And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful,"
That's obviously a personal attack, not a criticism of a drawing.
Also Nuzak's "clueless sexist" is obviously a personal insult, whether aimed at the artist or the people in this thread. Or other random people who might find such a crude drawing attractive. It is clearly saying that anyone who DOES like that is a sexist. Now, I think if you like it you have bad taste, but that's a subjective thing.
I just feel like we're in danger of the argument morphing from "We shouldn't uphold this as the only standard of female attractiveness" to "no one should find that attractive if they do they are terrible". Anyone taking the latter position is simply wrong.
Can you find me someone seriously espousing the latter, and maybe @ them and ask if that's what they mean?
I listed the specific people a post or two up. They are NOT just saying the problem is the lack of diversity of and uniformity of 'the ideal body type' they are saying that this specific kind of body type being idealized is bad, is sexist, should be shamed. I disagree and stated why.
If you disagree with my disagreement, it is probably more productive to say so and why, rather than going round in round in circles claiming that "NO ONE ever said X" and then me having to point it out and then you saying I misinterpreted and then me providing supporting evidence about why I believe I was not misinterpreting, etc.
If I say a position is wrong and you don't hold that position, it's safe to just let my criticism go by.
I don't care what art critics say, or anyone for that matter, if they don't like the art that's fine, I don't like it myself because overall it all looks pretty ridiculous to me. But that STILL does not justify engaging into personal attacks against someone you don't know because he drew something you don't like. Yes, I think personal attacks are out of line and an overreaction in this particular case. And I'm not going to turn this into a long-drawn argument because it's not going to get us anywhere. You think it's fine and dandy to insult people over things like this, I think you have no right, and that's that.
What personal attacks are you talking about? Please provide quotes.
If you have legal authority, you should probably stay away from legislating censorship. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Listen, your art is terrible and actually contributing to a harmful part of society. If you can't get better about that then maybe you should check into like, a waiting job," if you don't have that authority.
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave.
That's advocating a personal attack against the artist any way you look at it.
the idea of not doing battle with every clueless sexist who wanders in can appeal to me too sometimes
There's personal insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with Nuzak, apparently.
So the best examples you can find are of someone talking about insulting an imaginary artist, and someone saying that they're fed up with clueless sexists without actually identifying any particular person as a sexist.
If we take "personal attacks" to mean "statements that ascribe certain negative characteristics to a specific person (or group of people)", then neither of those are personal attacks.
Nuzak is describing people who disagree with him in this thread, over his three posts, as 'clueless sexists that wandered in'
An aesthetic critique says "I don't like that art. I think it is objectively bad for these reasons." Ultimately, people are free to make their own conclusions, and no moral issues are raised by the work.
Talking about objective in terms of people's aesthetic preferences seems a little curious to me, but okay, it's [bad] because [reasons]. The same form of argument used in the other case. "Moral" is not a magic word that makes any associated belief invalid.
A critique that the work harms people says "This work hurts people." E.g. "The fashion spread in vogue was bad" does not create a problematic environment for art the way saying "the fashion spread in vogue was aesthetically effective but creates beauty images that turn young girls anorexic." That creates moral opprobrium against the artist beyond merely thinking the artist is a talentless hack.
You're not explaining why it's bad. Why is it bad for people to create moral opprobrium against pervasive things perceived as immoral? If fashion magazines contribute to a harmful trend in teenage girls of anorexia and bulimia etc. (which is pretty well established), why ever in the world would you suggest it's wrong to criticize them for it?
You can go back about five pages to see a discussion on "self" censorship and its relation to actual censorship. I don't care about self-censorship: people constantly modulate their expressions, their clothing (censoring their nudity only being one point), their food, their car, their hair based on a billion things. That isn't positive or negative, it's just life.
Do you want me to reiterate that everyone here (well, except maybe one person) is opposed to exactly that, or would you like to take this as a slippery slope?
The problem is interpreting Tycho's views as supporting silencing.
There is no attempt to stop these people from doing what they are doing. THEY ARE DOING IT IN PUBLIC 24/7 WITH MAINSTREAM SUPPORT.
You are not fighting for the little guy here. This is not censorship. This is not oppression. This is not an injustice. Not on the side you are sticking up for.
And what does that business ethics link have to do with self-censorship? It's a story of an industry where unquestioned standards have resulted in a toxic environment for women that hasn't been fixed by the companies making a profit.
That's an... odd example to supply in defense of this industry.
By the way, Kaliyama, you didn't explain how telling an artist their work was aesthetically bad was not the same as telling them they shouldn't make work like that.
(1) A narrow view of censorship as some state-imposed rule prohibiting the publication of something. Everybody, except for @Nuzak, is against this.
(2) Critique of the work as bad aesthetically. Nobody thinks this is going to "silence" an artist - see Thomas Kincaid, Uwe Boll, etc. This is what you claim you are doing and, tellingly, it is the position you take in response to claims people are advocating censorship.
(3) Critique of the work as bad morally, or for the health of the consumer. This critique says: this work hurts people. If the implication of that isn't "stop doing the work, and society should shun you if you don't." If that isn't silencing, I don't know what is.
I think your conclusion with number 3 is perhaps erroneous. The implication shouldn't be that society should shun you if you don't stop doing the work. The goal should be to educate the artist that what they do is potentially harmful. What they do with that information/education is ultimately up to them. But the hope is that if they think about the ramifications of the work they produce and can foresee what kind of affect it will have on people, then perhaps it will lead to changes or at least acknowledgement by that artist.
Then again, maybe it won't, but the real hope is that over the months and years maybe some people realize the deleterious affects of their work and it just makes them think before they create. Maybe this creates a shift in how people act as a community.
Vorpal, the hypothetical artist that I created in my head to be mean to was an example. In that example, I was showing how even if I was a big meanie they could just walk away, and then I could be a child about it, and they would still be fine.
At this point in my imagination the artist, who I have named Chad Strawtooth, goes home and returns to his artwork. As he always does, he draws embarrassingly stereotypical female nerdbait characters that aren't even technically impressive, but the lines are clean and he's got a decent inker friend and he barely covers the nipples at all so he has some fans. He posts his favorite things online and people tell him how awesome he is and then he goes to sleep, perfectly happy, while I drink in a bar and send him tweets about how terrible he and his art are.
But don't worry. Chad is sleeping just fine, no matter how mean I hypothetically am to him. He's going to be alright.
Chad is going to be alright.
OneAngryPossum on
+13
MalReynoldsThe Hunter S Thompson of incredibly mild medicinesRegistered Userregular
By the way, Kaliyama, you didn't explain how telling an artist their work was aesthetically bad was not the same as telling them they shouldn't make work like that.
If they want to make art like that, they can.
It doesn't mean I don't like it, or won't voice my opinion.
They can still do it.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
Talking about a product isn't like talking about a person though, saying "this shit sucks so fucking bad" is just hyperbole
He's clearly not talking about the product. He's talking about/to the person.
I can understand an artist feeling personally hurt when someone criticizes their artwork, because artists often put themselves into their work, both in terms of content and effort. At the end of the day that does not mean that criticism of a product is actually criticism of the producer. And when an outside observer starts acting as though criticism of art is equal to criticism of the artist, absent that special personal connection that an artist has with their art, I have to wonder why that observer is so sensitive that they're offended on behalf of the artist. It seems kind of irrational.
Also Nuzak's "clueless sexist" is obviously a personal insult, whether aimed at the artist or the people in this thread. Or other random people who might find such a crude drawing attractive. It is clearly saying that anyone who DOES like that is a sexist. Now, I think if you like it you have bad taste, but that's a subjective thing.
[snip]
Nuzak is describing people who disagree with him in this thread, over his three posts, as 'clueless sexists that wandered in'
That's a specific group of people.
I think you're reading far too much into people's statements. If you're so sensitive to mentions of sexism that any time anyone does it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
I get criticized all the damn time for things in my art that aren't actually contributing to a harmful and pervasive culture that victimizes and subtly oppresses.
You know what I do? I take the constructive criticism to heart and discard the criticism that is childish and immature. If I can do that for criticism that is usually 'hey, this part of the game wasn't very fun for X reason', Chad Strawtooth can stop being such a goddamn baby and take the criticism for stuff that tells 47% of your potential audience 'you're basically here for the sex, FYI'.
I find the people saying a picture like that should not be drawn a little more troublesome than the artist who drew the picture.
The artist is saying "Hey, here's what I like! <presents something grotesque and absurd>"
The people saying he shouldn't have drawn it are saying "No one should draw things that I don't like! Anyone who does is an evil sexist racist!"
dribble
I didn't read this post because after the first 3 lines I realized you haven't read anyone else's posts.
Pretty much.
No one has said that.
Again and again people come in here and make arguments against nonexistent statements.
if forced to choose between putting a censor on sexist/racist/etc. art and not doing that, i'd put it on. now we don't have the poisonous sewer flowing directly into our water supply, so i'm not too broken up about the filter preventing some of the diamonds getting through
No one is saying you are not allowed to enjoy titty monsters.
No one is saying you are not allowed to enjoy titty monsters.
No one
Let's assume you were right and you noticed that in a small aside of my post (3 lines out of 34) I incorrectly stated a position that no one holds (without ascribing it to anyone specifically, so not maligning any individual), while spending the rest of the time addressing the actual issue and suggesting specific courses of action while referencing specific good examples.
What is the better response from your perspective?
Derailing the thread by going into a back and forth and claiming that NO ONE is saying that or...just letting it go and addressing the body of my post? If you're right and NO ONE held that position then no one is going to get into a discussion about it and it will simply die, passed by, unnoticed.
I see people stake out arguments all the time in threads against positions that no one seems to have taken. When this happens, I simply assume they are establishing wider parameters or boundaries for a far ranging discussion. I don't bother jumping in unless I disagree with the argument as stated.
I didn't respond to anyone person specifically precisely to AVOID this kind of 'you said this' 'no, no I didn't'. If I just say "I think this view is wrong" without attributing it to any specific person, if I have incorrectly deduced someone's view and then said I think it's wrong, everyone who doesn't hold that view (which is everyone in the thread) is perfectly free to ignore my statement as not applying to them. Only the people who have that view (which would be no one) would feel obligated to engage.
But if I quote a specific person and say "No I think your position is wrong" but then I mistake their position and they mistake my critique of that position and we all start taking things personally, there is much more of a potential for things to get derailed. Which is why I generally frame my opposition to non attributed positions rather than specific people - so that no one needs to feel personally under attack. Apparently that was the wrong choice to make in this version of the thread and I could actually have avoided derailment by being more precise. I apologize.
But your claim is simply not true - at least from my perspective. Which is why I posted what I did in the first place. Besides the several examples I have quoted...
Yes, I am saying that that those sorts of characters should never exist in art.
When I posted, it was right after a sequence of posts on that specific piece of Dragon's Crown art. Tycho held it up as a terrible thing that should not have been drawn and that the artist who liked that was not a mature adult. Nuzak agreed, saying that picture offended him. Tycho posted more expounding his idea, saying the artist should be laughed at and people who enjoy it have juvenile minds. Nuzak posted again, agreeing, and suggesting that censoring such racist/sexist art is better than not censoring it. Quid posted saying decrying sexist art. And so on. Someone said "I don't think that art is bad" and Nuzak sighed and rolled his eyes and talked about how he's tired of clueless sexists wandering into his thread. Now...it is impossible to square this with your statement.
Remember...this is the context, (aside from Nuzak) not of banning/censoring by government edict such art, but in the context of using social pressures/shaming/praise to try to create a better situation. That means, we need to decide if the problem is art like that, in which case shaming the artists is appropriate, or if the problem is a LACK of other kinds of art, in which case another form of social pressure is appropraite.
If the problem is the art ITSELF (in an ideal world, no forms of that art would exist because the art innately bad) then trying to use social pressure to prevent the creation of such art is appropriate. This is the position Tycho, Erik, Nuzak, etc, are it seems to me, staking out. I am disagreeing with that position, saying there is nothing wrong with that particular piece of art per se (who are we to say that artist shouldn't find what he does to be attractive?) but rather the lack of other more diverse and realistic portrayals. Thus, social pressure should not be used to shame artists for liking what they do, but to praise and encourage games/artists who create the more varied, diverse, and accurate portrayals that we want to see more of.
Now, if I'm completely wrong and they aren't staking that out? I apologize for misinterpreting you. We can then move on to discussing how best to use social pressure to create a more positive environment. Bbecause, as noted, there's not really a mass call for government censorship here, that means we as a community/individuals need to step in. Which games are helping here? Which games are hurting? What females are portrayed particularly well and are any portrayed really exceptionally badly?
It's a bit of a tricky situation because in my opinion (well, all of our opinions if no one is holding the position you say no one holds) our problem isn't that style of art per se but that there is too much of it. So we need to encourage less of that art, more of other art, but not because of any problems inherent to that art style.
Note that I've used the term 'art' to describe the drawing in the sense it's an 'art asset' from a game but I don't think it rises to the level of actual meritorious artistic endeavor.
If you're so sensitive to mentions of sexism that any time anyone does it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
Couldn't I say that if you're so sensitive to mentions of censorship that anytime someone mentions it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
That statement I made about groundhog day has never seemed more apt.
I got you, babe.
"A new take on the epic fantasy genre... Darkly comic, relatable characters... twisted storyline."
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
No one is saying you are not allowed to enjoy titty monsters.
No one is saying you are not allowed to enjoy titty monsters.
No one
Let's assume you were right and you noticed that in a small aside of my post (3 lines out of 34) I incorrectly stated a position that no one holds (without ascribing it to anyone specifically, so not maligning any individual), while spending the rest of the time addressing the actual issue and suggesting specific courses of action while referencing specific good examples.
What is the better response from your perspective?
Derailing the thread by going into a back and forth and claiming that NO ONE is saying that or...just letting it go and addressing the body of my post? If you're right and NO ONE held that position then no one is going to get into a discussion about it and it will simply die, passed by, unnoticed.
I see people stake out arguments all the time in threads against positions that no one seems to have taken. When this happens, I simply assume they are establishing wider parameters or boundaries for a far ranging discussion. I don't bother jumping in unless I disagree with the argument as stated.
But your claim is simply false. Which is why I posted what I did in the first place. Besides the several examples I have quoted...
Yes, I am saying that that those sorts of characters should never exist in art.
When I posted, it was right after a sequence of posts on that specific piece of Dragon's Crown art. Tycho held it up as a terrible thing that should not have been drawn and that the artist who liked that was not a mature adult. Nuzak agreed, saying that picture offended him. Tycho posted more expounding his idea, saying the artist should be laughed at and people who enjoy it have juvenile minds. Nuzak posted again, agreeing, and suggesting that censoring such racist/sexist art is better than not censoring it. Quid posted saying decrying sexist art. And so on. Someone said "I don't think that art is bad" and Nuzak sighed and rolled his eyes and talked about how he's tired of clueless sexists wandering into his thread. Now...it is impossible to square this with your statement.
Remember...this is the context, (aside from Nuzak) not of banning/censoring by government edict such art, but in the context of using social pressures/shaming/praise to try to create a better situation. That means, we need to decide if the problem is art like that, in which case shaming the artists is appropriate, or if the problem is a LACK of other kinds of art, in which case another form of social pressure is appropraite.
If the problem is the art ITSELF (in an ideal world, no forms of that art would exist because the art innately bad) then trying to use social pressure to prevent the creation of such art is appropriate. This is the position Tycho, Erik, Nuzak, etc, are staking out. I am disagreeing with that position, saying there is nothing wrong with that particular piece of art per se (who are we to say that artist shouldn't find what he does to be attractive?) but rather the lack of other more diverse and realistic portrayals. Thus, social pressure should not be used to shame artists for liking what they do, but to praise and encourage games/artists who create the more varied, diverse, and accurate portrayals that we want to see more of.
It's a bit of a tricky situation because our problem isn't that style of art per se but that there is too much of it. So we need to encourage less of that art, more of other art, but not because of any problems inherent to that art style.
Note that I've used the term 'art' to describe the drawing in the sense it's an 'art asset' from a game but I don't think it rises to the level of actual meritorious artistic endeavor.
No one is saying you're not allowed to enjoy it, even if they would prefer it not exist in the first place, or that it existed in a different context.
You are turning up the internal drama way, way too far here
You do not actually need to defend the things you like, because they're not going anywhere. Know why I don't defend Mass Effect, or Mario, or Chun Li, or the first Witcher game (God help me), or all sorts of things? Because they odn't need it. They do not need me to defend them!
You are seeing Mike Tyson at the height of his career step into a street fighting circle with an eight-year-old hemophiliac. The floor is covered in broken glass. The hemophiliac child says something nasty about Tysons's life choices.
"Whoa, hemophiliac child!" you say. "Not cool! Somebody help me out here"
The weirdest thing about all this to me is that games are actually getting better. A lot better.
Let's walk through video game history. The NES featured games like The Legend of Zelda, where you're a dude that rescues a captured princes, and Super Mario Bros., where you're a dude that rescues a captured princess. Then there was Wizards and Warriors, where you're a dude that rescues tons of bikini-wearing ladies before then rescuing a captured princess. The closest thing to a female warrior in any of the first generation of games probably came from the Gold Box AD&D games on the PC, where they were almost always pictured in bikinis (they usually didn't even bother making them chain mail). Oh, and Metroid, where you don't know that it was a woman until the end, where you're rewarded by undressing her. And Metroid would probably be considered the most progressive game of its era.
Then we can go into the 90s with the SNES and... things don't really get any better at first. We have Final Fantasy IV, where every single female character in the game is a robe-wearing spellcaster. And then at the end, the two girls have to sneak on board to go to the final dungeon area because the protective guys don't want them exposed to danger! Oh, and one of them spends a large portion of the game kidnapped and tied up in ropes because love triangle. Zelda hasn't changed any, fighting games typically have only one or two women on the entire roster (and they're often depicted extraordinarily girlish or sexy; Chun-Li, for all her strongest-legs-ever trope, bounces and giggles when she wins).
Over on the PC? We've got the Baldur's Gate games, the foundation of Bioware in Black Isle form. Baldur's Gate 2 featured: the really bitchy woman who's immediately interested in you romantically even though her husband just died; the really whiny girly woman who complains pretty much the entire time; the Drow lady, that basically embodies most of the stereotypes that make old-school Drow so horrible in the first place; and then your sister, who primarily exists as a tragic figure and someone to help.
Then, suddenly, something starts to happen. Final Fantasy V features a mostly-female cast with actual strong women, and Final Fantasy VI ups the ante substantially with powerful characters like Celes. Chrono Trigger comes out of nowhere with nerd-heroine Lucca who gets through the entire game without developing a love interest OR being mocked for her appearance (that I recall... but well, ME2 proved I can miss things, heh). More women appear in fighting games and become playable in other games, too. Zelda, while still to-be-rescued, actually contributes in Ocarina of Time complete with a badass warrior-form and fights with you directly in Twilight Princess.
The Dragon Age and Mass Effect games come out with a variety of actual people who are also women, and while ME2 had specific missteps, this has been acknowledged and corrected by the company in their style guides. Suikoden III features a female main character in realistic battle armor who's probably one of the most badass characters in the game, and there are several support women who are also strong and awesome. SoulCalibur IV brings Hilde into fighting games and lets you edit the roster and create whole new characters, doing so without forcing you to make them super-boobed. Metroid Prime eliminated the strip-reward.
Mirror's Edge, Portal, Half-life 2, and Remember Me introduce realistic athletic women as main or significant support characters. Tomb Raider gets a reboot with a realistically-bodied lead. Final Fantasy XIII stars a badass female warrior as the main character, and she's not sexed up, romanced, or treated weirdly. Heavenly Sword responds to the excesses of God of War by featuring a powerful woman that's beautiful without being sexed up. Bayonetta demonstrates a positive way to approach female sexuality. The Elder Scrolls games switch from having naked female prostitutes sprawled all over the temples (Daggerfall) to having mostly average-looking women in fairly realistic and covering outfits (Oblivion).
A game like Dragon's Crown wouldn't have looked especially out of place anywhere from the dawn of arcades through the late 90s, but today it draws a veritable firestorm for existing as a cheap niche title.
Things are better. A LOT better. No, not "everything," but gaming as a whole is substantially improved.
This isn't saying that the thread's a waste of time, that it's time to go home, or that there's nothing to complain about.
Instead I'd argue that the #1ReasonWhy isn't how women are "typically" depicted in games. Not anymore. It's about how the men in the industry treat the women in the industry. It's about mostly socially inept guys having absolutely no idea how to communicate with women properly (and frankly probably not knowing how to communicate with other non-nerd men very well either). It's about the filth that spews from kids' mouths over microphone in multiplayer games. It's about the creepy MMO-stalkers.
Dragon's Crown and Two Worlds 2 are worth a bit of mention. They're worth some curiosity, and if you're afraid of regression, some adamant statements that you don't want to see mainstream games going in that direction. But they're not the problem. They're the exception.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
If the problem is the art ITSELF (in an ideal world, no forms of that art would exist because the art innately bad) then trying to use social pressure to prevent the creation of such art is appropriate. This is the position Tycho, Erik, Nuzak, etc, are staking out. I am disagreeing with that position, saying there is nothing wrong with that particular piece of art per se (who are we to say that artist shouldn't find what he does to be attractive?) but rather the lack of other more diverse and realistic portrayals. Thus, social pressure should not be used to shame artists for liking what they do, but to praise and encourage games/artists who create the more varied, diverse, and accurate portrayals that we want to see more of.
You're talking about the frightening power of "social pressure" but I'd like to point out: Art itself (especially mass commercial art) is a form of social pressure. Art isn't just a thing that sits there, inertly. Art is a megaphone.
I'm not defending things I like (as I don't like that drawing) so much as trying to as identify the problem. There are basically two potential schools of thought
a) Certain portrayals of female physical attractiveness are in and of themselves bad
b) The consistent unrealistic portrayal of a certain kind of female physical attractiveness as the ideal is the problem
This matters because the way we approach a solution is different.
If (a) the better course is to attack the people creating the bad portrayals until they stop - this will however lead to a discussion of "is it still censorship/silencing if you use social pressures/taboos/conventions to drive something out of the marketplace rather than government action". It's also worth pointing out that using social disapproval to curb offensive art is the exact opposite of the trends lately. In fact, art is generally considered to be better the more people it offends. So we will be facing stiff head winds.
If (b) the better course is to militate for more diverse kinds of portrayals, make not of, purchase, praise, positively review, support, etc, the games that provide such portrayals: such, as in my opinion, half life and portal.
I think discussing which games help and which games hurt could be fruitful. I was wondering where people stood on games like Tomb Raider or Bayonetta. I think they do reinforce certain stereotypes. But at the same time they break others. They are certainly not the typical run of the mill game for the genre so I think in that sense they are good games. It would seem to me then that we are moving (slowly) In a more positive direction.
I also think that making more intelligent, interesting characters is important, as I stated earlier. A dumb, physically attractive male character is not as reinforcing of harmful stereotypes as a dumb, physically attractive female character. Therefore the impact of bad character creation falls disproportionately on the females, IMO.
--edit: @TheSauce raises an interesting 3rd possibility. noting the steady improvement we've had on this front, he posits that as far as female depictions in games, we're doing fairly well. The problem is more the treatment of women inside the industry and the treatment of female gamers by male gamers in the general atmosphere of extreme assholeishness that is the internet. The latter we can fix, the former we can't really (not as gamers, because it will mostly be invisible to us but no less real) but if the primary issue is not the depiction of female characters inside the games, then to fix the problem would require different actions.
If the problem is the art ITSELF (in an ideal world, no forms of that art would exist because the art innately bad) then trying to use social pressure to prevent the creation of such art is appropriate. This is the position Tycho, Erik, Nuzak, etc, are staking out. I am disagreeing with that position, saying there is nothing wrong with that particular piece of art per se (who are we to say that artist shouldn't find what he does to be attractive?) but rather the lack of other more diverse and realistic portrayals. Thus, social pressure should not be used to shame artists for liking what they do, but to praise and encourage games/artists who create the more varied, diverse, and accurate portrayals that we want to see more of.
You're talking about the frightening power of "social pressure" but I'd like to point out: Art itself (especially mass commercial art) is a form of social pressure. Art isn't just a thing that sits there, inertly. Art is a megaphone.
I've been misquoted! (literally, I didn't write that )
It's also worth pointing out that using social disapproval to curb offensive art is the exact opposite of the trends lately. In fact, art is generally considered to be better the more people it offends. So we will be facing stiff head winds.
This is the second time you've said this and the first time I ignored it because I assumed you were being facetious, but this really isn't true. It doesent make any sense at all.
e; Its like saying "everyone knows music is better the louder it is".
If you're so sensitive to mentions of sexism that any time anyone does it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
Couldn't I say that if you're so sensitive to mentions of censorship that anytime someone mentions it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
In light of the fact that I don't feel personally attacked, I'm going to have to go with "no".
The weirdest thing about all this to me is that games are actually getting better. A lot better.
If we assume that that's true, and not just based on a deliberately generous selection of games, why do you suppose that is?
If I were to hypothesize I'd offer the following (combined, not as choices):
1. Creative endeavors are a reflection of society (and/or a comment upon it). As our society advances, so too does our creative media.
2. The games industry is really, really big, too big to consist of just socially-challenged hobbyist nerds making whatever they want for themselves and each other. This brings expanded viewpoints.
3. More women than ever before are involved in the gaming industry. Some of this is intentional, such as Maxis forcibly creating a 50/50 team for The Sims, while the rest of it is women who grew up playing games wanting to create them, too (Portal).
4. More women than ever before are playing games, making them a very profitable audience to create for and appeal to.
These are not in any particular order.
Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
Couldn't I say that if you're so sensitive to mentions of censorship that anytime someone mentions it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
Good thing no one felt personally attacked by the mention of censorship.
How is this censorship "discussion" dragging on for so long? How?
Is it too much to ask that "censorship" be added to the forbidden phrases list? I know that would actually BE censorship, but at this point half the posts in this topic are people arguing about what is or isn't censorship when it should be obvious that what is going on in here is criticism, not censorship.
@The Sauce, you've mentioned about a dozen or so franchises that have done good things over the four console generations, and while I'm sure people will quibble with the ones you've mentioned, let's just take it at face value that all of the ones you've mentioned are positive. And I'm sure you missed a few, but... how many games have come out over those four generations? How many of those have negative portrayals of women? I certainly can't do an exhaustive search, but it's probably pretty safe to wager that the negative vastly outnumbers the positive. That's not to say things aren't improving, but I think you're vastly overstating the improvement.
Instead I'd argue that the #1ReasonWhy isn't how women are "typically" depicted in games. Not anymore. It's about how the men in the industry treat the women in the industry. It's about mostly socially inept guys having absolutely no idea how to communicate with women properly (and frankly probably not knowing how to communicate with other non-nerd men very well either). It's about the filth that spews from kids' mouths over microphone in multiplayer games. It's about the creepy MMO-stalkers.
These things feed on each other. If men in the industry don't treat women well, that will likely carry over into their games. Women being treated poorly means that their voices are marginalized and they have difficulty enacting positive change. Without positive change, poor treatment carries over into their games. Girls who play those games feel like they're being mistreated, so hardly any of them go into the gaming industry. Guys who play those games are subtly influenced about how they treat women, and they are the ones going into the gaming industry. They don't treat women well, which leads to women in the industry being treated poorly. Those informs the games they make, etc, etc, and the cycle continues.
Going back to the mosaic idea that Cambiata keeps reposting - the idea of "this is how things are done" is very powerful. It's very hard to break that mold. If every game has sexy female characters, then you think that the norm is sexy female characters. Take the picture of the Queen from the chess game - as posters here have noted, there's really no reason in particular why she has to be sexy. She could look like the Dowager Countess from Downton Abbey and still look intimidating and powerful, but instead, she's showing off cleavage, has a skinny waist, and large hips. Now, I can't say for sure whether the artist intended this or not, but it's possible that the reason why that character portrait is "sexy" is simply because most female characters in games are sexy, and the artist went with what has always been done before. The tiles in the gaming mosaic are predominately white women with exposed and / or huge cleavage and skinny waists, and I'm not sure why telling artists that we want some variety in the tiles is a bad thing.
I hope one of the outcomes of #1ReasonWhy is to make creators and artists take a look at what they're doing and say "are we doing this because we want it done this way, or are we doing this because this is just our default?" Or that they look at what they're doing and ask themselves, "how will this be interpreted by people who aren't like me?". In a lot of the negative cases, I'm not sure that developers and artists are intentionally portraying women poorly. Maybe it's just me hoping that they're aren't overtly sexist, but I think they're just oblivious to the impact of what they're doing and are portraying women the way they do because that's how it's always been done. By making them aware of the issue, they can make positive changes to their characters without compromising their vision. Because, let's face it - would Mass Effect 3's vision have changed for the worse had EDI not been so busty? Would Starcraft 2: HotS's vision have changed for the worse had they reduced the number of times they showed Kerrigan from behind with her ass cheeks hanging out? Would Halo 4's vision have been compromised by having Cortana wear something less revealing? By portraying those characters the way they did, did they increase the sales of the game, or really send a message that absolutely needed to be sent? I think the answer to all of these questions is "no".
So if artists and developers start opening their eyes to this issue, and say "hey wait, what we're doing might be alienating part of our audience and potentially causing harm to that audience, can we change things so we don't do that and still achieve our overall vision"... why is that a bad thing, exactly?
I have some sympathy for the idea that some artists are receiving flack just because they subscribe to the beauty ideals they have been socialized to believe in, but in the current social context A) these ideals are usually not challenged at all and by encouraging art that portrays types of people not currently depicted as attractive as being so we can help socialize artists into accepting that traits outside of what are currently idealized can be beautiful, too.
I don't care what art critics say, or anyone for that matter, if they don't like the art that's fine, I don't like it myself because overall it all looks pretty ridiculous to me. But that STILL does not justify engaging into personal attacks against someone you don't know because he drew something you don't like. Yes, I think personal attacks are out of line and an overreaction in this particular case. And I'm not going to turn this into a long-drawn argument because it's not going to get us anywhere. You think it's fine and dandy to insult people over things like this, I think you have no right, and that's that.
What personal attacks are you talking about? Please provide quotes.
If you have legal authority, you should probably stay away from legislating censorship. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Listen, your art is terrible and actually contributing to a harmful part of society. If you can't get better about that then maybe you should check into like, a waiting job," if you don't have that authority.
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave.
That's advocating a personal attack against the artist any way you look at it.
the idea of not doing battle with every clueless sexist who wanders in can appeal to me too sometimes
There's personal insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with Nuzak, apparently.
So the best examples you can find are of someone talking about insulting an imaginary artist, and someone saying that they're fed up with clueless sexists without actually identifying any particular person as a sexist.
If we take "personal attacks" to mean "statements that ascribe certain negative characteristics to a specific person (or group of people)", then neither of those are personal attacks.
The events in this article are basically what sparked this debate for me.
"Also, this is the first time I've seen that character and holy shit, ahahahahahaha. That's actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, fucking lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he's in jail now. This is amazing."
Claiming a 5th grader produces better art and insinuating another artist in the industry is a sexual deviant based upon the art they produce is a personal attack on his character... Not criticism of his art.
That type of conversation is not constructive and just as juvenile as titty witches to begin with. That is the point I'm trying to get across. There is a fundamental difference between insults/attacks and criticism of art.
I don't care what art critics say, or anyone for that matter, if they don't like the art that's fine, I don't like it myself because overall it all looks pretty ridiculous to me. But that STILL does not justify engaging into personal attacks against someone you don't know because he drew something you don't like. Yes, I think personal attacks are out of line and an overreaction in this particular case. And I'm not going to turn this into a long-drawn argument because it's not going to get us anywhere. You think it's fine and dandy to insult people over things like this, I think you have no right, and that's that.
What personal attacks are you talking about? Please provide quotes.
If you have legal authority, you should probably stay away from legislating censorship. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Listen, your art is terrible and actually contributing to a harmful part of society. If you can't get better about that then maybe you should check into like, a waiting job," if you don't have that authority.
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave.
That's advocating a personal attack against the artist any way you look at it.
the idea of not doing battle with every clueless sexist who wanders in can appeal to me too sometimes
There's personal insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with Nuzak, apparently.
So the best examples you can find are of someone talking about insulting an imaginary artist, and someone saying that they're fed up with clueless sexists without actually identifying any particular person as a sexist.
If we take "personal attacks" to mean "statements that ascribe certain negative characteristics to a specific person (or group of people)", then neither of those are personal attacks.
The events in this article are basically what sparked this debate for me.
"Also, this is the first time I've seen that character and holy shit, ahahahahahaha. That's actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, fucking lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he's in jail now. This is amazing."
Claiming a 5th grader produces better art and insinuating another artist in the industry is a sexual deviant based upon the art they produce is a personal attack on his character... Not criticism of his art.
That type of conversation is not constructive and just as juvenile as titty witches to begin with. That is the point I'm trying to get across. There is a fundamental difference between insults/attacks and criticism of art.
While I agree with the immaturity of her response, I would believe you more if you hadn't left your OTHER point out of your summary there, the fact you stated there's nothing wrong with the titty witch in the first place.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
An artist gets called a 5 year old in comments: OMG OUR ART IS UNDER ATTACK FULL BATTLE STATIONS
Many females in gaming get insulted and abused in comment threads constantly, everything from "TITS OR GTFO" to actual rape threats: Everything is fine here, move along.
The oddest thing about this is that the artist has said he's fine, happy even, that people are even commenting on his art.
The internet: Protecting people who don't actually need or want your protection while abusing people who already get it every day in real life since ???
"I don't like this thing and i'm not going to purchase it. I don't think other people should purchase it either" is a thing I think and say regularly about many many things.
I didn't realize I was creating such a toxic censorship environment.
Don't try to move the goalposts by substituting something more reasonable for what I am actually addressing. You're accusing me of addressing something people didn't say by claiming I said something I didn't! The circle is now complete. Probably would have helped you to read the whole post. But then, there is quite a bit of not reading going on. Someone will say X and then three posts later someone else will claim "NO ONE is saying X!"
TychoCelchuuu, Nuzak, and ErikTheViking are offended/upset/distreessed at the very existence of this picture. Nuzak said he'd like to censor such racist/sexist 'art'*. And that anyone who disagrees it's sexist art is obviously a clueless sexist himself!
pretty sure i never said that anyone who disagreed with me was a clueless sexist? if you're referring to the post where i'm saying i'm a little tired about arguing about basics for a while, that point was meant to be more about the general state of conversation in the thread, nothing/nobody specific in mind.
That's what I'm addressing. I find that viewpoint to be more distressing than any individual objectionable piece of art.
If you don't like it and aren't planning to purchase it, well, that's my own stance. As I pointed out in my post, we need to reward games that cut against this trend (portal, half-life) with sales and good reviews and not encourage ones that reinforce damaging stereotypes.
i'm sure you would find the idea of censoring offensive media to be distressing, but i'd say that's because you have never in your life been the target of offensive media. you probably have a very nice life and have no idea how completely distressing it would be to be bombarded with this media day in, day out.
also this idea keeps popping up: "stop criticising bad art, just reward good art! combat bad art with good art! the only reaction is more art!" and i really hate it. A) it works incredibly slowly because it's very weak (people love portal, how's that been working out for sexism in the medium so far?) it doesn't eliminate art that hurts people. i don't want to have to yell louder than hate speech that appeals to the lowest common denominator, i think it should be pretty obvious that the deluge of awful sexist shit in this medium needs controlling, pronto. it feels like it's in the same idea vein as people who think the market should be completely free of intervention or some shit and the good stuff will just rise to the top. it's inane.
I'm seeing a fair amount of "someone somewhere said something mean ergo criticism is invalid" which is pretty lulz worthy. It's a very disingenuous way to avoid the actual issues raised.
Celes is the one whose uniform was a bathing suit, right (although it looks like the remake gave her an outfit closer to her Amano concept—and yes I know you couldn't tell much in a pixelated sprite)? And I haven't played Heavenly Sword but this concept art is the character we're talking about, right? The one wearing the bottom 1/10th of a pair of pants?
Prime was better, but then the zero suit was introduced and the next non-Retro game added wedge heels and was a general travesty for Samus. Soul Calibur games went from modest proportions to increasingly ridiculous ones advertised with fliers (later pulled!) like (potentially NSFW) this and (also potentially NSFW) this, which makes it pretty clear what they're selling.
Just because there's HL2 (2004), Portal (2007), Mirror's Edge (2008), and Tomb Raider (2013) doesn't mean we're clear. We should probably have enough of these that there aren't just a couple standout examples that we have to lean on all the time. I agree with you that things are getting better! Especially recently now that more awareness and conversation is occurring at all levels about this sort of thing. That's not to say the other issues you touch on aren't important—they definitely are!—but on the other front I don't think we're approaching the summit yet.
I don't care what art critics say, or anyone for that matter, if they don't like the art that's fine, I don't like it myself because overall it all looks pretty ridiculous to me. But that STILL does not justify engaging into personal attacks against someone you don't know because he drew something you don't like. Yes, I think personal attacks are out of line and an overreaction in this particular case. And I'm not going to turn this into a long-drawn argument because it's not going to get us anywhere. You think it's fine and dandy to insult people over things like this, I think you have no right, and that's that.
What personal attacks are you talking about? Please provide quotes.
If you have legal authority, you should probably stay away from legislating censorship. There's nothing wrong with saying, "Listen, your art is terrible and actually contributing to a harmful part of society. If you can't get better about that then maybe you should check into like, a waiting job," if you don't have that authority.
And then that person is free to walk away from me. And I can say, "No, really, you're fucking awful," as they leave.
That's advocating a personal attack against the artist any way you look at it.
the idea of not doing battle with every clueless sexist who wanders in can appeal to me too sometimes
There's personal insults aimed at anyone who disagrees with Nuzak, apparently.
So the best examples you can find are of someone talking about insulting an imaginary artist, and someone saying that they're fed up with clueless sexists without actually identifying any particular person as a sexist.
If we take "personal attacks" to mean "statements that ascribe certain negative characteristics to a specific person (or group of people)", then neither of those are personal attacks.
The events in this article are basically what sparked this debate for me.
"Also, this is the first time I've seen that character and holy shit, ahahahahahaha. That's actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, fucking lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he's in jail now. This is amazing."
Claiming a 5th grader produces better art and insinuating another artist in the industry is a sexual deviant based upon the art they produce is a personal attack on his character... Not criticism of his art.
That type of conversation is not constructive and just as juvenile as titty witches to begin with. That is the point I'm trying to get across. There is a fundamental difference between insults/attacks and criticism of art.
But that is criticism of the art. "I knew a delinquent fifth-grader year who drew better pictures" is criticism of art. Yes, it is mean, and it could hurt the artist's feelings. Are you the artist? No? Then why do you care so much? Not sure where the "sexual deviant" stuff is either. I think you need to lie down, take a couple of deep breaths.
Also, I don't know why you come here and suggest that it's so bad to be mean when the person who was being mean isn't around here, has never been around here, and won't ever be around here. If you have a problem with what Ms. Hamm said, maybe you should take it up with her?
Here are some game developer salary survey results conducted by Gamasutra, 2011 2012 2013
As the 2013 results were published this April, you may congratulate yourself for the great strides made
and
let me suggest low sample size to help you rationalize any dissonance you may encounter.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I actually think that at least one thing we can all agree on is that it's bad to be mean to people in a general way.
What I don't get is that the very people who are so vehemently arguing that it's actually societally destructive to be mean to artists, are also arguing that no one can say shit about artists whose art is mean and destructive.
You... you kind of have to pick one or the other. You don't get to claim both. Well (I see the need to specify here) you do get to, because that's freedom of speech, eh? You just don't get to make those claims without looking like a lunatic.
Here are some game developer salary survey results conducted by Gamasutra, 2011 2012 2013
As the 2013 results were published this April, you may congratulate yourself for the great strides made
and
let me suggest low sample size to help you rationalize any dissonance you may encounter.
I can't tell which direction you're being facetious in
If it's one direction you should look further down the article
If it's the other direction, you're not being very constructive
Posts
He's clearly not talking about the product. He's talking about/to the person.
That's obviously a personal attack, not a criticism of a drawing.
Also Nuzak's "clueless sexist" is obviously a personal insult, whether aimed at the artist or the people in this thread. Or other random people who might find such a crude drawing attractive. It is clearly saying that anyone who DOES like that is a sexist. Now, I think if you like it you have bad taste, but that's a subjective thing.
I listed the specific people a post or two up. They are NOT just saying the problem is the lack of diversity of and uniformity of 'the ideal body type' they are saying that this specific kind of body type being idealized is bad, is sexist, should be shamed. I disagree and stated why.
If you disagree with my disagreement, it is probably more productive to say so and why, rather than going round in round in circles claiming that "NO ONE ever said X" and then me having to point it out and then you saying I misinterpreted and then me providing supporting evidence about why I believe I was not misinterpreting, etc.
If I say a position is wrong and you don't hold that position, it's safe to just let my criticism go by.
Nuzak is describing people who disagree with him in this thread, over his three posts, as 'clueless sexists that wandered in'
That's a specific group of people.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
No one is saying you are not allowed to enjoy titty monsters.
No one
Talking about objective in terms of people's aesthetic preferences seems a little curious to me, but okay, it's [bad] because [reasons]. The same form of argument used in the other case. "Moral" is not a magic word that makes any associated belief invalid.
You're not explaining why it's bad. Why is it bad for people to create moral opprobrium against pervasive things perceived as immoral? If fashion magazines contribute to a harmful trend in teenage girls of anorexia and bulimia etc. (which is pretty well established), why ever in the world would you suggest it's wrong to criticize them for it?
You can go back about five pages to see a discussion on "self" censorship and its relation to actual censorship. I don't care about self-censorship: people constantly modulate their expressions, their clothing (censoring their nudity only being one point), their food, their car, their hair based on a billion things. That isn't positive or negative, it's just life.
Do you want me to reiterate that everyone here (well, except maybe one person) is opposed to exactly that, or would you like to take this as a slippery slope?
There is no attempt to stop these people from doing what they are doing. THEY ARE DOING IT IN PUBLIC 24/7 WITH MAINSTREAM SUPPORT.
You are not fighting for the little guy here. This is not censorship. This is not oppression. This is not an injustice. Not on the side you are sticking up for.
And what does that business ethics link have to do with self-censorship? It's a story of an industry where unquestioned standards have resulted in a toxic environment for women that hasn't been fixed by the companies making a profit.
That's an... odd example to supply in defense of this industry.
I think your conclusion with number 3 is perhaps erroneous. The implication shouldn't be that society should shun you if you don't stop doing the work. The goal should be to educate the artist that what they do is potentially harmful. What they do with that information/education is ultimately up to them. But the hope is that if they think about the ramifications of the work they produce and can foresee what kind of affect it will have on people, then perhaps it will lead to changes or at least acknowledgement by that artist.
Then again, maybe it won't, but the real hope is that over the months and years maybe some people realize the deleterious affects of their work and it just makes them think before they create. Maybe this creates a shift in how people act as a community.
At this point in my imagination the artist, who I have named Chad Strawtooth, goes home and returns to his artwork. As he always does, he draws embarrassingly stereotypical female nerdbait characters that aren't even technically impressive, but the lines are clean and he's got a decent inker friend and he barely covers the nipples at all so he has some fans. He posts his favorite things online and people tell him how awesome he is and then he goes to sleep, perfectly happy, while I drink in a bar and send him tweets about how terrible he and his art are.
But don't worry. Chad is sleeping just fine, no matter how mean I hypothetically am to him. He's going to be alright.
Chad is going to be alright.
If they want to make art like that, they can.
It doesn't mean I don't like it, or won't voice my opinion.
They can still do it.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
These exact three sentences apply to the other case as well, because they're the same.
Well, it would be, if the context of the statement didn't make it clear that it's not actually directed at any real people.
I think you're reading far too much into people's statements. If you're so sensitive to mentions of sexism that any time anyone does it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
I get criticized all the damn time for things in my art that aren't actually contributing to a harmful and pervasive culture that victimizes and subtly oppresses.
You know what I do? I take the constructive criticism to heart and discard the criticism that is childish and immature. If I can do that for criticism that is usually 'hey, this part of the game wasn't very fun for X reason', Chad Strawtooth can stop being such a goddamn baby and take the criticism for stuff that tells 47% of your potential audience 'you're basically here for the sex, FYI'.
Let's assume you were right and you noticed that in a small aside of my post (3 lines out of 34) I incorrectly stated a position that no one holds (without ascribing it to anyone specifically, so not maligning any individual), while spending the rest of the time addressing the actual issue and suggesting specific courses of action while referencing specific good examples.
What is the better response from your perspective?
Derailing the thread by going into a back and forth and claiming that NO ONE is saying that or...just letting it go and addressing the body of my post? If you're right and NO ONE held that position then no one is going to get into a discussion about it and it will simply die, passed by, unnoticed.
I see people stake out arguments all the time in threads against positions that no one seems to have taken. When this happens, I simply assume they are establishing wider parameters or boundaries for a far ranging discussion. I don't bother jumping in unless I disagree with the argument as stated.
I didn't respond to anyone person specifically precisely to AVOID this kind of 'you said this' 'no, no I didn't'. If I just say "I think this view is wrong" without attributing it to any specific person, if I have incorrectly deduced someone's view and then said I think it's wrong, everyone who doesn't hold that view (which is everyone in the thread) is perfectly free to ignore my statement as not applying to them. Only the people who have that view (which would be no one) would feel obligated to engage.
But if I quote a specific person and say "No I think your position is wrong" but then I mistake their position and they mistake my critique of that position and we all start taking things personally, there is much more of a potential for things to get derailed. Which is why I generally frame my opposition to non attributed positions rather than specific people - so that no one needs to feel personally under attack. Apparently that was the wrong choice to make in this version of the thread and I could actually have avoided derailment by being more precise. I apologize.
But your claim is simply not true - at least from my perspective. Which is why I posted what I did in the first place. Besides the several examples I have quoted...
When I posted, it was right after a sequence of posts on that specific piece of Dragon's Crown art. Tycho held it up as a terrible thing that should not have been drawn and that the artist who liked that was not a mature adult. Nuzak agreed, saying that picture offended him. Tycho posted more expounding his idea, saying the artist should be laughed at and people who enjoy it have juvenile minds. Nuzak posted again, agreeing, and suggesting that censoring such racist/sexist art is better than not censoring it. Quid posted saying decrying sexist art. And so on. Someone said "I don't think that art is bad" and Nuzak sighed and rolled his eyes and talked about how he's tired of clueless sexists wandering into his thread. Now...it is impossible to square this with your statement.
Remember...this is the context, (aside from Nuzak) not of banning/censoring by government edict such art, but in the context of using social pressures/shaming/praise to try to create a better situation. That means, we need to decide if the problem is art like that, in which case shaming the artists is appropriate, or if the problem is a LACK of other kinds of art, in which case another form of social pressure is appropraite.
If the problem is the art ITSELF (in an ideal world, no forms of that art would exist because the art innately bad) then trying to use social pressure to prevent the creation of such art is appropriate. This is the position Tycho, Erik, Nuzak, etc, are it seems to me, staking out. I am disagreeing with that position, saying there is nothing wrong with that particular piece of art per se (who are we to say that artist shouldn't find what he does to be attractive?) but rather the lack of other more diverse and realistic portrayals. Thus, social pressure should not be used to shame artists for liking what they do, but to praise and encourage games/artists who create the more varied, diverse, and accurate portrayals that we want to see more of.
Now, if I'm completely wrong and they aren't staking that out? I apologize for misinterpreting you. We can then move on to discussing how best to use social pressure to create a more positive environment. Bbecause, as noted, there's not really a mass call for government censorship here, that means we as a community/individuals need to step in. Which games are helping here? Which games are hurting? What females are portrayed particularly well and are any portrayed really exceptionally badly?
It's a bit of a tricky situation because in my opinion (well, all of our opinions if no one is holding the position you say no one holds) our problem isn't that style of art per se but that there is too much of it. So we need to encourage less of that art, more of other art, but not because of any problems inherent to that art style.
Note that I've used the term 'art' to describe the drawing in the sense it's an 'art asset' from a game but I don't think it rises to the level of actual meritorious artistic endeavor.
Couldn't I say that if you're so sensitive to mentions of censorship that anytime someone mentions it, you feel like you're being personally attacked, then maybe this sort of discussion isn't the right place for you?
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I got you, babe.
"Readers who prefer tension and romance, Maledictions: The Offering, delivers... As serious YA fiction, I’ll give it five stars out of five. As a novel? Four and a half." - Liz Ellor
My new novel: Maledictions: The Offering. Now in Paperback!
No one is saying you're not allowed to enjoy it, even if they would prefer it not exist in the first place, or that it existed in a different context.
You are turning up the internal drama way, way too far here
You do not actually need to defend the things you like, because they're not going anywhere. Know why I don't defend Mass Effect, or Mario, or Chun Li, or the first Witcher game (God help me), or all sorts of things? Because they odn't need it. They do not need me to defend them!
You are seeing Mike Tyson at the height of his career step into a street fighting circle with an eight-year-old hemophiliac. The floor is covered in broken glass. The hemophiliac child says something nasty about Tysons's life choices.
"Whoa, hemophiliac child!" you say. "Not cool! Somebody help me out here"
Let's walk through video game history. The NES featured games like The Legend of Zelda, where you're a dude that rescues a captured princes, and Super Mario Bros., where you're a dude that rescues a captured princess. Then there was Wizards and Warriors, where you're a dude that rescues tons of bikini-wearing ladies before then rescuing a captured princess. The closest thing to a female warrior in any of the first generation of games probably came from the Gold Box AD&D games on the PC, where they were almost always pictured in bikinis (they usually didn't even bother making them chain mail). Oh, and Metroid, where you don't know that it was a woman until the end, where you're rewarded by undressing her. And Metroid would probably be considered the most progressive game of its era.
Then we can go into the 90s with the SNES and... things don't really get any better at first. We have Final Fantasy IV, where every single female character in the game is a robe-wearing spellcaster. And then at the end, the two girls have to sneak on board to go to the final dungeon area because the protective guys don't want them exposed to danger! Oh, and one of them spends a large portion of the game kidnapped and tied up in ropes because love triangle. Zelda hasn't changed any, fighting games typically have only one or two women on the entire roster (and they're often depicted extraordinarily girlish or sexy; Chun-Li, for all her strongest-legs-ever trope, bounces and giggles when she wins).
Over on the PC? We've got the Baldur's Gate games, the foundation of Bioware in Black Isle form. Baldur's Gate 2 featured: the really bitchy woman who's immediately interested in you romantically even though her husband just died; the really whiny girly woman who complains pretty much the entire time; the Drow lady, that basically embodies most of the stereotypes that make old-school Drow so horrible in the first place; and then your sister, who primarily exists as a tragic figure and someone to help.
Then, suddenly, something starts to happen. Final Fantasy V features a mostly-female cast with actual strong women, and Final Fantasy VI ups the ante substantially with powerful characters like Celes. Chrono Trigger comes out of nowhere with nerd-heroine Lucca who gets through the entire game without developing a love interest OR being mocked for her appearance (that I recall... but well, ME2 proved I can miss things, heh). More women appear in fighting games and become playable in other games, too. Zelda, while still to-be-rescued, actually contributes in Ocarina of Time complete with a badass warrior-form and fights with you directly in Twilight Princess.
The Dragon Age and Mass Effect games come out with a variety of actual people who are also women, and while ME2 had specific missteps, this has been acknowledged and corrected by the company in their style guides. Suikoden III features a female main character in realistic battle armor who's probably one of the most badass characters in the game, and there are several support women who are also strong and awesome. SoulCalibur IV brings Hilde into fighting games and lets you edit the roster and create whole new characters, doing so without forcing you to make them super-boobed. Metroid Prime eliminated the strip-reward.
Mirror's Edge, Portal, Half-life 2, and Remember Me introduce realistic athletic women as main or significant support characters. Tomb Raider gets a reboot with a realistically-bodied lead. Final Fantasy XIII stars a badass female warrior as the main character, and she's not sexed up, romanced, or treated weirdly. Heavenly Sword responds to the excesses of God of War by featuring a powerful woman that's beautiful without being sexed up. Bayonetta demonstrates a positive way to approach female sexuality. The Elder Scrolls games switch from having naked female prostitutes sprawled all over the temples (Daggerfall) to having mostly average-looking women in fairly realistic and covering outfits (Oblivion).
A game like Dragon's Crown wouldn't have looked especially out of place anywhere from the dawn of arcades through the late 90s, but today it draws a veritable firestorm for existing as a cheap niche title.
Things are better. A LOT better. No, not "everything," but gaming as a whole is substantially improved.
This isn't saying that the thread's a waste of time, that it's time to go home, or that there's nothing to complain about.
Instead I'd argue that the #1ReasonWhy isn't how women are "typically" depicted in games. Not anymore. It's about how the men in the industry treat the women in the industry. It's about mostly socially inept guys having absolutely no idea how to communicate with women properly (and frankly probably not knowing how to communicate with other non-nerd men very well either). It's about the filth that spews from kids' mouths over microphone in multiplayer games. It's about the creepy MMO-stalkers.
Dragon's Crown and Two Worlds 2 are worth a bit of mention. They're worth some curiosity, and if you're afraid of regression, some adamant statements that you don't want to see mainstream games going in that direction. But they're not the problem. They're the exception.
You're talking about the frightening power of "social pressure" but I'd like to point out: Art itself (especially mass commercial art) is a form of social pressure. Art isn't just a thing that sits there, inertly. Art is a megaphone.
a) Certain portrayals of female physical attractiveness are in and of themselves bad
b) The consistent unrealistic portrayal of a certain kind of female physical attractiveness as the ideal is the problem
This matters because the way we approach a solution is different.
If (a) the better course is to attack the people creating the bad portrayals until they stop - this will however lead to a discussion of "is it still censorship/silencing if you use social pressures/taboos/conventions to drive something out of the marketplace rather than government action". It's also worth pointing out that using social disapproval to curb offensive art is the exact opposite of the trends lately. In fact, art is generally considered to be better the more people it offends. So we will be facing stiff head winds.
If (b) the better course is to militate for more diverse kinds of portrayals, make not of, purchase, praise, positively review, support, etc, the games that provide such portrayals: such, as in my opinion, half life and portal.
I think discussing which games help and which games hurt could be fruitful. I was wondering where people stood on games like Tomb Raider or Bayonetta. I think they do reinforce certain stereotypes. But at the same time they break others. They are certainly not the typical run of the mill game for the genre so I think in that sense they are good games. It would seem to me then that we are moving (slowly) In a more positive direction.
I also think that making more intelligent, interesting characters is important, as I stated earlier. A dumb, physically attractive male character is not as reinforcing of harmful stereotypes as a dumb, physically attractive female character. Therefore the impact of bad character creation falls disproportionately on the females, IMO.
--edit: @TheSauce raises an interesting 3rd possibility. noting the steady improvement we've had on this front, he posits that as far as female depictions in games, we're doing fairly well. The problem is more the treatment of women inside the industry and the treatment of female gamers by male gamers in the general atmosphere of extreme assholeishness that is the internet. The latter we can fix, the former we can't really (not as gamers, because it will mostly be invisible to us but no less real) but if the primary issue is not the depiction of female characters inside the games, then to fix the problem would require different actions.
PSN: Vorpallion Twitch: Vorpallion
I've been misquoted! (literally, I didn't write that
This is the second time you've said this and the first time I ignored it because I assumed you were being facetious, but this really isn't true. It doesent make any sense at all.
e; Its like saying "everyone knows music is better the louder it is".
If we assume that that's true, and not just based on a deliberately generous selection of games, why do you suppose that is?
1. Creative endeavors are a reflection of society (and/or a comment upon it). As our society advances, so too does our creative media.
2. The games industry is really, really big, too big to consist of just socially-challenged hobbyist nerds making whatever they want for themselves and each other. This brings expanded viewpoints.
3. More women than ever before are involved in the gaming industry. Some of this is intentional, such as Maxis forcibly creating a 50/50 team for The Sims, while the rest of it is women who grew up playing games wanting to create them, too (Portal).
4. More women than ever before are playing games, making them a very profitable audience to create for and appeal to.
These are not in any particular order.
Good thing no one felt personally attacked by the mention of censorship.
Is it too much to ask that "censorship" be added to the forbidden phrases list? I know that would actually BE censorship, but at this point half the posts in this topic are people arguing about what is or isn't censorship when it should be obvious that what is going on in here is criticism, not censorship.
These things feed on each other. If men in the industry don't treat women well, that will likely carry over into their games. Women being treated poorly means that their voices are marginalized and they have difficulty enacting positive change. Without positive change, poor treatment carries over into their games. Girls who play those games feel like they're being mistreated, so hardly any of them go into the gaming industry. Guys who play those games are subtly influenced about how they treat women, and they are the ones going into the gaming industry. They don't treat women well, which leads to women in the industry being treated poorly. Those informs the games they make, etc, etc, and the cycle continues.
Going back to the mosaic idea that Cambiata keeps reposting - the idea of "this is how things are done" is very powerful. It's very hard to break that mold. If every game has sexy female characters, then you think that the norm is sexy female characters. Take the picture of the Queen from the chess game - as posters here have noted, there's really no reason in particular why she has to be sexy. She could look like the Dowager Countess from Downton Abbey and still look intimidating and powerful, but instead, she's showing off cleavage, has a skinny waist, and large hips. Now, I can't say for sure whether the artist intended this or not, but it's possible that the reason why that character portrait is "sexy" is simply because most female characters in games are sexy, and the artist went with what has always been done before. The tiles in the gaming mosaic are predominately white women with exposed and / or huge cleavage and skinny waists, and I'm not sure why telling artists that we want some variety in the tiles is a bad thing.
I hope one of the outcomes of #1ReasonWhy is to make creators and artists take a look at what they're doing and say "are we doing this because we want it done this way, or are we doing this because this is just our default?" Or that they look at what they're doing and ask themselves, "how will this be interpreted by people who aren't like me?". In a lot of the negative cases, I'm not sure that developers and artists are intentionally portraying women poorly. Maybe it's just me hoping that they're aren't overtly sexist, but I think they're just oblivious to the impact of what they're doing and are portraying women the way they do because that's how it's always been done. By making them aware of the issue, they can make positive changes to their characters without compromising their vision. Because, let's face it - would Mass Effect 3's vision have changed for the worse had EDI not been so busty? Would Starcraft 2: HotS's vision have changed for the worse had they reduced the number of times they showed Kerrigan from behind with her ass cheeks hanging out? Would Halo 4's vision have been compromised by having Cortana wear something less revealing? By portraying those characters the way they did, did they increase the sales of the game, or really send a message that absolutely needed to be sent? I think the answer to all of these questions is "no".
So if artists and developers start opening their eyes to this issue, and say "hey wait, what we're doing might be alienating part of our audience and potentially causing harm to that audience, can we change things so we don't do that and still achieve our overall vision"... why is that a bad thing, exactly?
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
The events in this article are basically what sparked this debate for me.
http://www.destructoid.com/gearbox-artist-slams-dragon-s-crown-character-design-252826.phtml
"Also, this is the first time I've seen that character and holy shit, ahahahahahaha. That's actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, fucking lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he's in jail now. This is amazing."
Claiming a 5th grader produces better art and insinuating another artist in the industry is a sexual deviant based upon the art they produce is a personal attack on his character... Not criticism of his art.
That type of conversation is not constructive and just as juvenile as titty witches to begin with. That is the point I'm trying to get across. There is a fundamental difference between insults/attacks and criticism of art.
No shit its not constructive, it even has the word "lol" in it.
Whats your point?
While I agree with the immaturity of her response, I would believe you more if you hadn't left your OTHER point out of your summary there, the fact you stated there's nothing wrong with the titty witch in the first place.
Many females in gaming get insulted and abused in comment threads constantly, everything from "TITS OR GTFO" to actual rape threats: Everything is fine here, move along.
The oddest thing about this is that the artist has said he's fine, happy even, that people are even commenting on his art.
The internet: Protecting people who don't actually need or want your protection while abusing people who already get it every day in real life since ???
pretty sure i never said that anyone who disagreed with me was a clueless sexist? if you're referring to the post where i'm saying i'm a little tired about arguing about basics for a while, that point was meant to be more about the general state of conversation in the thread, nothing/nobody specific in mind.
i'm sure you would find the idea of censoring offensive media to be distressing, but i'd say that's because you have never in your life been the target of offensive media. you probably have a very nice life and have no idea how completely distressing it would be to be bombarded with this media day in, day out.
also this idea keeps popping up: "stop criticising bad art, just reward good art! combat bad art with good art! the only reaction is more art!" and i really hate it. A) it works incredibly slowly because it's very weak (people love portal, how's that been working out for sexism in the medium so far?)
Prime was better, but then the zero suit was introduced and the next non-Retro game added wedge heels and was a general travesty for Samus. Soul Calibur games went from modest proportions to increasingly ridiculous ones advertised with fliers (later pulled!) like (potentially NSFW) this and (also potentially NSFW) this, which makes it pretty clear what they're selling.
Just because there's HL2 (2004), Portal (2007), Mirror's Edge (2008), and Tomb Raider (2013) doesn't mean we're clear. We should probably have enough of these that there aren't just a couple standout examples that we have to lean on all the time. I agree with you that things are getting better! Especially recently now that more awareness and conversation is occurring at all levels about this sort of thing. That's not to say the other issues you touch on aren't important—they definitely are!—but on the other front I don't think we're approaching the summit yet.
I think we're still working toward Base Camp 1.
I think we're still packing, looking at the mountian and thinking "lord almighty but this is gonna SUCK".
But that is criticism of the art. "I knew a delinquent fifth-grader year who drew better pictures" is criticism of art. Yes, it is mean, and it could hurt the artist's feelings. Are you the artist? No? Then why do you care so much? Not sure where the "sexual deviant" stuff is either. I think you need to lie down, take a couple of deep breaths.
Also, I don't know why you come here and suggest that it's so bad to be mean when the person who was being mean isn't around here, has never been around here, and won't ever be around here. If you have a problem with what Ms. Hamm said, maybe you should take it up with her?
2011
2012
2013
As the 2013 results were published this April, you may congratulate yourself for the great strides made
and
let me suggest low sample size to help you rationalize any dissonance you may encounter.
What I don't get is that the very people who are so vehemently arguing that it's actually societally destructive to be mean to artists, are also arguing that no one can say shit about artists whose art is mean and destructive.
You... you kind of have to pick one or the other. You don't get to claim both. Well (I see the need to specify here) you do get to, because that's freedom of speech, eh? You just don't get to make those claims without looking like a lunatic.
I can't tell which direction you're being facetious in
If it's one direction you should look further down the article
If it's the other direction, you're not being very constructive