Support NeoGAF

[stupei]

Yes there is...

It is the same as why boys want to play football or socccer much more than woman do. It is the same why males want to hunt more than woman want to. If you want it or not males and females will always be different in some ways. They are different in their thinking, they have different tastes and interest etc.. And not because everything was manipulated by society or media.

And Eidan: She tries to claim that these friend brands and so on have no market which is again not true. And overall not big companies need to change. They are just reacting to a market and you cant criticize them for this since they want to make money.

That's funny.

In the small American town I grew up in, all the girls played soccer from an early age and excelled at it, so the boys thought of it as a "girly" sport and avoided it like it had cooties. Football is what real men play in Ohio and soccer is for girls and girly men.

But you're right, it's probably something innate and not at all about culture and context.

edit: I actually recently saw a study that said in America up to about age 14, girls and boys participate in sports at close to the same percentage but once they hit age 14, girls drop out of sports at twice the rate that boys do.

I'm sure that can't have anything to do with all the gendered magazines, advertisements, and assumptions about "normal" behaviors for teenage boys and girls. It's probably something inherit to women, right?

 

[plagiarize]

The difference here that she is an "major?" and if you try this at an University you would get a lot of backlash for it. If it was just a video blog no one would really care bout it.

huh?

And faceless we do not see such a thing because male do not really care about it. However male really care if they believe something is not right here and thats the case with this whole agenda at the moment.. And that is why I am going against this.

the people in this thread arguing against you are doing it because they believe something is not right with the presentation of gender in media. those people are of both genders.

somehow, despite having different chromosomes we are able to have similar ideas and opinions. hard to believe, i know.

 

[Eidan]

Woah, this thread's moving really fast again. But did anyone post this?

http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

I think this is A) a very well thought out piece that disagrees with Sarkeesian without framing it an a "right"/"wrong" light, and B) explains my issues with the entire process. I've seen little indication she puts the effort into all her arguments that is needed for them to be compelling--I felt like there were a couple holes in her masters' thesis, too. Disregarding people's right to spend their coin as they see fit, I'm not exactly hopeful that the resultant videos will be high quality in the actual content side.

Go back about 3-4 pages.

EDIT: Scratch that. Go back to page 45. I took issue with the way the author defended the Rayman nymphs, and others had criticisms as well.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Go back about 3-4 pages.

EDIT: Scratch that. Go back to page 45.

Righto, thanks. Wasn't going to try and catch up without having an idea of where to start.

This sub was dead for two weeks, you guys have been picking up the slack since.

 

[tkscz]

so, that's different to every other video on youtube where someone outlines their opinion and backs it up how exactly?

No, No it isn't, thanks for trying to put something in my post that wasn't there. All videos, like hers, on youtube are meant to persuade people to, at the very least, see their side of an argument and maybe get some agreement on it. When you don't agree with Anita's videos, she ignores you or take your comment off, real mature way to handle criticism by the way.

But what does separates her videos from a majority of youtube, is that she is trying to seem 100% professional. And Why shouldn't she? She has the degrees to back her up and what not. But, being professional comes with the responsibility of actually writing and researching professionally. This means her speeches should look on both sides of an argument, and not be one dimensional, like she's been doing.

I don't try to criticize her ideals, or views (though sometimes it seems like I do), I try to criticize her on her writing, research and speech. It isn't done well enough for her to be taking donations to do a project like this. I fear she will simply half ass it and this will have as many issues as the original Tropes versus Women.

 

[plagiarize]

Woah, this thread's moving really fast again. But did anyone post this?

http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml

I think this is A) a very well thought out piece that disagrees with Sarkeesian without framing it an a "right"/"wrong" light, and B) explains my issues with the entire process. I've seen little indication she puts the effort into all her arguments that is needed for them to be compelling--I felt like there were a couple holes in her masters' thesis, too. Disregarding people's right to spend their coin as they see fit, I'm not exactly hopeful that the resultant videos will be high quality in the actual content side.




That's because women's studies and political science are just a few of the worthless majors colleges provide--and I'm saying this as someone with a BFA. (No, really, polysci is horrible. If you're going into politics you're better off with a history degree.) Universities shouldn't be trade schools but when I look back at my college career I saw a lot of useless "knowledge" without context that didn't help me understand or critically evaluate the world, and that was with a double major and a minor. I dunno what the solution to that is, but all these niche, not-job-applicable areas of study aren't helping things. (That's a rant for another thread.)

yeah we discussed it at length. only people looking for a reasonable sounding critique of Anita seemed to think it did anything good. creating a character that wants to dress sluttily, or replacing a fairy with a nymph so you can argue that 'of course she looks slutty that's what nymphs look like!' is basically no excuse for the continued proliferation of such things.

both characters were created to look slutty. that was the goal. characterising them as things which should look slutty, doesn't change anything, certainly not if that same character already existed in a non slutty form.

 

[Fuchsdh]

No, No it isn't, thanks for trying to put something in my post that wasn't there. All videos, like hers, on youtube are meant to persuade people to, at the very least, see their side of an argument and maybe get some agreement on it. When you don't agree with Anita's videos, she ignores you or take your comment off, real mature way to handle criticism by the way.

But what does separates her videos from a majority of youtube, is that she is trying to seem 100% professional. And Why shouldn't she? She has the degrees to back her up and what not. But, being professional comes with the responsibility of actually writing and researching professionally. This means her speeches should look on both sides of an argument, and not be one dimensional, like she's been doing.

I don't try to criticize her ideals, or views (though sometimes it seems like I do), I try to criticize her on her writing, research and speech. It isn't done well enough for her to be taking donations to do a project like this. I fear she will simply half ass it and this will have as many issues as the original Tropes versus Women.

Well, that's the problem with a lot of research these days, I feel like. The "soft" sciences are, as we are learning, just as complex as the "hard" ones, and with a lot more to sort out--there are no laws. It's difficult to do anything with authority--which doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but I think in Anita's case her academic background is a bit of a stumbling ground because you can't really rely on academics when you're talking about pop culture. There's so much more going on and while she usually touches on a few of them the lack of depth ultimately sinks some of her arguments to me.

On the other hand, the things that really bother me are the subjects where I'm most knowledgeable (like the sci-fi "mystical pregnancy" one, the current video games stuff), so I can see using it as a primer for less-engaged audiences. On the other hand, I'd feel like they might be getting a bad primer I guess the best option would be to find someone who does it better.

 

[plagiarize]

No, No it isn't, thanks for trying to put something in my post that wasn't there. All videos, like hers, on youtube are meant to persuade people to, at the very least, see their side of an argument and maybe get some agreement on it. When you don't agree with Anita's videos, she ignores you or take your comment off, real mature way to handle criticism by the way.

did she delete one of your comments? point is, she doesn't have to allow any comments on any of her stuff. if she deleted a comment, she read it. mature or not, it has nothing to do with the subject matter she is discussing and has no bearing on how well reasoned her argument is.

But what does separates her videos from a majority of youtube, is that she is trying to seem 100% professional. And Why shouldn't she? She has the degrees to back her up and what not. But, being professional comes with the responsibility of actually writing and researching professionally. This means her speeches should look on both sides of an argument, and not be one dimensional, like she's been doing.

says you. in the lego video i just watched i'm pretty sure she talked about the harm she thought such advertising was doing to both boys and girls. because she has a degree she's support to talk about the corporate side? she put up an example of what she wanted to do, and people paid her money to make more. she doesn't have to start making a completely different product. actually, she shouldn't. because this is the product people purchased.

I don't try to criticize her ideals, or views (though sometimes it seems like I do), I try to criticize her on her writing, research and speech. It isn't done well enough for her to be taking donations to do a project like this. I fear she will simply half ass it and this will have as many issues as the original Tropes versus Women.

again, you don't get to decide that. everyone who decided to donate disagrees. there is no standard which has to be met in order to *ask* for donations.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

YES!!!!

Boys a Girls are different even at that age. Studies and experiments have proved this over and over again.

Different to the extent that they just inherently know that Lego and football are for boys without cues and conditioning?

 

[Olli]

Go back about 3-4 pages.

EDIT: Scratch that. Go back to page 45. I took issue with the way the author defended the Rayman nymphs, and others had criticisms as well.

Wow really you have issues because the Nymph has big breasts? And Yes Nymphs were always seducing creatures and if you want it or not big breasts are a symbol for that. And again not because the media makes you believe it but because of our instincts. They are a sign of reproduction. Of course males would get seduced by this. Again just like with animals where for example big horns for deers are a sign of strength and reproduction.

however the great thing about humans is that during the times we actually getting rid of these instincts. And do you know why? Because of conditioning and manipulation. Yes you can go this route as well.

As for the V-log comment. She makes it way more "official" than normal bloggers. In fact she offers to scientifically research this problem for donations. Which makes it totally different from normal video blogs on YouTube.



And for the soccer and football comment. I used soccer since this is what football for Americans is for us Europeans^^

 

[Campster]

As for the V-log comment. She makes it way more "official" than normal bloggers. Infact she offers to scientifically research this problem for donations. Which makes it totally different from normal video blogs on youtube.

When she says "research" she doesn't mean in an academic context under the studious supervision of a tenured professor, pumping out white papers and making videos about them after the fact.

The reality is that even short videos take an enormous amount of research. I've had to read entire books, scour the internet for articles from the late 90's and early 2000's, and play hours and hours of games even if I didn't want to for my series. There's nothing else to call that but research, even if it isn't in a traditionally academic context.

There's nothing - nothing - that Sarkeesian has said that suggest she considers her work inherently worthy of academic discourse (outside of people using her videos in classes after the fact, which is a totally other thing). Her goal is one of social commentary and public discussion, not seeking a professorship somewhere. If her work contributes to academic discourse, or her videos are cited in subsequent women's studies papers, I'm sure she'd be thrilled. But this isn't about that, and it's a little bizarre that you're holding a web series up to the ethical and research standards of academia.

 

[tkscz]

did she delete one of your comments? point is, she doesn't have to allow any comments on any of her stuff. if she deleted a comment, she read it. mature or not, it has nothing to do with the subject matter she is discussing and has no bearing on how well reasoned her argument is.


says you. in the lego video i just watched i'm pretty sure she talked about the harm she thought such advertising was doing to both boys and girls. because she has a degree she's support to talk about the corporate side? she put up an example of what she wanted to do, and people paid her money to make more. she doesn't have to start making a completely different product. actually, she shouldn't. because this is the product people purchased.


again, you don't get to decide that. everyone who decided to donate disagrees. there is no standard which has to be met in order to *ask* for donations.

Taken a speech or communication class? I have, things like looking at the companies side, for the sake of argument, IS required. The lego video looks at the harm to children of both sex, yes, but pointing the blame solely at the company wouldn't get her the best grade if it were an assignment for one of those classes (Maybe a C at the highest). At that, not explaining how Lego does it's research and yet bringing it up would not bold well in these types of classes. You have to look at those sides of the arguments as well. To be perfectly honest, the Lego video is not her worst. Oh no, I still believe the top sexist/creepy Christmas songs take that cake. Followed by the Twilight one and third by the straw feminist one.

 

[UrbanRats]

yeah we discussed it at length. only people looking for a reasonable sounding critique of Anita seemed to think it did anything good. creating a character that wants to dress sluttily, or replacing a fairy with a nymph so you can argue that 'of course she looks slutty that's what nymphs look like!' is basically no excuse for the continued proliferation of such things.

both characters were created to look slutty. that was the goal. characterising them as things which should look slutty, doesn't change anything, certainly not if that same character already existed in a non slutty form.

On this subject, the article made a weak point, as pointed out (though he was right about Bastion, given the minimalistic nature of that game).
BUT, i think we also obsessed on the fuction form - yes the character in Gravity Daze has heels, but to demand a highly fuctional wardrobe above all else, is stylistically impoverishing.
This of course goes for both male and female characters, i personally don't think (from what i saw of the game, as i don't have a Vita) Kat's design was particulary "slutty" (not the best term to describe someone wearing a skirt) nor in bad taste or particulary morbid, but aside from that, functional is over-rated in highly stylistic games.

That said, it's a saturation problem as we've said before, so in this particular context you can take a swing at the game for fitting in a bad habit.
Just wanted to point out that if the situation wasn't so bad in general, Gravity Daze wouldn't need change nor it would be a particulary bad or disgusting example.
I also think that doll-ing and dressing-up is a nice thing, and i would hope to see more of that, not less (for males, too) i like to change the appereances of my character.

EDIT: Lol plagiarize gotta respond to everyone, sorry man.

 

[plagiarize]

Wow really you have issues because the Nymph has big breasts? And Yes Nymphs were always seducing creatures and if you want it or not big breasts are a symbol for that. And again not because the media makes you believe it but because of our instincts. They are a sign of reproduction. Of course males would get seduced by this. Again just like with animals where for example big horns for deers are a sign of strength and reproduction.

however the great thing about humans is that during the times we actually getting rid of these instincts. And do you know why? Because of conditioning and manipulation. Yes you can go this route as well.

As for the V-log comment. She makes it way more "official" than normal bloggers. In fact she offers to scientifically research this problem for donations. Which makes it totally different from normal video blogs on YouTube.



And for the soccer and football comment. I used soccer since this is what football for Americans is for us Europeans^^

no. We take issue with a fairy that wasnt a big boobed character being retconned into a nymph that was. its pretty simple.

Soccer is a bad example of wgat you are trying to demonstrate because in America it is seen as more of a female sport much like netball and rounders in the UK.

 

[GrizzNKev]

no. We take issue with a fairy that wasnt a big boobed character being retconned into a nymph that was. its pretty simple.

Soccer is a bad example of wgat you are trying to demonstrate because in America it is seen as more of a female sport much like netball and rounders in the UK.

Everyone in this thread does a better job than Anita at making her arguments. If that's the real issue with Rayman why didn't she point it out? As far as I could tell it was a reactionary comment to her first impression of the character, just like everything else she says.

 

[plagiarize]

Everyone in this thread does a better job than Anita at making her arguments. If that's the real issue with Rayman why didn't she point it out? As far as I could tell it was a reactionary comment to her first impression of the character, just like everything else she says.

the point is that a nymph was chosen for her physical appearance. Anita was only upset about the end result. We were just saying that the choice of a nymph doesn't excuse the physical appearance when that choice was made FOR that physical appearance. You can't just say well of course she is big breasted, she is a nymph! why is she a nymph? Why did they put a nymph in a game that otherwise is completely kid friendly in a franchise that historically has been completely kid friendly?

Anita's point isn't changed by a creator defining the character as one that should look slutty, and that was our point.

 

[Olli]

Everyone in this thread does a better job than Anita at making her arguments. If that's the real issue with Rayman why didn't she point it out? As far as I could tell it was a reactionary comment to her first impression of the character, just like everything else she says.

She probably did not point it out because she did not even know....

And Ok thats more of a valid reason than the reason Anita gave.

Oh and the reason why she were put in is again because of the base that will buy the game. They tried to appeal more to this audience.

 

[plagiarize]

She probably did not point it out because she did not even know....

And Ok thats more of a valid reason than the reason Anita gave.

Oh and the reason why she were put in is again because of the base that will buy the game. They tried to appeal more to this audience.

so?

 

[GrizzNKev]

the point is that a nymph was chosen for her physical appearance. Anita was only upset about the end result. We were just saying that the choice of a nymph doesn't excuse the physical appearance when that choice was made FOR that physical appearance. You can't just say well of course she is big breasted, she is a nymph! why is she a nymph? Why did they put a nymph in a game that otherwise is completely kid friendly in a franchise that historically has been completely kid friendly?

Anita's point isn't changed by a creator defining the character as one that should look slutty, and that was our point.

But Anita never made it that far or explored any of those ideas. She played a game, saw a character with large breasts showing skin, and gave it her official stamp of BAD! She then leaves it up to us to have the discussion and take the steps to see who that character is, see the origin, see the changes, and understand the intent. I agree with your conclusion on the topic but I hope that in her videos Anita does what we have already done.

Saying something like, "Well ultimately she was right because our research happens to support her original reaction to the game," doesn't work at all because 1) if it's not part of what she does on her own it will not reach her audience and 2) she has just as much a chance of being completely wrong when using that method as was the case with Bastion.

 

[Olli]

so?

without this audience you would not even have gotten this game in the first place.

 

[UrbanRats]

without this audience you would not even have gotten this game in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the hot Nymph did not bump the sales by even 1 copy, but that's just speculation, of course.

 

[plagiarize]

without this audience you would not even have gotten this game in the first place.

okay, first of all, now you're just making stuff up.

secondly, i still don't care because if i think a particular action is wrong, sexist, racist, harmful, whatever, you aren't going to change my mind by saying 'yeah, but they did it for the money.' that isn't going to get me to turn around and say, 'oh, well that's alright then'.

But Anita never made it that far or explored any of those ideas. She played a game, saw a character with large breasts showing skin, and gave it her official stamp of BAD! She then leaves it up to us to have the discussion and take the steps to see who that character is, see the origin, see the changes, and understand the intent. I agree with your conclusion on the topic but I hope that in her videos Anita does what we have already done.

my point was that you don't have to make it that far. the point i was trying to make was that the origin, changes and intent don't change the fact that we're looking at a video game full of colourful characters in a lovely picturesque fantasy world, none of which look human until we run into the main female character who is all boobs and arse. you don't need to look deeper to go 'erm... wait a second, run that by me again'.

the destructiod article was saying 'if she'd looked deeper she'd have found out she was a nymph and that therefore should look like that', and we were saying that it doesn't matter.

if the question is 'why have you put this slutty looking character in your game?' then 'she's a nymph!' isn't an answer to that question any more than 'she's a slut!' would be.

 

[GrizzNKev]

okay, first of all, now you're just making stuff up.

secondly, i still don't care because if i think a particular action is wrong, sexist, racist, harmful, whatever, you aren't going to change my mind by saying 'yeah, but they did it for the money.' that isn't going to get me to turn around and say, 'oh, well that's alright then'.


my point was that you don't have to make it that far. the point i was trying to make was that the origin, changes and intent don't change the fact that we're looking at a video game full of colourful characters in a lovely picturesque fantasy world, none of which look human until we run into the main female character who is all boobs and arse. you don't need to look deeper to go 'erm... wait a second, run that by me again'.

the destructiod article was saying 'if she'd looked deeper she'd have found out she was a nymph and that therefore should look like that', and we were saying that it doesn't matter.

Okay, then read my edit and tell me that not making it that far and forming your opinions and trying to make arguments based on knee-jerk reactions like she has done so far works for every game or other media. Don't defend a bad practice just because it happened to work out on the one example we discussed.

Telling us that a slutty character = wrong isn't enough without figuring from the context why it doesn't work. She didn't tell us that... you did.

 

[UrbanRats]

okay, first of all, now you're just making stuff up.

secondly, i still don't care because if i think a particular action is wrong, sexist, racist, harmful, whatever, you aren't going to change my mind by saying 'yeah, but they did it for the money.' that isn't going to get me to turn around and say, 'oh, well that's alright then'.

Uhm, some products are deliberately designed for a niche audience though, think about porn, for example.

 

[plagiarize]

Okay, then read my edit and tell me that not making it that far and forming your opinions and trying to make arguments based on knee-jerk reactions like she has done so far works for every game or other media.

i'm not actually sure what you want me to tell you here. i think this post needs an edit too.

 

[Eidan]

Wow really you have issues because the Nymph has big breasts? And Yes Nymphs were always seducing creatures and if you want it or not big breasts are a symbol for that. And again not because the media makes you believe it but because of our instincts. They are a sign of reproduction. Of course males would get seduced by this. Again just like with animals where for example big horns for deers are a sign of strength and reproduction.

I don't want to retread the nymphs debate. You should read from 45 onward. I will say that one of the big takeaways from the discussion is that the nymphs (or fairies as they were called originally) were in no way as sexualized in the original Rayman as they were in Rayman Origins. This was not an attempt at being more "historically accurate" or true to nymphs (whatever the hell that could mean). It was an attempt to sex up their product to appeal to a male audience. That's it.

 

[GrizzNKev]

i'm not actually sure what you want me to tell you here. i think this post needs an edit too.

Already done.

 

[plagiarize]

Uhm, some products are deliberately designed for a niche audience though, think about porn, for example.

that doesn't change a thing.

if i don't like sex scenes (say), you aren't going to convince me that it's okay for a film to have a gratuitous sex scene by telling me that the studio had to put it in there in order to make enough money for that film to exist. it's not going to make me like gratuitous sex scenes. it's going to make me question the industries practices if they can only make money by putting gratuitous sex scenes into things.

 

[Vermillion]

I don't want to retread the nymphs debate. You should read from 45 onward. I will say that one of the big takeaways from the discussion is that the nymphs (or fairies as they were called originally) were no in no way as sexualized in the original Rayman as they were in Rayman Origins. This was no attempt at being more "historically accurate" or true to nymphs (whatever the hell that could mean). It was an attempt to sex up their product to appeal to a male audience. That's it.

Wait, the nymps are supposed to appeal to a male audience? A cartoon nymph? Stylistically drawn? That's mildly sick. How much did they have to do with the game, anyways? I'm sure you couldn't play as them.

 

[Olli]

I'm pretty sure the hot Nymph did not bump the sales by even 1 copy, but that's just speculation, of course.

I am pretty sure they tried to appeal to a more nerdy and niche audience in the hopes of selling more units. Overall I think that big breasts are not in any form sexist nor are skinny clothes for the most part. Many woman dress like that. Many woman have big breasts. In fact many woman try to look sexy in real life. They do not wear tight clothes because it is more comfortable.

It is the same with female characters wearing almost nothing as armor. Of course they do mostly in niche games because Sex sells. And you do not see male characters wearing almost nothing in video-games because it would not sell since females do not give much about such a thing.

Which again leads to the same conclusion. Man and Woman are thinking differently in many aspects.

 

[Eidan]

Wait, the nymps are supposed to appeal to a male audience? A cartoon nymph? Stylistically drawn? That's mildly sick. How much did they have to do with the game, anyways? I'm sure you couldn't play as them.

Here's Betilla from the original Rayman:

Here she is in Origins:

How else would you explain the dramatic change?

 

[Olli]

How else would you explain the dramatic change?

Sex sells for a niche product.

 

[Vermillion]

How else would you explain the dramatic change?

That's depressing. I'd have never thought of it because I've never thought of the nymph for more than the couple of seconds I've seen her in the trailer. I imagine her and her character are supposed to mean nothing.

 

[UrbanRats]

that doesn't change a thing.

if i don't like sex scenes (say), you aren't going to convince me that it's okay for a film to have a gratuitous sex scene by telling me that the studio had to put it in there in order to make enough money for that film to exist. it's not going to make me like gratuitous sex scenes. it's going to make me question the industries practices if they can only make money by putting gratuitous sex scenes into things.

Ok, i see your point.
Though in many cases what is considered in bad taste by some people, may appreciated by others (think about, say, slasher horror films), some products (a lot of products, actually) are not meant to be enjoyed by a everyone, so it's ok for them to be designed for a small niche who can appreciate them, assuming whoever finds them disgusting will simply ignore them.

Of course, as you say, we are still free to find such products offensive or not, regardless of the audience.

Wait, the nymps are supposed to appeal to a male audience? A cartoon nymph? Stylistically drawn? That's mildly sick. How much did they have to do with the game, anyways? I'm sure you couldn't play as them.

Ever heard of Jessica Rabbit?

 

[stupei]

Sex sells for a niche product.

Yeah, you hear about all those people who talk about what a great game Rayman Origins is because of the tits in it.

Wait, no, nobody says that about the otherwise cartoonish platformer.

Sexing up a game in a genre that is generally associated with family friendly products only makes it more niche, not less so. But then most developers don't tend to think about the audience that exists outside of 15 - 30 year old males, so I can see how that would escape notice.

 

[plagiarize]

Already done.

ta. i guess to answer your question, i'd say that i don't think we only form our reactions to something when we get the whole picture. no matter what the MPAA might think, when Sadam Hussein pulls out that dildo in South Park: The Motion Picture, we all think it's his penis and react to it as if its his penis. him later showing us that it's just a dildo doesn't change the shock we felt when thought it was his penis.

if your game contains what appears to be a harmful gender role, and we only find out otherwise if we finish the game, or do research, or whatever, that apparent harmful gender role is going to continue to do harm to the majority of people who won't finish the game, and don't do research into why that character was in a harmful gender role.

so i guess that would be my response.

and i still think that if we're talking about a highly sexualised character that seems to be completely out of place in a child friendly fantasy world, that there's no need to dig deeper.

maybe you have better examples of games where she didn't dig deeper and doing so would have changed her opinion. i'm struggling to think of a game that has the same 'turn' that the Powerpuff Girls episode mentioned in here has.

i suppose there could be something where a scantily clad female character was doing that to ridicule such things and to make fun of anyone who likes such things right at the beginning of a game, in what turned out to be a well written and admirable female role.

thirty second adverts can push harmful gender roles. in context the nymph is shocking. no matter how good the justifaction for her may have been, i don't think it would excuse putting THAT character in THAT world in THAT franchise. i don't blame anyone who looks at it and doesn't come to the conclusion that it only MIGHT be sexist, so we better dig deeper. nothing in it suggests any call for digging deeper.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Okay, then read my edit and tell me that not making it that far and forming your opinions and trying to make arguments based on knee-jerk reactions like she has done so far works for every game or other media. Don't defend a bad practice just because it happened to work out on the one example we discussed.

Telling us that a slutty character = wrong isn't enough without figuring from the context why it doesn't work. She didn't tell us that... you did.

In most ways it's irrelevant why it doesn't work. Many games probably have perfectly contextual reasons why the character is sexed up. She'd have to go through each game and list each reason why the female is half naked and giant boobed. It's a waste of time because the real reason for them is that the developers wanted to make eye candy for men to look at. That's the initial cause. The context in the game is an effect of that.

 

[rohlfinator]

Okay, then read my edit and tell me that not making it that far and forming your opinions and trying to make arguments based on knee-jerk reactions like she has done so far works for every game or other media. Don't defend a bad practice just because it happened to work out on the one example we discussed.

Telling us that a slutty character = wrong isn't enough without figuring from the context why it doesn't work. She didn't tell us that... you did.

In the overall scheme of things, the context doesn't really matter. There is no legitimate reason that could justify all of the games portraying over-sexualized female characters today. Even if we can justify a few specific instances by saying "nymphs are supposed to look sexy" or "the character likes to dress like that" (which are both terribly weak justifications by the way), they are still indicative of a larger trend of developers filling their games with negative stereotypes of women.

 

[Olli]

Yeah, you hear about all those people who talk about what a great game Rayman Origins is because of the tits in it.

Wait, no, nobody says that about the otherwise cartoonish platformer.

Sexing up a game in a genre that is generally associated with family friendly products only makes it more niche, not less so. But then most developers don't tend to think about the audience that exists outside of 15 - 30 year old males, so I can see how that would escape notice.

Yeah and people try to denounce such a game because there is a nymph for a few seconds on the screen that has big breasts. There is nothing not kid friendly in this as well. You do not see anything at all. So why should it even harm children in the slightest?

 

[Vermillion]

Ever heard of Jessica Rabbit?

Touché.

 

[plagiarize]

So why should it even harm children in the slightest?

because it's part of a wide range of things pushing a certain unrealistic image and certain stereotypes.

you could say the same of a magazine aimed at kids with an overly skinny model in it. 'what's one picture of a model going to do?'.

the harm of proliferating unrealistic images and gender stereotypes is a real thing. every individual example can be defended by saying 'what's one game/movie/tvshow/picture going to do?'

 

[UrbanRats]

ta. i guess to answer your question, i'd say that i don't think we only form our reactions to something when we get the whole picture. no matter what the MPAA might think, when Sadam Hussein pulls out that dildo in South Park: The Motion Picture, we all think it's his penis and react to it as if its his penis. him later showing us that it's just a dildo doesn't change the shock we felt when thought it was his penis.

if your game contains what appears to be a harmful gender role, and we only find out otherwise if we finish the game, or do research, or whatever, that apparent harmful gender role is going to continue to do harm to the majority of people who won't finish the game, and don't do research into why that character was in a harmful gender role.

so i guess that would be my response.

That's the least people can do, to be honest.
"people" should not be mindless drones with no critical thinking, so to expect an art product to be thoughtful and deep is ok, to expect to handhold you through it and not require you to even finish it, to understand it, it's bullshit.
In that case the fault is on the people who were "harmed" by it, because they didn't understood it.

Unless we're talking about kids products, in which case, the PEGI/ESBR commission should look out for such elements.

Yeah and people try to denounce such a game because there is a nymph for a few seconds on the screen that has big breasts. There is nothing not kid friendly in this as well. You do not see anything at all. So why should it even harm children in the slightest?

Yeah, that's why the Nymph is all the more pointless and out of place.

 

[plagiarize]

That's the least people can do, to be honest.
"people" should not be mindless drones with no critical thinking, so to expect an art product to be thoughtful and deep is ok, to expect to handhold you through it and not require you to even finish it, to understand it, it's bullshit.
In that case the fault is on the people who were "harmed" by it, because they didn't understood it.

however you feel about it, the fact is most games aren't finished. if a game offends someone, my advice to them is probably going to be 'stop playing it', not 'the least you can do is play the whole thing just in case it turns out you are wrong to be offended by it'. writers need to be aware of how a character can appear outside of their intentions, because if a character appears to be something they haven't intended, then they've done a bad job.

because they've failed to convey that character as they imagined.

 

[TheChaos]

I think one weird part of DA 2 was that every character was bi-sexual. So while it might feel sexually progressive (which would fit setting wise more into Mass Effect) it also felt like they'd say that being gay or straight is a choice.

The all-bi thing was deliberately done because of resource constraints. Too few people would play an exclusively gay romance and would not be worth the cost of resources.

 

[GrizzNKev]

ta. i guess to answer your question, i'd say that i don't think we only form our reactions to something when we get the whole picture. no matter what the MPAA might think, when Sadam Hussein pulls out that dildo in South Park: The Motion Picture, we all think it's his penis and react to it as if its his penis. him later showing us that it's just a dildo doesn't change the shock we felt when thought it was his penis.

if your game contains what appears to be a harmful gender role, and we only find out otherwise if we finish the game, or do research, or whatever, that apparent harmful gender role is going to continue to do harm to the majority of people who won't finish the game, and don't do research into why that character was in a harmful gender role.

so i guess that would be my response.

and i still think that if we're talking about a highly sexualised character that seems to be completely out of place in a child friendly fantasy world, that there's no need to dig deeper.

maybe you have better examples of games where she didn't dig deeper and doing so would have changed her opinion. i'm struggling to think of a game that has the same 'turn' that the Powerpuff Girls episode mentioned in here has.

i suppose there could be something where a scantily clad female character was doing that to ridicule such things and to make fun of anyone who likes such things right at the beginning of a game, in what turned out to be a well written and admirable female role.

thirty second adverts can push harmful gender roles. in context the nymph is shocking. no matter how good the justifaction for her may have been, i don't think it would excuse putting THAT character in THAT world in THAT franchise. i don't blame anyone who looks at it and doesn't come to the conclusion that it only MIGHT be sexist, so we better dig deeper. nothing in it suggests any call for digging deeper.

I agree with you all the way on this. However, it comes off as unfair to the games and characters that do not suffer from these issues that are critiqued using that same, short-term surface understanding (i.e. Bastion). I would say it's part of Anita's responsibility to not miss those kinds of things, which is why I expressed that I don't find her approach meaningful overall. Instead she leaves her audience to determine which instances make her judgments acceptable, which is ineffective as a convincing tool.

however you feel about it, the fact is most games aren't finished. if a game offends someone, my advice to them is probably going to be 'stop playing it', not 'the least you can do is play the whole thing just in case it turns out you are wrong to be offended by it'. writers need to be aware of how a character can appear outside of their intentions, because if a character appears to be something they haven't intended, then they've done a bad job.

because they've failed to convey that character as they imagined.

What does this mean in the context of storytelling, where delayed reveals of character depth, growth or transformations are intentional? This applies to other mediums as well. If someone were to walk out of a movie five minutes in because they didn't like the portrayal of a character, the fault would be on the viewer for being unwilling to see the rest of the story. If they were told that shortly after they left, the character in question was revealed to be more intelligent/brave/heroic/acceptable, whatever, chances are the viewer would regret giving up so quickly or being offended so easily.

We as a society generally don't consider it acceptable to judge a work or its contents without experiencing it in its entirety.

 

[sleepykyo]

that doesn't change a thing.

if i don't like sex scenes (say), you aren't going to convince me that it's okay for a film to have a gratuitous sex scene by telling me that the studio had to put it in there in order to make enough money for that film to exist. it's not going to make me like gratuitous sex scenes. it's going to make me question the industries practices if they can only make money by putting gratuitous sex scenes into things.

Why is the industry's fault instead of the consumers' fault though? The industry makes money off of said practice, they aren't changing until a more profitable practice comes around.

I hate gore but I like horror films. It isn't the industry that should make more sanitized horror, but rather me that should support films that appeal to me.

 

[UrbanRats]

however you feel about it, the fact is most games aren't finished. if a game offends someone, my advice to them is probably going to be 'stop playing it', not 'the least you can do is play the whole thing just in case it turns out you are wrong to be offended by it'. writers need to be aware of how a character can appear outside of their intentions, because if a character appears to be something they haven't intended, then they've done a bad job.

because they've failed to convey that character as they imagined.

Yes but you can't even tell how a character is "conveyed" if you don't even finish it.
I think the final product as presented is generally more important than the author's intentions (though intentions do matter to some degree) but before pissing on something the least you can do is giving it your attention, otherwise we'd end up with safe, on the nose, predictable pieces of art made for thought-less audiences with no attention span.
I too would say "stop playing it" if someone were so hurt or offended by it (despite the final message) but i also wouldn't fault the product for it, nor ask them to change it or dumb it down.
I think it's a very different proposition you're making, from the Rayman case, because the Nymph are not justified in there, nothing more than eyecandy; if they had a more profound meaning, understandable only by the end of the game, someone dismissing it as cheap-ass sexualization after the first level would be in the wrong. Period. (that is not the case, but we're talking hypotheticals here)
Expecting every product to explain itself at any given point of its run sounds crazy to me.

Why is the industry's fault instead of the consumers' fault though? The industry makes money off of said practice, they aren't changing until a more profitable practice comes around.

I hate gore but I like horror films. It isn't the industry that should make more sanitized horror, but rather me that should support films that appeal to me.

Well as far as gaming goes, under the cynical business side, there should be some artistic and authorship merits in there.
If they have some weight worth giving a shit about, it should be more than mere marketing, in the end.

 

[HyperCubed4]

I agree with you all the way on this. However, it comes off as unfair to the games and characters that do not suffer from these issues that are critiqued using that same, short-term surface understanding (i.e. Bastion). I would say it's part of Anita's responsibility to not miss those kinds of things, which is why I expressed that I don't find her approach meaningful overall.

It does seem a tad ridiculous, when you think about it.

It makes Anita look uninformed if she simply looks at a female character she feels is depicted in a bad light and expects her audience to figure out why. You have to think of the development process, the context of the character, the context of the game itself, etc.

I don't feel as if Lollipop Chainsaw is particularly sexist because it seems to come off as a parody. Mind you, I've never played the game. I could be completely off base. That's what Anita should be doing. She is basing her choices on brief glances at a character's... character, and not delving very deep into their personality, their traits, etc., as I am doing with Lollipop Chainsaw.

Like I said, I could be completely off base. Am I? That's not a hypothetical question, I'm legitimately curious about people's thoughts on Lollipop Chainsaw.

Why is the industry's fault instead of the consumers' fault though? The industry makes money off of said practice, they aren't changing until a more profitable practice comes around.

I hate gore but I like horror films. It isn't the industry that should make more sanitized horror, but rather me that should support films that appeal to me.

There's the problem with entertainment as a whole. They go with what sells and sadly, this kind of stuff sells. People just need to be more vocal about thoughts like this. It's easy to have opinions, but if anybody wants anything done, they need to voice them. Anita is voicing her opinion and I would say what she is doing is very noble, but her character choices and the way she is going about it is wrong.

 

[Madn]

First of all i have to say i haven't seen any of her videos. I've just read a bit of this thread and thought that there are two different things being mixed.

Firstly, female sexualization in the videogame industry (especially in fighting games). This is an actual problem and would be great if she managed to get some attention on this and even change something with her videos. As long as she talks about games that actually show this problem and doesn't generalize it.

The second thing is the fact that there are games specifically aimed toward boys or girls. I honestly can't see the problem in this. Men and women are different, it's a fact. If someone decides to make a game that appeals to boys why sould he change it and make it neutral? If girls want to play with it they can still buy it. There are plenty of things that are aimed toward only one sex (clothing, perfumes, literature, movies), why should gaming be different? Someone has said that lego should be gender neutral. I think that it already is, but even if that weren't the case i still don't see why it should be.

 

[Lancehead]

Yes but you can't even tell how a character is "conveyed" if you don't even finish it.
I think the final product as presented is generally more important than the author's intentions (though intentions do matter to some degree) but before pissing on something the least you can do is giving it your attention, otherwise we'd end up with safe, on the nose, predictable pieces of art made for thought-less audiences with no attention span.
I too would say "stop playing it" if someone were so hurt or offended by it (despite the final message) but i also wouldn't fault the product for it, nor ask them to change it or dumb it down.
I think it's a very different proposition you're making, from the Rayman case, because the Nymph are not justified in there, nothing more than eyecandy; if they had a more profound meaning, understandable only by the end of the game, someone dismissing it as cheap-ass sexualization after the first level would be in the wrong. Period. (that is not the case, but we're talking hypotheticals here)
Expecting every product to explain itself at any given point of its run sounds crazy to me.

I think Miranda in Mass Effect 2 is a suitable example even though she's not a great character. Her physical model and her attire are clearly designed to appeal to a certain audience. But BioWare at least explains why she has a "perfect" body (though they don't explain why she wears what she does) as part of her history. It leads into her loyalty quest as well. So if a player is offended by the way she looks and decides not to talk to her the entire game, then that character exposition would be missed.