So can the "but my girlfriend likes it." Shit. It doesn't make any difference that your girlfriend doesn't have a problem with sexist shit. Mine does. Neither matter in the context of discussion. It's literally the "I have a black friend" of gaming.
It matters because it proves Kojima cannot satisfy both the woman who likes his games + the woman who doesn't. So either Kojima should be able to do what he wants, or censor him so nobody can have the opportunity to be offended. Those are the 2 options.
People can respond saying that they never said Kojima shouldn't be able to do what he wants, but then why argue against what he does at all if you have no desire to curb his decisions?
People's arguments here aren't just that Quiet is a bad/pointless character, they're saying that what Kojima is doing is *bad* for society because it promotes misogyny. Not only that, but if you continue this line of thinking people who enjoy his games are by extension guilty of misogyny because they're not protesting Kojima sufficiently enough or recognizing the horrific plight of a fictional character.
If some people in here had true power over Kojima they'd surely want to manipulate/censor him in order to make content that they feel is "better" for women or whatever and less harmful to society. It's paternalistic and authoritarian as fuck.
Okay, you're just being intellectually dishonest if you're trying to ignorantly dismiss hypothetical situations of how constant sexual objectification is harmful. You're not even addressing my arguments at this point, just going with a blind "BUT PPLZ LIKE TEH SEXY SO IT COOL, RIGHT?" because apparently that people enjoy sexual objectification and that you would have no problem with a hypothetical world where women sexually objectify men on a constant basis that doesn't exist.
You don't understand sexism, sexualization, misogyny (since you keep referring to it in your other responses), or sexual objectification one bit. You're just trying to find ways to excuse them. Until you make an honest effort to learn, I don't see where this conversation can possibly go except in circles.
I can only speak for myself, I'm not trying to speak on behalf of men or women. I personally would not care at all if women create male characters that are sexually objectified because if women desire that then that's their prerogative. I don't think it's harmful to society if men do it as well because I don't believe there is a direct line between what we do in games and what we do in real life. I can separate fiction from reality.
The latest of the beloved female characters you mention debuted in a game twelve years ago. Since then, there have been four mainline MGS games (Portable Ops, IV, Peace Walker and V), with several secondary ones (that's counting Ground Zeroes and Phantom Pain as the same game). I think at some point criticism of an emerging pattern is legitimate without older works voiding such criticism or "evening out", and I thing a decade and four games is enough distance to set that point.
It's not my fault games take a long time to make. Haven't played PW that much so don't know how female characters are in that. My argument isn't only that Kojima has done good female characters though, it's that if he wants to make a pointless sexualized female character he can do so and it's not a bad thing.
