Yes, and unless that cologne or vodka has people fucking in the bottle, I don't see how it is relevant.
-
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.
Kojima: Overly sexualized women in DS will be given a deep background story"
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
Yes, and unless that cologne or vodka has people fucking in the bottle, I don't see how it is relevant.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
Overwatch?
League of Legends?
Just because sex isn't a free ticket to mega success doesn't mean that sex doesn't sell. Arguing otherwise by linking articles about advertisements comes across as disingenuous.
No, I wasn't I was twisting your argument to the extreme to show how stupid it was, just like you did mine because you think that is somehow rational.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Those games sell in spite of the sexualization. In most examples, you'll find that triple A games sell in spite of those factors, first and foremost, due to incredibly addictive gameplay loops. Granted, gglite dudes getting mad salty over Traver being a lesbian is hilarious.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
😎 Looking forward to bigger boobs and even more "back story" in future Kojima games.
Do you have some form of evidence those games wouldn't be successful without their sexualized characters?
Or even that a single person went from not buying the game to buying the game as soon as they saw the sexualized content?
You have hyper successful games that sell very well with sexual content, hyper successful games that sell very will without sexual content, complete failures that sold nothing with sexual content, complete failures that sold nothing without sexual content, and middling successes with and without sexual content.
Show me where the correlation is.
Messofanego
Banned
Huh? League Of Legends and Overwatch are sold using sex appeal?
Overwatch TV ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1znvIROQY0
Overwatch theatrical trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv3etrbhTr4
League Of Legends ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbppvPgQyII
No sex appeal or sexual fanservice there.
You might wanna back that one up.
Well going by the NeoGAF thread on Halloween it seemed like wildly more people wanted the Mercy skin than any of the others, which is more sexualized than any of the others. I haven't seen nearly as many people care about a skin in Overwatch since then.
Edit: And that's on GAF, where views on things like that are probably a bit more progressive than most places on the internet.
It pisses me off that this fucking idiot was turned into a martyr and given carte blanche because that clueless pachinko manufacturer doesn't understand how to properly switch to a new business model.
Maybe if he wasn't surrounded by yes men, someone might actually point out how delusional this makes him sound. Just because some people think you're an "auteur" and a "genius" doesn't mean your ideas can't be shit. Quiet was shit. The justification for Quiet was shit. Don't do it again.
Maybe if he wasn't surrounded by yes men, someone might actually point out how delusional this makes him sound. Just because some people think you're an "auteur" and a "genius" doesn't mean your ideas can't be shit. Quiet was shit. The justification for Quiet was shit. Don't do it again.
Messofanego
Banned
You're the one asking for evidence that sex doesn't sell. Read the study, it's pretty clear on the findings that you can't just use sex to sell your product. Sex itself won't sell any old product, compared to neutral marketing, if that product has nothing to do with sex. There's your relevance.
Honey Bunny
Member
I feel like Kojima really understand me.
He needs someone with a newspaper to hit him over the head.
But again, in the context of the actual product containing sexual content, it simply isn't relevant.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
Do you have any evidence to support that they sell in spite of those things?
The OW fandom is very vocal about its...appreciation of the characters, and while it's been a long time since I gave a shit about League, I seem to remember them rarely releasing non-sexual characters because people didn't buy them.
I remember Gragas was stealth OP for a very long time because no one wanted to play as a half-naked morbidly obese drunkard.
That's not my argument. My argument is that sexualization doesn't negatively impact sales.
We're talking about actual content, not advertisements.
Not to mention that WM and Tracer are sexualized characters.
-Mutsukki-
Member
I don't think there's a correlation, but it sure does help. There a bit for everyone and that's really the best approach to this kind of stuff
woah there
Well, you're not wrong about it being sexualized, but I just think she looked really nice in it. I mean, it is a sexy witch costume, but if she didn't have the cleavage and had a longer skirt, I would have still wanted to get it just because she wears that costume really well. Plus, I'm as obsessed about getting Mei's chinese outfit this time around, and not only is that outfit not objectifying at all, I don't even play Mei. It just looks really nice and I want it.
You have to be empirical about it. Find a way to prove, without a doubt, that people are going JUST for the sexualized content, vs people like me who are just unreasonably obsessed about the game.
Dude, if it helps, then that's what a (positive) correlation is. You can't say it helps for sure, then say there is no correlation. And if it does help, then find me the correlation proving it.
Ah, I see....well, in that case, I feel there needs to be a slight refinement of the study. Do people expect there to be sexualized content? If they do, does a lack of it change their minds? If they don't, the same question.
It's iffy because you're trying to assert a negative, and that's impossible to prove.
Dream_Journey
Member
I'm looking forward to it.
Show some nipple this time, we already seen of Norman Reedus, be brave!
Show some nipple this time, we already seen of Norman Reedus, be brave!
GametimeUK
Member
I see nothing wrong with sexualizing a character (male or female). It can add a whole new level of personality to a game. It has to be done correctly,though. I definitely don't think Kojima is the one to do it. His story telling is shocking anyway.
You're never going to find that data because game developers/publishers are never going to release it. But if you look at DLC outfits in many games you'll see a lot of sexualization, if that stuff didn't perform that well, you wouldn't see as much of it.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
Her dressing like an idiot also plays into her being an outcast. All the soldiers on motherbase have all fought for other organizations and maybe even tried to kill Boss. They treat her differently because they consider her a "freak." That comes from her super natural powers and also the way she looks.
To me, at least Quiet has some interesting character elements. The execution could have been much better, but at least SOMETHING is there. Cindy on the other hand is just such a nothing character. Her constant appearances throughout the story are just embarrassing. She's literally just there for the player to ogle at her. The fact that no one ever brings up her appearance is just maddening and says way more about that world in all honestly. My issues with sexism extend to the rest of the main female cast in FFXV, they are all terrible and serve no other purpose other than to further the interests of other males in that world.
I find the idea that companies keep their market findings a secret from everybody odd with no leaks whatsoever odd, as well as the idea that neutral marketing university professors and students wouldn't have the resources to make their own experiments verifying that such a hypothetically huge market exists.
And you're assuming that companies act only in intelligent, scientifically measured, and proven ways. Companies are run by people and people can do dumb stuff. They make mistakes and fuck up. Why do you assume that companies don't just work under the assumption that sex sells and keep doing it despite failures because they don't learn from mistakes? Something we see companies do in other areas of business ALL the fucking time?
CertifiedFP
Member
I spent the past two years thinking Quiet was something forced in by Konami suits to appease Otakus.
And now Kojima says this and basically admits Quiet was entirely his vision.
Well that's a rather massive hype-deflation for me right there.
And now Kojima says this and basically admits Quiet was entirely his vision.
Well that's a rather massive hype-deflation for me right there.
I assume that because I find it unreasonable to assume the alternative. Continuing to pump limited resources in a direction you yourself have proven does not work is not something a long running business would do. That and the fact it is such a constant in a lot of games which offer DLC seems too coincidental for there not to be some financial reasons guiding it.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
You would have to be living under a rock to think that.
https://twitter.com/hideo_kojima_en/status/597687270284468224?lang=en
In it for the plot.
Well, consider what Nintendo is doing with the switch. They launched the Wii and was met with massive commercial success for it's motion gimmick. But soon into the lifespan of the wii, they realized that wasn't sustainable and no developers were making games for it, so they had no game sales to accompany it while console sales dwindled.
Then with the wii u, they tried to make another gimmick, thinking they could recapture the magic of the initial presentation, even though the Wii already proved that it's a short term success rate at best if you don't have the games to accompany it. Except the Wii U was even more pricey than the wii, while being underpriced since all the money went into the second screen controller, while also having a tiny launch library to justify it's existence. And so, the Wii U died a painful death because people were not interested in gimmicks, knowing few developers would make games around them.
Now we have them making the switch, and they are STILL following the idea that if they make something quirky and clever enough, they can get away with that alone, even though twice now the market has proven they just want something good to play games on. If anything, they doubled down, giving us underpowered hardware for overpriced costs with a very small starting library and not much in the way of expansion of that library for atleast the next year.
Of course, the switch hasn't been released, so we can't know if the differences made in terms of marketing and the games means that it will succeed or not, but I feel there is arguing that Nintendo is largely repeating itself in terms of what it's trying to accomplish, and has made no changes to the shortcomings that killed the Wii in the latter half of it's generation, and completely destroyed the Wii U before it even started. For me and many others, this is echoing many of the problems the Wii U had.
If companies didn't repeat failed practices, we would never have the switch as it is. We wouldn't have a lot of things, and would probably have a much more efficient economy for it. But we don't, because companies are run by people. Some can be smart, some can be dumb as hell.
And if you find that unreasonable, hello, let me introduce myself, I am a human being and we, as a species, are very, very irrational. We have built in bias', which are things that make us hold onto beliefs that have or can be proven to be false, and, wouldn't you know it, gender and sexuality bias' are some of the most ingrained out there!
As dismissive as I was and still am about motion controls, considering the Wii a failure seems like a stretch. It was disgustingly successful for Nintendo, and with the Wii U they tried to recapture that success and failed miserably. The Switch is like, barely a gimmick, at least in the ways Wii U and Wii were. In fact I think it is considerably reasonable coming off of the Wii U.
vasametropolis
Member
Kojima is a legend.
MrCunningham
Member
He's a master troll and I like him for it.
It was commercially successful, but that only lasted so long. Once people realized that there weren't any games coming out, there wasn't much of a reason for people to keep buying, and sales fell. I don't recall off the top of my head how much, but it wasn't small. Not to mention that it was a drain on resources to make games that no one would buy because they lost faith in the console.
And the Switch is a totally gimmick laden. That's what they're marketing it as with stuff like this (I link the jimquisition episode because it's the only video I can easily remember where I saw that speicific stuff, but I basically agree with most of jim's thoughts on how a lot of the decisions around the switch are bad, so consider it an expansion of my thoughts if you want to see the full episode).
I see a LOT of Wii U in the Switch, and frankly so do a lot of people. I do think it will be more successful than the Wii U because it's got a better name and product recognition, but ultimately, it's cheap but overpriced, while still having no games to it's name, trying to sell itself on gimmicks that will be fun for 5 minutes before you get bored. That's both the Wii and Wii U in a nutshell and the reason why they couldn't last.
But look, fine, you think the switch is okay. But are you going to tell me with a straight face that you don't see other companies, whatever they may be, doing the same thing despite them obviously being bad business decisions? I'm gonna assume you're shaking you're head, because I find it impossible to believe you don't know of a company that you don't say "Jesus, you're doing this shit AGAIN?!" Everyone has that company.
So yeah, don't assume that companies are just hyper intelligent, efficient machines. We have no reason to assume sex sells products (unless that product is sex) with the research we do have. Why would reality magically work differently for companies in doing their in house experiments?
I love how people ask for proof that sex don't sell, read that and keeps saying sex sells without giving ANY proof that it does.
If anything, numbers for "full of objetification" games and animes like Bayonetta, Dead or Alive XBV and Keijo shows exactly that objetification does not sell games or anime, specialy when compared to Volley Games, Devil May Cry and any generic Shonen with a fighting tournament
If anything, numbers for "full of objetification" games and animes like Bayonetta, Dead or Alive XBV and Keijo shows exactly that objetification does not sell games or anime, specialy when compared to Volley Games, Devil May Cry and any generic Shonen with a fighting tournament
Damn you renascence and all your priests and rich people dictating the sistine chapel, the mona lisa and pretty much every art made at that time
This so much. I suggest keeping it as side costumes like in RE. Then everyone who wants it can use it whereas those who don't, don't have to see it.
..and that's a wrap...lock it.
And I don't think anyone said "Stop Michelangelo, I don't like your interpretation or depiction of God; paint it again."
Let Kojima compose the story he wants. I don't feel that's a controversial stance.
Articles/Chicken wings.
At some point just admit it's for the tits. I really don't care. Kojima games have always been ridiculously over the top James Bond-ish with his female characters. No need to quit now.
I used to believe this, but it's only in threads about social issues like this one.
FG threads and I'm sure many others are full with salivating over fictional curves and high-fiving about it. That's where the drive-by and/or masturbatory shitposts are coming from.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
that's advertisement again
In league "sexier" characters tend to be more popular and get more skins. Like Lux. Or Miss Fortune. Or Ashe.
Because they
sell
I've been annoyed that 'uglier' characters like Yorick or Swain don't get skins.(Yorick for example took 5 years to get a remake and he's generally been unpopular).
They literaly said "too much nudity, cover it up"
https://artstor.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/michelangelos-last-judgment-uncensored/
And who's vision, in historical hindsight, would you rather see?
Michelangelo's, or the censored version?
OverBlood 3
Banned
Stop bringing up Michelangelo in this context. This thread is frustrating reading.
He just dunked on you dude, take the L.
OriginalPoe
Banned
Kojima... never change you beautiful madman.
I'm not saying the statement that the art was censored was wrong,
But it ultimately proved my point.
In historical hindsight, we view the council as the "bad guys" in the situation, especially when quotes like all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a beauty exciting to lust. seem very relevant to the issue at hand.