The answer in this case is more art, not less - but the more needs to be good
Of course, I agree... however your method of trying to get it created is essentially: "No one buy this piece of shit that I don't like!!"
You are being reductive again.
The smaller goal here is to get people to think before they create, and to think about how what they're creating can affect the people who might consume their creation. Responsible creators do that.
The larger goal would be a cultural shift where preaching about that thinking isn't necessary.
It's not about me not liking it. You know? I love lots of games that have gender representation problems. I've talked about them a lot in this topic. But I recognize when parts of them (or all of them) are part and parcel with the larger problem being described here.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
The answer in this case is more art, not less - but the more needs to be good
Of course, I agree... however your method of trying to get it created is essentially: "No one buy this piece of shit that I don't like!!"
But, um, that is the way every single person - yourself included! -reacts to art they dislike. And have always acted.
I wasn't interested in the Transformers Revenge of the Fallen move and I flatly refuse to ever watch it, and will gladly steer anyone away from that film should they ask me about it. Roger Ebert went a step further and wrote a scathing review of the film, actually implying that Michael Bay had sold his soul to the devil. OH NO I AND ROGER EBERT ARE DESTROYING ART LOL.
The answer in this case is more art, not less - but the more needs to be good
Of course, I agree... however your method of trying to get it created is essentially: "No one buy this piece of shit that I don't like!!"
In spite of the fact that no one said that, and the other fact that no one could possibly influence sales this way and everyone buys whatever the heck they want to buy
What do you think would happen if people stopped supporting the development of games that largely reduced women to sex objects?
So Monaco is interesting to me on a lot of fronts, but one of them is that it's one of the first games since Katamari that appeals to my girlfriend on a purely mechanics-free level. That is, she and I are both huge fans of the "putting together a heist" subgenre, and she has always lamented the persistent all-male casts. So it's nice that a game about heists has female cast members.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
The answer in this case is more art, not less - but the more needs to be good
Of course, I agree... however your method of trying to get it created is essentially: "No one buy this piece of shit that I don't like!!"
Yes, and? Everyone has to choice as to what they buy or not.
Like I said before that method comes off as sanctimonious, aggressive, and well... presumptuous.
Why does it matter what it comes off as, thats how things change. A bad game comes out, people dont buy it, the developers say "whoops, better make less bad games".
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
+5
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Wyborn, you are being remarkably patient. But I believe Black_Heart's position is that he sees no problem at all with gender representation in games.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
It's however perfectly fair to hold the creators of a game responsible for making certain views, behaviour and/or practice acceptable. That's what you're failing to get, and have been for several pages that I've followed this discussion.
No, it isn't and no they didn't.
If I make a video game where you go door to door cutting people's heads off, in no way am I saying that is acceptable behavior or it should be practiced.
Of course you aren't.
But we are saying it would be perfectly acceptable to call your game a shallow glorification of violence that makes us all a little worse for having experienced it.
and it would be perfectly acceptable for me to call you an oversensitive prude for feeling that way, or rather your opinion indicates those traits.
Yes. Absolutely fine. And it would also be absolutely fine for me to use what cultural leverage I have with the people I know to do my best to discourage people from playing your horrible murder simulator.
And nobody's rights are infringed upon. Agreed?
Ohh certainly... but you're still trying to get rid of something you personally don't like. Which I think is pretty sanctimonious and aggressive.
It's true that the overtly gamey parts of games typically don't communicate much about social structure and acceptable behaviour. People tend to engage those parts of games as clear and explicit fantasies, quite separate from the real world. But there's much more potential for transference when it comes to the context that a game provides. People approach game worlds and stories and characters, and the real world with the same kinds of logic. I think there was some discussion of Elizabeth's damsel-in-distress moment in BI earlier in the thread that demonstrates this.
I don't see where you're pulling this vague "potential for transference" from other than it being personal opinion and rhetoric.
There's academic scholarship on the subject of entertainment media and socialization. The research suggests that depictions of gender roles and sexual behaviour in entertainment media such as television, print media and video games can and do influence the values of the people who consume said media.
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
The way you're trying so hard is very adorable Cambiata.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
+7
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well you know, being a girl and all, adorable is the best I can hope for in life, amirite?
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
The way you're trying so hard is very adorable Cambiata.
Wow. A sexist comment in a thread about sexism in games. Didn't see that one coming..
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
The way you're trying so hard is very adorable Cambiata.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
And even going with the defenition, there's still nothing wrong with The Sorceress' design. The problem is that design is the standard, not the exception. There's literally almost NOTHING to offset it.
That is fair. There is nothing wrong with designing characters who are meant to be objects of desire. Lord knows I like looking at them sometimes, and can appreciate some sexy pictures.
But it should not be the default assumption when it comes to female character design. It's getting better, but we're not there yet.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
If you're trying to imply we are not affected by the media we see then this has crossed the line into painfully uninformed.
They are, by definition, characters and if you see them as objects you are quite literally The Problem.
I am just going to start reading the first ten pages of this thread over and over again because apparently we aren't allowed to progress past that point.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
You are being reductive again. There is an improtant distinction, when it comes to how we experience a character, between one who is portrayed as a person and one who is portrayed as an object. You can have many of the same reactions to both, but they are not the same thing.
I don't think many women would roll their eyes at the character of the heroine in Remember Me - some might, I suppose. But a great number would roll their eyes at the design of the Sorceress, and it is the latter who is the norm, not the former. The first is portrayed as a person; the second is portrayed as a vehicle for sexual attraction.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
I am just going to start reading the first ten pages of this thread over and over again because apparently we aren't allowed to progress past that point.
"Just because the audicence changes doesn't mean the show shouldn't be great!" - some guy
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
You've just taken a pretty coherent deconstruction of the way a character is represented and broken it down into "whatever, its just a game, what actually happens in it is beneath discussion"
I always find it fascinating that this attitude is often widespread among the same people who are passionate about games being worthy of respect as artforms.
I am just going to start reading the first ten pages of this thread over and over again because apparently we aren't allowed to progress past that point.
I hear ya. I came here to hear some constructive ideas getting tossed around. I even tried to get the thread back on track a while back, but it's apparently been hi-jacked by a blatant sexist.
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
The way you're trying so hard is very adorable Cambiata.
Stuff like this doesn't seem very constructive. On the micro level, it shows you either haven't read the thread (where @Cambiata has noted [more than once?] that she's a woman) or you're not even trying to pretend that you're anything other than horrendously sexist. In either case you probably shouldn't be posting right now. In the first case you should read the whole thread first and in the second case you should leave the adults to talk with each other, because after like 10 pages of this shit I don't think it's fair to keep making us convince you - every time we try, you attack a straw man or critique the way we say things rather than the content or you make unfounded assertions or you move the goalposts or you do something else that shows that you're clearly not in this thread to legitimately learn, or if you are, you fucking suck at it.
On the macro level, these kinds of posts are not productive because they are examples of the sorts of things that people that fight against sexism, racism, classism, and other kinds of oppression face all the time. If we don't care, then nobody else cares. If we do care, we're trying to hard. If we don't speak up loud enough, we're fine with sexism. If we do speak up, we're trying to censor people (another sign that you haven't read this thread or understood it - nobody here wants censorship under any reasonable definition of censorship). And so on. We face a constant series of assaults on our methods of discourse (as exemplified by the amazing WhiteMalePrivilege tweets that mirror you so closely) as if talking in the 'wrong' way makes us wrong. It doesn't, of course - we're right no matter how we choose to talk, and in fact we're not even talking 'wrong,' you're just painting us as having done so because you're grasping at any straw you can to stay as sexist as possible without looking like it's your fault for being a misogynist.
A few pages back (it seems like years now) someone linked the D&D thread you started all about this stuff, the conclusion of which was that you don't understand anything and have managed to adopt a mindset that ensures that you never will until something changes. But the thing that needs to change is you. You need to just take a step back from the horrid shit you currently believe and reevaluate your life. Stop looking to us for good reasons to do so - the set of beliefs you're currently equipped with is already going to make you reject everything we say, either because it will find some bullshit reason why we're wrong or because it will decide we're (adorably) trying to hard, as if that's some sort of legitimate critique and not a blatant attempt to silence people you disagree with by asserting that your method of discourse is the only acceptable one and that everyone should shut up and if they don't shut up it doesn't matter, their voice means nothing, it's adorable that they even bother to open their mouths and speak.
So I think this thread (just like your D&D thread) can't help you, and you sure as today's PA comic's giant set of testicles can't help us. I think you can agree with me on this. You haven't seen anything convincing in this thread, and I think I speak for the rest of this thread when I say we haven't seen anything convincing in what you've said.
Given that, the best option is to duck out, yes? You're not helping us, we're not helping you. The place to learn, for you, isn't here. It's in self-searching, I think, but that's neither here nor there, really - all I'm saying is that what you're doing right now isn't getting us anywhere.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
A character... isn't a person? What?
I think you have it entirely backwards. If an object is something tangible, and if a character is fictional, and if fictional things are not tangible, then by definition characters are not objects.
So, it's late and I'm going to bow out. If the thread ends up locked for whatever reason (I'm guessing it reaches 100 pages), I just want to say thanks to the wonderful people who have come in time and time again to intelligently and articulately argue why this all matters, and show that things are getting better.
So, it's late and I'm going to bow out. If the thread ends up locked for whatever reason (I'm guessing it reaches 100 pages), I just want to say thanks to the wonderful people who have come in time and time again to intelligently and articulately argue why this all matters, and show that things are getting better.
I'm certainly hopeful.
I absolutely want a second thread on this if this gets closed at 100. This NEEDS to be somewhere and if not here, where? I can't even begin to count all the quotes I have to pull from here to put elsewhere.
I think conversation, given time and room (both for reflection) can make anyone consider alternative viewpoints.
I want you to know @Black_Heart that I don't think less of you for what has been said here, and I'm not trying to attack you or the things you like. I just want you to understand, and I'm trying to help make that happen to the best of my ability. I am being as open as I can about this, and I hope that you are doing the same - open in telling us how you see the issue, and open in your willingness to consider the viewpoints being presented to you.
You are being reductive again. There is an improtant distinction, when it comes to how we experience a character, between one who is portrayed as a person and one who is portrayed as an object. You can have many of the same reactions to both, but they are not the same thing.
I don't think many women would roll their eyes at the character of the heroine in Remember Me - some might, I suppose. But a great number would roll their eyes at the design of the Sorceress, and it is the latter who is the norm, not the former. The first is portrayed as a person; the second is portrayed as a vehicle for sexual attraction.
Do you agree there is a difference?
I feel like you're getting off track.
You find sexuality that attempts to seat itself in traits belonging to a person.... as desirable, and a good trait.
Where as sexuality that is derived from the purely physical/visual aspects of something.... as undesirable, and a flaw.
That's fine. You're free to feel that way. I agree we should have more variety in games when it comes to sexuality or none at all with our characters, the difference between you and I, is that I won't discourage anyone from playing games with sexualized characters, or games where you cut off dude's dicks, or games where you rape old men, or anything else.
So, it's late and I'm going to bow out. If the thread ends up locked for whatever reason (I'm guessing it reaches 100 pages), I just want to say thanks to the wonderful people who have come in time and time again to intelligently and articulately argue why this all matters, and show that things are getting better.
I'm certainly hopeful.
I absolutely want a second thread on this if this gets closed at 100. This NEEDS to be somewhere and if not here, where? I can't even begin to count all the quotes I have to pull from here to put elsewhere.
I think if we make this thread again (and I agree it should exist in some form) we should widen the net, so to speak, and make it about minorities/isms in gaming in general -- I don't want to say we've exhausted "women in gaming" because that is a horrible thing to suggest but expanding the range of topics may help keep it from repeating itself like it has been lately.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
This is an astoundingly revealing statement.
It's true! Every time I watch a movie, I never once forget that all of it is a work of fiction. I always review the characters as complete robots who are just performing motions according to a script.
And as such, I'm also not influenced by the portrayal of so called "people" in other forms of art either.
That's fine. You're free to feel that way. I agree we should have more variety in games when it comes to sexuality or none at all with our characters, the difference between you and I, is that I won't discourage anyone from playing games with sexualized characters, or games where you cut off dude's dicks, or games where you rape old men, or anything else.
Posts
Yes, and? Everyone has to choice as to what they buy or not.
You are being reductive again.
The smaller goal here is to get people to think before they create, and to think about how what they're creating can affect the people who might consume their creation. Responsible creators do that.
The larger goal would be a cultural shift where preaching about that thinking isn't necessary.
It's not about me not liking it. You know? I love lots of games that have gender representation problems. I've talked about them a lot in this topic. But I recognize when parts of them (or all of them) are part and parcel with the larger problem being described here.
The two are not mutually exclusive. I can love a thing intensely and also see where it is flawed, and where it should be better, and say so.
Like I said before that method comes off as sanctimonious, aggressive, and well... presumptuous.
But, um, that is the way every single person - yourself included! -reacts to art they dislike. And have always acted.
I wasn't interested in the Transformers Revenge of the Fallen move and I flatly refuse to ever watch it, and will gladly steer anyone away from that film should they ask me about it. Roger Ebert went a step further and wrote a scathing review of the film, actually implying that Michael Bay had sold his soul to the devil. OH NO I AND ROGER EBERT ARE DESTROYING ART LOL.
Yes. You and I disagree on where that flaw lies.
In spite of the fact that no one said that, and the other fact that no one could possibly influence sales this way and everyone buys whatever the heck they want to buy
What do you think would happen if people stopped supporting the development of games that largely reduced women to sex objects?
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
You are not being very clear. Would you elaborate? I don't understand where you think I see a flaw, and you have not been clear on where you see the flaw in gender representation.
Why does it matter what it comes off as, thats how things change. A bad game comes out, people dont buy it, the developers say "whoops, better make less bad games".
"Wrap it up guys, no more activism for any cause ever, wouldnt want people to think we're being sanctimonious"
Personally I don't see it as a flaw when someone chooses to put a sexual character in their game.
Yeah... I just tend not to like sanctimonious people.
There's academic scholarship on the subject of entertainment media and socialization. The research suggests that depictions of gender roles and sexual behaviour in entertainment media such as television, print media and video games can and do influence the values of the people who consume said media.
Sexual Socialization Messages in Mainstream Entertainment Mass Media: A Review and Synthesis
Video Game Characters and the Socialization of Gender Roles: Young People’s Perceptions Mirror Sexist Media Depictions
Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research
For instance.
Well that clinches it, we can't do anything about sexism, guys, we'll just have to live with it. Being thought of as sanctimonious is way worse that being treated as an object instead of a person.
The way you're trying so hard is very adorable Cambiata.
That's just it. I don't see that as a flaw either. A person can be sexual and empowered without being a sex object. Take the heroine from the upcoming Remember Me, if you will - she's very clearly a sexual person, and kisses her boyfriend in some of the promotional material. She is, assumedly, a person who has sex. Is this wrong? No. People have sex, and women are people, so it stands to reason women have sex and want sex and all kinds of things.
The difference between her and, say, the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown, is that the heroine in Remember Me is not there to titillate. Her sexuality is a component of her own agency - that is to say, she is a sexual person, and not a sexual object. She has desires, and is not depicted in a manner that is meant, exclusively, to be desired.
The Sorceress is not a sexual character. I mena, perhaps she is, but that would be incidental to her deisgn. Rather she is not a sexual design, I suppose. She is a sexualized design, a design meant to elicit sexual feelings in the consumer. She is meant to be the object of your desire.
Do you see?
Wow. A sexist comment in a thread about sexism in games. Didn't see that one coming..
You should probably try to stop seeing it where it doesn't exist then.
Not cool, man.
And even going with the defenition, there's still nothing wrong with The Sorceress' design. The problem is that design is the standard, not the exception. There's literally almost NOTHING to offset it.
Look, Listen, and Take Heed: WOMEN - Know Your Limits
But it should not be the default assumption when it comes to female character design. It's getting better, but we're not there yet.
None of those are people. They are video game characters, they have no sexuality of their own and are by definition, objects.
If you're trying to imply we are not affected by the media we see then this has crossed the line into painfully uninformed.
They are, by definition, characters and if you see them as objects you are quite literally The Problem.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
You are being reductive again. There is an improtant distinction, when it comes to how we experience a character, between one who is portrayed as a person and one who is portrayed as an object. You can have many of the same reactions to both, but they are not the same thing.
I don't think many women would roll their eyes at the character of the heroine in Remember Me - some might, I suppose. But a great number would roll their eyes at the design of the Sorceress, and it is the latter who is the norm, not the former. The first is portrayed as a person; the second is portrayed as a vehicle for sexual attraction.
Do you agree there is a difference?
This is an astoundingly revealing statement.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
"Just because the audicence changes doesn't mean the show shouldn't be great!" - some guy
You've just taken a pretty coherent deconstruction of the way a character is represented and broken it down into "whatever, its just a game, what actually happens in it is beneath discussion"
I always find it fascinating that this attitude is often widespread among the same people who are passionate about games being worthy of respect as artforms.
I hear ya. I came here to hear some constructive ideas getting tossed around. I even tried to get the thread back on track a while back, but it's apparently been hi-jacked by a blatant sexist.
On the macro level, these kinds of posts are not productive because they are examples of the sorts of things that people that fight against sexism, racism, classism, and other kinds of oppression face all the time. If we don't care, then nobody else cares. If we do care, we're trying to hard. If we don't speak up loud enough, we're fine with sexism. If we do speak up, we're trying to censor people (another sign that you haven't read this thread or understood it - nobody here wants censorship under any reasonable definition of censorship). And so on. We face a constant series of assaults on our methods of discourse (as exemplified by the amazing WhiteMalePrivilege tweets that mirror you so closely) as if talking in the 'wrong' way makes us wrong. It doesn't, of course - we're right no matter how we choose to talk, and in fact we're not even talking 'wrong,' you're just painting us as having done so because you're grasping at any straw you can to stay as sexist as possible without looking like it's your fault for being a misogynist.
A few pages back (it seems like years now) someone linked the D&D thread you started all about this stuff, the conclusion of which was that you don't understand anything and have managed to adopt a mindset that ensures that you never will until something changes. But the thing that needs to change is you. You need to just take a step back from the horrid shit you currently believe and reevaluate your life. Stop looking to us for good reasons to do so - the set of beliefs you're currently equipped with is already going to make you reject everything we say, either because it will find some bullshit reason why we're wrong or because it will decide we're (adorably) trying to hard, as if that's some sort of legitimate critique and not a blatant attempt to silence people you disagree with by asserting that your method of discourse is the only acceptable one and that everyone should shut up and if they don't shut up it doesn't matter, their voice means nothing, it's adorable that they even bother to open their mouths and speak.
So I think this thread (just like your D&D thread) can't help you, and you sure as today's PA comic's giant set of testicles can't help us. I think you can agree with me on this. You haven't seen anything convincing in this thread, and I think I speak for the rest of this thread when I say we haven't seen anything convincing in what you've said.
Given that, the best option is to duck out, yes? You're not helping us, we're not helping you. The place to learn, for you, isn't here. It's in self-searching, I think, but that's neither here nor there, really - all I'm saying is that what you're doing right now isn't getting us anywhere.
A character... isn't a person? What?
I think you have it entirely backwards. If an object is something tangible, and if a character is fictional, and if fictional things are not tangible, then by definition characters are not objects.
I'm certainly hopeful.
Steam // Secret Satan
I absolutely want a second thread on this if this gets closed at 100. This NEEDS to be somewhere and if not here, where? I can't even begin to count all the quotes I have to pull from here to put elsewhere.
I want you to know @Black_Heart that I don't think less of you for what has been said here, and I'm not trying to attack you or the things you like. I just want you to understand, and I'm trying to help make that happen to the best of my ability. I am being as open as I can about this, and I hope that you are doing the same - open in telling us how you see the issue, and open in your willingness to consider the viewpoints being presented to you.
I feel like you're getting off track.
You find sexuality that attempts to seat itself in traits belonging to a person.... as desirable, and a good trait.
Where as sexuality that is derived from the purely physical/visual aspects of something.... as undesirable, and a flaw.
That's fine. You're free to feel that way. I agree we should have more variety in games when it comes to sexuality or none at all with our characters, the difference between you and I, is that I won't discourage anyone from playing games with sexualized characters, or games where you cut off dude's dicks, or games where you rape old men, or anything else.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
It's true! Every time I watch a movie, I never once forget that all of it is a work of fiction. I always review the characters as complete robots who are just performing motions according to a script.
And as such, I'm also not influenced by the portrayal of so called "people" in other forms of art either.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
That is a difference.
But why is it better though?