No, I'm saying if you created a sexualized character or plot you wanted a sexualized character or plot.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Let's talk about fanservice in video games.
- Thread starter Kinsei
- Start date
- Status
No, I'm saying if you created a sexualized character or plot you wanted a sexualized character or plot.
So there's inherently a problem with a female character who wishes to sexualize herself in order to seduce men?
Can you please point out where I said sexualization(in and of itself) in games is bad, at any point?
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
Just to be specific, how does it negatively affect games?
Well obviously that's what I got out of the post of yours that I quoted.
That would make for one really weird turbotax commercial.
ricardokenshin
Member
Rikku from FFX is a perfect example of a character not adding anything to the story, and making it more silly. She is almost completely there for eye candy playable character, in terms of her need to be in the plot.
In the original Witcher, I think some of the women you could have sex with made that part of the story eye rollingly cheese(the witch in the cave hiding form the towns people being a prime example).
Wouldn't Lulu fit the eye candy role more? Not to say that Rikku added much to the plot, just that I never saw her as eye candy, more of a spunky sidekick.
That's not my point of why I responded to you. You were defending sexualization on the premise of the motivations of the fictional character dont make it sexualization for the sake of wanting sexualization. If a game handles sexualization in a way that doesnt come off as stupid or offensive I dont think people really care. That said, I think video games for the most part handle sexualiation in a very eye rolling way.
LuLu didnt actively hurt the plot. Rikku did.
ricardokenshin
Member
Well then, I don't happen to find the sexualization of Cia to be stupid or offensive. Would you care to give me an example of a character who is sexualized in a non-stupid/offensive way?
Triss Merigold in witcher 2 and I personally dont have any problems with Bayonetta and find her sex appeal pretty cool in regards to how she is in the game. Her confidence is very attractive, I think, even if it is over the top pandering.
And what makes their sexualization and characterization different from Cia's? Though, to be fair, this is already a little lopsided as we know next-to-nothing about Cia.
Bayonetta's a tough one seeing as how she literally is Kamiya's waifu.
I didnt get into the specifics of Cia...Nor do I think I specifically called Cia out, did I? Until I play the game, I wont know how it's handled.
It's about the advertisement of the game.
----------------------------
The huge fly of the page literally translate as "The only virgin of the sisters" and the introducing paragraph is basically like " Four is a serious person (etc).... and despite her sexually aggressive nature she suppress her sex drive and remain the only virgin of the sister!"
and the one introducing Zero says ""Zero have complicated sexual relationship with many men and doesn"t care!"
---------------------------
While it is Ok to have different "types" of women in games (we have playboys so why not playgrils?), branding this sh*t as the main selling point of a game is beyond distinguishing.
Hmm, I dunno. Zero is a proud and strong woman who doesn't take shit from anyone and literally collects men for her harem. You are literally prompted to chose which discipline do you want to bring with ya in battle.
It's like those harem games, only reversed. On the top of that, most otaku can't stand female characters who have their own sex life and think for themselves (they are only "allowed" to go after the main character or another girl, anything else give them an aneurysm ) so I don't know how much it counts as "fanservice".
Alright then, fair enough.
Well, that was a fun conversation, and it reminded me that I need to go back and play through The Witcher and FFX.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Cover up the ladies. Everyone knows that men know best how much female skin is too much, how sexual a woman can be before they're demeaning themselves!
The fact that this debate always is about finding problems with female character designs is the sexist thing, not some Japanese artist liking really large boobs.
People bring up male character designs and there is no controversy. For every Mai there is a Urien. As soon as female character designs are brought up, suddenly there is controversy because "hey, that woman isn't wearing much clothing" apparently matters waaaaay more to people than "hey, that guy isn't wearing much clothing".
People's bodies are just that - at some point male and female bodies, clothing etc are going to have to be treated the same. Finding fault with female character designs because boobs is daft - women have boobs. Some women like showing off their boobs. Around 50% of the world's population have boobs. Boobs are pretty normal. I use boobs as an example here - the feminine form in general, and the fashion associated with the female form, is nothing to get upset over.
For the record, sex is normal too. So a character designed to be sexy is fine. Sex is normal. People have sex all the time.
(Underage characters being sexy is a way, waaaay different ball game)
Actual sexism is women getting paid less for doing equivalent jobs to men, having less opportunities in life, getting singled out for abuse or neglect due to their gender, etc etc etc. That's where the actual debates need to happen. Not raking the coals over depictions of the female body which always ends up people making up rules or drawing lines about the depiction of an entire gender when men don't have anywhere like that kind of attention devoted to what is "right" and "wrong". That is patriarchal thinking - not silly costumes or booby characters.
The fact that this debate always is about finding problems with female character designs is the sexist thing, not some Japanese artist liking really large boobs.
People bring up male character designs and there is no controversy. For every Mai there is a Urien. As soon as female character designs are brought up, suddenly there is controversy because "hey, that woman isn't wearing much clothing" apparently matters waaaaay more to people than "hey, that guy isn't wearing much clothing".
People's bodies are just that - at some point male and female bodies, clothing etc are going to have to be treated the same. Finding fault with female character designs because boobs is daft - women have boobs. Some women like showing off their boobs. Around 50% of the world's population have boobs. Boobs are pretty normal. I use boobs as an example here - the feminine form in general, and the fashion associated with the female form, is nothing to get upset over.
For the record, sex is normal too. So a character designed to be sexy is fine. Sex is normal. People have sex all the time.
(Underage characters being sexy is a way, waaaay different ball game)
Actual sexism is women getting paid less for doing equivalent jobs to men, having less opportunities in life, getting singled out for abuse or neglect due to their gender, etc etc etc. That's where the actual debates need to happen. Not raking the coals over depictions of the female body which always ends up people making up rules or drawing lines about the depiction of an entire gender when men don't have anywhere like that kind of attention devoted to what is "right" and "wrong". That is patriarchal thinking - not silly costumes or booby characters.
Sex used for titillation is not sexism. It is objectification, but it is not sexism. Sexism implies a strong dislike or hatred for one of the sexes. Scantily clad females do not represent this. A modestly dressed female character that is written in a way that demeans her for her sex is more sexist than a chainmail bikini-wearing fantasy warrior that exists for titillation. Also, the implication that a man is sexist for enjoying sexy art or labelling them creepy for it reeks of opinionated judgment and insecurity.
The intent of the writers/directors must be considered before fingers are pointed. The purpose of a female character clearly being titillation and fanservice aimed at males does not itself make it sexist. The male equivalent does exist for females, and is gaining traction in popularity. These things take time, and a lot of it. Those of you expecting rapid change are in for a long and tiresome wait, because society does not adjust to social perceptions as fast as it does to technology (its adjustment to technology is another matter worth discussion, but not here). The problem is not that art/games sexualizing and objectifying females exist, it's that there is an imbalance towards female vs male sexualization.
IIRC, Feminism does not support censorship, and its highlighting of female objectification in media is not a call for its extinction, but a simple reminder of the imbalance present.
The intent of the writers/directors must be considered before fingers are pointed. The purpose of a female character clearly being titillation and fanservice aimed at males does not itself make it sexist. The male equivalent does exist for females, and is gaining traction in popularity. These things take time, and a lot of it. Those of you expecting rapid change are in for a long and tiresome wait, because society does not adjust to social perceptions as fast as it does to technology (its adjustment to technology is another matter worth discussion, but not here). The problem is not that art/games sexualizing and objectifying females exist, it's that there is an imbalance towards female vs male sexualization.
IIRC, Feminism does not support censorship, and its highlighting of female objectification in media is not a call for its extinction, but a simple reminder of the imbalance present.
Um, Rikku added A LOT to the story.
Not only did her and her crew save Tidus when he entered Spira, which would've put his story to an end well before it began, but she also provided the Al Bhed point of view, tension, conflict, and understanding between Wakka, which ultimately led to Wakka's change of heart about the al bhed people, but she also provided moral support for Tidus from the onset of their journey together, encouraging him to stay true to his goal of not allowing Yuna to become another sacrifice for Spira. I also think that she was in many ways the 'heart' of the cast, as she wasn't afraid to express her emotions, whereas the rest of the cast was inclined to limit emotional expression because they had accepted the notion of a summoners duty, Rikku agreed with Tidus that it wasn't acceptable, and she wasn't afraid to express it. That aside, she's also the cousin of Yuna, her Father is the leader of the Al Bhed, so from a functional point of view she served as a sort of ambassador which eased the Al Bhed into assisting Tidus and co. seamlessly, and even served as a translator in some instances. She wasn't as vapid as you're describing.
As for Lulu, sure, she had large breasts fanservice, but... the developers made an effort not to ever make it the focus(unless you count the fanfare when she got the last hit in battle which is harmless), it was more like.. a.. fan-service easter egg, or eggs, if you will. Her personality and motherly instinct were so strong, you sort of forgot about her appearance after awhile, not that there was anything horribly ergregious about it, besides her outfits overuse of beltbuckles(thanks nomura), but her appearance didn't overshadow her character... and that's difficult to accomplish when resorting to fanservice, it seems! I don't feel like Lulu ever put herself into the situation where she would ever be mistaken for a naive sexual play thing. The developers respected her character and the audience too much for that.
It''s not *my version*. She provided character growth for Wakka
(helping him come to terms with realizing that the Al Bhed weren't all the monsters he thought they were)
I'm not going to derail this thread
, I'll just say that your version of her importance on the story(outside of saving tidus, who could have been any Al Bhed), imo, is very exaggerated.
Tye The Czar
Member
This thread seems to have the most civilized discussion on sexualization in games on the entire internet. Keep it up!
And adding to the discussion, let's look at cliched female game wardobes in another way, using this comic:
And adding to the discussion, let's look at cliched female game wardobes in another way, using this comic:
It almost feels like men in a lot of fiction have some sort of "right" to wear more armor or clothing. While there are exceptions, they're just that. Exceptions.
hurricanes
Member
There are many types of Otaku, quite a few of them buy this kind of cr*p. And even if they don't, the JP advertisement/preview of the game is utter horrid, nothing will change that.
This is so true. I'm not saying we should apply it as the maxim of our action, but when people straight up refuse to even try and understand why something is the way it is, that's when I have beef.
I'm not a huge fan of the violence/sex comparison (as it kind of paints a weird picture of two cultures - the east and west divide into broad strokes of fetishes), but just as an example: I have never lived in the US, don't claim to understand US gun laws and don't particularly like modern warfare FPSs. I may poke fun of the "dudebro" stereotype or lament the saturisation of bland, unimaginative shooters on the market, but I don't condemn anything.
Likewise, I would hope people who know nothing about Japan and its history/culture do not immediately condemn its creative output or "fantasy" trends. Sometimes what we don't understand scares us, and our first reaction is to create a wall, but this is very counter-productive and could eventually lead to more severe misunderstanding.
I don't really get this. Now that you've (we've?) grown up it's time for her to put some clothes on? We all run around naked as babies and it's hilarious, but then we understand that there are certain societal customs that we need to adhere to if we're to stay decent. Video games are a fantasy - they shouldn't all have to conform to these rules as well.
Mai in particular is like the definition of fanservice. She's "that one with the boobs" - the alluring kunoichi, whatever. There are people out there pleased by her presence, let alone her moveset. Still, I imagine she doesn't do it for everybody, and the KoF series in particular is blessed with a pretty diverse cast full of stylish and tasteful characters.
Everything (to an extent) is okay in moderation.
The word you're looking for is misogyny, not sexism. Sexism implies discrimination or prejudice. Misogyny implies hatred or dislike.
Punchy4486
Banned
The only FFX character that felt superfluous was Kimarhi. Rikku was cheesy, but served a purpose.
Tye The Czar
Member
I loved Kimarhi, but I felt the same way. I also remember seeing little Kimarhi and thinking he was the cutest thing ever.
Hexa
Member
You just convinced me to pull the trigger on this game.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Well sure they aren't mutually exclusive, but you have to admit that priorities are obvious and important as well.
There is a difference between a power fantasy that has a moment of sexualization, and a sexual fantasy that has moments of empowerment if you wade through:
[I wanted to post an animated gif here of the camera moving between bayonetta's legs while she's squatting, but I wasn't sure if it'd get me banned.]
I'm 100% sure my wife's younger female cousins went to see Neighbors because of this.
Nobody thinks of them as creepers though.
edit: I realize not exact same situation because going to the movie is seen more social and games still have that creepy dude in his basement stigma.
Yes objectification can happen to both men and women. And it by itself isn't always bad. And frankly if women were objectified the same amount\frequency as men currently are. That would be awesome.
It's kinda like "Well, I've got a tabby at home, and it scratched me that one time, so I don't see why your mountain lion attack is so important. They're both cats."
To be fair, women do objectify men a lot in the hobby they dominate(They objectify women too but still), romance novels; both M/F and M/M, specially M/M(Male rape is a fairly common theme and its quite popular) just go to goodreads in the m/m romance section and it is quite obvious women do the same thing.
Sexual objectification isnt the problem in and of itself, imo, the problem(relative, but I think it can be a problem, specially from a narrative perspective) is that there isnt much of anything noteworthy of women in the games(on average) that comes without the lack of sexualness(not a word?), even if the women are done well with agency, which makes it tacky and arguably uninviting to some/many.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Well yeah. That's what I've been saying. It's the amount\frequency in the industry. I haven't explicitly said "compared to non objectified portrayals" but I kinda thought that was given.
And even romance novels (even though it's a genre within a larger industry) are more eclectic in their treatment of men than video games are towards women.
Can't say I knew that about the M/M subcategory. For romance, I generally read M/F paranormal romance or F/F. I've wanted to try some M/M but now I'm scared to.
Crash Station
Member
That would be author appeal, which is just self fan service. That of course may overlap with typical fan service, but it could lead to some interesting products as it's technically not a "hack job" since the creator isn't pandering to an audience but rather him/herself.
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
What. Rikku was the second most important person in FFX. The story would have sucked ass without her. She was the outlet for their humanity and the personification of their hope. If it weren't for her being the tangible reminder of why they were fighting, the team would have broke down. Lulu's wisdom was the glue that protected shit from their own dumb asses, but Rikku kept them from philosophizing into individualistic abstracts of fear and self-pity.
Okay now I'm gonna read back on the pages I missed, but seriously man, Rikku wasn't some empty eye candy.
Okay now I'm gonna read back on the pages I missed, but seriously man, Rikku wasn't some empty eye candy.
Eh, I think what you are describing is the inherent differences in the way men and women prefer their sexual stuff. Men more so then women on average prefer visual more so, and the context of it is less important, where as with women the context is just as important. As for the M/M stuff...ya, it's not all dark, but a lot of it is. An old girlfriend of mine was really into M/M and I couldnt believe how dark the books got, that were written by women. I dont like romance, but I decided to read a couple, just for curiosity sake... ya, after reading it and trying to see how many female writers write like that, changed my perspective on how a lot of women view sexual relationships. That said, I'm not a huge fan of romance, but I do find that the stories writtent by women with m/m romance normally write them internally as women, in a guys body, so I typically dont like reading gay romance from a womens perspective. From personal experience, I've found my relationship with other guys are much simpler then with women, so I find their(female m/m writers) perspective much more objectifying(but I'm actually perfectly ok with that). Everyone has their itch that needs to get scratched and thats cool.
I agree with you though, the only real problem is there just seems to be to much of an emphasis on womens sexuality(which is understandable, a good looking woman is nice to look at) it just gets old, because it seems to get in the way of good story telling(Probably why I struggle to enjoy Bioware romances).
I must be cold hearted or something, because this is the defense that Rikku gets every time I mention that she adds nothing, of value to the story but her looks.
The "hope, humanity, encouraging" stuff about her(which I find very subjective in terms of her actually having a notable effect from scene to scene), I found to be hollow, and none of the scenes ever to me portrayed a perspective switch because of her that I found remotely believable or needed. To me, the only way I could get that from her in any of her scenes(I'm assuming people are talking about the large swath of nothing that happens until you get past the chocobo eater thing) is if I personally inferred her disposition. Nothing about her in the plot or sub-plot said "necessary" to me, at all. She was just an annoying distraction, and the way she joins(after kidnapping yuna and trying to murder you) just really bothered me.
Bah, you caught me responding to this, no more!
Paracelsus
Member
It's a bit chaotic. See this?
The guy who took this photoshoot did it for Playgirl. He thought, given the name, this was a female-oriented magazine, but it wasn't, it was homo-oriented. He shared the same fanbase as Randy Orton, fangirls but also fanboys who love him. In Japan, they see Link as a "pretty boy", whereas a...Kratos would be subject of "Bara", same for Chris Redfield. That's not to say there's not a fandom of girls into yaoi shipping for Tales of male characters (some of them fall into Bara, but most are pretty boys), there clearly is.
Dragon's Crown is another example: both males and females are sexualized to comical levels, but most complaints were for females, because it's expected (?) for a male barbarian to be half-naked.
I say dress them to flash stuff if you have to, but tone down the writing, see that Drakengard thing.
The guy who took this photoshoot did it for Playgirl. He thought, given the name, this was a female-oriented magazine, but it wasn't, it was homo-oriented. He shared the same fanbase as Randy Orton, fangirls but also fanboys who love him. In Japan, they see Link as a "pretty boy", whereas a...Kratos would be subject of "Bara", same for Chris Redfield. That's not to say there's not a fandom of girls into yaoi shipping for Tales of male characters (some of them fall into Bara, but most are pretty boys), there clearly is.
Dragon's Crown is another example: both males and females are sexualized to comical levels, but most complaints were for females, because it's expected (?) for a male barbarian to be half-naked.
I say dress them to flash stuff if you have to, but tone down the writing, see that Drakengard thing.
It's a bit chaotic. See this?
The guy who took this photoshoot did it for Playgirl. He thought, given the name, this was a female-oriented magazine, but it wasn't, it was homo-oriented. He shared the same fanbase as Randy Orton, fangirls but also fanboys who love him. In Japan, they see Link as a "pretty boy", whereas a...Kratos would be subject of "Bara", same for Chris Redfield. That's not to say there's not a fandom of girls into yaoi shipping for Tales of male characters (some of them fall into Bara, but most are pretty boys), there clearly is.
Dragon's Crown is another example: both males and females are sexualized to comical levels, but most complaints were for females, because it's expected (?) for a male barbarian to be half-naked.
I say dress them to flash stuff if you have to, but tone down the writing, see that Drakengard thing.
Haha, I havent watched wrestling since Lex Lugar was a thing... I didnt realize Shawn Michaels did playgirl. Lol, I guess it makes sense.
On a side note I personally like Alice a lot and found clover to be obnoxious because her character flaw from the first game stays the same and she never improves as a character. But that's getting off tangent
So I pretty much stopped reading this topic after a while, but considering we were discussing the merits of the Senran Kagura games for a while back when I *was* reading it, I thought this E3 interview with Takaki-san would be worth linking:
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/3DS/...stAdditions+(Pocket+Gamer+-+Latest+additions)
So, yeah. Straight from the horse's mouth there.
Whether or not you agree that the story and characters are well-written, the effort to write them well is definitely there, and that's really the point I've been trying to make about the games.
I urge you to read the rest of the interview, too -- Takaki-san is a very straightforward man. He doesn't hide his intentions, he just tells you exactly what he's thinking, and he's clearly very passionate about his work.
-Tom
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/3DS/...stAdditions+(Pocket+Gamer+-+Latest+additions)
So, yeah. Straight from the horse's mouth there.
Whether or not you agree that the story and characters are well-written, the effort to write them well is definitely there, and that's really the point I've been trying to make about the games.
I urge you to read the rest of the interview, too -- Takaki-san is a very straightforward man. He doesn't hide his intentions, he just tells you exactly what he's thinking, and he's clearly very passionate about his work.
-Tom
FlyingSaucer
Banned
Yep, it was a pretty interesting interview (as well as a stealth confirmation we will see Estival Versus en console, I guess). As usual, the bit about balancing sexiness with a more serious story won't surprise those who have actually played the game, and have a passing knowledge of tropes (those commonly associated with ninja, for example).
And as usual, it will be ignored and/or passed as 'biased' by those who haven't played it yet obsess over the graphical style of Senran Kagura, because the graphical style is everything that matters, its reductio ad absurdum : if it contains fanservice then a piece of fiction can't possibly offer anything meanful other than its fanservice.
How much are you willing to bet ?
And as usual, it will be ignored and/or passed as 'biased' by those who haven't played it yet obsess over the graphical style of Senran Kagura, because the graphical style is everything that matters, its reductio ad absurdum : if it contains fanservice then a piece of fiction can't possibly offer anything meanful other than its fanservice.
How much are you willing to bet ?
Thanks for the link and the insight in general in this thread.
If it's any consolation for your efforts, you should know that there are people in here (and everywhere no doubt) who, while not necessarily sharing an interest in these games, do share an interest in the topic at hand without wishing to be reductive or dismissive. In cases like this, I fully respect the will of the creator, and can appreciate the appeal of "fanservice" done tastefully/in moderation.
I've been meaning to respond to this thread, I've got issues bugging me about fanservice too, and I think now's a good time to post about them seeing as Senran Kagura is the centerpiece turkey dinner of the discussion here. Talked it over with a mod for good measure, so this thread should still be within the purview of allowed discussion without falling into necrobumping. Plus I couldn't find this story on the XSEED Games thread.
Last week or so, Official Nintendo Magazine gave their review for Senran Kagura Burst 2. Like Burst Begins, they didn't like it.
But instead of Takaki responding, Hatsuu, an/the XSEED Production Coordinator let fly from her Twitter.
http://www.gonintendo.com/s/231608-...kagura-2-preview-upsets-xseed-employee-hatsuu
I consider myself vocally in love with big, bouncy breasts and enormous booty. I love fanservice, taste be damned. I'm all over the Japan import scene, and on principle I buy any game that's rated by ESRB/CERO/PEGI for sexual content. I am probably a bad person and a part of some problem in the community. I know a few people find issue with this review, it's not really dripping with decorum, but I bought Burst because of reviews like this. Because I thought it was shameless about being soft porn, and so was Takaki. And I wasn't disappointed. It appeared as much an "soft porn/ecchi ninja game" as I was told it was. And I was told it was, particularly from marketing pieces. But every time a review or opinion comes around, all I hear from Senran Kagura representatives and supporters is about how it's not an "soft porn/ecchi ninja game" and how I'm wrong about what I perceive Burst to be. First of all, I feel misled. But in addition I long for the day we get a developer who really is shameless, who isn't defensive about their soft porn game and says "Yes, your review is accurate. My game is just as creepy and voyeuristic as you're describing, that's what I set out to make." But I'll go even further. Is the review even all that inaccurate? I'll admit I'm biased, I consider reviews like that a compliment because that's the kind of game I want to play and I feel like fans/developers shouldn't be ashamed when that's the game they've purchased/made. And yes, ONM called the SK girls "simpering, jiggly-boobed cretins" which, in regard to the characters themselves, is inaccurate. The girls aren't stupid, so they aren't "cretins". They do appear to simper a little when they strip though. But is the description of the game itself wrong, or is it just "mean"? When people call Senran Kagura Burst "soft porn", Senran Kagura supporters rarely say "Yes, but we like it like that." Usually you hear "No, that's incorrect, you didn't even play the game." But to be fair, the review does mention the gameplay and so on. It's just that the reviewer felt the game, despite the gameplay and so on, was still primarily soft porn. Is it impossible for a game to have story arcs and not-terrible gameplay, but still be soft porn? Is it "unprofessional" to say "Senran Kagura features story and gameplay, but at the end of the day this is soft porn"? And to go even FURTHER, is it unprofessional to be offended by what Senran Kagura provides? What can you be offended by? Reviewers are offended by objectionable content all the time, not just in the gaming industry, but all industries. If Korey Coleman is allowed to say "Fuck you" to Vampires Suck and not have anyone say "He clearly didn't watch the movie", surely there's some kind of precedent for being allowed to voice your angry opinion. They throw out a game featuring hypersexualized 15 year old girls, do nothing about it, and the reviewer is a "twat" for being concerned about it? Hatsuu said herself via Tumblr that "hardcore sexualization" of "underage girls" was a focal point of Senran Kagura, and that most should understand why that's a scary thing. So what happened to that? It used to be okay to be concerned or take offense at this thing that Hatsuu freely admits Burst focuses on. But now all of a sudden the game "isn't that bad" and ONM is out of line for taking offense? The girls themselves aren't cretins. But would it be fairer to say "The girls aren't stupid, but being a character that exists to evoke a sexual reaction is stupid. A game that focuses on sexualizing teenagers is stupid." Would that be just mean, or totally inaccurate? If that's a problem, and reviewers not only can, but SHOULD be concerned about it, how should they respond?
I just... thought we had a kindred spirit in Takaki. I thought tits were life. I thought ass was hometown. And it sure felt that way with Burst. But now all I hear from the guys at the top is frantic downplay of the game's sexual focus. About how the game is supposed to be "above" being "Objectification: The Game". That it's supposed to be "stealth empowering" and "progressive". Senran Kagura was my only hope, but it led me on and broke my heart. Now I have nothing! And every time I see Asuka or Haruka or Hibari or Homura or any of these ladies, all I'll feel are painful memories of what could've been.
It plays into the key debate of this thread. From what I see of this thread, the key question behind the fanservice is debate is "Is it supposed to be as tittilating as you think? Or are you taking it the wrong way?" Most of the discussion I've seen in this thread has been about whether a character's execution was tasteful. And about how context alone does not an acceptable character make. Nor do context, Story Mode, strength/capability, cool ninja powers, and a "badass" personality combined. If you make a character into a sexdoll, the consensus is that no amount of other good qualities will un-sexdoll that character. It's the fanservice itself that's the problem. It's the fanservice itself that people have issue with. It's the fanservice itself that needs to be done tastefully/in moderation. The real question is, were they a sexdoll to begin with, or are you taking that character the wrong way? Was the "fanservice" done tastefully, but you might happen to judge a little harsher than normal? And while the debate rages on for characters from Drakengard, Bayonetta, and even branching beyond games into shows like Kill la Kill, I haven't heard much in the way of how Senran Kagura Burst, as far as its titillation, is being taken the wrong way by people. Just that it is, and that the game did it "right" but the anime and manga didn't. Don't all three, as far as their sexualization, serve the same purpose? Yes, there are varying degrees of explicitness, but I think you don't have to include full nudity or even intimate acts to count as "adult entertainment" just the same as something that does include full nudity or intimate acts. Burst is erotic, the Vita titles are erotic, the show is erotic, the manga was erotic, so why put any one of these on a high horse? I want to love Senran Kagura as a franchise. But I'm getting mixed signals. Defensive, angry, mixed signals. I don't want this to be the end.
Last week or so, Official Nintendo Magazine gave their review for Senran Kagura Burst 2. Like Burst Begins, they didn't like it.
But instead of Takaki responding, Hatsuu, an/the XSEED Production Coordinator let fly from her Twitter.
http://www.gonintendo.com/s/231608-...kagura-2-preview-upsets-xseed-employee-hatsuu
I consider myself vocally in love with big, bouncy breasts and enormous booty. I love fanservice, taste be damned. I'm all over the Japan import scene, and on principle I buy any game that's rated by ESRB/CERO/PEGI for sexual content. I am probably a bad person and a part of some problem in the community. I know a few people find issue with this review, it's not really dripping with decorum, but I bought Burst because of reviews like this. Because I thought it was shameless about being soft porn, and so was Takaki. And I wasn't disappointed. It appeared as much an "soft porn/ecchi ninja game" as I was told it was. And I was told it was, particularly from marketing pieces. But every time a review or opinion comes around, all I hear from Senran Kagura representatives and supporters is about how it's not an "soft porn/ecchi ninja game" and how I'm wrong about what I perceive Burst to be. First of all, I feel misled. But in addition I long for the day we get a developer who really is shameless, who isn't defensive about their soft porn game and says "Yes, your review is accurate. My game is just as creepy and voyeuristic as you're describing, that's what I set out to make." But I'll go even further. Is the review even all that inaccurate? I'll admit I'm biased, I consider reviews like that a compliment because that's the kind of game I want to play and I feel like fans/developers shouldn't be ashamed when that's the game they've purchased/made. And yes, ONM called the SK girls "simpering, jiggly-boobed cretins" which, in regard to the characters themselves, is inaccurate. The girls aren't stupid, so they aren't "cretins". They do appear to simper a little when they strip though. But is the description of the game itself wrong, or is it just "mean"? When people call Senran Kagura Burst "soft porn", Senran Kagura supporters rarely say "Yes, but we like it like that." Usually you hear "No, that's incorrect, you didn't even play the game." But to be fair, the review does mention the gameplay and so on. It's just that the reviewer felt the game, despite the gameplay and so on, was still primarily soft porn. Is it impossible for a game to have story arcs and not-terrible gameplay, but still be soft porn? Is it "unprofessional" to say "Senran Kagura features story and gameplay, but at the end of the day this is soft porn"? And to go even FURTHER, is it unprofessional to be offended by what Senran Kagura provides? What can you be offended by? Reviewers are offended by objectionable content all the time, not just in the gaming industry, but all industries. If Korey Coleman is allowed to say "Fuck you" to Vampires Suck and not have anyone say "He clearly didn't watch the movie", surely there's some kind of precedent for being allowed to voice your angry opinion. They throw out a game featuring hypersexualized 15 year old girls, do nothing about it, and the reviewer is a "twat" for being concerned about it? Hatsuu said herself via Tumblr that "hardcore sexualization" of "underage girls" was a focal point of Senran Kagura, and that most should understand why that's a scary thing. So what happened to that? It used to be okay to be concerned or take offense at this thing that Hatsuu freely admits Burst focuses on. But now all of a sudden the game "isn't that bad" and ONM is out of line for taking offense? The girls themselves aren't cretins. But would it be fairer to say "The girls aren't stupid, but being a character that exists to evoke a sexual reaction is stupid. A game that focuses on sexualizing teenagers is stupid." Would that be just mean, or totally inaccurate? If that's a problem, and reviewers not only can, but SHOULD be concerned about it, how should they respond?
I just... thought we had a kindred spirit in Takaki. I thought tits were life. I thought ass was hometown. And it sure felt that way with Burst. But now all I hear from the guys at the top is frantic downplay of the game's sexual focus. About how the game is supposed to be "above" being "Objectification: The Game". That it's supposed to be "stealth empowering" and "progressive". Senran Kagura was my only hope, but it led me on and broke my heart. Now I have nothing! And every time I see Asuka or Haruka or Hibari or Homura or any of these ladies, all I'll feel are painful memories of what could've been.
It plays into the key debate of this thread. From what I see of this thread, the key question behind the fanservice is debate is "Is it supposed to be as tittilating as you think? Or are you taking it the wrong way?" Most of the discussion I've seen in this thread has been about whether a character's execution was tasteful. And about how context alone does not an acceptable character make. Nor do context, Story Mode, strength/capability, cool ninja powers, and a "badass" personality combined. If you make a character into a sexdoll, the consensus is that no amount of other good qualities will un-sexdoll that character. It's the fanservice itself that's the problem. It's the fanservice itself that people have issue with. It's the fanservice itself that needs to be done tastefully/in moderation. The real question is, were they a sexdoll to begin with, or are you taking that character the wrong way? Was the "fanservice" done tastefully, but you might happen to judge a little harsher than normal? And while the debate rages on for characters from Drakengard, Bayonetta, and even branching beyond games into shows like Kill la Kill, I haven't heard much in the way of how Senran Kagura Burst, as far as its titillation, is being taken the wrong way by people. Just that it is, and that the game did it "right" but the anime and manga didn't. Don't all three, as far as their sexualization, serve the same purpose? Yes, there are varying degrees of explicitness, but I think you don't have to include full nudity or even intimate acts to count as "adult entertainment" just the same as something that does include full nudity or intimate acts. Burst is erotic, the Vita titles are erotic, the show is erotic, the manga was erotic, so why put any one of these on a high horse? I want to love Senran Kagura as a franchise. But I'm getting mixed signals. Defensive, angry, mixed signals. I don't want this to be the end.
Crash Station
Member
Can't tell if you're adding a bit of melodrama to your genuine feelings or not, but it's amusing either way.
Just "Death of the Author" it and assume your tastes are being directly catered to. Dissociating yourself from a fanbase is generally a good idea.
Or you can take on a mindset similiar to a post I made earlier in the thread.
I did consider that, Death Of Author has its merits. But how far can that really go? For instance, if these reviewers who say Senran Kagura is sexist or whatever are wrong, can they cite Death Of Author and say "Well sexism is my interpretation of the game, it doesn't matter what Takaki's intentions were"? Sometimes what the author intended is important to the work. A lot of creators out there don't want their work taken the wrong way, as this debacle has shown.
thesolidshark
Member
I hope you didn't get banned for saying that in this thread, because that's (or specifically Act 4) is my favorite fanservice in gaming honestly.
I have to highlight this post as it says what I want to say and might be the most productive statement in the whole thread to me, especially the bolded.
I really thank Tom for all his posts in this thread. I had no idea SK had that kind of depth to it. At least I know now (for those who might be interested), it's worth exploring more and shouldn't be written off based on looks alone.
This is something I very much disagree with. It would be harder for you as a minority, but if you and those desiring the same thing really wanted change, it would make a difference. I made a thread saying how it would be better to buy it to support it plus other things. NOT buying something also makes a statement, and usually contributes to developers/publishers not thinking something was worth making, and more of it later (specifically in the AAA space though).
I really hope you expect to not speak of everyone here. I actually found every woman you listed attractive one way or another.
I don't think people are writing it off based on looks alone. Looks alone would be assuming large breasts = engineered for sexy jollies. People are writing it off because, in this instance, large breasts might very well mean "engineered for sexy jollies." Sometimes I hear yes, sometimes I hear no, I don't know how I'm supposed to take these ladies.
But if the game is focused on hypersexualization of its characters, if that's a driving purpose of the game, why not write it off? Is it really so ignorant to not play soft eroge? Me, I love it, but erotic things aren't usually for everyone. In fact, objectification of characters is a big problem for a lot of the industry and normally would earn a game a tongue lashing. You would have to ignore the erotic component of it or something. And if you're ignoring the erotic component, that's really putting it to waste. And people are allowed to do whatever they want, but some things are a little harder to ignore than others.
But if the game is focused on hypersexualization of its characters, if that's a driving purpose of the game, why not write it off? Is it really so ignorant to not play soft eroge? Me, I love it, but erotic things aren't usually for everyone. In fact, objectification of characters is a big problem for a lot of the industry and normally would earn a game a tongue lashing. You would have to ignore the erotic component of it or something. And if you're ignoring the erotic component, that's really putting it to waste. And people are allowed to do whatever they want, but some things are a little harder to ignore than others.
- Status