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!
Nothing was "removed" because nothing was there to start with. You don't start with "Mario the person" and reduce him down to "jumping object." You create a game about a "jumping object" and slather a goofy semi-personal avatar on top of it.
Wyborn's use of "avatar" is appropriate here.
I'm honestly a bit baffled as to what you're fighting for in this case?
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
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!
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!
and yet here we are.
yes you have absolutely proved you don't know what's going on.
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.
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 keeps being implied? Also maybe because it makes you angry. Not sure which one.
I think you need to recognize that you are being more than a little antagonistic.
I want you to remember that no one is trying to take away the things you like. That is not me being condescending - that is a statement of fact. Nobody wants to take away dating sims, or busty JRPG babes, or the asari, or anything like that. Things meant to appeal to straight dudes would still be there. There would just be other things.
And I also want to point out that no single creative vision is served in the creation of most large-scale video games. Video games are created by a village, often hundreds of people, and it is the social and societal mores of that village that determines what the acceptable outline of the product is.
But, again
I think you need to realize you are being antagonistic. Maybe take a break for a bit.
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?
because humanity - people in general - are not naturally imbued with a perfect respect for the abstract concept of free speech. it is a social construct, and yet it is also limited by the bounds of social interaction.
you've said your opinions are "cold, callous, and as objective as possible". well, most people's aren't - they're tied to, modified by, and mixed in with their needs for interaction and approval.
so your non-understanding of why people take offense is honestly more of an indicator that you don't think like most people.
which is fine!
but again, the social model we are operating under assumes a more empathetic average person, so we're gonna pretty much stick with that. sorry we don't have a slot for you.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Question: Is it okay to browbeat game designers for designing games with aspects you dislike?
Yes.
I believe he was implying that if you believe that someone is doing something distasteful or problematic, it is okay to express your distaste in strong terms in the hopes that the person responsible for the distasteful or problematic thing will think that it was bad and will feel bad as a result.
That's not censorship.
+3
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Oh my god he didn't really use "mein fuhrer" did he? Ha ha, wow.
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!
Nothing was "removed" because nothing was there to start with. You don't start with "Mario the person" and reduce him down to "jumping object." You create a game about a "jumping object" and slather a goofy semi-personal avatar on top of it.
Wyborn's use of "avatar" is appropriate here.
I'm honestly a bit baffled as to what you're fighting for in this case?
I'm not fighting for anything! I'm just explaining what objectification is. I think we have a misunderstanding, because stuff like this:
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.
Suggests that you and Wyborn are thinking of objectification as bad, which is wrong. Objectification is just a thing! It's no more or less bad than anything else we do in art when we simplify things. For example, making a statue out of someone is "objectifying" them because you are literally turning them into an object. A statue in this case.
So when they objectify Mario by making him into Jump Man and nothing more, this isn't necessarily problematic. Hell, when people objectify women and turn then into ~~~sexy bodieezz~~~ that's not necessarily bad. It's what gets us stuff like the Venus de Milo.
Objectification is only a problem when it leads to tangible bad results, and sexual objectification (the kind we've been talking about here) is only wrong in specific circumstances, such as the current gaming industry and current society where sexual objectification of women is so rampant that it communicates all sorts of awful things to people about who women are and who women ought to be.
Before I went for a walk, I noticed a post asking why it was a good idea to try to change the industry.
I. An industry that's more friendly to women will feature better talent at all levels. There's a Warren Buffet quote out there where he says that part of the reason for his success is that he was competing against only 50% of the population. An industry that's friendlier to women will result in more women competing for jobs in all levels of the gaming industry, which will mean better people in many roles, which will mean better games for everyone.
II. Reducing sexualization and objectification of women in games will make games more appealing to female audiences, which will increase the profit margins of games and lead to more games being produced.
III. The gaming industry is becoming out of sync with current Western cultural attitudes about women and their role in society. Failure to recognize that behaviors that would not have resulted in censure in the 1950s are unacceptable today will lead to backlash that may include lack of sales, increased disrespect and criticism for the medium as a whole from outside the industry, and significant legal issues with regards to internal cases of sexism.
IV. It's not just women that dislike seeing overtly sexualized women virtually everywhere in the gaming world, along with very few worthwhile female characters. Many of the men posting in this thread are guys who are tired of playing endless grizzled marines, and want more variety. Variety is the spice of life and all, and including different perspectives and ideas and backgrounds and stories is to the benefit of the gaming world, men and women alike. Increased diversity makes things more interesting overall, which benefits all gamers.
So. Four reasons I thought of while walking, ones that don't take any moral issues that anyone might want to debate into account. An industry that's more friendly to women will have better talent and produce better games. An industry that's selling to a wider audience will make more money and sell more games. An industry that isn't falling behind the larger social sphere will not be shooting itself in the foot and causing problems for itself. And better, more interesting games through increased diversity.
Now, the answer I expect: Well, just make more art.
Here's the problem: I fully 100% agree with that in principle. In the long run, more art will mean better competition of ideas and I feel completely confident that sexual equality is a winning idea, that reducing objectification and sexualization of women in games is a winning idea, and greater diversity is a winning idea. The problem is that the gaming industry is currently lacking in people making that kind of art.
In some industries, I feel that the role of women has been increased to the point where women bear a significant (NOT total, and generally NOT majority) of the burden in increasing the amount of art to change the playing field. Take literature. While men have an unfortunate stranglehold on prestige literature and possibly on publishers, day to day reading is a field dominated by female authors and buyers. As I write this, seven of the ten top bestsellers on the New York Times list are by women, and that's not unusual. Generally speaking, women are more likely to be authors than men. Women bear a significant responsibility (though BY NO MEANS total responsibility, I need to be clear on that) in the publishing field to make art that improves the lot of women. I believe that the ball is rolling in the publishing industry, and the last remaining male strangleholds can and will be broken by women currently working in that industry today.
Women are not currently in place in the gaming industry like they are in the publishing industry.
As such, it is men in the gaming industry that need to be willing to adapt and change and make room. In the case of the gaming industry, men are the ones that need to put their backs into it to get the ball rolling and make more and better art. As more women enter the industry and make more art, that ball will pick up speed, but for the moment there just aren't enough women in the industry to get that ball moving very fast. Instead, it falls to game designers and studio executives to look to the long term and ask where they want the industry to be in ten years, and it falls to socially conscious gamers to raise awareness of the problem and to ask studios and designers to make better games.
Shadowhope on
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
IF you are going to present anything within the purview of society, it's going to be open to criticism. If people wish to criticize, they will state their reasons. At which point, if you decide to either accept or reject those criticisms it falls on you to have reasons why. In the case of acceptance, their own reasons have persuaded you. In the case of denial, you have reasons that counter their criticisms. The larger thing here is that nothing is really gained from this cross-talk unless the debate actually occurs and is carried out in good faith. To the idea of a painter painting decapitated bodies on his house in view of the public, while his reasons would be heavily scrutinized due to the controversial nature, there are entirely possible (if a bit unsettling) scenarios where there would be valid reasons for such an action. Taken to an extreme, the historic image of a buddhist priest burning himself alive in protest, while wholly disturbing, has merit.
EDIT: An entire page happened so my post might seem out of place, sorry. Also, is it weird that I'm not a fan of either of those pictures of Batman?
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!
Nothing was "removed" because nothing was there to start with. You don't start with "Mario the person" and reduce him down to "jumping object." You create a game about a "jumping object" and slather a goofy semi-personal avatar on top of it.
Wyborn's use of "avatar" is appropriate here.
I'm honestly a bit baffled as to what you're fighting for in this case?
I'm not fighting for anything! I'm just explaining what objectification is. I think we have a misunderstanding, because stuff like this:
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.
Suggests that you and Wyborn are thinking of objectification as bad, which is wrong. Objectification is just a thing! It's no more or less bad than anything else we do in art when we simplify things. For example, making a statue out of someone is "objectifying" them because you are literally turning them into an object. A statue in this case.
So when they objectify Mario by making him into Jump Man and nothing more, this isn't necessarily problematic. Hell, when people objectify women and turn then into ~~~sexy bodieezz~~~ that's not necessarily bad. It's what gets us stuff like the Venus de Milo.
Objectification is only a problem when it leads to tangible bad results, and sexual objectification (the kind we've been talking about here) is only wrong in specific circumstances, such as the current gaming industry and current society where sexual objectification of women is so rampant that it communicates all sorts of awful things to people about who women are and who women ought to be.
I think we may have different definitions of "objectify" in this case.
But, given that it seems to be subtle enough that it's difficult to elucidate on while remaining profound enough that we disagree on it, I think I'm going to have to bow out of this particular line of discussion. Once we get down to actual semantics I don't have the same enthusiasm or energy I might otherwise
EDIT:
I do want to say, though, that I do not think objectification is inherently bad, regardless of which definition is being used.
Oh my god please do not use my post to deny the existence of white privilege. Please don't do that.
Not my intention, I assure you
Okay, awesome. Sorry for jumping like that. I've been dealing with a lot of "white privilege doesn't exist" racism in my Cross Cultural classes so I knee-jerked. Sorry.
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
I dunno, knowing my wife if I showed that to her she wouldn't be able to get any work done the rest of the day.
I don't have the time to delve into this matter, but there's something to be said about characters that aren't designed to be objects that still manage to be sexy. Something to be said for subtlety, y'know?
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
See, I thought so! I thought so. One of the things I remember being brought up is that this Batman has a definite gym rat build, being shaped like a V and with his disproportionately developed pectorals.
I don't know if ladies like giant pecs as much as gay guys do? All I know is my wife like the whole design except for them pecs (and also the hair on his chest)
I see where you're coming from TC. The word is loaded (in a severely negative way) for a lot of people, so that makes it difficult to reference appropriately at times.
One of the hardest things about communication is accidentally making people feel something other than what you intended to convey, because that can result in meaning getting lost.
Like, say, how we just did for a bit there
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
I not an expert (or even in the target audience), but yes, I'd also agree this sort of objectification is aimed towards gay men. Of course, like other cases of objectification, it's just one aspect of the intellectual property being marketed (I assume), and even if it fails for some as Blackjack described, hey, there's a comic with stuff happening too.
Of course, maybe my amateur experience with American comics is totally failing me.
Yeah, historians tend to gloss over it, but Hitler had really progressive views towards women.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily glossed over, so much as "difficult to say". It's easy to forget that 1920s and 1930s Germany, particularly Berlin and elsewhere in the east, saw the rise of a tremendously radical image of society, including the role of women and the standing of women's sexuality. And at times, it was not half as radical as many views that had been expressed during the Russian Revolution. Hitler was a participant in that Germany, even if he was not as radical by a decent amount, he was still more radical (certainly more progressive) than a lot of the pre-1914 perception of German women. Certainly his efforts to appeal to the female half of the electorate of the 1920s and 1930s made him very progressive simply by the novelty of it. And as happened with other issues, the militarization of Germany meant that the actual role of women in the 'Third Reich' became often conservative, if not as conservative as it was before the first war in some respects.
It's a fascinating topic. I know a few feminist historians (self-described) who could talk for half a day on the topic, and a few German historians who could talk all day. One paragraph isn't really enough, but it's off topic as it is.
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
I not an expert (or even in the target audience), but yes, I'd also agree this sort of objectification is aimed towards gay men. Of course, like other cases of objectification, it's just one aspect of the intellectual property being marketed (I assume), and even if it fails for some as Blackjack described, hey, there's a comic with stuff happening too.
Of course, maybe my amateur experience with American comics is totally failing me.
Oh, the Phillips stuff (the one on the right, and the others I mentioned) weren't from comics. They're just a group of pictures Phillips did. Fanart, essentially.
one thing i realized while talking with some ladies yesterday
batman's superpower is literally white male privilege
i mean he uses it for good but i'd never contextualized it that way before :P
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
+7
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I went back several pages to find it, but this David Gaider interview about sexism in the game industry is really good and it flew by so fast in the fracas, I just though it should be reposted.
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
I not an expert (or even in the target audience), but yes, I'd also agree this sort of objectification is aimed towards gay men. Of course, like other cases of objectification, it's just one aspect of the intellectual property being marketed (I assume), and even if it fails for some as Blackjack described, hey, there's a comic with stuff happening too.
Of course, maybe my amateur experience with American comics is totally failing me.
Oh, the Phillips stuff (the one on the right, and the others I mentioned) weren't from comics. They're just a group of pictures Phillips did. Fanart, essentially.
Ah, I didn't think he was a writer, but I thought he was a art designer/cover art producer. Again, totally unfamiliar with how American comics work.
Yeah, historians tend to gloss over it, but Hitler had really progressive views towards women.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily glossed over, so much as "difficult to say". It's easy to forget that 1920s and 1930s Germany, particularly Berlin and elsewhere in the east, saw the rise of a tremendously radical image of society, including the role of women and the standing of women's sexuality. And at times, it was not half as radical as many views that had been expressed during the Russian Revolution. Hitler was a participant in that Germany, even if he was not as radical by a decent amount, he was still more radical (certainly more progressive) than a lot of the pre-1914 perception of German women. Certainly his efforts to appeal to the female half of the electorate of the 1920s and 1930s made him very progressive simply by the novelty of it. And as happened with other issues, the militarization of Germany meant that the actual role of women in the 'Third Reich' became often conservative, if not as conservative as it was before the first war in some respects.
It's a fascinating topic. I know a few feminist historians (self-described) who could talk for half a day on the topic, and a few German historians who could talk all day. One paragraph isn't really enough, but it's off topic as it is.
The *problem* is that a LOT of people out in the world are like Black_Heart. Like was discussed many pages ago you need to change the minds of the people, and then it will trickle out into other things.
I'll repeat what I said a bit ago, I'm 30. And I was a complete shit in regards to sexuality and women until about 3 years ago. I was always really good about race stuff, because I had 3 amazing friends who were black and their parents were like 2nd parents to me.
ANYWAY, the majority of young people out there are shits. They say faggot and retard and use gay as a pejorative and get all whiney about the opposite sex in really bad ways. And then they read like 1 book or just an excerpt from a philosopher or something and instead of it leading them down the path of actually learning something, they just use it as a way to become dogmatic and be MORE of an asshole to people.
Use these last couple pages as a learning experience. PA forums are great, BUT can be a bit of an echo chamber. It's AWESOME that people in this thread are empathetic and want the medium to be better accessible and represent us all. But we need to learn how to handle people like Black_Heart, because there are a LOT of people like that out there. People that straight up get OFFENDED and PISSED OFF if you even TALK about the idea of treating women as human beings and not objects. That's a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I mean. Change is hard, people don't want to change, because to them it's admitting they are wrong in some way. And admitting you are wrong is really hard, at least that first time. Get's real easy after that
Bigsushi.fm
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
+4
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The *problem* is that a LOT of people out in the world are like Black_Heart. Like was discussed many pages ago you need to change the minds of the people, and then it will trickle out into other things.
I'll repeat what I said a bit ago, I'm 30. And I was a complete shit in regards to sexuality and women until about 3 years ago. I was always really good about race stuff, because I had 3 amazing friends who were black and their parents were like 2nd parents to me.
ANYWAY, the majority of young people out there are shits. They say faggot and retard and use gay as a pejorative and get all whiney about the opposite sex in really bad ways. And then they read like 1 book or just an excerpt from a philosopher or something and instead of it leading them down the path of actually learning something, they just use it as a way to become dogmatic and be MORE of an asshole to people.
Use these last couple pages as a learning experience. PA forums are great, BUT can be a bit of an echo chamber. It's AWESOME that people in this thread are empathetic and want the medium to be better accessible and represent us all. But we need to learn how to handle people like Black_Heart, because there are a LOT of people like that out there. People that straight up get OFFENDED and PISSED OFF if you even TALK about the idea of treating women as human beings and not objects. That's a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I mean. Change is hard, people don't want to change, because to them it's admitting they are wrong in some way. And admitting you are wrong is really hard, at least that first time. Get's real easy after that
Frankly, the first step is just to keep talking about it, regardless of how mad people get that this is a topic.
The *problem* is that a LOT of people out in the world are like Black_Heart. Like was discussed many pages ago you need to change the minds of the people, and then it will trickle out into other things.
I'll repeat what I said a bit ago, I'm 30. And I was a complete shit in regards to sexuality and women until about 3 years ago. I was always really good about race stuff, because I had 3 amazing friends who were black and their parents were like 2nd parents to me.
ANYWAY, the majority of young people out there are shits. They say faggot and retard and use gay as a pejorative and get all whiney about the opposite sex in really bad ways. And then they read like 1 book or just an excerpt from a philosopher or something and instead of it leading them down the path of actually learning something, they just use it as a way to become dogmatic and be MORE of an asshole to people.
Use these last couple pages as a learning experience. PA forums are great, BUT can be a bit of an echo chamber. It's AWESOME that people in this thread are empathetic and want the medium to be better accessible and represent us all. But we need to learn how to handle people like Black_Heart, because there are a LOT of people like that out there. People that straight up get OFFENDED and PISSED OFF if you even TALK about the idea of treating women as human beings and not objects. That's a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I mean. Change is hard, people don't want to change, because to them it's admitting they are wrong in some way. And admitting you are wrong is really hard, at least that first time. Get's real easy after that
Frankly, the first step is just to keep talking about it, regardless of how mad people get that this is a topic.
Absofuckinglutely. Also shaming works wonders.
Bigsushi.fm
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
I don't think people who disagree with me need to be dealt with, as such.
Calm conversation and respect can go hand in hand with disagreement, and will persuade a person much faster than impatience.
Some people sure. It's one of those catch-22's though. The type of people that respond to calm conversation and cogent points, usually are the type of people to not be shitty in the first place.
Multiple vectors of attack is great, cover the bases.
EDIT:
"Shaming" is a really strong word. What I meant was "Social Pressure".
Which goes hand-in-hand with "just keep talking about it". Normalize it by keeping it in people's minds.
king awesome on
Bigsushi.fm
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
Before I went for a walk, I noticed a post asking why it was a good idea to try to change the industry.
I. An industry that's more friendly to women will feature better talent at all levels. There's a Warren Buffet quote out there where he says that part of the reason for his success is that he was competing against only 50% of the population. An industry that's friendlier to women will result in more women competing for jobs in all levels of the gaming industry, which will mean better people in many roles, which will mean better games for everyone.
II. Reducing sexualization and objectification of women in games will make games more appealing to female audiences, which will increase the profit margins of games and lead to more games being produced.
III. The gaming industry is becoming out of sync with current Western cultural attitudes about women and their role in society. Failure to recognize that behaviors that would not have resulted in censure in the 1950s are unacceptable today will lead to backlash that may include lack of sales, increased disrespect and criticism for the medium as a whole from outside the industry, and significant legal issues with regards to internal cases of sexism.
IV. It's not just women that dislike seeing overtly sexualized women virtually everywhere in the gaming world, along with very few worthwhile female characters. Many of the men posting in this thread are guys who are tired of playing endless grizzled marines, and want more variety. Variety is the spice of life and all, and including different perspectives and ideas and backgrounds and stories is to the benefit of the gaming world, men and women alike. Increased diversity makes things more interesting overall, which benefits all gamers.
So. Four reasons I thought of while walking, ones that don't take any moral issues that anyone might want to debate into account. An industry that's more friendly to women will have better talent and produce better games. An industry that's selling to a wider audience will make more money and sell more games. An industry that isn't falling behind the larger social sphere will not be shooting itself in the foot and causing problems for itself. And better, more interesting games through increased diversity.
Now, the answer I expect: Well, just make more art.
Here's the problem: I fully 100% agree with that in principle. In the long run, more art will mean better competition of ideas and I feel completely confident that sexual equality is a winning idea, that reducing objectification and sexualization of women in games is a winning idea, and greater diversity is a winning idea. The problem is that the gaming industry is currently lacking in people making that kind of art.
In some industries, I feel that the role of women has been increased to the point where women bear a significant (NOT total, and generally NOT majority) of the burden in increasing the amount of art to change the playing field. Take literature. While men have an unfortunate stranglehold on prestige literature and possibly on publishers, day to day reading is a field dominated by female authors and buyers. As I write this, seven of the ten top bestsellers on the New York Times list are by women, and that's not unusual. Generally speaking, women are more likely to be authors than men. Women bear a significant responsibility (though BY NO MEANS total responsibility, I need to be clear on that) in the publishing field to make art that improves the lot of women. I believe that the ball is rolling in the publishing industry, and the last remaining male strangleholds can and will be broken by women currently working in that industry today.
Women are not currently in place in the gaming industry like they are in the publishing industry.
As such, it is men in the gaming industry that need to be willing to adapt and change and make room. In the case of the gaming industry, men are the ones that need to put their backs into it to get the ball rolling and make more and better art. As more women enter the industry and make more art, that ball will pick up speed, but for the moment there just aren't enough women in the industry to get that ball moving very fast. Instead, it falls to game designers and studio executives to look to the long term and ask where they want the industry to be in ten years, and it falls to socially conscious gamers to raise awareness of the problem and to ask studios and designers to make better games.
And, because the game industry is an industry, it's never as simple as "make more art". Folks always have the option of striking out on their own and producing games independently. But in order to have the kind of reach that makes a difference, it really helps to have one of the major gatekeepers and newsmakers behind you. And the way the gatekeepers decide who to let in and who to get behind is influenced by the art that is already out there. So if the art that's out there sends problematic messages and makes it more difficult for the people who would make different art to attain a platform that gives their art the widest possible audience, we need consistent and vocal criticism that pushes back against the art that is already out there, in order to minimize its negative effects.
Posts
Wyborn's use of "avatar" is appropriate here.
I'm honestly a bit baffled as to what you're fighting for in this case?
The only person implying it is you. And you need to stop.
wait did you just literally admit to trolling?
and yet here we are.
e; sexy batman I mean
yes you have absolutely proved you don't know what's going on.
I think you need to recognize that you are being more than a little antagonistic.
I want you to remember that no one is trying to take away the things you like. That is not me being condescending - that is a statement of fact. Nobody wants to take away dating sims, or busty JRPG babes, or the asari, or anything like that. Things meant to appeal to straight dudes would still be there. There would just be other things.
And I also want to point out that no single creative vision is served in the creation of most large-scale video games. Video games are created by a village, often hundreds of people, and it is the social and societal mores of that village that determines what the acceptable outline of the product is.
But, again
I think you need to realize you are being antagonistic. Maybe take a break for a bit.
And you're done here. You're utterly incapable of debating in good faith without being a complete shithead about it.
I really liked the "mein fuhrer" in your PM. That goes in my Favorite Fanmail folder.
hmmmm.... What was Dalphir implying here?:
Also, how old are you sir or madam? Why should my age be relevant to anything?
because humanity - people in general - are not naturally imbued with a perfect respect for the abstract concept of free speech. it is a social construct, and yet it is also limited by the bounds of social interaction.
you've said your opinions are "cold, callous, and as objective as possible". well, most people's aren't - they're tied to, modified by, and mixed in with their needs for interaction and approval.
so your non-understanding of why people take offense is honestly more of an indicator that you don't think like most people.
which is fine!
but again, the social model we are operating under assumes a more empathetic average person, so we're gonna pretty much stick with that. sorry we don't have a slot for you.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I'm 19
Dalphir was implying that game designers should be pressured by the gaming community to make better portrayals of women
@Jeedan
My wife showed me this back when it was made. I read the blog of the person who made it, but I cannot remember very well. I think this may have been based off of a gay porn star.
I can't remember if it was meant to appeal to women or to gay men, but it is a deconstruction of the difference between men as power fantasies and men as objects of desire.
I believe he was implying that if you believe that someone is doing something distasteful or problematic, it is okay to express your distaste in strong terms in the hopes that the person responsible for the distasteful or problematic thing will think that it was bad and will feel bad as a result.
That's not censorship.
I'm totally against sharing PMS but lord I wanna see that.
edit: HA HA SHARING PMS TAKE THAT LADIES :P
So when they objectify Mario by making him into Jump Man and nothing more, this isn't necessarily problematic. Hell, when people objectify women and turn then into ~~~sexy bodieezz~~~ that's not necessarily bad. It's what gets us stuff like the Venus de Milo.
Objectification is only a problem when it leads to tangible bad results, and sexual objectification (the kind we've been talking about here) is only wrong in specific circumstances, such as the current gaming industry and current society where sexual objectification of women is so rampant that it communicates all sorts of awful things to people about who women are and who women ought to be.
I. An industry that's more friendly to women will feature better talent at all levels. There's a Warren Buffet quote out there where he says that part of the reason for his success is that he was competing against only 50% of the population. An industry that's friendlier to women will result in more women competing for jobs in all levels of the gaming industry, which will mean better people in many roles, which will mean better games for everyone.
II. Reducing sexualization and objectification of women in games will make games more appealing to female audiences, which will increase the profit margins of games and lead to more games being produced.
III. The gaming industry is becoming out of sync with current Western cultural attitudes about women and their role in society. Failure to recognize that behaviors that would not have resulted in censure in the 1950s are unacceptable today will lead to backlash that may include lack of sales, increased disrespect and criticism for the medium as a whole from outside the industry, and significant legal issues with regards to internal cases of sexism.
IV. It's not just women that dislike seeing overtly sexualized women virtually everywhere in the gaming world, along with very few worthwhile female characters. Many of the men posting in this thread are guys who are tired of playing endless grizzled marines, and want more variety. Variety is the spice of life and all, and including different perspectives and ideas and backgrounds and stories is to the benefit of the gaming world, men and women alike. Increased diversity makes things more interesting overall, which benefits all gamers.
So. Four reasons I thought of while walking, ones that don't take any moral issues that anyone might want to debate into account. An industry that's more friendly to women will have better talent and produce better games. An industry that's selling to a wider audience will make more money and sell more games. An industry that isn't falling behind the larger social sphere will not be shooting itself in the foot and causing problems for itself. And better, more interesting games through increased diversity.
Now, the answer I expect: Well, just make more art.
Here's the problem: I fully 100% agree with that in principle. In the long run, more art will mean better competition of ideas and I feel completely confident that sexual equality is a winning idea, that reducing objectification and sexualization of women in games is a winning idea, and greater diversity is a winning idea. The problem is that the gaming industry is currently lacking in people making that kind of art.
In some industries, I feel that the role of women has been increased to the point where women bear a significant (NOT total, and generally NOT majority) of the burden in increasing the amount of art to change the playing field. Take literature. While men have an unfortunate stranglehold on prestige literature and possibly on publishers, day to day reading is a field dominated by female authors and buyers. As I write this, seven of the ten top bestsellers on the New York Times list are by women, and that's not unusual. Generally speaking, women are more likely to be authors than men. Women bear a significant responsibility (though BY NO MEANS total responsibility, I need to be clear on that) in the publishing field to make art that improves the lot of women. I believe that the ball is rolling in the publishing industry, and the last remaining male strangleholds can and will be broken by women currently working in that industry today.
Women are not currently in place in the gaming industry like they are in the publishing industry.
As such, it is men in the gaming industry that need to be willing to adapt and change and make room. In the case of the gaming industry, men are the ones that need to put their backs into it to get the ball rolling and make more and better art. As more women enter the industry and make more art, that ball will pick up speed, but for the moment there just aren't enough women in the industry to get that ball moving very fast. Instead, it falls to game designers and studio executives to look to the long term and ask where they want the industry to be in ten years, and it falls to socially conscious gamers to raise awareness of the problem and to ask studios and designers to make better games.
Joe Phillips draws (not exclusively, but heavily) gay-themed and oriented art so his "sexy superhero" work (there's a bunch more of those, not just of Batman) are for gay guys primarily. I am more than a little bit sure there are women that find that attractive (and gay guys that don't, etc) but it was "intended" for gay men.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
EDIT: An entire page happened so my post might seem out of place, sorry. Also, is it weird that I'm not a fan of either of those pictures of Batman?
FFXIV - Milliardo Beoulve/Sargatanas
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
I think we may have different definitions of "objectify" in this case.
But, given that it seems to be subtle enough that it's difficult to elucidate on while remaining profound enough that we disagree on it, I think I'm going to have to bow out of this particular line of discussion. Once we get down to actual semantics I don't have the same enthusiasm or energy I might otherwise
EDIT:
I do want to say, though, that I do not think objectification is inherently bad, regardless of which definition is being used.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I dunno, knowing my wife if I showed that to her she wouldn't be able to get any work done the rest of the day.
I don't have the time to delve into this matter, but there's something to be said about characters that aren't designed to be objects that still manage to be sexy. Something to be said for subtlety, y'know?
See, I thought so! I thought so. One of the things I remember being brought up is that this Batman has a definite gym rat build, being shaped like a V and with his disproportionately developed pectorals.
I don't know if ladies like giant pecs as much as gay guys do? All I know is my wife like the whole design except for them pecs (and also the hair on his chest)
One of the hardest things about communication is accidentally making people feel something other than what you intended to convey, because that can result in meaning getting lost.
Like, say, how we just did for a bit there
I not an expert (or even in the target audience), but yes, I'd also agree this sort of objectification is aimed towards gay men. Of course, like other cases of objectification, it's just one aspect of the intellectual property being marketed (I assume), and even if it fails for some as Blackjack described, hey, there's a comic with stuff happening too.
Of course, maybe my amateur experience with American comics is totally failing me.
I wouldn't say it's necessarily glossed over, so much as "difficult to say". It's easy to forget that 1920s and 1930s Germany, particularly Berlin and elsewhere in the east, saw the rise of a tremendously radical image of society, including the role of women and the standing of women's sexuality. And at times, it was not half as radical as many views that had been expressed during the Russian Revolution. Hitler was a participant in that Germany, even if he was not as radical by a decent amount, he was still more radical (certainly more progressive) than a lot of the pre-1914 perception of German women. Certainly his efforts to appeal to the female half of the electorate of the 1920s and 1930s made him very progressive simply by the novelty of it. And as happened with other issues, the militarization of Germany meant that the actual role of women in the 'Third Reich' became often conservative, if not as conservative as it was before the first war in some respects.
It's a fascinating topic. I know a few feminist historians (self-described) who could talk for half a day on the topic, and a few German historians who could talk all day. One paragraph isn't really enough, but it's off topic as it is.
Oh, the Phillips stuff (the one on the right, and the others I mentioned) weren't from comics. They're just a group of pictures Phillips did. Fanart, essentially.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
batman's superpower is literally white male privilege
i mean he uses it for good but i'd never contextualized it that way before :P
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Ah, I didn't think he was a writer, but I thought he was a art designer/cover art producer. Again, totally unfamiliar with how American comics work.
The *problem* is that a LOT of people out in the world are like Black_Heart. Like was discussed many pages ago you need to change the minds of the people, and then it will trickle out into other things.
I'll repeat what I said a bit ago, I'm 30. And I was a complete shit in regards to sexuality and women until about 3 years ago. I was always really good about race stuff, because I had 3 amazing friends who were black and their parents were like 2nd parents to me.
ANYWAY, the majority of young people out there are shits. They say faggot and retard and use gay as a pejorative and get all whiney about the opposite sex in really bad ways. And then they read like 1 book or just an excerpt from a philosopher or something and instead of it leading them down the path of actually learning something, they just use it as a way to become dogmatic and be MORE of an asshole to people.
Use these last couple pages as a learning experience. PA forums are great, BUT can be a bit of an echo chamber. It's AWESOME that people in this thread are empathetic and want the medium to be better accessible and represent us all. But we need to learn how to handle people like Black_Heart, because there are a LOT of people like that out there. People that straight up get OFFENDED and PISSED OFF if you even TALK about the idea of treating women as human beings and not objects. That's a bit hyperbolic, but you get what I mean. Change is hard, people don't want to change, because to them it's admitting they are wrong in some way. And admitting you are wrong is really hard, at least that first time. Get's real easy after that
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
Frankly, the first step is just to keep talking about it, regardless of how mad people get that this is a topic.
Absofuckinglutely. Also shaming works wonders.
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
Calm conversation and respect can go hand in hand with disagreement, and will persuade a person much faster than impatience.
Some people sure. It's one of those catch-22's though. The type of people that respond to calm conversation and cogent points, usually are the type of people to not be shitty in the first place.
Multiple vectors of attack is great, cover the bases.
EDIT:
"Shaming" is a really strong word. What I meant was "Social Pressure".
Which goes hand-in-hand with "just keep talking about it". Normalize it by keeping it in people's minds.
Listen to our podcast, read our articles, tell us how much you hate it and how to make it better
And, because the game industry is an industry, it's never as simple as "make more art". Folks always have the option of striking out on their own and producing games independently. But in order to have the kind of reach that makes a difference, it really helps to have one of the major gatekeepers and newsmakers behind you. And the way the gatekeepers decide who to let in and who to get behind is influenced by the art that is already out there. So if the art that's out there sends problematic messages and makes it more difficult for the people who would make different art to attain a platform that gives their art the widest possible audience, we need consistent and vocal criticism that pushes back against the art that is already out there, in order to minimize its negative effects.
I'm thrilled it went down it it needs to go down just like this a hell of a lot more often.