?

I wouldn't call Yooka Laylee as iconic as mario just yet..

 

[SmokedMeat]

Theres quite a bit actually
Do you need me to explain it to you

No, I can see it with my own eyes. Maybe I should explain to you how impossibly jacked these guys are?

 

[Audioboxer]

I didn't buy MGS because of Quiet...

So? Where did I say you or anyone else had to have bought MGS5 for Quiet? I explicitly said above it's not just about raw sales numbers. Heck, some people buying Quiet figures, cosplaying or even just helping boost Stefanie Joostens career or visibility won't even have bought MGS5. Some. Most will.

My field of study is psychology and I do enough study as it is on sexuality, sexualisation and human behavioural evolution. You cannot just run away with the cake saying sex is nothing, it can never be used for consumer behaviour or consumer influence.

Even my fellow academics in the fields of marketing should be backing me up here.

 

[SomTervo]

Kojima knows what he was doing. At the very least a character like Quiet spawns a load of cosplay which keeps the MGS name in the spotlight.

The cosplay thing is a very interesting point. That really would increase exposure, lifting often-sexualised characters and putting them on a recurring pedestal.

 

[hodgy100]

I wouldn't call Yooka Laylee as iconic as mario just yet..

that wasnt a qualifier. The statement was that you can't make characters like mario anymore.

 

[Village]

No, I can see it with my own eyes. Maybe I should explain to you how impossibly jacked these guys are?

So you counter my claim and down even bother to explain yourself or let me explain myself
Why are you in this thread if you aren't interested in discussion
Also having muscles again does not equate to having the same body type. These people are extreme athletes that is to exspected.

 

[CrimsonSquall]

Isn't the premise of the OP and its sources not that "sex doesn't sell" but that "there's no evidence sex sells or that (de)sexualisation sells"?

And that the little evidence/research we do have suggests that it doesn't have an impact?

Makes perfect sense to me.

How is there no evidence sex sells tho. People will always line up to see attractive people over less attractive people, all things equal. Now oversexualizing is a different matter

 

[Audioboxer]

The cosplay thing is a very interesting point. That really would increase exposure, lifting often-sexualised characters and putting them on a recurring pedestal.

I'll get lambasted by some going "you're using the cosplay argument!".

Sure I am, as what do you think will have been a massively popular character to cosplay after? Quiet. Due to MGS? Yes, partly. Also due to popularity, for better or worse? (constant debating about Quiet) Also due to feel good factor of being able to pull it off? Also due to sexiness you can exert? Yeah, all of that and more.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Yes well, you and these people that you are arguing with back and forth in this thread are not really talking about the same thing, then.

Because people miss the point. -__-

Virtually every single guy, including the ones designed to be "overweight" have bulging biceps, triceps, and deltoids, not to mention big pectoral muscles. The only guy we don't see this with is the skinny character who I guarantee you would be cut, if his shirt was off. None of it is realistic, and it's a poor example of "different body types".

It's an example of how men have a much more diverse range of body types and designers, like I said on the last page, everyone in SF's universe is buff.

Also, hot Ryu is a thing.

Capcom literally didn't intend for players to find him hot and openly expressed that they were surprised by the reaction, his initial name was "Battle costume Ryu." Because a common cliche is having a character take battle damage and end up shirtless to look cooler. Not sexier. A good move on their part, was embracing the reaction of the community.

Now looks who's being intellectually dishonest, and reductive. Did I say/imply women only play Candy Crush and not "manly games" (wtf?)... or are you deliberately being a disingenious wiseass in order to dismiss my point without actually addressing the Crux of my post that a superficial character redesign and safe/neutered sexualism doesn't actually cater to female demographics the same as actually making games that they like?

Your entire argument is that devs cater specifically to men and thus put sexism in their games because that's women don't play them. And yes, making more inclusive character designs does help, there's nothing inherent to being a woman that includes a dislike for playing shooters, or action adventure games over Candy Crush.

LOL

She's doing the classic comic book pose where her torso is twisted like crazy to show off both her ass and tits at the same time. Sex sells.

Her ass is literally covered by her leg and and a particle graphic as and her breasts are deemphasized by her chest device. In that context it's not a sexualized pose at all. A shit ton lot of thought went into making sure that cover isn't off putting while simultaneously being eye-catching. The silhouette is absolutely the focus. "Wowey zowey this chick looks hot bro" isn't what the execs were saying would be the focus of the viewer when they picked that designed out of 70.

You said that Pixar characters aren't attractive at all. You followed up with saying 'he's too stylized'. Yeah uh, there are whole industries revolving around stylized porn. Just because you don't find it attractive, doesn't mean others don't, and it definitely doesn't mean they are objectively not attractive.

Again, intention and the design matters. Just because people find a design attractive doesn't mean it's intended to be, Pixar wasn't thinking of a perceived straight male audience while designing the characters in their latest films or even their old ones.

But it is portrayed, and the game does sell? Yes, we cannot attribute it selling it to just the sex, but it helps.

Again there's nothing backing this up and considering the frequent backlash there's evidence to the contrary especially considering the highest selling games.

I never said ugly characters can't be in games?

You literally did:

but the fact is that sex does sell in the grand scheme of things. It's why every hero is attractive, it's why every heroine is attractive. You'll never see a fat pig be a successful character in a successful series whether male or female

It's a contributing factor. There are exceptions, like Minecraft or Starcraft that sell due to mainly it's gameplay, but the majority of games tend to feature characters that have unreachable standards of attraction, which is a facet of sex, and which definitely doesn't hurt it's sales if the character is witty and attractive, like Uncharted.

A ton of the most successful games don't have any sexual elements whatsoever. Drake isn't even an unattainable standard of attraction. He's a dude wearing a tshirt with muscular anatomy with the most common hair style a white male can have in this day and age. Anecdotally I see dudes that look just like him on a daily basis.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

that wasnt a qualifier. The statement was that you can't make characters like mario anymore.

Oh, sure. Yeah, you can make characters like Mario, that is, that are cartoony and not realistic.

 

[Famassu]

Kojima knows what he was doing. At the very least a character like Quiet spawns a load of cosplay which keeps the MGS name in the spotlight.

The desire to create an IP with instantly recognisable characters that live on after the game has largely been played and completed is what people like him are after. For better or worse I'd say pages of debate around Quiet even on GAF have achieved this.

Even Cindy in FF15 for as mundane a character as she is had both the cosplay and an absolute boatload of debate and talking on the internet. That's part of "selling an IP via sexualisation". It's not just raw sales numbers but trying to keep the IP and characters being spoken about for years to come.

Then of course there is the reality that people like looking at objectively "pretty and handsome" people in their fantasies and escapism. Whether it's TV, film, books, games or anything else.

You might have thought out your post well CE and taken time to write it, but psychology 101 gives rise to humans being a sexual species and often these desires and interests spill over into daily life. It does not mean people "fap" non-stop at stupid shit, but the mind, eyes, ears and senses "enjoy" pretty things.

Although not completely unproblematic in itself, "Hollywood & games only have attractive main characters" isn't the exact same thing as "sex sells." Just because you can argue Nathan Drake is an attractive man, there's a distinction between just having attractive characters & using sex to (try to) sell.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

You literally did:


A ton of the most successful games don't have any sexual elements whatsoever. Drake isn't even an unattainable standard of attraction. He's a dude wearing a tshirt with muscular anatomy with the most common hair style a white male can have in this day and age. Anecdotally I see dudes that look just like him on a daily basis.

Oh, i was talking in the context of the titular character. That was when we were mainly discussing Nathan Drake, and well, Uncharted wouldn't work without Nathan Drake. That is, a handsome dude with a slender, muscular anatomy.

Mario is excluded as you have mentioned, he has a pixar-quality to him(or does pixar have nintendo qualities?) but it doesn't make him unattractive. Trevor is one of the 3 leads(The ugliest of the 3) in probably the most popular gaming franchise in this entire world. Like I mentioned previously, there are exceptions, but those are not the rules.

Again there's nothing backing this up and considering the frequent backlash there's evidence to the contrary especially considering the highest selling games.

Yes, games sell despite this backlash of disliking the sexuality of the characters. For example, the Dead or Alive serious has continued to sell to warrant sequels despite it's gratuitous display of the female body in comparison to the males(Most of the time).

Just because there is frequent backlash, doesn't mean that the sex isn't selling.

 

[Audioboxer]

Although not completely unproblematic in itself, "Hollywood & games only have attractive main characters" isn't the exact same thing as "sex sells." Just because you can argue Nathan Drake is an attractive man, there's a distinction between just having attractive characters & using sex to (try to) sell.

Again its not just about raw numbers. "Selling" anything let alone a game is tied up in perception, marketing, longevity of characters/IP and on the human behavioural evolution side the often seen desire for us to favour facial symmetry, certain beauty tropes and in our realms of fantasy fetishism around hero tropes. Whether it's dominance, strength, beauty, charisma, and so on. Nathan Drake is actually a great example of a character knocking it out of all parks on many fronts.

Strong, witty, beautiful hero who gets multiple women, and then settles with one all while pulling off death defying feats, travelling the world and chasing massive riches. He is not an everyday man no matter how ND tried to sell that. Given their brilliance at writing, though, they actually managed to get that to somewhat stick. So you even have people admitting Nathan Drake is a super hero and all of the above, but following it up with "he's an everyday kind of man".

Joel is a better example of many tropes cut down, still having strength, wit, and beauty in his disheveled roughness. However, the father daughter relationship is another strong way to sell a product and IP and most definitely aided in perception with The Last of Us. ND are just fantastic at writing and if you ask me must know the human brain inside out.

Nathan Drake is like your character from a romance novel 101. Joel is objectively more complex, and will have been a tougher job for ND to pull off. Which is why I personally prefer TLoU to UC.

 

[Icedburden]

But what did they keep? Casual mode and QoL features. Because that's what made Fire Emblem sell.

Unless you have a crystal ball, no one knows how well echoes will do. Also, FE was nowhere near as popular as it is now.

 

[SomTervo]

How is there no evidence sex sells tho.

Do you have some research or papers to show sex sells? Intuitively it makes sense, "yes, sex sells" - the point ITT is that there are no actual studies or research that show otherwise.

It's common for generalisations/truisms that seem intuitively true to be totally wrong. Like the idea that the vast majority of gamers are male – based on marketing from the '90s and '00s you could readily believe that, but it's completely untrue.

Just saying "all things consiered" doesn't really count, pal.

I'll get lambasted by some going "you're using the cosplay argument!".

Sure I am, as what do you think will have been a massively popular character to cosplay after? Quiet. Due to MGS? Yes, partly. Also due to popularity, for better or worse? (constant debating about Quiet) Also due to feel good factor of being able to pull it off? Also due to sexiness you can exert? Yeah, all of that and more.

It seems like something that could definitely be a factor; however I guess this thread is about actual game product marketing (trailers, box art, characters designed to leverage these things) so perhaps cosplay is a bit more of a follow-up factor.

 

[fireflame]

What if is was more than just sex but the fantasy of a great love story? Baldur'sgate has awesome romances, and in a video game you have control on how you build a relationship. Besides, it is a game, it's more predictable, youa re in control.

 

[SmokedMeat]

So you counter my claim and down even bother to explain yourself or let me explain myself
Why are you in this thread if you aren't interested in discussion
Also having muscles again does not equate to having the same body type. These people are extreme athletes that is to exspected.

This is a thread about sexualization, not body types.

 

[Com Truise]

Just because there is frequent backlash, doesn't mean that the sex isn't selling.

The "backlash" was probably the very best thing that could have happened to the sales of Dragon's Crown lol. I hope there will be great outrage about the female designs in 13 Sentinels. Counting on you to do god's work OP!

 

[redcrayon]

How is there no evidence sex sells tho. People will always line up to see attractive people over less attractive people, all things equal. Now oversexualizing is a different matter

I think the OP's argument is that female characters that only exist to have their breasts and/or thighs/arse on show don't increase sales over and above female characters that are still attractive, yet dressed in characterful outfits (Lara in explorer gear, Horizon, Assassins Creed etc). Female characters can still be attractive and sexy without being overly sexualised and using a single body type, I think that's what you're getting at too, isn't it? Seems to be a lot of arguing at cross-purposes here, as the context of the OP's point gets lost if the argument is reduced to sexualised vs ugly without acknowledging the middle ground that a character can be attractive and in a game that sells well without being stripperific. Most pretty normal female clothing is designed to flatter the figure in various ways, and they've had a lot more time to make it look cool than game designers who think torn lingerie is the height of female combat attire.

 

[Dark_castle]

I think that sex in video games can serve a purpose other than fan-service if done right. I mean, games like Witcher 3 has all sorts of sex scenes with various girls, and it still had, in my opinion, a strong cast of female characters with good character designs and interesting, unique personalities as well as their involvement in the story. So you can certainly create a game with a lot of adult elements including nudity and sex scenes, but it's how you paint the characters as and how you design the story that leads to those situations. Seeing how Geralt developed romantic relationship with Triss or Yen, and seeing them having sex eventually makes sense, as they're all adult, they loved each other and making love is a natural part of the process that shows their relationship being intimate. Fanservice? Sure, but I think they're good/meaningful fanservice.

 

[Village]

This is a thread about sexualization, not body types.

Body types have a lot to do with sexuality

 

[Audioboxer]

Do you have some research or papers to show sex sells? Intuitively it makes sense, "yes, sex sells" - the point ITT is that there are no actual studies or research that show otherwise. It's common for generalisations/truisms that seem intuitively true to be totally wrong. Like the idea that the vast majority of gamers are male – based on marketing from the '90s and '00s you could readily believe that, but it's completely untrue.

Just saying "all things consiered" doesn't really count, pal.


It seems like something that could definitely be a factor; however I guess this thread is about actual game product marketing (trailers, box art, characters designed to leverage these things) so perhaps cosplay is a bit more of a follow-up factor.

True, but it still ties into the overall product, which is the game. People see all forms of marketing for something, even cosplay, and that triggers imagery/thoughts/memories or even just conversations about whatever game it is and the characters involved. If you demand they're separated all you're doing is trying to marginalise reasons you don't want around as they may not fit whatever narrative you are trying to push. It's all relative and its a small part of why some developers and publishers aim for what they do. To varying degrees of success, sure, but for all the flak Kojima got for fumbling his reasons for Quiet, in other areas the character and actual actor, Stefanie, have been successful.

I think some people just try to break this down into neat simple boxes where in reality the fields of psychology and marketing are incredibly complex, as is human behaviour and the way in which a general population can be manipulated/influenced/attracted, and in return, can act. I also find it challenging when some completely want to scorch the earth we walk on when it comes to sex, sexualisation and bodily and mind responses. It's possible to have both, all of it, and debates around it where it is okay, and maybe arguably isn't, too. The final answer though isn't some lofty goal of the eradication of all beauty and skin. You're not nuking it from books, TV, games and anywhere else for puritan reasons. Humanity will never work like that and that borders on religious levels of suppression which I can assure anyone do not work well with the mental psyche in a sexually reproducing species.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Oh, i was talking in the context of the titular character. That was when we were mainly discussing Nathan Drake, and well, Uncharted wouldn't work without Nathan Drake. That is, a handsome dude with a slender, muscular anatomy.

It absolutely could tho. As an example, Sunset Overdrive has characters that are just as if not even more quippy than Jake, and they work regardless of your appearance/gender.

Mario is excluded as you have mentioned, he has a pixar-quality to him(or does pixar have nintendo qualities?) but it doesn't make him unattractive. Trevor is one of the 3 leads(The ugliest of the 3) in probably the most popular gaming franchise in this entire world. Like I mentioned previously, there are exceptions, but those are not the rules.

I would be given side eye to

Yes, games sell despite this backlash of disliking the sexuality of the characters. For example, the Dead or Alive serious has continued to sell to warrant sequels despite it's gratuitous display of the female body in comparison to the males(Most of the time).

Do they tho, Dead or Alive is barely relevant as a fighting game franchise. They seemingly haven't gone into development with the sixth one despite wanting to take advantage of the hardware.

Just because there is frequent backlash, doesn't mean that the sex isn't selling.

The frequent backlash is a contributing factor absolutely. Compare the e3s, it's an upward spiral in terms of actually humanizing women.

 

[Izuna]

Go to Tokyo and tell me sex doesn't definitely sell.

 

[Famassu]

The "backlash" was probably the very best thing that could have happened to the sales of Dragon's Crown lol. I hope there will be great outrage about the female designs in 13 Sentinels. Counting on you to do god's work OP!

Again, let's stop with the stupid "people who criticize objectifying character designs are outraged" argument. Very few people who are involved in wanting more varied & inclusive characters are actually outraged by sexist character designs, more likely they are just rolling their eyes of how dumb it often is.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

It absolutely could tho. As an example, Sunset Overdrive has characters that are just as if not even more quippy than Jake, and they work regardless of your appearance/gender.

last time I played SO, the character creator consisted of making someone tiny, or making someone a giant.

I would be given side eye to

don't judge

Do they tho, Dead or Alive is barely relevant as a fighting game franchise. They seemingly haven't gone into development with the sixth one despite wanting to take advantage of the hardware.

And isn't that amazing? DoA isn't taken seriously as a fighter, and yet they've managed to crank out so many of them including spin offs. And if the DLC is selling for their latest iteration, then it makes sense why they wouldn't want to crank out another.

The frequent backlash is a contributing factor absolutely. Compare the e3s, it's an upward spiral in terms of actually humanizing women.

E3 is a whole different game. You're talking about when they objectified women by having a bunch of booth babes, that's a whole other topic.

 

[SaniOYOYOY]

you know what, im going to just drop this here
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-012-0231-6
its from a generally accepted close access publisher

Content analysis of video games has consistently shown that women are portrayed much less frequently than men and in subordinate roles, often in “hypersexualized” ways. However, the relationship between portrayal of female characters and videogame sales has not previously been studied. In order to assess the cultural influence of video games on players, it is important to weight differently those games seen by the majority of players (in the millions), rather than a random sample of all games, many of which are seen by only a few thousand people. Box art adorning the front of video game boxes is a form of advertising seen by most game customers prior to purchase and should therefore predict sales if indeed particular depictions of female and male characters influence sales. Using a sample of 399 box art cases from games with ESRB ratings of Teen or Mature released in the US during the period of 2005 through 2010, this study shows that sales were positively related to sexualization of non-central female characters among cases with women present. In contrast, sales were negatively related to the presence of any central female characters (sexualized or non-sexualized) or the presence of female characters without male characters present. These findings suggest there is an economic motive for the marginalization and sexualization of women in video game box art, and that there is greater audience exposure to these stereotypical depictions than to alternative depictions because of their positive relationship to sales.

you can,ofcourse, question the method used there but unless otherwise denies by another study im just gonna accept this

 

[Com Truise]

Again, let's stop with the stupid "people who criticize objectifying character designs are outraged" argument. Very few people who are involved in wanting more varied & inclusive characters are actually outraged by sexist character designs, more likely they are just rolling their eyes of how dumb it often is.

If you use the word backlash it's a small jump to outrage. You don't create backlash by rolling your eyes real hard.