First You Make The [Thread], Then You Get The [Women]

24

Posts

  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    This thread is the biggest pile of borderline misogynistic, slut-shaming, gender-and-sexuality illiterate set of disconnected thoughts* that I have seen in a long time.

    Earlier today, I made this post as a general observation of standards of debating
    Arch wrote: »
    In a slightly similar vein to the earlier discussions, I can kind of understand why the creationist arguments so often devolve into strawmen or ad hominem attacks on the science

    I feel the same way sometimes, from the opposite side- That is, when confronted by people like Michael Behe or the DI people, I am put really off kilter when hit with a long, thought out, sourced argument against my position. The immediate response I feel in these cases is to just go "No u" and pick one point and argue it down, or criticize the individual making the point, instead of addressing their entire argument.

    Obviously I do my best to resist and respond appropriately, but I can understand the thought process that goes into it.

    Its like, you see this huge wall of text, and so much of it is "wrong"* that you almost can't deal with it comprehensively, and it is in many cases easier just to say "fuck it" and strawman the whole thing based on some typo or whatever.

    *depending on your view, positions may not actually be wrong

    Now, the problem is that this entire thread falls precisely underneath the last bit I wrote there- there is just so much wrong with it that I almost don't know where to begin.

    In fact, I don't know where to begin, unless I intend to go point-by-point with each of your surprisingly tv-tropes-esque character cliches and demonstrate how your analysis is not only horribly flawed, but also fairly sexist (and a few other things)*. I mean, you said it yourself!
    I am no feminist

    Well, obviously.

    Unless I missed some point hidden in all the ridiculous pictures, did you have a larger point? What, exactly, is your thesis?

    Perhaps that would help me to engage this topic a bit more; if I had an actual statement about what this all means.

    What, honestly, is the point you are trying to make here?

    *NOTE: it is important to remember, and I am going to head this off here quickly. The thoughts and opinions here ARE sexist, misogynistic, and any other negative -ist or -ism that you can drum up. What I am NOT doing is calling the OP himself any of these things. I am instead applying those negative comments on what he said. While this video below deals with racism and not sexism, the argument can still be applied if you swap the words and replace "watermelon" with "bouncing titties".

    Arch on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    ...it's not like I invented those tropes.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • Shady3011Shady3011 Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Too bad you made this thread.

    Shady3011 on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    ...it's not like I invented those tropes.

    Right, I know that.

    I never said that, and if it came off that I implied that I apologize.

    What you DID invent were several horrible justifications for a few of the most damaging of the "tropes"; in essence not only do you handwave away the latent sexism these tropes are encumbered with, you seem to be arguing that they are in fact (and in aggregate) a good thing.

    Is that what you are arguing?

    That the common "tropes" and cliches of the video game industry in regards to female characters are, on the whole, a good thing?

    Arch on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    ...it's not like I invented those tropes.

    but you characterized and supported them with increasingly less valid and more sexist reasoning

    Rent on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Actually the arguments posted in the OP aren't my opinions (unless noted) but secondhand commentary that I've heard other gamers state.

    I'll revise the OP later to emphasize that.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Actually the arguments posted in the OP aren't my opinions (unless noted) but secondhand commentary that I've heard other gamers state.

    I'll revise the OP later to emphasize that.

    Alright, alright.

    But what was your intent in presenting these arguments?

    What, in essence, is your thesis? Do you support these arguments? Do you disagree? Do you argue that some of these opinions have merit while others don't?

    Arch on
  • SoundsPlushSoundsPlush yup, back. Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    They certainly read like your arguments. Most of them read like apologia.
    And since I'm certain it's going to get brought up a lot in this thread, I want to state my own opinion about Samus' character in Other M: In hindsight, there is nothing wrong with giving the previously mute Samus emotions; it doesn't make her less of a character to cry, show fear, be rescued, or even show love (whether platonic or intimate).

    In a sense, they're right, but I don't see it as a form of demoralizing the female character. Rather, I see it as empowering the hero...

    Again, I'm no feminist, but I'm definitely a romanticist

    This is another case of YMMV. As for me, I draw the line at FFXI's Mithras.

    Not accusing you of anything, and I know there's a natural inclination to feel defensive when criticized, but if the things in the OP aren't your opinions, and you aren't offering your own opinions, where's the debate?

    SoundsPlush on
    s7Imn5J.png
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Actually the arguments posted in the OP aren't my opinions (unless noted) but secondhand commentary that I've heard other gamers state.

    I'll revise the OP later to emphasize that.

    Alright, alright.

    But what was your intent in presenting these arguments?

    What, in essence, is your thesis? Do you support these arguments? Do you disagree? Do you argue that some of these opinions have merit while others don't?

    I can't get into specifics now (posting from my iPhone) but the OP was meant to be mostly neutral and free of my personal opinions, because I didn't want to "dominate" the topic from the start. The OP was meant to create a list of topics and claims that we can discuss toward the thread, to give it legs basically.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • Psycho Internet HawkPsycho Internet Hawk Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The fact that you can cover pretty much the entirety of female characters in video games with a list of tropes/archtypes speaks volumes about how these characters are written.

    Psycho Internet Hawk on
    ezek1t.jpg
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Well, SoundsPlush preemptively gave the response I was going to give Snugglesworth

    Quoting it here, bolding the relevant
    Not accusing you of anything, and I know there's a natural inclination to feel defensive when criticized, but if the things in the OP aren't your opinions, and you aren't offering your own opinions, where's the debate?

    Arch on
  • AriviaArivia I Like A Challenge Earth-1Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Since I am on an iPhone the OP is getting the short answer:
    Go read some Eve Kosofky Sedgwick before you say another word
    You can all use Wikipedia's page on feminist gaze theory as a crutch for what none of you know how to say until I can pull real sources

    Arivia on
    huntresssig.jpg
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I didn't want to use Wikipedia as a crutch!

    I can walk on my own!

    I can do it!

    EDIT: for relevant comic (from here)
    anesthesia31.png

    Arch on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The fact that you can cover pretty much the entirety of female characters in video games with a list of tropes/archtypes speaks volumes about how these characters are written.

    Eh, I'm not sure how true this is. You're reductive enough and anyone is going to fit into a fairly small number of categories.

    Reminds me of a pic that got kicked around the feminstblogsphere to show how 'women could only fit a few limited tropes in the media (a lot of the roles were directly taken from tvtropes)!' with over a hundred seperate tropes. Like literally, it was 108 IIRC.

    Leitner on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The portrayal of women in videogames is also harmful.
    Power Girl, Emma Frost, Psylocke, Wonder Woman's bikini, every softcore porno cover, these are all messages saying, "This is not for you GO AWAY." They're active barriers keep women out of the club house.

    Meanwhile the print industry tries to attract lady readers with all the grace of a seal solving a Rubik's Cube.

    And when these half-hearted, ill-conceived projects invariably fail -- because they manage to say, "This is not for you GO AWAY," to both men ("too girly") and women ("what the gently caress is this bullshit?") -- publishers get to shrug and say, "BIFF! POW! Comics just aren't for girls I guess!" and they have an excuse to keep producing "mature" content instead of actually being mature about their content.

    With Atomic Robo, we've made, quite literally, the barest minimal effort, i.e. "Hey, if there's no reason to draw this lady sexy, then how about we don't," and it's paying off like wild. Judging by our email, convention appearances, and Twitter, women make up about 20% of our readers. In this industry 5% would be pretty high, especially for a comic all about punching.

    That's what's so sad about it. You don't have to try to get women readers. All you have to do is let your lady characters have some goddamn dignity. Cheesecake-y poses and panels designed to focus on them don't draw themselves. Someone makes the conscious decision to produce that specific image. Hours are spent on it. Lines are erased and re-drawn to get it "just right." You have to go out of your way to overly sexualize a character.

    Or you could just, y'know, not.

    Some publishers, editors, and artists will tell you they have to draw sexy ladies. Sex sells! It's what the fans want! No, it's what a sub-section of man-children the industry has spent decades culling from the mainstream has been trained to expect.

    Here's the crazy thing: they can be trained to expect different things.

    But no, "Boo hoo some creepy shut-ins might not buy Spider-Man" is the go-to defense of the industry. Yeah, that'd be a real shame.

    Sorry if I posted a bunch of words that don't really add new ideas, I'm just continually astounded by the American mainstream print comic industry's Herculean resistance to increasing their sales.

    Couscous on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    I didn't want to use Wikipedia as a crutch!

    I can walk on my own!

    I can do it!

    EDIT: for relevant comic (from here)
    anesthesia31.png
    I just spent the better part of the day reading through that blog. You just cracked me up all over again. :lol:

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I can't get into specifics now (posting from my iPhone) but the OP was meant to be mostly neutral and free of my personal opinions, because I didn't want to "dominate" the topic from the start. The OP was meant to create a list of topics and claims that we can discuss toward the thread, to give it legs basically.

    given that this was your aim, then I think you should realise that it is actually pretty badly put together and reads like it is your opinion, regardless of wether or not you wanted it to be.

    A little thing like "this is not all my opinion" isn't gonna cover that. You need to rewrite every opinion as if you are critiquing it from a neutral standpoint, not just parrot them. Otherwise you will appear to be giving implicit consent to them, no matter how many times you say "I am not". That's just how people read stuff written that way.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • CorporateLogoCorporateLogo The toilet knows how I feelRegistered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Amanda Conner draws Powerl Girl most often as of late, would that be a conundrum

    CorporateLogo on
    Do not have a cow, mortal.

    c9PXgFo.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Actually the arguments posted in the OP aren't my opinions (unless noted) but secondhand commentary that I've heard other gamers state.

    I'll revise the OP later to emphasize that.

    Alright, alright.

    But what was your intent in presenting these arguments?

    What, in essence, is your thesis? Do you support these arguments? Do you disagree? Do you argue that some of these opinions have merit while others don't?

    I can't get into specifics now (posting from my iPhone) but the OP was meant to be mostly neutral and free of my personal opinions, because I didn't want to "dominate" the topic from the start. The OP was meant to create a list of topics and claims that we can discuss toward the thread, to give it legs basically.

    Was one of the topics Tifa in a ball gag?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Okay, I made some revisions to the OP that I hope better emphasize its purpose, as well as better detailing which points are conjecture and which are personal opinion. Again, I tried to keep the latter to a minimum, because I felt adding too many points right from the beginning would deter people from wanting to voice their own opinions. Also, like any functional human being, I can listen to an argument and change my thoughts in accordance with it.

    For instance, I removed the "feminist" line. It was intended to be a bit of a self-joke, as I didn't want to give the impression I was some sort of activist about fictional women's rights or anything. Like it says in the OP, most of my favorite characters are female, so, yay women.

    And I want to offer additional apologies to Rent for taking things the wrong way. As I hope the OP's guideline illustrates, I'm not a fan of comparing fiction to real life, particularly characters to people, because they are two lines that shouldn't be blurred too strongly. I was in no way stating that "this isn't how bisexuals act", but instead using the established fiction surrounding the character of Jack to offer my personal view that, for someone who regards all living things as her enemy, and who views sex as nothing more than procreation, that it was somewhat clumsy writing to have her state that she was "done with women" with no further explanation.

    So hopefully some of the bad blood can be sorted out, but hey, I don't hold it against you. The fact that many of you are so passionate about the topic means that Point Number One in the OP is right on the money. So let's continue our discussions and find new things to get pissed off about. :^:

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • manwiththemachinegunmanwiththemachinegun METAL GEAR?! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    So, I'm curious how Meryl ranks in the scheme of things. On one hand, she does need to be rescued in Metal Gear. On the other, she is clearly potrayed as a rookie with no actual battle experience. To that extent, she does pretty well I think in the shoot outnear the DARPA Chief.

    Next time we see her she's running her own unit, kicking ass and taking names. She aquits herself fine in the FROG shootout sequence. She's rescued once by Johnny from drowning, covers Snake during the Arsenal Gear finale before getting overrun.

    While that might seem to fit the stereotype, EVERY character was in danger of dying at that point. Snake with the Dwarf Gekkou, Raiden and Johnny with the FROGs, and Mei Ling with the horde of Rays.

    manwiththemachinegun on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    So, I'm curious how Meryl ranks in the scheme of things. On one hand, she does need to be rescued in Metal Gear. On the other, she is clearly potrayed as a rookie with no actual battle experience. To that extent, she does pretty well I think in the shoot outnear the DARPA Chief.

    Next time we see her she's running her own unit, kicking ass and taking names. She aquits herself fine in the FROG shootout sequence. She's rescued once by Johnny from drowning, covers Snake during the Arsenal Gear finale before getting overrun.

    While that might seem to fit the stereotype, EVERY character was in danger of dying at that point. Snake with the Dwarf Gekkou, Raiden and Johnny with the FROGs, and Mei Ling with the horde of Rays.

    Meryl is kind of a mixed bag for me. Not because she gets kidnapped (twice) in the game, but because of the superiority complex Snake kind of indirectly gives her. Most of their dialog consists of "You're a rookie, you can't possibly handle this" followed by "I'm no rookie! I can stand against every gender stereotype you throw at me!" and then "By the way, you left the safety on.".

    She was significantly better in MGS4, although her and her entire squad does get taken out with minimal effort, again used as an effort to "empower" Snake as being the one and only hero who can save the way. It isn't exclusive to Meryl, and she gets plenty of ass-kicking moments, so it wasn't as one-sided in that game.

    To add to things, here's part of a Steam conversation I had with Rent.
    Rent: I think you have to realize that objectively, the potrayal of women in video games is sexist
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: I never said it was
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: but that doesn't mean you can't also enjoy it
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: wasn't I mean
    Rent: In a purely aesthetic sense yes I agree with you
    Rent: because I'm a straight male
    Rent: and women with big tits turn me on
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: you like valkyria chronicles. do you hate the characters because they're sexy?
    Rent: but mentally the potrayal of women in video games somewhat disgusts me
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: did seeing Alicia in a bikinni keep you from caring about her during the end of the game?
    Rent: Yeah it kinda did
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: ;/
    Rent: The fact that they had to cheesecake that scene kind of reduced my enjoyment of the game
    Rent: because it was embarassing
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: it was anime
    Rent: So?
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: there is nothing from japan that doesn't have something like that
    Rent: That doesn't make it right
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: characters having fun and looking hot isn't a disservice
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: if they had a beach orgy where they blow off every guy in the game, then yes
    Rent: Thematically, tonally, it was completely unnecessary
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: you could argue for days over what is unnecessary in a game
    We ARE The Walking Dead!: but it's a moot point. they put it to have fun
    Rent: They do so by cheapening the experience and glorifying women as objects

    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point, or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.
    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point, or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    You're asking the wrong question because you apparently didn't really understand what Rent was saying. Judging by the snippet posted, it had less to do with this character being in a bikini and more it being out of left field and completely without purpose save for "And now...faaaaan seeeerviiiice!"

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.
    Only 90 percent?

    Couscous on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.

    That is purely a cultural thing. Japanese males tend to like their female romances to be all shy and sweet, being meek about every little thing, even holding hands and kissing.

    Whereas in the west, based on games like Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, and Dragon Age, it's all about those girls "getting sexed".

    This is why I tend to prefer that there is a "default" option for the love interests, but you still get a chance to flirt with the other girls just for fun. See FFVII and FFX.

    About the only game where I've seen it work well is Persona, which lets you develop a relationship with a character that can last the entire duration of the game. And yes, it also leads to sexing at some point, but in a more meaningful, less Uncanny Valley sort of way.
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.
    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point, or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    You're asking the wrong question because you apparently didn't really understand what Rent was saying. Judging by the snippet posted, it had less to do with this character being in a bikini and more it being out of left field and completely without purpose save for "And now...faaaaan seeeerviiiice!"

    The argument is kind of the same: if the character is put in the requisite "fanservice scene", does she lose credibility? In MGS, you can trigger some scenes that have Meryl in her panties. Character assassination, or just fanservice fun?

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • hatedinamericahatedinamerica Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    She was significantly better in MGS4, although her and her entire squad does get taken out with minimal effort, again used as an effort to "empower" Snake as being the one and only hero who can save the way. It isn't exclusive to Meryl, and she gets plenty of ass-kicking moments, so it wasn't as one-sided in that game.

    The thing about Meryl is that she is not rigid, she changes fairly realistically over time. She starts out as the "princess peach" trope with a few twists, then by the time MGS4 rolls around she one of the top 3 badasses in the game (in my opinion).

    I like Meryl, I think she's a good character, if a bit over the top. Then again what ISN'T over the top about MGS? (nothing)
    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point? Or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with the specific game you guys were talking about, so I can't comment on that.

    hatedinamerica on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    This is a good article about it, I thought.

    It's more focused on movies, but the leap to video game representation is not a massive one.
    Once your female characters have some depth to them, it doesn’t really matter if the male hero saves them or not. For instance, Batman saved Rachel Dawes a couple of times, but I never saw her as only a Damsel in Distress, because she was her own person with her own moral code and own heroic goals to clean up Gotham with her Lawyer Powers. There was nothing in her background that led me to believe she’d be able to fight supervillains single-handedly, so when Batman has to save her (just like he saves everyone else), it’s believable. If, say, she had beaten up the Joker with her super kung fu skills she learned in self-defense class and her super-powered mace she developed in her own chem lab after she got her PhD from Harvard, and her makeup and hair still looked good afterward, then she’d be LESS of a Strong Female Character. She’d just be some image of what the nerdy male audience wants in a damsel.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.

    That is purely a cultural thing. Japanese males tend to like their female romances to be all shy and sweet, being meek about every little thing, even holding hands and kissing.

    Whereas in the west, based on games like Mass Effect, Heavy Rain, and Dragon Age, it's all about those girls "getting sexed".

    This is why I tend to prefer that there is a "default" option for the love interests, but you still get a chance to flirt with the other girls just for fun. See FFVII and FFX.

    About the only game where I've seen it work well is Persona, which lets you develop a relationship with a character that can last the entire duration of the game. And yes, it also leads to sexing at some point, but in a more meaningful, less Uncanny Valley sort of way.
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    The issue is less about whether or not girls are BADASS ENOUGH and more about whether they are well written. Whether they ya know, come across as people rather than ham handed archetypes spit out by a writer who's like UHH UHH HOW DO GIRLS THINK THESE ALIEN ORGANISMS

    Or worse, a shallow and mildly creepy way to fellate the audience. Looking at you, 90% of RPG romance options.
    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point, or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    You're asking the wrong question because you apparently didn't really understand what Rent was saying. Judging by the snippet posted, it had less to do with this character being in a bikini and more it being out of left field and completely without purpose save for "And now...faaaaan seeeerviiiice!"

    The argument is kind of the same: if the character is put in the requisite "fanservice scene", does she lose credibility? In MGS, you can trigger some scenes that have Meryl in her panties. Character assassination, or just fanservice fun?

    Yes. It's a cultural thing. Sexism is a part of Japanese culture, one need look no further than the outrage otakus show at a VA not being a virgin to see that. An extreme example, but all the same it's fairly easy to observe in more common aspects of life as well.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    She was significantly better in MGS4, although her and her entire squad does get taken out with minimal effort, again used as an effort to "empower" Snake as being the one and only hero who can save the way. It isn't exclusive to Meryl, and she gets plenty of ass-kicking moments, so it wasn't as one-sided in that game.

    The thing about Meryl is that she is not rigid, she changes fairly realistically over time. She starts out as the "princess peach" trope with a few twists, then by the time MGS4 rolls around she one of the top 3 badasses in the game (in my opinion).

    I like Meryl, I think she's a good character, if a bit over the top. Then again what ISN'T over the top about MGS? (nothing)
    What do you think? Does a character lose all credibility if she ends up in a bikini at some point? Or some other "have fun and look good doing it" situation?

    Not necessarily. I'm not familiar with the specific game you guys were talking about, so I can't comment on that.

    It's a JRPG featuring Anime tropes in a WWII setting. Despite that, the characters are all strong-willed and modestly dressed...minus the villainess (see OP).

    In one optional "mission", the group gets a reprieve to hang out in a beach. The girls are in bikinis, have fun in the water, that's it.

    Supposedly this diminishes the characters, even though it was hardly DOA Beach Volleyball material. About all you learn is that the main heroine has the second nicest rack in the whole game, but that doesn't detract from her crowning moments of awesome that occur later on.

    Rent feels it unnecessary, I feel it was harmless fun.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    The only reason it is supposed to be fun is because it is supposed to be fanservice. What point does it serve other than that?

    Also, not1930s swimwear would be sexier.
    swimsuit3.jpg

    Couscous on
  • FiarynFiaryn Omnicidal Madman Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    But really the real question Snugglesworth is why are you crossposting this from YCS and pretending it's yours and defending it as though it's yours.

    Fiaryn on
    Soul Silver FC: 1935 3141 6240
    White FC: 0819 3350 1787
  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    If it's fanservice, the fans are fucking stupid. I agree with that excerpt posted above - you don't HAVE to create your female characters with implausible anatomy and minimal clothing. You choose to. You could just not, and write an actual character rather than a walking excuse to shoe-horn in some boobs.

    JihadJesus on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    If it's fanservice, the fans are fucking stupid.
    Well, yeah.

    Couscous on
  • PancakePancake Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Fiaryn wrote: »
    But really the real question Snugglesworth is why are you crossposting this from YCS and pretending it's yours and defending it as though it's yours.

    Maybe he's secretly the one that wrote it originally.

    Not that that would make anything about the situation any better.

    Pancake on
    wAgWt.jpg
  • VicVic Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    JihadJesus wrote: »
    If it's fanservice, the fans are fucking stupid. I agree with that excerpt posted above - you don't HAVE to create your female characters with implausible anatomy and minimal clothing. You choose to. You could just not, and write an actual character rather than a walking excuse to shoe-horn in some boobs.

    I would argue that this depends on the game. I am not sure I am willing to accept that fanservice or as you say shoe-horning in some boobs is necessarily evil, especially not in games that barely even pretend to have any story like Dead or Alive. By doing so you are creating a product that is essentially 20% softcore porn, but if there is a market for that then so be it. I have always thought that it should not be shameful to enjoy sexual imagery in games, as long as you consider it purely as cheap entertainment.

    Then again I am not sure it is fair for me to make that judgement, considering I am part of the target audience. Would you guys say this is a growing problem? Because to me it seems like there have been plenty of female characters in games these last years that have felt just as well written as the men, while not being especially sexualized.

    Vic on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Cheap entertainment still has a large amount of influence on a person's perception of the world.

    Couscous on
  • Professor SnugglesworthProfessor Snugglesworth Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    I'm going to level with you: I don't even know what YCS is.

    Professor Snugglesworth on
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Blackjack wrote: »
    This is a good article about it, I thought.

    It's more focused on movies, but the leap to video game representation is not a massive one.
    Once your female characters have some depth to them, it doesn’t really matter if the male hero saves them or not. For instance, Batman saved Rachel Dawes a couple of times, but I never saw her as only a Damsel in Distress, because she was her own person with her own moral code and own heroic goals to clean up Gotham with her Lawyer Powers. There was nothing in her background that led me to believe she’d be able to fight supervillains single-handedly, so when Batman has to save her (just like he saves everyone else), it’s believable. If, say, she had beaten up the Joker with her super kung fu skills she learned in self-defense class and her super-powered mace she developed in her own chem lab after she got her PhD from Harvard, and her makeup and hair still looked good afterward, then she’d be LESS of a Strong Female Character. She’d just be some image of what the nerdy male audience wants in a damsel.

    Read. Men can be ridiculous figures (I mean the film in question is batman, let's not pretend Bruce Wayne or the Joker are these great multi-faceted tragic heroes) with no depth outside 'my parents are dead!', but women, if you want to be strong characters it has to be through juggling life as a single mom.

    See also, 'girls need role models!'.

    Leitner on
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    A sort of "ceiling" of fanservice could be helpful. Good luck getting one that people agree on that isn't just in the area of taboo for your rating, though.

    For example, I'd say that the breast slider in Soulcalibur IV crosses that (using that as an example of a very popular, well-established recent game packed to the gills with tits and general attempts at eye candy). But you could probably find people who don't think it does. And, of course, the implication being you're limiting creativity in the interests of taste--which might not be a bad idea, necessarily, but caries its own implications if carried further than a sort of instinctual, self-imposed level.

    Synthesis on
  • l337CrappyJackl337CrappyJack Registered User regular
    edited December 2010
    Leitner wrote: »
    Blackjack wrote: »
    This is a good article about it, I thought.

    It's more focused on movies, but the leap to video game representation is not a massive one.
    Once your female characters have some depth to them, it doesn’t really matter if the male hero saves them or not. For instance, Batman saved Rachel Dawes a couple of times, but I never saw her as only a Damsel in Distress, because she was her own person with her own moral code and own heroic goals to clean up Gotham with her Lawyer Powers. There was nothing in her background that led me to believe she’d be able to fight supervillains single-handedly, so when Batman has to save her (just like he saves everyone else), it’s believable. If, say, she had beaten up the Joker with her super kung fu skills she learned in self-defense class and her super-powered mace she developed in her own chem lab after she got her PhD from Harvard, and her makeup and hair still looked good afterward, then she’d be LESS of a Strong Female Character. She’d just be some image of what the nerdy male audience wants in a damsel.

    Read. Men can be ridiculous figures (I mean the film in question is batman, let's not pretend Bruce Wayne or the Joker are these great multi-faceted tragic heroes) with no depth outside 'my parents are dead!', but women, if you want to be strong characters it has to be through juggling life as a single mom.

    See also, 'girls need role models!'.

    I'd say Batman is no less of a ridiculous character than any person in the Sex and the City movies.

    l337CrappyJack on
Sign In or Register to comment.