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 mean, 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.
Art is expression. The sexuality or sexual objectivity of the characters exists as an expression of their creator and those that experience them. This alludes back to a point I made. And I quote "The farthest extreme that has been suggested in this thread is that, given the pervasiveness of the issue within the industry and corporate culture in general and society at large, people in the media should be discouraged from perpetuating oversexualized imagery via harsh scrutinization and criticism." The definition of how these characters exist as objects in a video game does not render there sexuality any more or less existent than our own given the function of art within society and the concept that any difference between artists, the characters they create, and the people who view them and react to them are only perceived as a function of our experiences and the inferences we make based upon them. A child with no other experience than what he or she has perceived in the art that surrounds him/her will be a function of that art; for better or worse. Hence those studies that were linked earlier.
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.
I agree. However gender is the best way to start this. Once that's on track and moving inclusion should definately be stretched out to cover all other "minorities".
Question: Is it okay to browbeat game designers for designing games with aspects you dislike?
Yes.
Why? I mean... isn't that censorship? Why should anyone be limited in what they are allowed to create?
I liken this to Tyler Perry's films always following a patter of wealthy light skinned black people getting their lives saved by darker, poorer black people or not getting saved at all. It was cute at first, but after sooooooooo many, its kind of hard to be a lighter skinned black man and see those movies.
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.
Thank you Wyborn.
You've been the most civil and intelligent person in this thread in my opinion.
I am open to other opinions. I understand this debate and the issues, I've been following it for years.
However just because someone considers alternative viewpoints... doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
Some people seem to believe that if you don't agree with them, you don't understand them.
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
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 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.
You have (vaguely) correctly identified the difference between yourself and @Wyborn, and more generally between yourself and a lot of posters here. (I don't think you've drawn the distinction perfectly - we don't have issues with sexuality that is purely physical/visual except when it exists in a culture where it creates an atmosphere that leads to tangible bad results for women. There's nothing wrong with drawing sexy ladies, but when every lady you draw is sexy, even if she has no reason to be sexy, you send messages like 'women must always be attractive' or 'whatever your other traits as a woman, your looks must also be perfect for you to be a character anyone would give a shit about' or 'video games are made by men for men, women can go fuck themselves' and so on.)
What you now need to do is figure out why Wyborn and others have arrived at this position and why you've arrived at the other position. From that D&D thread you posted it sounds like you've got some answers, but they're horrifically misogynistic answers that unfortunately we aren't really equipped to divest you of, both because you're stupendously hostile to us, you're unwilling to read through the stuff we've already posted in this thread or you're unable to understand it, and because these and other faults lie in you and not in us and thus we can't fix them.
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.
Hm, how shall I put it so you understand.. Omg lolr cutting off heads is the same as sexualization rofl.. Yes?
Then please explain how a game depicting one negative action is fine and another isn't.
Now that, the question of "sex versus violence in games", how we're inured to violence but sex just kind of baffles us, and how that's both a result of and a contributing factor to the fact that game producers are scared of real sex being in their games but you can do unspeakable acts of violence to a person, that's an interesting question.
It's so interesting, though, and so huge, that I think it's beyond the bounds of this particular discussion.
I find this very sad (maybe it's worth having a separate thread) that we've basically gone, "Well, there's no way around it: some games are violent, and and the alternative is impossible to figure out."
Then again, I can't offer an alternative argument either. It just seems tremendously defeatist.
Please don't criticise my creations! I have so much integrity and seriousness about my creativity.
I'm reminded of, a while back, I said I hoped that all games, as part of console OS architecture, would allow custom soundtrack support (like the Xbox 360 does presently), because sometimes, let's face it, game soundtracks suck. Hilariously, a few people cried, "How dare you! Those creative creators have gone through an exacting process in selecting their soundtracks! How dare you not appreciate it all the time, no matter what?"
Sometimes, creative choices suck. This thread has clearly demonstrated that.
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
How do we use this thread for more constructive conversation? By and large most people are in agreement, and the only posts that take place are little news updates to look at. The thread moves at about a page a day under those conditions.
Then a poster like SKFM or Blackheart comes in and rehashes old arguments that have already been pretty solidly covered, while generally abstaining from engaging in real discussion.
Rather than running in circles with the same tired point, what can we do to make this thread a more productive place to have meaningful conversation on the subject?
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
You're misinterpreting my meaning, probably because of the different meanings of the word "object."
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
Fleur de Alys on
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
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 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.
That, hrm.
I want to say it's not so simple as that. There's a difference, you know? Take the character Margot in Witcher 2. Her sexuality is primarily verbal and visual - she is, after all, a prostitute. She's also middle-aged, dumpy, and absolutely caked in rouge. She's sexual, and in the lore she's an object of desire, but she's not designed to give me wood.
And making characters who are the object of desire is not bad. I like looking at sexy people, @Cambiata likes looking at sexy people, @Jeedan and @Blackjack and @Magic Pink and @Grouch and @TychoCelchuuu and @OneAngryPossum and pretty much everyone in this thread, we all like to look at sexy people. Sexy people are great. Sometimes we want to smooch on them, and looking at them is pretty nice too.
But that's not the only thing we want to see. There are a bunch of reasons for that. One of the big ones is that if you look at people just as objects of desire, you stop seeing them as people and start seeing them as nice butts, or fantastic hips, or calves that could cut diamond, or a collarbone so chiseled it looks like Michelangelo died making it. These are great things, but - and this is true, there are studies linked by @Grouch earlier - after a while, if you are treated solely to objects of people as objects of desire, that's all you see them as.
You stop empathizing with them.
And that's about as bad as it's possible to get. We want to promote empathy, you know? That's what it's all about. Being able to see the lady who wants to work in visual design for EA and going, "All right. Let's look at that portfolio," as opposed to going, "Oh man, another dame in the office, like life isn't complicated enough already"
Some people seem to believe that if you don't agree with them, you don't understand them.
Because you've shown you don't. You're struggling to remain "the victim" in this. This isn't about never seeing a sexy women in media again and denying straight men and lesbians their titillations; that's a very common argument that always gets jumped on right up there with "guys are just as objectified, look at Conan and Rambo!"
It's about including other depictions of men and women; it's that simple.
If you know already why your opinions differ, why was your entire thing for pages asking question upon question? Were you asking in earnest? What did you discover?
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
You're misinterpreting my meaning, probably because of the different meanings of the word "object."
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
True, but as you say, objectified tends to have a different meaning in reference to sexuality.
How do we use this thread for more constructive conversation? By and large most people are in agreement, and the only posts that take place are little news updates to look at. The thread moves at about a page a day under those conditions.
Then a poster like SKFM or Blackheart comes in and rehashes old arguments that have already been pretty solidly covered, while generally abstaining from engaging in real discussion.
Rather than running in circles with the same tired point, what can we do to make this thread a more productive place to have meaningful conversation on the subject?
On the one hand, a part of me just hopes people roll their eyes and move on, because you have to go to heroic levels of minutia to even communicate.
On the other hand I, like a lot of people, used to be that exact same ignorant jackass, and I really do appreciate the patient people who took time to explain things to me, which I then mulled over and studied on and became marginally less ignorant. So I find it hard to begrudge someone else those same resources.
But man this kind of thing sure does take a crap on the thread.
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
You're misinterpreting my meaning, probably because of the different meanings of the word "object."
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
I believe you are referring to Mario as an avatar in this case, a stand-in for the whims of the player
This isn't actually a bad thing in any way, and it's difficult to interpret as a bad thing. He's still a character - but it's more like a mask that the player wears. He is not reduced in any way by this.
Now ask me how I feel about Samus in her tank top and panties in Metroid 2
Yeah, but I like to look at sexy dudes, so I never get to in my video games. It's always the same gruff, buzzed hair, generic space marine
Don't forget his 4 layers of armour over a grotequely roided physique that apprently made his balls completely drop off because uh... let's just say looks like UPS lost his package.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't say my opinions are specifically misogynistic, they are cold, callous, and as objective as possible.
This here? Textbook example of said suppression technique as a tool for misogynism and exertion of power to dominate and belittle. And I literally mean textbook example.
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.
Thank you Wyborn.
You've been the most civil and intelligent person in this thread in my opinion.
I am open to other opinions. I understand this debate and the issues, I've been following it for years.
However just because someone considers alternative viewpoints... doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
Some people seem to believe that if you don't agree with them, you don't understand them.
Well, it's kind of important to demonstrate that you do understand that which you don't agree with. Or, at the very least, try to avoid saying things that demonstrate that you do not understand. There is fairly widespread agreement among those that disagree with you that this isn't about censorship, and this isn't about destroying things. And yet, you've consistently gone back to characterizing the viewpoint of those who disagree with you as "trying to get rid of something you personally don't like," "trying to destroy a piece of media," "trying to stop certain depictions in media," etc.
Yeah, but I like to look at sexy dudes, so I never get to in my video games. It's always the same gruff, buzzed hair, generic space marine
Sometimes you gotta' work for your eye candy. Granted, I'm more of a "look at sexy ladies" kind of guy, and it took a load of modding to get to do that in Skyrim.
Even then, yeah, there's certainly a staggering towards one over the other in US franchises. Though Skyrim might not have been the best example...
this is a battle of attitudes and mindshare, not censorship.
if i'm an artist, and i decide to draw a mural on the outside of my house, i'm PROBABLY NOT going to draw dismembered bodies being violated by animals. If i did, i would likely face the outrage of the community, the rejection of family and friends, and the suspicion of local law enforcement.
and yet, my drawing would still not have been 'censored' despite nearly everyone criticizing me, and my drawing.
now, the reason why artists typically don't draw such things on the outside of their homes is that they value not offending large swaths of the community MORE than they do about exercising their right to draw whatever they want.
so in the mental battle between artistic freedom and audience response, each artist makes a judgement call about what they're going to produce. no rights are being infringed - this is purely about choices that artists make.
right now, this thread came about because a significant portion of the game development community is making art for a certain segment of the gaming audience. now, voices in other parts of the community and audience are starting to speak up, applying social pressure.
the aim of this discussion, this speaking out, is to re-weight the mental calculus that each artist goes through before making an art piece for publication. we are increasing the social pressure, adding more soldiers to the mental battleground, hoping to sway minds.
this is inherently human. this is how election campaigns work, how advertising works, how conversations work. Even the presence of this 'pointless' discussion is increasing the social pressure on artists and producers. Before, art directors who created characters like those seen in Dragon's Crown didn't feel pressured to 'respond' to critics. we are already changing the minds of artists, and we will continue to change them.
so in the end, it doesn't matter if there's no evidence that media affects behavior. We are acting under the assumption that it does, and we are applying forces to our model of society, and we are frankly seeing results.
we're winning.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
You're misinterpreting my meaning, probably because of the different meanings of the word "object."
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
"Objectification" is a word that describes taking a person and depicting that person as an object. Mario is very clearly objectified when his personality, motivations, and dialogue are removed. He is turned into a little jumping object with no hopes or dreams aside from saving a girl from a gorilla. That is a perfect example of objectification!
Yeah, but I like to look at sexy dudes, so I never get to in my video games. It's always the same gruff, buzzed hair, generic space marine
This, sort of. I mean that I agree with this but that's not my take on it.
For instance, a few threads ago there was a terrific post that showed "male fantasy" Batman and "female fantasy" Batman next to each other. Well, fuck those terms. I want to be the Batman on the right, the "female fantasy" one. I don't want stupid engorged muscles. I don't want the strength to put the beat down on giant alien monster invaders. I want to be the sexy guy!
Despite the words that make up the term, this "white male privilege" bullshit hasn't ever done anything for this white male. It's all a bunch of weird-looking dudes I can't identify with and absolutely don't want to be. It's a thorough eradication of any sort of "male sexiness" that there could be, and if I even pursued it I'd probably be thought of as gay for some reason. Depicting sexy women is nice, but then for some reason there's this pervasive thought that a woman who goes out and pursues / gets sex (like, say, DA2's Isabella) is one of: "whore", "slut", "skank", or some other demeaning term that actually discourages this behavior. Wait, what? Why do I, a straight male, want to discourage women from being sexual?
It's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit, and the people who actually benefit from this are so few and specific that it's infuriating. It isn't even "white males" -- you have to start adding "Type A", "alpha", "rich", and an assortment of other crap to start filling out the real picture.
Wow, there's a vent out of nowhere. What can I say, I'm really frustrated. I hate the status quo, but then you see "white male privilege" thrown around making me feel excluded from being part of the solution, and once again I'm caught between every "side". That's not directed at anyone in particular; I mean I just barged in here, it's not like anyone's done anything to me. It's just general venting at the world.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
I don't want to agree with Black_Heart (the last five pages have been a pretty horrible read), but in some cases it's actually true that video game "characters" really are more object than person.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
Characters that are "more object than person" are just textbook examples of objectification of people. I can make real human beings into "more object than person" by the way I depict them, and if I do this to a character in a video game it is no less objectification.
You're misinterpreting my meaning, probably because of the different meanings of the word "object."
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
"Objectification" is a word that describes taking a person and depicting that person as an object. Mario is very clearly objectified when his personality, motivations, and dialogue are removed. He is turned into a little jumping object with no hopes or dreams aside from saving a girl from a gorilla. That is a perfect example of objectification!
Man, I don't know if I necessarily agree with this.
I think of "object" as being grammatically derived: they are the object to your verb. If we go by your definition, the avatar of the player is an inherently harmful position to have, but I don't think that's true.
i'm PROBABLY NOT going to draw dismembered bodies being violated by animals. If i did, i would likely face the outrage of the community, the rejection of family and friends, and the suspicion of local law enforcement.
Why would they do that though? To mistreat you based on something so frivolous? What is their justification?
Before, art directors who created characters like those seen in Dragon's Crown didn't feel pressured to 'respond' to critics. we are already changing the minds of artists, and we will continue to change them.
Thank goodness Japan exists.
so in the end, it doesn't matter if there's no evidence that media affects behavior. We are acting under the assumption that it does, and we are applying forces to our model of society, and we are frankly seeing results.
we're winning.
Awesome! I hope to see more diversity in games, as long as people are still free to make what they want.
For instance, a few threads ago there was a terrific post that showed "male fantasy" Batman and "female fantasy" Batman next to each other. Well, fuck those terms. I want to be the Batman on the right, the "female fantasy" one. I don't want stupid engorged muscles. I don't want the strength to put the beat down on giant alien monster invaders. I want to be the sexy guy!
Actually, they both pretty much had the same physique. They were just presented differently.
Yeah, but I like to look at sexy dudes, so I never get to in my video games. It's always the same gruff, buzzed hair, generic space marine
This, sort of. I mean that I agree with this but that's not my take on it.
For instance, a few threads ago there was a terrific post that showed "male fantasy" Batman and "female fantasy" Batman next to each other. Well, fuck those terms. I want to be the Batman on the right, the "female fantasy" one. I don't want stupid engorged muscles. I don't want the strength to put the beat down on giant alien monster invaders. I want to be the sexy guy!
Despite the words that make up the term, this "white male privilege" bullshit hasn't ever done anything for this white male. It's all a bunch of weird-looking dudes I can't identify with and absolutely don't want to be. It's a thorough eradication of any sort of "male sexiness" that there could be, and if I even pursued it I'd probably be thought of as gay for some reason. Depicting sexy women is nice, but then for some reason there's this pervasive thought that a woman who goes out and pursues / gets sex (like, say, DA2's Isabella) is one of: "whore", "slut", "skank", or some other demeaning term that actually discourages this behavior. Wait, what? Why do I, a straight male, want to discourage women from being sexual?
It's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit, and the people who actually benefit from this are so few and specific that it's infuriating. It isn't even "white males" -- you have to start adding "Type A", "alpha", "rich", and an assortment of other crap to start filling out the real picture.
Wow, there's a vent out of nowhere. What can I say, I'm really frustrated. I hate the status quo, but then you see "white male privilege" thrown around making me feel excluded from being part of the solution, and once again I'm caught between every "side". That's not directed at anyone in particular; I mean I just barged in here, it's not like anyone's done anything to me. It's just general venting at the world.
It's okay.
Talking about white male privilege isn't an attack on white males. You recognize where you have cultural advantages and you're mindful of that; given that, you're not excluded from the discussion by the term. Neither am I. Neither are a lot of white dudes in this thread.
"White male privilege" is generally leveled against people who are not mindful of it. It's about people who don't care, or who don't recognize it exists.
And yes, the perpetuation of male power fantasies fitting to one mold is also harmful to men, but I think that's a different subject compared to WMP.
why do you keep coming back to this idea that people will not be allowed to make what they want, that they will be censored
Because it's the easiest to argue against, of course. The fact that not a single person in the thread has argued for such a state of affairs doesn't really come in to it, I guess.
It's like arguing that Ice Cream is delicious. Easy victory!
Posts
Art is expression. The sexuality or sexual objectivity of the characters exists as an expression of their creator and those that experience them. This alludes back to a point I made. And I quote "The farthest extreme that has been suggested in this thread is that, given the pervasiveness of the issue within the industry and corporate culture in general and society at large, people in the media should be discouraged from perpetuating oversexualized imagery via harsh scrutinization and criticism." The definition of how these characters exist as objects in a video game does not render there sexuality any more or less existent than our own given the function of art within society and the concept that any difference between artists, the characters they create, and the people who view them and react to them are only perceived as a function of our experiences and the inferences we make based upon them. A child with no other experience than what he or she has perceived in the art that surrounds him/her will be a function of that art; for better or worse. Hence those studies that were linked earlier.
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
You know what we call this? Master suppression technique.
I'm rapidly running out of reasons to keep you in this thread.
I agree. However gender is the best way to start this. Once that's on track and moving inclusion should definately be stretched out to cover all other "minorities".
I liken this to Tyler Perry's films always following a patter of wealthy light skinned black people getting their lives saved by darker, poorer black people or not getting saved at all. It was cute at first, but after sooooooooo many, its kind of hard to be a lighter skinned black man and see those movies.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Thank you Wyborn.
You've been the most civil and intelligent person in this thread in my opinion.
I am open to other opinions. I understand this debate and the issues, I've been following it for years.
However just because someone considers alternative viewpoints... doesn't mean you have to agree with them.
Some people seem to believe that if you don't agree with them, you don't understand them.
I don't know much about Dragon's Crown, but let's work off the assumption that it's a fairly shallow beat-'em-up with a minimalist plot and basically no interaction (if this isn't true, pretend that it is for the duration of this post). The "characters" in this game really are just objects in this case -- caricatures at an absolute best. Minimalist personality, zero development, no investigation. And for a lot of games, that's perfectly fine.
I don't want to see that in my Dragon Age games (for example). These games really focus on character. There's actual development, real investigation, three-dimensional personalities. And by having properly-developed characters (and a wide range of them), they can get away with having an Isabella or two -- there are plenty of counter-examples, the character has an actual identity beyond the sexual presentation, and that identity can even be written to support the presentation rather than existing in spite of it.
None of this is intended to comment on the overall excess of specific styles and designs for female characters in the industry at large.
What you now need to do is figure out why Wyborn and others have arrived at this position and why you've arrived at the other position. From that D&D thread you posted it sounds like you've got some answers, but they're horrifically misogynistic answers that unfortunately we aren't really equipped to divest you of, both because you're stupendously hostile to us, you're unwilling to read through the stuff we've already posted in this thread or you're unable to understand it, and because these and other faults lie in you and not in us and thus we can't fix them.
I find this very sad (maybe it's worth having a separate thread) that we've basically gone, "Well, there's no way around it: some games are violent, and and the alternative is impossible to figure out."
Then again, I can't offer an alternative argument either. It just seems tremendously defeatist.
I'm reminded of, a while back, I said I hoped that all games, as part of console OS architecture, would allow custom soundtrack support (like the Xbox 360 does presently), because sometimes, let's face it, game soundtracks suck. Hilariously, a few people cried, "How dare you! Those creative creators have gone through an exacting process in selecting their soundtracks! How dare you not appreciate it all the time, no matter what?"
Sometimes, creative choices suck. This thread has clearly demonstrated that.
Then a poster like SKFM or Blackheart comes in and rehashes old arguments that have already been pretty solidly covered, while generally abstaining from engaging in real discussion.
Rather than running in circles with the same tired point, what can we do to make this thread a more productive place to have meaningful conversation on the subject?
I know why our opinions differ.
I wouldn't say my opinions are specifically misogynistic, they are cold, callous, and as objective as possible.
Let me try with a very neutral example. Mario at the time of the original Super Mario Bros. is more of an "object" than a "character." He has no personality, no motivations, no dialogue (or even monologue). His quirky appearance (cover-alls and bushy mustache) made him appealing, but it doesn't make him into a "character" in the sense that we can identify him as a person.
He isn't explicitly "objectified" in any way by the game designers. It's just that he has nothing in the game that gives him "person traits."
That, hrm.
I want to say it's not so simple as that. There's a difference, you know? Take the character Margot in Witcher 2. Her sexuality is primarily verbal and visual - she is, after all, a prostitute. She's also middle-aged, dumpy, and absolutely caked in rouge. She's sexual, and in the lore she's an object of desire, but she's not designed to give me wood.
And making characters who are the object of desire is not bad. I like looking at sexy people, @Cambiata likes looking at sexy people, @Jeedan and @Blackjack and @Magic Pink and @Grouch and @TychoCelchuuu and @OneAngryPossum and pretty much everyone in this thread, we all like to look at sexy people. Sexy people are great. Sometimes we want to smooch on them, and looking at them is pretty nice too.
But that's not the only thing we want to see. There are a bunch of reasons for that. One of the big ones is that if you look at people just as objects of desire, you stop seeing them as people and start seeing them as nice butts, or fantastic hips, or calves that could cut diamond, or a collarbone so chiseled it looks like Michelangelo died making it. These are great things, but - and this is true, there are studies linked by @Grouch earlier - after a while, if you are treated solely to objects of people as objects of desire, that's all you see them as.
You stop empathizing with them.
And that's about as bad as it's possible to get. We want to promote empathy, you know? That's what it's all about. Being able to see the lady who wants to work in visual design for EA and going, "All right. Let's look at that portfolio," as opposed to going, "Oh man, another dame in the office, like life isn't complicated enough already"
Because you've shown you don't. You're struggling to remain "the victim" in this. This isn't about never seeing a sexy women in media again and denying straight men and lesbians their titillations; that's a very common argument that always gets jumped on right up there with "guys are just as objectified, look at Conan and Rambo!"
It's about including other depictions of men and women; it's that simple.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
True, but as you say, objectified tends to have a different meaning in reference to sexuality.
That's really not any better.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
On the one hand, a part of me just hopes people roll their eyes and move on, because you have to go to heroic levels of minutia to even communicate.
On the other hand I, like a lot of people, used to be that exact same ignorant jackass, and I really do appreciate the patient people who took time to explain things to me, which I then mulled over and studied on and became marginally less ignorant. So I find it hard to begrudge someone else those same resources.
But man this kind of thing sure does take a crap on the thread.
I believe you are referring to Mario as an avatar in this case, a stand-in for the whims of the player
This isn't actually a bad thing in any way, and it's difficult to interpret as a bad thing. He's still a character - but it's more like a mask that the player wears. He is not reduced in any way by this.
Now ask me how I feel about Samus in her tank top and panties in Metroid 2
Don't forget his 4 layers of armour over a grotequely roided physique that apprently made his balls completely drop off because uh... let's just say looks like UPS lost his package.
Man, tell me about it!
This here? Textbook example of said suppression technique as a tool for misogynism and exertion of power to dominate and belittle. And I literally mean textbook example.
Well, it's kind of important to demonstrate that you do understand that which you don't agree with. Or, at the very least, try to avoid saying things that demonstrate that you do not understand. There is fairly widespread agreement among those that disagree with you that this isn't about censorship, and this isn't about destroying things. And yet, you've consistently gone back to characterizing the viewpoint of those who disagree with you as "trying to get rid of something you personally don't like," "trying to destroy a piece of media," "trying to stop certain depictions in media," etc.
That makes it seem like you don't understand.
Sometimes you gotta' work for your eye candy. Granted, I'm more of a "look at sexy ladies" kind of guy, and it took a load of modding to get to do that in Skyrim.
Even then, yeah, there's certainly a staggering towards one over the other in US franchises. Though Skyrim might not have been the best example...
this is a battle of attitudes and mindshare, not censorship.
if i'm an artist, and i decide to draw a mural on the outside of my house, i'm PROBABLY NOT going to draw dismembered bodies being violated by animals. If i did, i would likely face the outrage of the community, the rejection of family and friends, and the suspicion of local law enforcement.
and yet, my drawing would still not have been 'censored' despite nearly everyone criticizing me, and my drawing.
now, the reason why artists typically don't draw such things on the outside of their homes is that they value not offending large swaths of the community MORE than they do about exercising their right to draw whatever they want.
so in the mental battle between artistic freedom and audience response, each artist makes a judgement call about what they're going to produce. no rights are being infringed - this is purely about choices that artists make.
right now, this thread came about because a significant portion of the game development community is making art for a certain segment of the gaming audience. now, voices in other parts of the community and audience are starting to speak up, applying social pressure.
the aim of this discussion, this speaking out, is to re-weight the mental calculus that each artist goes through before making an art piece for publication. we are increasing the social pressure, adding more soldiers to the mental battleground, hoping to sway minds.
this is inherently human. this is how election campaigns work, how advertising works, how conversations work. Even the presence of this 'pointless' discussion is increasing the social pressure on artists and producers. Before, art directors who created characters like those seen in Dragon's Crown didn't feel pressured to 'respond' to critics. we are already changing the minds of artists, and we will continue to change them.
so in the end, it doesn't matter if there's no evidence that media affects behavior. We are acting under the assumption that it does, and we are applying forces to our model of society, and we are frankly seeing results.
we're winning.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I've always thought the sands of time was pretty funny in this regard because the prince literally sheds a new layer of clothing every level.
I'm into women and I can recognize anyway
That game had a really good balanced of having sexy, sexual characters of both genders who were not just sex objecs
For instance, a few threads ago there was a terrific post that showed "male fantasy" Batman and "female fantasy" Batman next to each other. Well, fuck those terms. I want to be the Batman on the right, the "female fantasy" one. I don't want stupid engorged muscles. I don't want the strength to put the beat down on giant alien monster invaders. I want to be the sexy guy!
Despite the words that make up the term, this "white male privilege" bullshit hasn't ever done anything for this white male. It's all a bunch of weird-looking dudes I can't identify with and absolutely don't want to be. It's a thorough eradication of any sort of "male sexiness" that there could be, and if I even pursued it I'd probably be thought of as gay for some reason. Depicting sexy women is nice, but then for some reason there's this pervasive thought that a woman who goes out and pursues / gets sex (like, say, DA2's Isabella) is one of: "whore", "slut", "skank", or some other demeaning term that actually discourages this behavior. Wait, what? Why do I, a straight male, want to discourage women from being sexual?
It's all bullshit on top of bullshit on top of bullshit, and the people who actually benefit from this are so few and specific that it's infuriating. It isn't even "white males" -- you have to start adding "Type A", "alpha", "rich", and an assortment of other crap to start filling out the real picture.
Wow, there's a vent out of nowhere. What can I say, I'm really frustrated. I hate the status quo, but then you see "white male privilege" thrown around making me feel excluded from being part of the solution, and once again I'm caught between every "side". That's not directed at anyone in particular; I mean I just barged in here, it's not like anyone's done anything to me. It's just general venting at the world.
Man, I don't know if I necessarily agree with this.
I think of "object" as being grammatically derived: they are the object to your verb. If we go by your definition, the avatar of the player is an inherently harmful position to have, but I don't think that's true.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Why would they do that though? To mistreat you based on something so frivolous? What is their justification?
Thank goodness Japan exists.
Awesome! I hope to see more diversity in games, as long as people are still free to make what they want.
Actually, they both pretty much had the same physique. They were just presented differently.
It's okay.
Talking about white male privilege isn't an attack on white males. You recognize where you have cultural advantages and you're mindful of that; given that, you're not excluded from the discussion by the term. Neither am I. Neither are a lot of white dudes in this thread.
"White male privilege" is generally leveled against people who are not mindful of it. It's about people who don't care, or who don't recognize it exists.
And yes, the perpetuation of male power fantasies fitting to one mold is also harmful to men, but I think that's a different subject compared to WMP.
Because it keeps being implied? Also maybe because it makes you angry. Not sure which one.
Because if he doesn't he won't have an argument at all.
Because it's the easiest to argue against, of course. The fact that not a single person in the thread has argued for such a state of affairs doesn't really come in to it, I guess.
It's like arguing that Ice Cream is delicious. Easy victory!
literally no one has been implying it
also how old are you