Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
It's genuinely a shame that the most common depictions of sex are "player does enough conversations and then maybe a mission, and then they bang." When it's much more nuanced, we shouldSome of the "cause it does", "deal with it, there is a demand" stuff is just straight up ignorant of how markets work.
Different segments exists. Catering to a specific audience for the cost of scaring away a different segment DOES NOT make it a smart business decision.
Remember that mythical opportunity cost?
We DO need the "receipts" for proving that the biggest selling games do so only because they show cleavage.
Which is, by the way, blatantly false in itself: the biggest selling franchises, like Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and even the likes of Battlefield, or even RDR/GTA do NOT base their gamplay around sex, do not consider sexy characters as a selling point (with the exception of GTA and prostitution, obviously), and prefer to display VIOLENCE as main selling point rather than sex.
So where are these big sellers that make the juggernaughts of winter season move out of their way that focus primarily on sex and sexy females? Which are the 10+ million selller booty-hunting games that warrant such adamant position from the folks shouting "sex sells, deal with it"?
Seems to me that violence sells MUCH more , and the games industry is just about choking on blood at this point. So where is the sex?
Because either people are missing the point completely despite very clear laid out examples of what i'm talking about, or being intellectually dishonest.I read your sloppy and typo-laden OP. I understood it and I disagree with it, as did many others. You're veering off into shitty territory by resorting to telling people they're "confused" for not agreeing with your shoddy premises.
Read the post that I quoted above yours. MEN aren't going out in droves to buy games with sexualized women.You make tenuous connections and draw from cherry picked examples to prove the same point of your thread. You still can't even address my earlier point that the research shows men and women are drawn to very different types of games and that that's where the focus should be: new games from the ground up that cater to two very different groups. Women aren't going out in droves and buying Tomb Raider and its sequel, especially not just because they slapped a main character on the cover that you don't find offensive and which meets your strict requirements of acceptability, because they don't want to play Tomb Raider at all. Or Halo. Or GTA. Or CoD. And so on.
I like how women fitting the context of their own games is considered lame while the only reason characters like Quiet and Cidney are memorable is because of how god awful they look.I could make the argument that you're sexist because you basically want a simple coat of paint via lame, safe character designs slapped onto games that by design and to their very core cater to men, as if that's all that's needed.
We're genuinely back to the "women play candy crush and not our manly games" rhetoric huh?And that furthermore your deep interest in animation and character design is making you overemphasize this one area as the reason women aren't buying the games in greater numbers and drawing incorrect conclusions that sexism and sexy characters is playing a singular huge role here. You want women to play the games you, a man, enjoy playing and probably cannot come to terms with the millions of women who are already happily playing games that already cater to them, whether that's Splatoon or Candy Crush.
I'm using the phrase sex doesn't sell in the specific context of out of place sexualization in otherwise serious narratives.Like I said, "People use sex = sells to defend overt sexualization is terrible" does not automatically mean "sex doesn't sell!"
You can criticize the former while acknowledging that the latter may or may not be true.
So we're just not gonna take into account context and intent whatsoever now when arguing attraction to fictional characters?Don't go into the rabbit hole of people that find pixar characters attractive. You might have your mind blown that other peoples tastes do not, in fact, conform to your own.
Yea, as an optional activity, meanwhile they portray it either humorously or disgustingly in the actual plot of the game.They freely use sex though.
To bring home the point that "ugly characters can't be in games" is bullshit considering how many games have ugly male characters who're by design intended to be ugly regardless of the insanely small audience that would find them attractive because reasons compared to characters who're heroic ideals.You brought up Trevor? I don't care about Trevor. I would say Fenix is more attractive than Trevor, by a mile.
Except we don't have any supporting evidence that sexualization is the reason these games are selling.Using 'Sex Sells' is well, disingenuous since your main point was anything but sex sells. Because sex sells. "Sexism Sells" is something completely different. Sexism for the most part, does not sale as well as sex, sex including the umbrella of a characters attraction, whether physical or personality. My argument is and has been that Sex does, indeed sell, and that both sexes are inherent to that fact, and to use 'sex sells' makes your generalization of what sex sells means flawed when your argument is that 'sexism sells is flawed'. Sexism=/=sex. Sexism includes sex, but sex is many a thing that doesn't necessarily mean objectifying a person like sexism does.