One: Covered doesn't exclude sexy.
Two: Optional character designs aren't a given. Are you talking fighting games?
When I say "covered", I mean costumes, that some people won't think being sexy / sexualized.
And I am thinking in terms of all games. Though fighting games probably the best example, since they can and are providing abundance of costumes for characters.
But generally most of the popular games nowadays have options to put characters in different costumes, AFAIK, of course.
Spending a minute on Google can get anyone the definitions of "sexy, "sexualized", and "objectified". Very real terms that have defined meaning and are three completely different things. Their meaning is not up for debate. Identifying each of them really isn't a chore either as long as you do in fact know the meaning.
Their meaning is up to debate because people can have different standards on what just sexy or what sexualized.
No, I didn't. I said sexy was different to objectification which you still can't grasp. The post you originally responded to was suggesting we could have publishers stop the objectification, which isn't an unreasonable goal. You just keep changing the word to either sexualised or sexy when they are different words with different meanings. Why can't you just use the same word when arguing against it?
I don't see much difference here due to the fact that people can see different designs in different manner.
They are exceptions like Quiet, of course, where its is not up to debate.
Now this is one of those things that turned me from buying and playing MGSV, though it was not the main "nail in the coffin" to my relationship with the series - I was disappointed in the MGS story since MGS4 / Peace Walker and after that point lost interest in MGS series.
Though, Beauty and the Beast unit from MGS4 was quite awful, due to the idea itself and hilarious stories they've got.
Do you understand context? There is a difference between a girl in a bikini at the beach, or in a nice summer dress in the city, and a girl in a bikini on battlefield who is apparently a professional soldier, surrounded by male colleagues wearing professional soldier kit instead, while the camera caresses her and constantly zooms in on her tits. Can you really not see the difference in context there?
Let me explain (as always, because apparently I need to explain everything to the minuscule detail to be understood properly).
I was not speaking about situations where sexy is to be expected (beach, city, e.t.c.).
I was speaking about situation like Quiet from MGSV. Most of the games, where such situation occurs do have sexualized characters in "improper" context, so to speak. So, whether camera ruled by operator-pervert or not, they design still will be sexualized / sexy.
There is no formula, it's about context. Isn't always about being naked either, you can be fully clothed and sexualised too, or not wearing much and not sexualised. I also don't see how you can seperate out the camerawork when it's literally the lens through which we view the media. Disregarding it in a discussion of film wold be laughable.
OK, quick question - would be Cammy's design from SFV less sexualized without operator making accents on her "assets"?
I think, answer is "yes", so camera is just a part of the problem.
Agency within the game. Do you understand the difference between women constantly needing to be rescued and men doing the rescuing? You can't just sweep depictions across all media under the carpet as 'but no fictional character has agency! No problem here!'
I am not saying that there is no problem. I am saying that it is on authors, not characters.
Character is just a tool, sexualized or not.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I apologize, everyone.
*puts FrankJaeger on ignore*
Ahhh, much better. Carry on.
We salute your bravery!!
