Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)

BladeX · Dec 13, 2017

dadrester said:
There's one thing that I feel like pointing our about some of the terminology in this thread, specifically the term "objectification". Videogame characters are ALL designed to be objectified. That's one of their key purposes and is a knock on effect of having had someone sit there for hours carefully modelling them, texturing them, rigging them and animating them. They're literally designed to be looked at. Be it, Batman and his famously labour intensive cape or the the painfully buxom girls of dead or alive beach volleyball. The issue is not objectification on it's own, it's all to do with context, balance and intent. If we want to move games out of the domain of teenage boys (which to be honest I think we did 10 years ago for the most part) then we need to realise this. Personally I have no problem with Cammy wearing a thong as long Urien is also wearing one, however imagine if the male characters in 40% of all your games dressed like this for no reason. You might find it a little, boring/ridiculous/uncomfortable/demeaning.

This is so true...

It is not just women that get objectified in games / movies etc, it is pretty much every single character. Sure with women it goes regularly overboard and it usually leaves a bad taste, but that is not to say that a totally ripped uncannily beautiful Thor is not the absolute epitome of male objectification...

Just like women are depicted as sexbombs, in the same way most men are depicted as strong, incredibly sharp and confident studs.

Again, I get that women get the worse in this topic, but it is not to say that I, as a guy, look at this fully ripped, highly capable and successful dude and think "wow we men are so cool! I feel so great about being a guy!"... no, far from it... I am tired that the textbook action hero is almost everytime the objectification of the perfect and non existent male and I am tired of all the stereotypes and expectations that this creates in other people's minds.

Weltall Zero · Dec 13, 2017

The difference between sexy, sexualized, objectified and power fantasy is going to be the groundhog topic of the day, isn't it? :/

Xaszatm · Dec 13, 2017

Weltall Zero said:
The difference between sexy, sexualized, objectified and power fantasy is going to be the groundhog topic of the day, isn't it? :/

What this thread feels like sometimes:

geek eternal · Dec 13, 2017

Persephone said:
==== MOD EDIT ====

People (especially dudes) posting in this thread for the first time, please be considerate, and heed these little guidelines by avoiding posting the likes of:

- "I don't care, I love T&A". Good for you, but coming in a thread about women's opinions to tell them you don't care is rude and inflammatory. Don't be that guy.

- "What's the problem anyway? It's just fiction/video games/etc.". The "problem" has been explained in detail across the whole thread. You might not want to read the whole thread, and that's fine -- but in that case, just don't reply.

- "Just vote with your wallet/play other games". It's not that simple, for reasons explained in the thread, and it's also dismissive.

- "Censorship is bad." Yes it is. But criticism isn't censorship. This is a strawman argument.

- "You're just being prudish". Nope. One can enjoy sex and nudity without enjoying seeing their gender being constantly objectified in media.

- "Men are sexualized too." It's a false equivalence, also explained in detail in the thread.

- "You don't speak for all women." Obviously not. But plenty of women have spoken in the thread. And funnily enough, they are almost all of the same mind as the OP. The only people complaining about the title so far have been men. Funny huh?

If you are interested to know what women (several women, cis, trans and non-binary, of all orientations) have to say, then by all means stay a while and listen, and ask your questions and participate. Many of them have posted in this thread. If you're here to tell us we are wrong, overreacting, or to dismiss our opinions, then please don't bother.

Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

Morrigan · Dec 13, 2017

StanleyPalmtree said:
so this is what its like to look at 'clothing' and instinctively think "why would anyone ever wear that, it would be so uncomfortable"

damn is this what it feels like every time for y'all?

Yup yup :D

DragonKeeper · Dec 13, 2017

geek eternal said:
Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

- "Men are sexualized too." It's a false equivalence, also explained in detail in the thread.

Isn't used to discuss sexualization of men but to dismiss sexualization of women. The typical response is, well, go make a thread about how men are mistreated. Funny how that never happens. Also "b-but what about the men?!"

- "You don't speak for all women." Obviously not. But plenty of women have spoken in the thread. And funnily enough, they are almost all of the same mind as the OP. The only people complaining about the title so far have been men. Funny huh?

Again, this is always just pulled out of thin air to shut down conversation.

The mods recognize these tired old tactics and are doing a fine job.

Morrigan · Dec 13, 2017

geek eternal said:
Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

If you think you actually have something new to add to the debate about male sexualization that hasn't been addressed countless times, sure, be my guest.

As for the other highlighted part, I'm wondering what part you object to, exactly. If you were a woman who largely dissented, that'd be one thing, but based on your profile you are male. So...?

Hat22 · Dec 13, 2017

geek eternal said:
Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

No, there is a marked improvement. I'm sure you're aware of the most famous bans from the other site.

Weltall Zero said:
The difference between sexy, sexualized, objectified and power fantasy is going to be the groundhog topic of the day, isn't it? :/

People seem to be opposed to all these things. Only a minority of people seem to believe that everything is fine when it comes to fantasy but that things can definitely be out of place in games designed for everyone.

I think this discussion gets heated at times because these nuances matter less when it comes to whether or not creators should be censored, whether that be through pressuring the creators boss, being an awful localizer or demanding government action.

Twig · Dec 13, 2017

Maybe we should throw censorship onto the pile of terms people don't understand.

People wanting change for the better isn't censorship.

Derpot · Dec 13, 2017

I try to remember if there are examples of male sexualisation "that went wrong", and I always think about this one:

http://www.usgamer.net/articles/mobius-mevius-final-fantasy-hero-too-sexy

Yes, the Mobius FF guy's case again, it's a classic but I like that example. And again, remember what happened:

"After we released the screenshots in December, we looked at the various reactions we were getting online, and in the end, showing this much skin..." explained Kitase on the stream (as translated by the fine folks at RocketNews24). "For this game, we're moving forward during development and letting it evolve while taking into consideration users' opinions, so I asked the character designer to make a change."

How strange. So people complained about that male character who showed too much skin and they changed the design?
But where were the people who protest against censorship? Where were the people who fight for artistic freedom?
Hmmm.

Twig · Dec 13, 2017

Too busy whining about some loli game not coming to the west probably.

Weltall Zero · Dec 13, 2017

geek eternal said:
Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

It's funny because the only thing I would change in the OP would be adding "modwhining = ban". But hey, that's just my "viewpoint", don't dismiss it. :)

Hat22 · Dec 13, 2017

Derpot said:
How strange. So people complained about that male character who showed too much skin and they changed the design?
But where were the people who protest against censorship? Where were the people who fight for artistic freedom?
Hmmm.

I don't know. Perhaps the fact that it was originally a mobile game that had yet to be translated into English played a part? I don't follow FF so I can't really give a definitive answer.

Googling "Mobius Final Fantasy censorship" reveals a few upset people though.

Twig said:
People wanting change for the better isn't censorship.

I think I made that distinction pretty clear. However, using censorship to make the world better is still censorship.

Twig · Dec 13, 2017

Hat22 said:
I think I made that distinction pretty clear. However, using censorship to make the world better is still censorship.

I stand by what I said and how I said it.

Like, do you consider society changing to no longer commonly use blackface as a comedic thing, because they realize how offensive it is, to be censorship?

'Cause if so, well, lol, no.

Patch13 · Dec 13, 2017

BladeX said:
This is so true...

It is not just women that get objectified in games / movies etc, it is pretty much every single character. Sure with women it goes regularly overboard and it usually leaves a bad taste, but that is not to say that a totally ripped uncannily beautiful Thor is not the absolute epitome of male objectification...

Just like women are depicted as sexbombs, in the same way most men are depicted as strong, incredibly sharp and confident studs.

Again, I get that women get the worse in this topic, but it is not to say that I, as a guy, look at this fully ripped, highly capable and successful dude and think "wow we men are so cool! I feel so great about being a guy!"... no, far from it... I am tired that the textbook action hero is almost everytime the objectification of the perfect and non existent male and I am tired of all the stereotypes and expectations that this creates in other people's minds.

There's a big difference between being portrayed as sexy and desirable, and being objectified. When someone is objectified, they are depicted, literally, as an object, their interior life masked.

Take this Star Wars poster:

Luke is ripped, and Leia is sexy. So are they both objectified? Take a second look. What is Luke thinking? Yeah, he's got musculature that Mark Hamill doesn't have. But he's got more going on in the picture. He's barely holding on to that light saber, simultaneously drawn to and afraid of the power that he is wielding. His character's conflict, between the power of the dark side and the potential of the light, is captured in the image, as pulpy and ridiculous as it is.

Now look at Leia. What is she thinking? She's not thinking anything. She's making sultry eyes at the viewer, and showing us her leg. She is separate from whatever is going on with the lightsaber and the story: she's just in the scene to be a pretty object.

You can see this, if you pay attention, in a lot of art. Classical nudes? Most of the women are there to make soft eyes at the viewer and look good. It's rare to find a painting where we can say something about their interior life. The same does not go for the men, who may be nude, but are holding the weight of the world, or striving to touch the hand of God, or just generally doing things and feeling stuff.

Yeah, there's a layer of stuff happening that pertains to role models and unrealistic expectations. But that's separate from objectification. In a lot of art, men are subject, women object. And it is kind of a big deal, and a genuine cultural problem.

(Happily, the more commonly use theatrical versions of the Star Wars poster feature a dynamic Leia blasting people with the a gun btw. This poster was just a nice, relatively safe for work example of what I was getting at.)

Make sense?

Derpot · Dec 13, 2017

Hat22 said:
I don't know. Perhaps the fact that it was originally a mobile game that had yet to be translated into English played a part? I don't follow FF so I can't really give a definitive answer.

Googling "Mobius Final Fantasy censorship" reveals a few upset people though.

Some people liked the design so they were upset, but I don't remember there was some outrage about the change. There was no "these SJWs did it again!!" or "stupid feminazi ruining my games and censoring artists!!".
So I think the moral of the story is: video games need to sell, because they are still commercial products, so sometimes fans give feedback about what they don't like (gameplay, graphics and all), and devs decide to make some change or not to please them. Here, devs took the decision to change the design because fans didn't like it. It's not censorhip if they decided to do it themselves, they just wanted the fans to be pleased.
But I'm sure that if the character was a woman, it wouldn't have happened. Cindy's design (from FFXV) was criticized a lot, and the devs didn't even care, I think one of them even laughed about it, and Hajime Tabata said "she's actually not meant to be an erotic character", lol.

MattWilsonCSS · Dec 13, 2017

Hat22 said:
I think I made that distinction pretty clear. However, using censorship to make the world better is still censorship.

I disagree for one basic reason: it's still up to the developer to make the choice themselves to change content. Calling this censorship erases the agency that developers have in creating their games, and that's just not recognizing reality. They don't HAVE to DO -anything-. They CHOOSE to do it, regardless of reason. If the government forced their hand to change their content, THAT would be censorship.

Also, the idea that games are censored in the first place is misguided. Editorial decisions are made daily in game development. There's a video series on unused content in Bloodborne right now, and FROM's decision not to use that content is certainly not decried as censorship. There's a lot of decisions that you'll never see, from character designs, to objectionable content, to deleting scenes. The developer is in the right to do all of this, and if they see that people don't like something about their game, and they happen to AGREE with the dissent and make the change, that's just another editorial decision, along with all the others. It's not censorship. Don't insult their intelligence with that.

Xaszatm · Dec 13, 2017

Derpot said:
Some people liked the design so they were upset, but I don't remember there was some outrage about the change. There was no "these SJWs did it again!!" or "stupid feminazi ruining my games and censoring artists!!".
So I think the moral of the story is: video games need to sell, because they are still commercial products, so sometimes fans give feedback about what they don't like (gameplay, graphics and all), and devs decide to make some change or not to please them. Here, devs took the decision to change the design because fans didn't like it. It's not censorhip if they decided to do it themselves, they just wanted the fans to be pleased.
But I'm sure that if the character was a woman, it wouldn't have happened. Cindy's design (from FFXV) was criticized a lot, and the devs didn't even care, I think one of them even laughed about it, and Hajime Tabata said "she's actually not meant to be an erotic character", lol.

To be fair, SFV did change some of the more egregious animations in their game before release...which unfortunately led to a lot of complaints about censorship and "feminists want R. Mika wearing a Burka!" whining. But yeah, if it's a female change, it's censorship but when it's a male change, it's "pleasing the fanbase". Amazing how hypocritical some of these people can be.

Ferrs · Dec 13, 2017

MattWilsonCSS said:
I disagree for one basic reason: it's still up to the developer to make the choice themselves to change content. Calling this censorship erases the agency that developers have in creating their games, and that's just not recognizing reality. They don't HAVE to DO -anything-. They CHOOSE to do it, regardless of reason. If the government forced their hand to change their content, THAT would be censorship.

Also, the idea that games are censored in the first place is misguided. Editorial decisions are made daily in game development. There's a video series on unused content in Bloodborne right now, and FROM's decision not to use that content is certainly not decried as censorship. There's a lot of decisions that you'll never see, from character designs, to objectionable content, to deleting scenes. The developer is in the right to do all of this, and if they see that people don't like something about their game, and they happen to AGREE with the dissent and make the change, that's just another editorial decision, along with all the others. It's not censorship. Don't insult their intelligence with that.

I remember a thread here about the director Persona 5 asked to change the girls design to make them more cute. Of course no one there thought it was a censorship to artistic freedom though.

Derpot · Dec 13, 2017

Xaszatm said:
To be fair, SFV did change some of the more egregious animations in their game before release...which unfortunately led to a lot of complaints about censorship and "feminists want R. Mika wearing a Burka!" whining. But yeah, if it's a female change, it's censorship but when it's a male change, it's "pleasing the fanbase". Amazing how hypocritical some of these people can be.

Yeah, they changed camera angles for Cammy's intro and Mika's Critical Art if I remember well. But at least, they didn't change their designs.
Imagine if they changed Cammy's design to give her pants, people would lose their shit lol

Xaszatm · Dec 13, 2017

Derpot said:
Yeah, they changed camera angles for Cammy's intro and Mika's Critical Art if I remember well. But at least, they didn't change their designs.
Imagine if they changed Cammy's design to give her pants, people would lose their shit lol

Yep, they'd go nuts. Which is a shame because we've seen concept art Cammy in pants and:

Someone remind me why this is bad again? Because that outfit looks great.

mrmoose · Dec 13, 2017

Patch13 said:
There's a big difference between being portrayed as sexy and desirable, and being objectified. When someone is objectified, they are depicted, literally, as an object, their interior life masked.

Take this Star Wars poster:

Luke is ripped, and Leia is sexy. So are they both objectified? Take a second look. What is Luke thinking? Yeah, he's got musculature that Mark Hamill doesn't have. But he's got more going on in the picture. He's barely holding on to that light saber, simultaneously drawn to and afraid of the power that he is wielding. His character's conflict, between the power of the dark side and the potential of the light, is captured in the image, as pulpy and ridiculous as it is.

Now look at Leia. What is she thinking? She's not thinking anything. She's making sultry eyes at the viewer, and showing us her leg. She is separate from whatever is going on with the lightsaber and the story: she's just in the scene to be a pretty object.

You can see this, if you pay attention, in a lot of art. Classical nudes? Most of the women are there to make soft eyes at the viewer and look good. It's rare to find a painting where we can say something about their interior life. The same does not go for the men, who may be nude, but are holding the weight of the world, or striving to touch the hand of God, or just generally doing things and feeling stuff.

I kind of think you're reading too much into the Luke pose. Do you believe Jung had that much grasp of the story and deliberately drew a conflicted luke, barely hanging onto his light saber? He was basically told do "good and evil" and given stills of the film, I thought?

I agree with your take on Leia, and this is obviously inspired by Frazetta.

Patch13 · Dec 13, 2017

mrmoose said:
I kind of think you're reading too much into the Luke pose. Do you believe Jung had that much grasp of the story and deliberately drew a conflicted luke, barely hanging onto his light saber? He was basically told do "good and evil" and given stills of the film, I thought?

Regardless of how well the artist understood the plot, Luke still has an expression and a pose that says that something is going on. He's not just making non-threatening eyes at the viewer. I may be reading too much into his expression, but there's still an expression, and there is some reading to do. He is a subject of the painting, rather than an object inside of it.

mrmoose said:
I agree with your take on Leia, and this is obviously inspired by Frazetta.

Yep. And Frazetta's inspiration goes way back to classical art. Then that stuff goes forward and get its fingerprints all over games. In general, though, someone is objectified if you can't make some reasonable guesses about what they are thinking, doing, or feeling from the art. Often this is because they are looking out of the art, at you, with eyes and mouth held in a slightly blank or otherwise nonthreatening manner.

A.J. · Dec 13, 2017

The "censorship is bad" argument is dumb in the first place. You censor yourself everyday in your actions and words. Extreme censorship is bad, but most things in extremes tend to be bad.

4Tran · Dec 13, 2017

Patch13 said:
Regardless of how well the artist understood the plot, Luke still has an expression and a pose that says that something is going on. He's not just making non-threatening eyes at the viewer. I may be reading too much into his expression, but there's still an expression, and there is some reading to do. He is a subject of the painting, rather than an object inside of it.

Yep. And Frazetta's inspiration goes way back to classical art. Then that stuff goes forward and get its fingerprints all over games. In general, though, someone is objectified if you can't make some reasonable guesses about what they are thinking, doing, or feeling from the art. Often this is because they are looking out of the art, at you, with eyes and mouth held in a slightly blank or otherwise nonthreatening manner.

Honestly, I think that the conversation about character design pays too much attention to costume, and not enough attention to pose. Both are important parts of visual communication, and male and female characters are usually presented very differently. One of these is that male characters are often posed to be actively doing things whereas female characters are way more passively posed.

Morrigan · Dec 13, 2017

4Tran said:
Honestly, I think that the conversation about character design pays too much attention to costume, and not enough attention to pose. Both are important parts of visual communication, and male and female characters are usually presented very differently. One of these is that male characters are often posed to be actively doing things whereas female characters are way more passively posed.

Couldn't agree more.

I remember seeing a collage of JRPG characters... I forgot the artist (Yoshida maybe?), I can't find it anymore. But basically, even when the women were wearing mostly OK outfits, they were all posing either in ways that appeared submissive, demure, or posing sexily for the camera; and all the male characters were posing in ways that ignored the "camera" and that felt natural, either standing confidently, or sitting down relaxed, etc. but not posing in ways to appear sexually attractive and sexually available. The contrast was really blatant and it even annoyed that I couldn't NOT see it.
Wish I could find that pic again, but I can't remember for what game it was.

cosmicblizzard · Dec 13, 2017

geek eternal said:
Those 2 mod responses I highlighted just prove that mods on ResetEra are no better than they were on the other site. Dismissing other viewpoints, funny huh?

I'm not the biggest fan of the overall climate, but I likely would have gotten banned on the other site for posts in this and other threads, yet I've managed to elude even a warning. It's definitely an improvement.

Not to say there aren't moderation decisions I disagree with or find outright baffling, but being ban-happy and directing discussions toward dogpiles pre-banning has always been the biggest issue with the other site. I mean who knows, maybe that will be how Reset ends up when it's less new and has a more solid identity, but for now it's pretty solid.

Mesoian · Dec 13, 2017

Xaszatm said:
Yep, they'd go nuts. Which is a shame because we've seen concept art Cammy in pants and:

Someone remind me why this is bad again? Because that outfit looks great.

It's not. It's great. I modded that outfit into my SF5 PC build.

cosmicblizzard said:
I'm not the biggest fan of the overall climate, but I likely would have gotten banned on the other site for posts in this and other threads, yet I've managed to elude even a warning. It's definitely an improvement.

Not to say there aren't moderation decisions I disagree with or find outright baffling, but being ban-happy and directing discussions toward dogpiles pre-banning has always been the biggest issue with the other site. I mean who knows, maybe that will be how Reset ends up when it's less new and has a more solid identity, but for now it's pretty solid.

You've had a lot of positions that a lot of people don't agree with, but you also haven't been super shitty.

Usually the people complaining about mod crackdowns in threads like these are being super shitty.

incogneato · Dec 13, 2017

cosmicblizzard said:
I'm not the biggest fan of the overall climate, but I likely would have gotten banned on the other site for posts in this and other threads, yet I've managed to elude even a warning. It's definitely an improvement.

Not to say there aren't moderation decisions I disagree with or find outright baffling, but being ban-happy and directing discussions toward dogpiles pre-banning has always been the biggest issue with the other site. I mean who knows, maybe that will be how Reset ends up when it's less new and has a more solid identity, but for now it's pretty solid.

I think this forum has more room for nuanced discussion. As a lurker on the previous forum, many posters that were elucidating more nuanced approaches or discussion points were often dogpiled and then subsequently banned from the website. Here, as long as the claims made are not brought up in a fallacious, disingenuous, or aggressive manner, then users are largely given the right to express themselves with more complex issues. Some toxicity and overall pompousness carried over from the old forum, but generally that type of behavior is quickly moderated, which is nice.

HyperFerret · Dec 13, 2017

4Tran said:
Honestly, I think that the conversation about character design pays too much attention to costume, and not enough attention to pose. Both are important parts of visual communication, and male and female characters are usually presented very differently. One of these is that male characters are often posed to be actively doing things whereas female characters are way more passively posed.

Oh man, if there's one pose that I'm absolutely sick of, and only because I see it everywhere, it's the hand on the hip pose. So many people draw their women doing it and I'm not sure why. I think I hate this pose more than the boob-n-butt pose.

Source: https://dfmarin.deviantart.com/art/CONCEPT-ART-WARRIOR-GIRL-380052820

Source: https://atongwali.deviantart.com/art/Concept-Art-Barbarian-Girl-333368894

But that's just me xP

Dary · Dec 13, 2017

Morrigan said:
Couldn't agree more.

I remember seeing a collage of JRPG characters... I forgot the artist (Yoshida maybe?), I can't find it anymore. But basically, even when the women were wearing mostly OK outfits, they were all posing either in ways that appeared submissive, demure, or posing sexily for the camera; and all the male characters were posing in ways that ignored the "camera" and that felt natural, either standing confidently, or sitting down relaxed, etc. but not posing in ways to appear sexually attractive and sexually available. The contrast was really blatant and it even annoyed that I couldn't NOT see it.
Wish I could find that pic again, but I can't remember for what game it was.

Dunno if this is it, but yeah. The FF12 steelbook art. I love it except...what the hell is going on with the female characters???

Morrigan · Dec 13, 2017

Nah, wasn't that one. It was a bigger collage with more characters, some of which were sitting or leaning against something. Sorry, that's too vague. Anyway. You get the point!

Juna · Dec 13, 2017

A.J. said:
The "censorship is bad" argument is dumb in the first place. You censor yourself everyday in your actions and words. Extreme censorship is bad, but most things in extremes tend to be bad.

That's because it's a rhetoric short cut. The chain goes like this: Criticism => Censorship => Bad => I win
There are three ways to set up the first link, simply asserting it, claiming that people want the government or another powerful authority to censor it (usually a straw-man) or arguing semantics until the definition of censorship includes changing peoples minds.
The second link is usually just assumed as universally understood and arguing against it on a public forum is usually an exercise in futility and frustration. Doing it is more or less a trap since it concedes the ridiculous first link and leads to an endless debate that will completely derail the discussion about the actual issue. Though arguing the first link derails the thread most of the time as well. It's pretty much guaranteed if it's a semantic argument. Since those nearly always end in train-wrecks.
Honestly I think it's pretty much always a bad faith argument since it barely comes up for anything else. Only for social justice critic. And engaging in it means you're not talking about the issue you actually care about.

Dr.Ifto · Dec 13, 2017

I think the issue is that women are not their market, so they dont care. You can say you dont like it and want it removed, but if you buy it, you are supporting them. Vote with your wallet, and get others to join your cause.

psychowave · Dec 13, 2017

Dr.Ifto said:
I think the issue is that women are not their market, so they dont care. You can say you dont like it and want it removed, but if you buy it, you are supporting them. Vote with your wallet, and get others to join your cause.

I think the issue is not reading OPs before you comment.

4Tran · Dec 13, 2017

Juna said:
That's because it's a rhetoric short cut. The chain goes like this: Criticism => Censorship => Bad => I win
There are three ways to set up the first link, simply asserting it, claiming that people want the government or another powerful authority to censor it (usually a straw-man) or arguing semantics until the definition of censorship includes changing peoples minds.
The second link is usually just assumed as universally understood and arguing against it on a public forum is usually an exercise in futility and frustration. Doing it is more or less a trap since it concedes the ridiculous first link and leads to an endless debate that will completely derail the discussion about the actual issue. Though arguing the first link derails the thread most of the time as well. It's pretty much guaranteed if it's a semantic argument. Since those nearly always end in train-wrecks.
Honestly I think it's pretty much always a bad faith argument since it barely comes up for anything else. Only for social justice critic. And engaging in it means you're not talking about the issue you actually care about.

Never mind that criticism actually means "examination"; even if it was advocating for change, it would be in the sense of film criticism advocating for better films from Hollywood or music criticism advocating for better music from the recording industry. If we limit ourselves to games, would anyone call it censorship if someone were to insist that video games have better animation? Or gun effcts? Or music?

Squidi · Dec 13, 2017

A.J. said:
The "censorship is bad" argument is dumb in the first place. You censor yourself everyday in your actions and words. Extreme censorship is bad, but most things in extremes tend to be bad.

There's not really such a thing as half censorship. Either ideas are permitted or they are not. Free speech isn't an extreme. It's an absolute.

Allowing for degrees of censorship just allows authoritarians to sneak in under the guise of "won't somebody think of the children", claiming that their censorship isn't like other censorship. It is just and right and moral, when it is anything but. You don't need to look far to find examples of this, like the Hayes Code ultimately being oppressive to homosexuals under the guise of protecting the morality and dignity of society.

When we allow for only some ideas to be permitted, without exception, these end up being the wrong ideas and usually for the wrong reasons simply because the people who have the power to decide what is permitted will not wield it unselfishly. The only way to destroy this bias and potential for corruption is to make every idea permitted, even the ugly ones.

Luckily, ideas (as speech, at least) are in no way harmful. What's harmful is ignorance. It is the very exposure to ideas, disagreeable and conflicting to your own, that allows people to break out of their echo chambers and see the complexity and wonder of the world. Censorship is just the authoritarian defense of a weak mind that is deathly afraid that their own position is so ill considered that the only reason people agree with it is because they don't know they have the option not to.

I think discussions about censorship should begin with two premises:

1. I might be wrong about something I won't allow others to speak up against.
2. I might be right about something that others won't allow me to speak up against.

If either of these two are true (and at different points in everybody's life, they will be), then censorship is your mortal enemy. In one case, it closes the only avenue you have to correct yourself, allowing you to continue your harm unknowingly, and in the other, it prevents you from contributing and improving the ills of society that are not recognized or officially sanctioned by people who themselves are wrong about something, but won't allow others to speak against it.

psychowave · Dec 13, 2017

4Tran said:
Never mind that criticism actually means "examination"; even if it was advocating for change, it would be in the sense of film criticism advocating for better films from Hollywood or music criticism advocating for better music from the recording industry. If we limit ourselves to games, would anyone call it censorship if someone were to insist that video games have better animation? Or gun effcts? Or music?

Nope. Discussion and criticism about framerate, graphics, music, story, writing, pacing, level design... those are all fine in the gaming community. Discussion and criticism about representation, though? That's censorship, my dude.

Laiza · Dec 13, 2017

Squidi said:
There's not really such a thing as half censorship. Either ideas are permitted or they are not. Free speech isn't an extreme. It's an absolute.

Allowing for degrees of censorship just allows authoritarians to sneak in under the guise of "won't somebody think of the children", claiming that their censorship isn't like other censorship. It is just and right and moral, when it is anything but. You don't need to look far to find examples of this, like the Hayes Code ultimately being oppressive to homosexuals under the guise of protecting the morality and dignity of society.

When we allow for only some ideas to be permitted, without exception, these end up being the wrong ideas and usually for the wrong reasons simply because the people who have the power to decide what is permitted will not wield it unselfishly. The only way to destroy this bias and potential for corruption is to make every idea permitted, even the ugly ones.

Luckily, ideas (as speech, at least) are in no way harmful. What's harmful is ignorance. It is the very exposure to ideas, disagreeable and conflicting to your own, that allows people to break out of their echo chambers and see the complexity and wonder of the world. Censorship is just the authoritarian defense of a weak mind that is deathly afraid that their own position is so ill considered that the only reason people agree with it is because they don't know they have the option not to.

I think discussions about censorship should begin with two premises:

1. I might be wrong about something I won't allow others to speak up against.
2. I might be right about something that others won't allow me to speak up against.

If either of these two are true (and at different points in everybody's life, they will be), then censorship is your mortal enemy. In one case, it closes the only avenue you have to correct yourself, allowing you to continue your harm unknowingly, and in the other, it prevents you from contributing and improving the ills of society that are not recognized or officially sanctioned by people who themselves are wrong about something, but won't allow others to speak against it.

Right, so, what does all of this have to do with the criticism of sexualized female character designs in video games?

4Tran · Dec 13, 2017

Squidi said:
There's not really such a thing as half censorship. Either ideas are permitted or they are not. Free speech isn't an extreme. It's an absolute.

Allowing for degrees of censorship just allows authoritarians to sneak in under the guise of "won't somebody think of the children", claiming that their censorship isn't like other censorship. It is just and right and moral, when it is anything but. You don't need to look far to find examples of this, like the Hayes Code ultimately being oppressive to homosexuals under the guise of protecting the morality and dignity of society.

Except that this topic is about criticism; not censorship.

Dr.Ifto · Dec 13, 2017

psychowave said:
I think the issue is not reading OPs before you comment.

But I did. Target audience is huge, and those developers are not targeting women, but men who want the over sexualization. But way to generalize.

Deleted member 5535 · Dec 13, 2017

Antiwhippy said:
Eh, I feel where you're coming from, but for the points of Pyra relying on Rex for identity at the point where I'm at she's definitely more well known in-universe than Rex is.

And she's defended Rex by herself more than he does of her honestly. Even by wielding... her.. self?

In fact I don't even know why blades needs drivers at this point really. Or at least why Pyra needs Rex.

I agree with it. Pyra is pretty much a self character with objectives, personality and identity, even with her design problem.

psychowave · Dec 13, 2017

Dr.Ifto said:
But I did. Target audience is huge, and those developers are not targeting women, but men who want the over sexualization. But way to generalize.

No you didn't, because your post goes against the mod edit right at the bottom lmao

Dr.Ifto · Dec 13, 2017

psychowave said:
No you didn't, because your post goes against the mod edit right at the bottom lmao

My post clearly talks about target audience. None of the items in the mod edit. Maybe it brushes them lightly, but it's the truth as to why the sexualization is there. Developers do not care for the women who play their games as to them they are not who they made the game for.

The only way to get it to stop is to vote with your wallet. Show these developers that the women are a large portion of their purchase base and they will then listen. People buying the games as is will not make them change. Their is demand that they are supplying.

You can see how it can work with Battlefront 2

Squidi · Dec 13, 2017

Juna said:
That's because it's a rhetoric short cut. The chain goes like this: Criticism => Censorship => Bad => I win

I think most people who argue against censorship do make the distinction between criticism and censorship. If anything, criticism is the ultimate expression of free speech, for it would be the first thing to go without it. However, there is a point where criticism stops being criticism and starts becoming pressure. At that point, it stops being about the nature of the work and starts being about the nature of control. Let me use an example from the post immediately after yours:

Dr.Ifto said:
I think the issue is that women are not their market, so they dont care. You can say you dont like it and want it removed, but if you buy it, you are supporting them. Vote with your wallet, and get others to join your cause.

See, this isn't criticism. This is pressure. While the effect is largely the same as "turn the channel if you don't like what's on", in this poster's head, they are actively hurting the company, depriving it of income, for the unforgivable crime of disagreeing with them on the nature of their own work. It is not enough to simply admit that one is not the audience for this product, it must extend towards pressuring them, socially (shaming them with they don't care about women) and financially (vote with your wallet), to change it to suit one's wishes. This example is more impotent posturing than actual censorship, but on a large enough scale...

That's not criticism. I would be against censoring that as well, as people are allowed to get passionate about their beliefs. My point is that criticism alone is great, so long as it is given with the understanding that it is the one being criticized's choice whether to accept that criticism and change or not. It is at the point where you get upset that nobody is listening to your criticism and decide to pressure them to do so that it moves down that line from criticism towards censorship.

Of course, if you want to argue how "vote with your wallet and get others to join your cause" is a criticism of a particular work directly and not a call to financially harm a creator, I'm all ears.

And engaging in it means you're not talking about the issue you actually care about.

For me, censorship is the issue I care about. If it gets bogged down in semantics, it is usually because both sides can't hear each other on account of them talking about different things. In this thread alone, I've seen maybe two dozen different definitions for "censorship", none of them wholly correct and only a few of them not lacking for basic understanding.

Dr.Ifto · Dec 13, 2017

Squidi said:
I think most people who argue against censorship do make the distinction between criticism and censorship. If anything, criticism is the ultimate expression of free speech, for it would be the first thing to go without it. However, there is a point where criticism stops being criticism and starts becoming pressure. At that point, it stops being about the nature of the work and starts being about the nature of control. Let me use an example from the post immediately after yours:

See, this isn't criticism. This is pressure. While the effect is largely the same as "turn the channel if you don't like what's on", in this poster's head, they are actively hurting the company, depriving it of income, for the unforgivable crime of disagreeing with them on the nature of their own work. It is not enough to simply admit that one is not the audience for this product, it must extend towards pressuring them, socially (shaming them with they don't care about women) and financially (vote with your wallet), to change it to suit one's wishes. This example is more impotent posturing than actual censorship, but on a large enough scale...

That's not criticism. I would be against censoring that as well, as people are allowed to get passionate about their beliefs. My point is that criticism alone is great, so long as it is given with the understanding that it is the one being criticized's choice whether to accept that criticism and change or not. It is at the point where you get upset that nobody is listening to your criticism and decide to pressure them to do so that it moves down that line from criticism towards censorship.

Of course, if you want to argue how "vote with your wallet and get others to join your cause" is a criticism of a particular work directly and not a call to financially harm a creator, I'm all ears.

For me, censorship is the issue I care about. If it gets bogged down in semantics, it is usually because both sides can't hear each other on account of them talking about different things. In this thread alone, I've seen maybe two dozen different definitions for "censorship", none of them wholly correct and only a few of them not lacking for basic understanding.

Every form of art has it's place and demand in the market. None should be ignored. Some people do like it and pay for it. Change the perception in public is the only way to get real change. Remove the demand.

psychowave · Dec 13, 2017

Dr.Ifto said:
My post clearly talks about target audience. None of the items in the mod edit. Maybe it brushes them lightly, but it's the truth as to why the sexualization is there. Developers do not care for the women who play their games as to them they are not who they made the game for.

The only way to get it to stop is to vote with your wallet. Show these developers that the women are a large portion of their purchase base and they will then listen. People buying the games as is will not make them change. Their is demand that they are supplying.

You can see how it can work with Battlefront 2

... You used the "vote with your wallet" argument word for word, which the mod edit asks people not to use. Come on, now.

Redcrayon · Dec 13, 2017

Weltall Zero said:
The difference between sexy, sexualized, objectified and power fantasy is going to be the groundhog topic of the day, isn't it? :/

I think I last went over it about fifty pages ago :D

Dr.Ifto · Dec 13, 2017

psychowave said:
... You used the "vote with your wallet" argument word for word, which the mod edit asks people not to use. Come on, now.

You can't talk about change without that comment. I would think the community here would be on the vote with your wallet bandwagon with what has happened over the past 2 months.

Chopchop · Dec 13, 2017

Morrigan said:
Couldn't agree more.

I remember seeing a collage of JRPG characters... I forgot the artist (Yoshida maybe?), I can't find it anymore. But basically, even when the women were wearing mostly OK outfits, they were all posing either in ways that appeared submissive, demure, or posing sexily for the camera; and all the male characters were posing in ways that ignored the "camera" and that felt natural, either standing confidently, or sitting down relaxed, etc. but not posing in ways to appear sexually attractive and sexually available. The contrast was really blatant and it even annoyed that I couldn't NOT see it.
Wish I could find that pic again, but I can't remember for what game it was.

This actually extends to real life. There was an interesting bit I did in school where it was pointed out how male and female models pose differently in photoshoots, magazine covers, etc. because of social perceptions of what make men and women attractive.

It follows exactly what you mentioned; men tend to be posed in a way that looks independent and disinterested in the camera - looking away, sitting, and generally looking like they're minding their own business. Women tend to be posed in a way that deliberately interacts with the camera, whether it be in a playful way or with a sort of "come get me" sort of vibe. These are the poses that are popular for model photoshoots, where the subjects of the photos, regardless of gender, are obviously designed to be eye-catching and attractive. For some reason, society considers men attractive when they look like they don't care about the viewer, while it considers women attractive when they look like they are interacting with the viewer.

So it's not just games, but rather something that extends into other media as well.

Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)

Game Developer

Spear of the Metal Church

Spear of the Metal Church

Game Developer

Spear of the Metal Church

▲ Legend ▲

Self Requested Ban

Spear of the Metal Church

User requested account closure

Patient hunter