Support NeoGAF

[drproton]

Perhaps because society and culture (of which videogames are a small but not insigifnicant part) have, from the day they arrived on the planet, taught them that this is the principal means by which they will be attractive and valued to a majority of potential partners?

I don't like this argument. A large portion of third-wave feminism rests on the assumption that women cannot think for themselves.

 

[Abounder]

Both sides needed more tact but I applaud the website for challenging a huge company like Blizzard. Just like huge corporations these people need to realize the impact their choices have on the world. Hell, the ret paladin was a freaking joke for most of the game thanks to their bias from the Everquest days but that's an entirely different topic

Sometimes I just want a game developer to say "we know you want these boobs so that's why we made them for you" instead of giving us the standard "don't hold me accountable for anything, it's just games!"

It's been done:

"The female skins [are] a good example of how we see how culturally the different regions approach the same game in different ways," he says. "The skins we're showing right now are the skins that basically came out of our Russian region. They're not what our players at first requested in the Russian region. They tended to be considerably more extreme that what we ended up shipping with."

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=693898

 

[BrokenEchelon]

We’re not running for President. We’re not sending a message. No one should look to our game for that.

If only people would get this through their heads.

"BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS SENDING A MESSAGE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT"

Free speech, freedom of expression.

Fucking deal with it.

 

[Intheflorsh]

I'm not going to lie: "gotcha journalism" is hilarious to read.
"Uh huh. Cool. Totally." Priceless.

Blizzard deserves it too, they are notorious for this kind of stuff.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Moira's a better example if we're looking for real variety in our Blizzard women. A dark wizard, rebelling against her father, you start on a quest to free her from being 'brainwashed' by the king of a rival empire, only to find out she went willingly, is pregnant and ascends to a throne in direct opposition to her father. And when she returns:

She's ready to clean house and make sure her son becomes the next in line for the crown.

And she's not this tall thin model, either. Great character.

 

[Hikari_Ryu]

Those questions are horrible and are only there to get a reaction/clicks.

This thing is common in gaming jorunalism and is the kind of crap that just needs to stop. If you want to discuss an issue you don't have to attack someone for something you feel they are doing wrong.

Shaming someone on twitter, doing a video and insulting developers, etc. wont help anyone. At the end of the day, it only generates bad blood and does nothing to fix the issue.

 

[sleepykyo]

I do find it hilarious he's going after Blizzard for sexualizing characters when his Twitter cover is of Gurren Lagann, which has a character who has big tits and is in a bikini for much of the series.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_banners/14522617/1372905868/web

And 14 or something. Well, Yoko is only part of the show. And it is possible to like the show as a whole while disliking some parts of it.

On topic, ambush seems kind of off. And it is pleasant to see RPS go after larger companies like Blizzard and Bioware. But their attempt to be a gaming version of Meet the Press is lacking.

RPS: Over the years, I’ve developed a wild theory: Blizzard is not, in fact, an altruistic charity like everyone presumes, but is instead some sort of business. How do you plan on making money off this one?

RPS: I suppose Heroes of the Storm would also make for a pretty different eSports proposition than LoL or DOTA. It’s streamlined in a way that I think people are enjoying quite a bit, but that also makes it – and this has become a pretty dirty word in the gaming industry – a lot more casual.

RPS: You have some interesting alternate outfits for heroes. Roller Derby Nova, especially, caught my eye. On its own, that’s totally fine – just a silly, goofy thing. A one-off. But it got me thinking about how often MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters to a generally preposterous degree – that is to say, make it the norm, not a one-off at all – and StarCraft’s own, um, interesting focus choices as of late. How are you planning to approach all of that in Heroes?

When half of questions are meant to be infuriating I can't blame Browder for looking at the exit sign. His defense was awful though. Should have just claimed that Blizzard is looking into a vast array of character types/builds and that means that some risqué ones will appear in addition to conservative ones.

edit: Guess the Chinese skins for Warface aren't out yet.

 

[Aquamarine]

If only people would get this through their heads.

"BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS SENDING A MESSAGE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT"

Free speech, freedom of expression.

Fucking deal with it.

Freedom of speech means freedom to criticize.

Why do people have to deal with it? If they don't like it, they can criticize them and push for change in the industry. That's the great thing about free speech.

 

[Shake Appeal]

I don't like this argument. A large portion of third-wave feminism rests on the assumption that women cannot think for themselves.

Of course they are able to think for themselves, just as men are able to think for themselves. But no person, no gender stands outside culture or is immune to socialization. It happens that the current culture we have is toxic in many respects, and the majority of videogames and developers are not helping.

 

[Jinko]

Perhaps because society and culture (of which videogames are a small but not insigifnicant part) have, from the day they arrived on the planet, taught them that this is the principal means by which they will be attractive to and valued by a majority of potential partners?

That's instinct, most creatures on this planet strive to appear attractive to the opposite sex.

It's only because humans are so intelligent that we actually stop to think about the why's.

Not that I think that is the reason why woman would dress provocatively, being admired is probably more to do with ego than acquiring a partner.

 

[Metrotab]

Art is, like, free, man. They should be able to represent... whatever. It's just the character design. They have no obligation to push back against centuries of male superiority predicated on violence and subjugation. That's not their job. They're videogame goddamn artistes who only regurgitate the patriarchy because, like, people want to buy it. End of.

Art has no inherent moral duty. That's a good and beautiful thing.

 

[Imperfected]

If only people would get this through their heads.

"BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS SENDING A MESSAGE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT"

Free speech, freedom of expression.

Fucking deal with it.

Making someone aware of issues pertaining to what they're doing =/= censorship.

No one said that they can't continue to make the game however they want. They can make it outright pornographic, if that's what they want to do, within the limits of laws for selling obscene materials in the given territory they're retailing in.

There's a difference between saying, "Hey, there's an issue that's endemic to games of this type that we're worried your falling into. What are your feelings about it? How are you approaching the matter?" and saying "You can't do that! It's morally and ethically wrong, and we'll make certain you're stopped!"

The answer the RPS interviewer was given was perhaps a bit glib, but there's nothing wrong with it otherwise. There's also nothing wrong with him asking the question in the first place, though.

 

[JordanN]

Did female players of the game receive the message that big breasts are associated with being important and heroic as a woman? Yes.

This is actually different from the original quote which was " only attractive, scantily-clad women can be heroic".

Did the character designs of the game improve as a result of them being made aware of this unintentional mixed messaging? In my opinion, yes, it most certainly did. (The two most popular female characters they've created this year were a direct "answer" to the "problem".)

This actually goes back to what I said in an earlier post that it's more tied to ignorance than anything.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Perhaps because society and culture (of which videogames are a small but not insigifnicant part) have, from the day they arrived on the planet, taught them that this is the principal means by which they will be attractive to and valued by a majority of potential partners?

That's a really extreme way of looking at it. Women are well-informed and educated these days, and have access to all these messages you're promoting now. Yet, they continue to dress up in the same manner. Times have changed. With feminism and greater empowerment, women now also feel emboldened to flaunt their bodies in a way that exerts more leverage over males. They can pickup guys easier if they're dressed a certain way. That's not society, that's the law of nature. Look at the animal kingdom and the way both males and females put on visible displays to attract mates.

In Victorian days, women dressed more conservatively, and it's with increased freedom and education that they have become more comfortable wearing less and less. Perhaps you're wrong, and the sexualization of women is simply a product of the women's rights movement. Not a negative one, but one that openly embraces the increased liberties that modern women enjoy. If we see it in everyday life, why can't it become part of our art? PEACE.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Art has no inherent moral duty. That's a good and beautiful thing.

Artists, as humans, do.

They don't have to moralize. But they are obliged to be moral.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Some people seem to think that criticizing character design is as bad as censoring art. Hyperbole much?

 

[Dead Man]

The issue isn't female characters being sexy or scantily clad, it is that too many games have female characters who are all scantily clad, with no other options or variety.

 

[JordanN]

Artists, as humans, do.

They don't have to moralize. But they are obliged to be moral.

So what would you say about Degenerate Art?

 

[sleepykyo]

Perhaps because society and culture (of which videogames are a small but not insigifnicant part) have, from the day they arrived on the planet, taught them that this is the principal means by which they will be attractive to and valued by a majority of potential partners?

Why do they have to be valued by such shallow potential partners?

 

[Pimpwerx]

The issue isn't female characters being sexy or scantily clad, it is that too many games have female characters who are all scantily clad, with no other options or variety.

That's more of a financial issue. Art costs money, and there's no monetary value in creating game art that won't be used by the majority of people playing the game. In budgeting, you prioritize dollars, and if the sexy vixen is more used or sells more than the heavy set tank, then you budget for the sexy vixen. PEACE.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Ok so they do send a message to millions of people whether they like it or not, but apparently they don't give a shit about that. So now what?

 

[Imperfected]

Ok so they do send a message to millions of people whether they like it or not, but apparently they don't give a shit about that. So now what?

Nothing. That's their choice. They are subject to the normal consequences for doing or not doing basically anything - they may cut off a significant portion of potential players and the revenue they generate, they might have negative fan reaction, etc. - but they are entirely within their rights to not care and keep on keepin' on.

 

[Atraveller]

The followup article.
It was posted, but since not enough people have noticed it, I'm going to post it again.

 

[UrbanRats]

The issue isn't female characters being sexy or scantily clad, it is that too many games have female characters who are all scantily clad, with no other options or variety.

That's where i'm at, too.

However the target of the critique this particular time (if i understand this correctly, is the girl in the rollerblades) hardly qualifies as "hypersexualized", which makes the whole thing comes off as more asshole-ish than it could've been.

 

[Intheflorsh]

Nothing. That's their choice. They are subject to the normal consequences for doing or not doing basically anything - they may cut off a significant portion of potential players and the revenue they generate, they might have negative fan reaction, etc. - but they are entirely within their rights to not care and keep on keepin' on.

... And following that logic other people are perfectly within their rights to criticize them for their choice.

 

[Riposte]

You don't get a choice in whether or not you send messages with art. You either have control over the message it sends, or you let go and have it say things about you that you might not have wanted to put out there. The fact that they don't "mean" to send a message doesn't stop a message from being sent.

I don't think anyone is saying that they intend to send the message "all women should dress promiscuously if they want to be important and powerful". If they're accidentally sending that message, though, wouldn't it be prudent to let them know so that they can decide for themselves whether or not that's something they want their art to be saying?

Messages are not "sent". As I said in the first page:

Games (and other mediums) do not "send" messages. People create messages while interpreting sensations (imbuing meaning into something).

If one is to concern themselves with a wider range of possible interpretations, they will likely find themselves having to choose a side between clashing ones (e.g. how does one see fan-service material, whether it is unlockables, secrets, prominent, etc).

They did not "accidentally" send that message, their work was interpreted outside of their control, particularly in a manner that can be used to damage them. The artist is gone, and could be very well dead, once they are done shaping the work. The work has things to see, hear, taste, etc. and that is the only thing felt by the viewer (who may not even have the knowledge the work is man-made), no different from any other object in this universe. (So, the message was not "accidentally" or "mistakenly" created by the viewer either.)

It is true that they cannot choose to send messages or not have people create messages or not, the answer is that there will always be messages. Everything we observe is a sensation we imbue with a meaning (based on preexisting experiences/beliefs) which can be extrapolated to be a message, which is to say, this shit goes way beyond the hot sociopolitical belief of the week. Hot stoves give you messages, clouds give you messages, looking at your hands give you messages, your keyboard while you type a message is giving you a message every time you feel yourself tap against the keys ("I hit the key", then your eyes observe the correct key, which gives the message "I hit the right key").

What you mean to say is whether they should take responsibility for the interpretations of the audience (many individuals with varying messages). Whether they should care which (and how many) interpretations are made/voiced, how it may differentiate from what they personally see (after all there is no one way to feel something nor can any two experiences be exactly the same), and how it can be used to hurt them (or help them). Taking responsibility may be very necessary, especially when harm can actually be inflicted - onto them (having your brand damaged due to accusations of misogyny). In doing so, they may denounce an interpretation (i.e. disagreeing outright or disagreeing with the degree of emphasis) or accept it as a mistake that such an interpretation could be made (be it an "unintentional" mistake or a case of being misguided) and perhaps promise it will be harder to be understood as such in the future as appeasement. Like I said above though, in the case where people will create competing messages of the same idea being bad or good, one may also be required to pick a side.

 

[FargoDog]

Yes, as an art form it's important there is a more diverse representation of gender, race, sexuality, culture and so on so forth. It's important, it helps us connect to art on a better level and it's altogether just more interesting.

However, a certain subset of games media have taken it upon themselves to act as though their comments and musings on videogames and how they portray these diverse groups is tantamount to leading a rebellion. Questioning Blizzard over their character design isn't toppling the patriarchy, guys. Like I said, it's an important conversation to have within the medium, but if you care this much about equal rights, then go out and actually promote it within the real world. At the moment, it simply looks like you're begging for people to think of you as progressive and intelligent.

As a non-straight person, it's become pretty much offensive to me the way some people act about non-straight representations in games. As though by bringing up the issue and hammering on nonstop, they're changing the world. And it's almost always white, straight, males. And I'm sorry, but discussing videogames isn't going to make the world a better place for non-straight people. Please quit fucking acting like it. If you want to actually help, then go out and support a cause. Do something with an established organisation actually fighting for these equal rights. Don't sit around and moan and bitch and get angry because videogame A had a homosexual character who might have been stereotypical, because that shit isn't fucking important to anyone. It doesn't ensure gays can married. It doesn't stop gay teenagers from being forced from their homes by angry parents. It doesn't stop gays from being beaten and killed even in first world countries for their sexuality. That's not even taking into account the myriad of horrors that occur to gays and women in a huge number of countries under state watch.

To have this discussion it needs to be a discussion about games. What does it mean for games as an artform to have more progressive characters, not society. Because a few more female characters or a few more gay characters is fantastic for the medium, but it means fucking nothing for actual societal change. Yes, this may sound like a 'it's just videogames guys' argument, and I hate that. The issue here is the attitude. I encourage and respect anyone trying to further the medium. But this weird idea of breaking the system, changing the world, leading the revolt by discussing representations in videogames is utterly nonsensical and insipid. It ignores huge swathes of cultural baggage and genuinely painful things going on just so some fucking journalist can feel better about how much he doesn't hate women, or how nonracist he is, or how supportive he is of gay rights. And that, as someone with a vested interest in one of those things, offends the fuck out of me. This fight doesn't help me and it doesn't help my friends. It simply turns eyes away from actual problems so some smug asshats can wake up in the morning and feel all warm and fuzzy.

Christ.

I apologise for the rant, but this has been an escalating thing of (not exclusively) oversensitive straight, white, males somehow finding it their duty to change the world by bitching about characters in videogames. You want to carry the fucking flag for a gender, for a sexuality, for a race, you need to pick that flag up to begin with.

 

[synce]

Complaining about sexy characters in a clearly fantasy based game? Okay. Seems the people at that site always have a stick up their ass about something.

 

[Kinyou]

Artists, as humans, do.

They don't have to moralize. But they are obliged to be moral.

I think you're somewhat mixing up morals with ethics

 

[TaroYamada]

I'm surprised so many are confused by RPS' narrative, "they don't want a discussion", "they want to lecture", of course. That's been known for a while now, Rossignol openly stated in the RPS forums they don't want discussion about their moral positions, from readers anyways.

This interview fits well within that strategy.

Artists, as humans, do.

They don't have to moralize. But they are obliged to be moral.

Moral codes are subjective, sorry.

 

[wildfire]

While it's admirable that RPS are willing to ask tough questions, I'm not sure what it really achieved here. Blizzard know their market very well by this point, and you can bet they're going to keep making the kind of content that brings in the cash regardless of how sexist it might be.

They don't know it. They define it. Just look at their artistic values in the 90s compared to modern Blizzard. It is very different and both styles are very incompatible with each other.

 

[Imperfected]

Messages are not "sent". As I said in the first page:

The language you are using is much more precise and exhaustive, certainly. A better way of describing it is, "What message is being received?" particularly since people will experience art differently depending on their individual circumstances.

I'm trying not to get too mired in semantics, though, since this entire dialogue has already become a confused mess. There are people debating the nature of sexuality in games (or even as a species), the depiction of female characters in games, the moral imperative as it pertains to art (waiting for some Kantian imperatives, here), the appropriateness of the venue and tone for raising the questions in the interview, etc.

It's all a bit of a beautiful pandemonium as it is.

 

[LordJim]

I do wonder why it is stated as a fact that playing a character created to look sexy is something that would make a female player not feel empowered or or make her feel weirded out.
Phrasing the question in such a way that you get 'there is no way they could feel awesome playing like that' is kinda forcing it.

 

[Finaika]

Blizzard should tone down their misogyny so that it will not alienate women from playing their games.

 

[Clear]

The thing is its only a "tough" question because its hard to answer without opening yourself up to further attack.

The reality is simple: If you want to open a debate on a complex issue like this, you don't ambush someone with a stickball question at the end of general interview.

 

[Kintaro]

Blizzard should tone down their misogyny so that it will not alienate women from playing their games.

You know... I don't think Blizzard has a problem with having a plentiful female userbase.

 

[Seiru]

The designs in HotS are nothing compared to League of Legends when it comes to oversexualizing women. I actually thought to myself while watching all the stuff from Blizzcon that it would be great to play a moba with some sane female character designs.

Certainly RPS could have chosen a better target than Blizzard for this sort of thing?

 

[a very cute dog]

Not surprised by many of the responses here. I'm not sure that the ambush angle was particularly effective in sparking conversation, but I think the topic is more than worthy of further discussion, and it's a shame to see it dismissed so easily.

 

[Doc Holliday]

This stuff is getting out of control lol

Do they not know where blizzard comes from? The guys who started the company are comic book fiends, d and d and heavy metal fans.

Frank frazetta is rolling on his grave!

 

[Nudull]

I really liked this article. Especially this bit:

*snip*

Maybe hypocrisy is a strong word, but this is something that has been bothering me for a long time. How games are obviously art, but when something negative appears, the same people come out and say "it's just a game!".

It is pretty troubling, and it's bothered me for a while as well. The industry and a lot of its fans want games to be seen as this nigh-flawless art form, but never want to deal with the responsibilities, consequences or criticisms that come with being a part of media and society. Just goes to show how much more growing up video games (and quite a few gamers) need to do.

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

Not surprised by many of the responses here. I'm not sure that the ambush angle was particularly effective in sparking conversation, but I think the topic is more than worthy of further discussion, and it's a shame to see it dismissed so easily.

Yeah I'm kinda siding with RPS on this, and it's a real shame most people are shitting on them. I recently got into the Hearthstone beta and practically every female is ridiculously over sexualized (yes like comic books, which is not a good thing).

 

[antitrop]

Yeah I'm kinda siding with RPS on this, and it's a real shame most people are shitting on them. I recently got into the Hearthstone beta and practically every female is ridiculously over sexualized (yes like comic books, which is not a good thing).

What the fuck does Dustin Browder have to do with Hearthstone? This is an interview about Heroes of the Storm.

You're siding with RPS' agenda, but you're not looking at this specific situation correctly.

 

[MichaelFassbender]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if something offends you, vote with your wallets.

 

[Dang0]

If only people would get this through their heads.

"BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS SENDING A MESSAGE WHETHER YOU WANT TO OR NOT"

Free speech, freedom of expression.

Fucking deal with it.

That goes both ways though. Sure they can do sexy female characters, but people also have the right to call them out on it.

I myself don't have a problem with sexy female characters (I am a guy after all), I just wan't there to be more balance. Give our sexy girls, but give us other types of female design as well. I'd be interested in a game where you play as a plain girl, or even a girl thats not attractive. Give me a variety of character designs, traits, and personalities. Diverse characters could even open up new styles of games as well. And if your going to do fan service, fine, but you don't need to only service male fans.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Uh-huh. Cool. Totally.

 

[wonzo]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; if something offends you, vote with your wallets.

People can do that and voice their criticisms at the same time.

 

[Kintaro]

It is pretty troubling, and it's bothered me for a while as well. The industry and a lot of its fans want games to be seen as this nigh-flawless art form, but never want to deal with the responsibilities, consequences or criticisms that come with being a part of media and society. Just goes to show how much more growing up video games (and quite a few gamers) need to do.

I don't think fans have a problem with all of that. In this particular case, there was definitely a problem in how the topic was approached by the interviewer. It was a clear ambush and a set up used to get something juicy out of the guy. The interviewer clearly did not what to have an honest discussion about the topic, but used shock instead.

However, if you're wanting to deal with the responsibilities, you're going to have to be ready for it as it pertains to violence as well. Which is something no one in games media wants to tackle with a ten thousand foot pole.

I myself don't have a problem with sexy female characters (I am a guy after all), I just wan't there to be more balance. Give our sexy girls, but give us other types of female design as well. I'd be interested in a game where you play as a plain girl, or even a girl thats not attractive. Give me a variety of character designs, traits, and personalities. Diverse characters could even open up new styles of games as well. And if your going to do fan service, fine, but you don't need to only service male fans.

For the sake of argument, would you be ready to accept the "reality" (if there is one) that these types of designs may not make enough money to cover the cost of making them?

 

[unbias]

That goes both ways though. Sure they can do sexy female characters, but people also have the right to call them out on it.

I myself don't have a problem with sexy female characters (I am a guy after all), I just wan't there to be more balance. Give our sexy girls, but give us other types of female design as well. I'd be interested in a game where you play as a plain girl, or even a girl thats not attractive. Give me a variety of character designs, traits, and personalities. Diverse characters could even open up new styles of games as well. And if your going to do fan service, fine, but you don't need to only service male fans.

I think part of the problem is, men make most of the games, and women's sexuality is a power over men. I mean I work in the financial industry and there are a lot of women(a few that I work with) who use their sexuality to their advantage and it works quite well. I think a lot of men do think they are making women "powerful" by making them sexy. I think the reason it isnt really comparable to men in games is, I think men are objectified completely different from women, because men's sexuality isn't as much of a power over women.

I will say though, there are ways of making women sexy without making them look so... revealing.

 

[MichaelFassbender]

People can do that and voice their criticisms at the same time.

Certainly! Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[Murder. She Wrote]

What the fuck does Dustin Browder have to do with Hearthstone? This is an interview about Heroes of the Storm.

You're siding with RPS' agenda, but you're not looking at this specific situation correctly.

I know it's about HotS, but Blizzard also made Hearthstone. It's not just the game but the game company.