Indeed, and about five years after the base game came out, but it was so nice that Anet put out much better options in faces and hairstyles for human PoC characters ahead of Path of Fire.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, and about five years after the base game came out, but it was so nice that Anet put out much better options in faces and hairstyles for human PoC characters ahead of Path of Fire.
If she had a choice I know my girlfriend would instantly gravitate towards the armor the female warrior is wearing. I think many are discounting the fact many women/girls like to look pretty, beautiful, appealing, if not sexy, and that armor the female warrior is wearing is probably way more appealing to them than what the male warrior is wearing.I've always been annoyed at this one but this one just makes me angry because the male version is so cool and the female version... well...
Exact same armor, exact same weight class. Like what the heck is even going on with the female version? GW2 is a progressive game in a lot of ways, and a lot of armor that is revealing on female characters is usually just as revealing on male characters, but some times you get just absurd gendered armors some times.
By the same token, products have no independent willpower and can't be "assholes" either. They have no opinions. They can include messages or reflect worldviews, either explicitly or implicitly and open to subjective interpretation, but that's still an extra layer of separation and abstraction (in addition to what is intentionally or at least visibly present in the text). Which is clearly different from a human individual behaving in this or that way and being shown the door for it.
I haven't referred to any of this as "censorship" nor would I consider it to be a violation of any rights per se.
You may call it whatever you want, but there were still a couple of such consequences during the recent Steam debacle. Not all of the games (temporarily) affected included the sort of questionable contents which would be criticized in this thread and it is also far from a fallacy or a lie to emphasize that there are various factions with the ability to lobby platforms or storefronts in other ways.
In a few words, the reasons why games and other products can be taken down from a platform are certainly not restricted to ones that would be accepted or endorsed here. That's what I wanted to underline.
Last edited:
Yeah, okay, now what if I want to wear the male set as a female character? Am I not SOL when they throw that shit in my face? It's not like there's actually an option here. You're stuck with what the dev gave you either way. At least make the latter option a separate armor set so I can make that choice for myself.
Also also... please let your GF speak for herself. It gets really bloody tiresome to see so many people speak for their SOs on here to justify sexist crap, day in, day out.
Ugh, please, I'm not trying to justify sexist crap. I was just relying what I know my significant other likes. Sorry if that offends you.
That said. Options are good, I'm with you on that.
You're missing the point of why this sort of thing bugs so many of us. It has nothing to do with which one is prettier and more likely for us to use, it's about how it's completely one sided in how one look is sexualized and the other isn't. It feels gross as hell that the male equivalent of the same armor is covering the character legit head to toe, not an inch of skin - yet because a girl is wearing this same armor she has to show off her thighs, chest, and face? Is that all she's worth to these designers? Because that's what designs like these tell me as a woman - that I am expected to be sexy for the benefit of others while men are allowed to be strong and cool and don't have to worry about how they look.
If both of these were female character designs, then yeah I would probably pick the yellow one over the blue one too just cuz I'm not a fan of the walking armor suit look regardless of which sex is wearing it. But that's not the case - that it's the same armor designed for men vs women makes it terrible. Especially because it's extremely common in all sorts of games, it's not like a one time deal in one game. Just make the designs equal for both male and female characters, and have a nice balance of revealing vs not revealing for each so everyone can be happy with what they have to wear and no one has to feel singled out.
I kinda feel in the middle? It's an attractive piece of armor (love the gold and the general aesthetic) but I don't understand the dubious patches of exposed skin. I mean of course I get it, it's a game, so female armor is just gonna show that stuff off a lot of the time. I take it cuz I also don't really want massive chunky armor. Just a shame how often the girl armor often shows a LOT more skin...y'know even despite the hazards of giant monsters, evil magic, other villains and all that whatnot.
And as a woman I enjoy wearing attractive things that DO show some skin. I got a slit skirt, I love it, it makes you look!.. But games are really good at taking your v-necks and slit dresses and making "armor" out of shit like this:
Yep, that's how women dress alright.
You can definitely see male fantasy is waaaaaaay more appeased than females. Games are made with men largely in mind and seems to get a buzz off its own id for macho men and damsel women.
Last edited:
I kinda feel in the middle? It's an attractive piece of armor (love the gold and the general aesthetic) but I don't understand the dubious patches of exposed skin. I mean of course I get it, it's a game, so female armor is just gonna show that stuff off a lot of the time. I take it cuz I also don't really want massive chunky armor. Just a shame how often the girl armor often shows a LOT more skin...y'know even despite the hazards of giant monsters, evil magic, other villains and all that whatnot.
And as a woman I enjoy wearing attractive things that DO show some skin. I got a slit skirt, I love it, it makes you look!.. But games are really good at taking your v-necks and slit dresses and making "armor" out of shit like this:
Yep, that's how women dress alright.
Lol, I just noticed that her boots are split down the center. How do they even stay on (I mean the whole thing isn't practical at all...)
I kinda feel in the middle? It's an attractive piece of armor (love the gold and the general aesthetic) but I don't understand the dubious patches of exposed skin. I mean of course I get it, it's a game, so female armor is just gonna show that stuff off a lot of the time. I take it cuz I also don't really want massive chunky armor. Just a shame how often the girl armor often shows a LOT more skin...y'know even despite the hazards of giant monsters, evil magic, other villains and all that whatnot.
And as a woman I enjoy wearing attractive things that DO show some skin. I got a slit skirt, I love it, it makes you look!.. But games are really good at taking your v-necks and slit dresses and making "armor" out of shit like this:
Yep, that's how women dress alright.
You can definitely see male fantasy is waaaaaaay more appeased than females. Games are made with men largely in mind and seems to get a buzz off its own id for macho men and damsel women.
I actually like her design, probably would have looked better without the mask and maybe have her in a corset instead.
As for the armor issues in games, i usually just suspend my belief in many instances. Sooo functionality never really bothers me. Because lets be real, even if they had legit armor if would do nothing against many creatures they fight.
Believe me, I get it. Moreover, women/girls wearing little to nothing in games does nothing for me as I love fully suited armor from head to toe and I see how absurd it can be if both armors are suppose to be the same yet the female armor shows her half naked. BUT I have a woman that sleeps next to me nearly every-night that would absolutely still pick that armor that is more revealing yet at the same time fully agree with if not champion your post.
Which is why most of us aren't asking these designs be completely removed from everything, just that it not be the only and default option and one that's only ever applied to women in a way that is one-sided and unfair to us.
This isn't exactly on topic, but man do boys have fragile egos online. I was just playing some Star Wars: The Old Republic with my female Jedi Consular and some "man" tried to "flirt" with my character through direct messages (obviously thinking I'm a girl). The results were hilarious because as soon as I shut him down as he becomes increasingly more hostile and misogynistic as the convo continues. I wonder if I should make a thread and post the full convo? Here's a taste:
I'm just thinking, "and that's why you're alone trying to flirt with girls online through SWTOR." It's this thinking that correlates with, "I love fan service, it doesn't bother me. Why do SJWs have to ruin these characters for the rest of us?"
I'm just thinking, "and that's why you're alone trying to flirt with girls online through SWTOR." It's this thinking that correlates with, "I love fan service, it doesn't bother me. Why do SJWs have to ruin these characters for the rest of us?"
In addition to the double standard of female heavy armour having to double up as sexy/figure-hugging at the same time, I just find it dull, in that boob window and thighs exposed is now about as generic as you can get for female character design in an eastern RPG. It's a trend providing a bog-standard template that restricts interesting character design, it's possible to make a design creative and attractive without resorting to a basic template for 'sexy armour' that's been done a thousand times and is used for everything from schoolgirls to nuns and knights and wizards and monster hunters.
I mean, if only given a choice between those two, I can see why someone might choose one or the other. I like the gold colour scheme, but it's still a heavily templated design, that's what's so dull about it to me.
Last edited:
This reminds me of my only time playing an MMO, waaay back in the mists of time on Everquest. I had decided to roll a female character for a change (I had pretty much only played as men in tabletop RPGs prior to that) and within minutes of spawning I had three people hitting on me, to the bafflement of myself and my friend who was talking me through it. The single thing I remember is my character running away through a wood, with a small horde of characters following me shouting a mix of catcalls and vague threats. I had kinda hoped things had changed but obviously not!
I've noticed less surprise from people lately when a girl gets on mic on Overwatch compared to launch.
Every now and then you get some bullshit though
'Foot cleavage' :D
I think part of the fantasy of these outfits is the idea that they look like they won't stay on. In terms of practicality, the one that looks really uncomfortable to me is that metal garter linked to her belt- that looks like it's going to do some serious damage every time she takes a step!
But but but mah fanservice!!!!!! I don't know what annoys me more, her outfit, her reason why she's bad, or the fact they went the "bad = dark skin" route.
Didn't we look at it vs the white 'good' character design a few months ago? All I can remember is mocking why you'd choose to keep the silly hat when going 'dark side', but you're right, skin shade changing according to alignment is weird. For an opposite shift doesn't Zelda do it when Tetra (her tanned, pirate alter-ego) awakens as the titular princess in one of the games, suddenly becoming incredibly pale when changing from waterborne thief to goddess-sanctioned royalty?
Last edited:
Back when the sylvari race redesign was shown off, someone asked the dev doing the presentation, a talented woman artist, why they had so many such designs in guild wars 1, that is sexy armor.
She straight up said 'it was sexy and we liked it.' She was fully sincere while saying it at that. She did promise gw2 would have a balance, and honestly it does, though there are some that are Nonsensicaly differernt.
Light armor tends to be the worst offender, though there are some sensible sets to chose from.
So yeah, female sexual expression had some role in the design process for that game. At least it's not as eyerolling as something like Tera.
Heavy armor definitely provides the most out of the armor types in that regards, despite some boob armor going around heh. Mix and matching between armor pieces could help a bit too.
I liked the set you put together on the previous page, that looks cool! Sometimes, particularly with Monster Hunter and aside from the female armour set=thighs thing, I've found an armour set to be so overboard on its theme that adding a piece from another set adds a nice contrast and depth to the design.
While I love the armor diversity and options in GW2, I absolutely agree about the Phalanx armor (and some others). It's just stupid to make the armor so very different.
The underboob armor also mentioned is just stupid in every way possible and I hate that it exists. It's the only GW armor I don't like in any way. YUCK.
I would pick the female Phalanx one in a heartbeat if I had to choose (I guess I have to call that type of attire a guilty pleasure), but that's not the point. The point is, as said, that the version women get is vastly different in every stereotypical way possible, while men get the (also a bit stereotypical) tank armor. They could easily have made them into two different sets and they didn't! They have been way better about this lately, especially with the full outfits, but eh... they made a big mistake there. Even bigger than the usual differences that can get a bit tired.
But guilty please indeed. I think 50% of my characters have boob windows/bikini armors or otherwise "sexy" armor (skin tight "heavy" armor like the ones below), while the other 50% are fully covered with more of a neutral look/sensible armors. I am a woman btw.
I like how these characters look even tho imagining them in a real fight just gets ridiculous. I have never really cared about such things in games like this tho. Give me these "armors" in a different type of game and I would hate it. Or if this was the only option available (it's not, even if ArenaNet really love their boob cups).
Bonus: The sylvari (on the left) is using the Phalanx chest piece. I love that one.
Sorry for rambling, it's morning and I have not slept yet. Just saw the Phalanx armor on the top of the page and for some reason felt I had something to say... uh.
TLDR: Lady likes boob windows/bikini armor and other heavily stereotypical armors in GW2, but still agrees with the criticism. I guess!
The underboob armor also mentioned is just stupid in every way possible and I hate that it exists. It's the only GW armor I don't like in any way. YUCK.
I would pick the female Phalanx one in a heartbeat if I had to choose (I guess I have to call that type of attire a guilty pleasure), but that's not the point. The point is, as said, that the version women get is vastly different in every stereotypical way possible, while men get the (also a bit stereotypical) tank armor. They could easily have made them into two different sets and they didn't! They have been way better about this lately, especially with the full outfits, but eh... they made a big mistake there. Even bigger than the usual differences that can get a bit tired.
But guilty please indeed. I think 50% of my characters have boob windows/bikini armors or otherwise "sexy" armor (skin tight "heavy" armor like the ones below), while the other 50% are fully covered with more of a neutral look/sensible armors. I am a woman btw.
I like how these characters look even tho imagining them in a real fight just gets ridiculous. I have never really cared about such things in games like this tho. Give me these "armors" in a different type of game and I would hate it. Or if this was the only option available (it's not, even if ArenaNet really love their boob cups).
Bonus: The sylvari (on the left) is using the Phalanx chest piece. I love that one.
Sorry for rambling, it's morning and I have not slept yet. Just saw the Phalanx armor on the top of the page and for some reason felt I had something to say... uh.
TLDR: Lady likes boob windows/bikini armor and other heavily stereotypical armors in GW2, but still agrees with the criticism. I guess!
It can be really fun mixing the armor up (and just the skin itself), and Guild Wars 2 has a REALLY good dye system also. I noticed that MH apparently has the whole now you can change up the skin of the armor with Gen Ultimate and World, so that is nice.
Here is another of my female characters, which I recently remade into another class, but I get around to this look again eventually.
Really like your human character there.^_^
Last edited:
Yeah well your girlfriend can go suck an egg as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is, with a lot of revealing equipment like the recently added one I linked, it's revealing for both male and female. And that's cool. If you want skimpy armor and you're looking for a specific set, a revealing armor set should be revealing for both male and female characters. But if you want a practical plated armor set, nothing looks like the phalanx set does for female characters because they made the female version of that specific set radically different for the sake of looking revealing.
Like the Feathered Armor set that's pretty popular?
Like this? This makes sense. If it's a revealing armor set it makes sense for it to be revealing for both male and female characters. But the phalanx set? It doesn't even remotely look like the same armor set.
I'm the same. I like feminine armor that isn't too sexualized (unfortunately it's sexualized 99% of the time), but in this case it's not handled well. Seriously, it's insane how that's supposed to be the same set.
WTF
Yeah well your girlfriend can go suck an egg as far as I'm concerned.
The thing is, with a lot of revealing equipment like the recently added one I linked, it's revealing for both male and female. And that's cool. If you want skimpy armor and you're looking for a specific set, a revealing armor set should be revealing for both male and female characters. But if you want a practical plated armor set, nothing looks like the phalanx set does for female characters because they made the female version of that specific set radically different for the sake of looking revealing.
Like the Feathered Armor set that's pretty popular?
Like this? This makes sense. If it's a revealing armor set it makes sense for it to be revealing for both male and female characters. But the phalanx set? It doesn't even remotely look like the same armor set.
The unevenness is still a problem, and the armors of female vs. male are still intended to be stereotypical for females while this is not the case for men, even when males are showing significant skin (in the above case, the female armor follows the contours of her body significantly while the male armor does not, particularly easy to observe on the arms and legs). And when a large amount of skin is shown, the sexiness is pushed even more for the female, whereas for males it typically moves into gag territory. It's funny when a male is naked, it's sexual when a female is. Some of that is societal, but a significant amount of it is also based on presentation (animations, voicing, etc.). Finally, the male is not designed for a female audience, but a male one, while the female is also designed for a male audience. Again, unevenness.
edit: So, a question for any who might be more culturally familiar than me. I've often thought that the reason these fetishistic designs show up is often a result of the society they come out of, and (this is a hypothesis) that sexual repression is actually what triggers it. It is my opinion that the otaku culture emerged as a counter-culture to an extremely sexually repressive society, and I see this in a lot of the Korean designs as well (please note, when I mention design here, I am referring specifically to game design, and game design specific to the art). That said, Korean designs often take a more even approach to their design, with even male designers typically making their males as waif-y and seemingly intentionally attractive to females more often. Is there a difference in the sexual repression, is it something else, or did design simply mature differently, such that in spite of the frequently sexual appearance of females, the sexual appearance of males is often included? I ask because in many ways I see artists like Jiyun Chae and Hyung Tae-Kim as having very similar sensibilities in the mirroring of their styles between males and females, but I see this as a common trend in Korean art, whereas this doesn't seem to be the case with Japanese art. Regardless, I do feel like I'm missing something (or maybe I'm wrong about the sexual repression thing entirely). Even when reading blogs like neojaponisme, I find the evolution in design to be difficult to place relative to styles that seem close design-wise (big eyes, exaggerated proportions, etc.), yet are extremely separate culturally.
Last edited:
But she doesn't, and neither does anyone else. That, right there, is the problem. Male characters are never forced to wear skimpy armor: when that armor exists at all, it's optional (see: Kirin sets in MHW). Female characters, most often, don't get that luxury.
Jumping into this thread because of something else, but I am pretty sure that "never" is not right. I would guess that there are games which "force skimpy armor" on males as well. Whatever skimpy armor means, but the protagonist in Enslaved is "forced" to go topless afaik. But yeah, women in games are certainly more often forced to be exposed.
Anyways, something else I was thinking about when starting to play Super Mario Galaxy for the first time some days ago. Besides the terrible camera controls it got me thinking:
Is there any chance conventional Mario games will ever move from their stereotypical design? I believe Mario (and maybe Zelda) games are some of the worst in the industry, because they are consumed by a big young audience who may get shaped by them in one way or another. It is always the princess who gets saved and the character design, especially female design, is just plain embarrassing (like this female plant boss with pink lip stick and eye lashes, why??). It is fair to criticize other games too, of course, but as this thread shows an older audience is more likely to question and talk about issues, whereas in younger games just starting the hobby with Mario and others.
Thought about opening a thread about that since it is not necessarily about character design but also game design, but right now I am unsure how to formulate that to engage a discussion.
I don't think men forced to go topless is quite the same thing. Monkey, Kratos, Zangiev, the Hulk, Conan and He-man (to also cite examples from other media) aren't 'scantily clad' in the same way that combat lingerie is designed to please the presumed male viewer. Their muscled bulk (Monkey's biceps are bigger than the female lead, Trip's, head) is primarily an expression of raw, primal and untameable (read:unclothed) physical power rather than titillation.
I agree with you here, it's absolutely worth questioning. Didn't someone ask why Zelda couldn't be the lead in a Zelda game? I remember their answer being a bit rubbish and then we got 'Linkle' in Hyrule Warriors in thigh-high boots. It's a shame really, various Zelda games show her as a capable mage, archer and adventurer in her own right, after 30+ years it would be great to change up the formula a bit rather than always play as a boy in green. Hell, why not offer the choice of starting as Zelda in the castle or Link in the village, and have whichever one you don't choose reduced to the supporting npc? Various RPGs have managed to do it, I don't see why their story roles as hero and damsel in distress are locked in stone when their job roles have included pirate and train driver!
Last edited:
Pretty much the only time males lose clothes is to show their power or as a gag. Women are constantly losing their clothes or never have much to begin with, and are presented as vulnerable and incapable (or the sexy is evil trope, or any other number of dumb cliches for why women need less clothing - the answer to all of these though, is pretty much always because men wanted it to be so).
Every time the "but men are sometimes affected by this too", it is a false equivalence of remarkably silly proportions at this point, and effectively a non-argument (i.e., a distraction).
Every time the "but men are sometimes affected by this too", it is a false equivalence of remarkably silly proportions at this point, and effectively a non-argument (i.e., a distraction).
That is a) a pedantic hair-splitting on "never", and b) a disingenuous false equivalence anyway. Bare chests are as much a part of the male power fantasy as Conan is one; call me when mainstream games force male characters to look like this:
That one's lovely too, I love games that let you play with dye systems and mix and match costume pieces. I've missed out on at least one monster hunt because my hat wasn't quite right, dammit! :DIt can be really fun mixing the armor up (and just the skin itself), and Guild Wars 2 has a REALLY good dye system also. I noticed that MH apparently has the whole now you can change up the skin of the armor with Gen Ultimate and World, so that is nice.
Here is another of my female characters, which I recently remade into another class, but I get around to this look again eventually.
I feel like this chap could be a thread mascot, your new avatar, perhaps? :Dcall me when mainstream games force male characters to look like this:
That would actually be unique design. I cannot think of a game which lets you choose the protagonist your choice then affects the story/gameplay.
You never played the original Resident Evil games? 2 in particular features entirely different NPCs depending on whether you play as Leon or Claire.
I also really liked the clever way this is done: depending on who you choose first, the car both are in either crashes straight on, or swerves 180 before crashing backwards, forcing each to scramble out of the car through their respective doors before a truck crashes into it and creates a barrier that separates them (when you finish the game, you play the B scenario with the other character, in effect creatting four possible playthroughs: Leon A + Claire B, or Claire A + Leon B).
Of course a point can be made that this is still slightly sexist in that Leon encounters a sexy female spy, while Claire encounters a little girl she motherly protects...
I'm just saying I don't care what someone who isn't a participant in the discussion's theoretical opinion in a snappy irreverent way.
While they aren't as relevant from a Male/female role choice perspective (and I think your RE2 example is the closest thing to what I was thinking of with Zelda), there's also Front Mission 3, which offers a completely different SRPG campaign based on one seemingly minor choice at the start. You aren't even told the effect it has- I didn't even find out there was a second campaign until my third playthrough! Also, Dragon Age: Origins lets you choose your, well, origin, and while they all dovetail an hour or so later it echoes through the story in various places, opening and closing doors accordingly.
I get enough unsolicited advances in real life to have that here too. :)
Seriously now, it would take a pretty damn good reason to push my lovely Ratón out of my avatar.
While I would have put it a different way, you're not wrong. "I'm male but my mental model of my girlfriend disagrees with you" is not the most compelling argument ever.
Yeah, there's no shortage of games where you choose a character and watch their story unfold before they meet up with the others at some point. Square SNES era RPGs loved to do this: off the top of my head, Seiken Densetsu 3, Romancing SaGa 3 and Treasure of the Rudras all do this, and I'm probably missing more. Unsurprisingly, it's one of the SNES RPG traits that Octopath Traveler is bringing back. :)
Aw, bless, quite right!
I'm really looking forward to Octopath. After several JRPGs of scraping together a party from the characters that annoy me the least, it's nice to have the opposite problem- I can't decide between whether to start with the Priestess, Herbalist, Dancer or Hunter at the moment! :D
Unfortunately I can't justify buying it just yet, far too many unfinished games (game development is murder on one's free time), including Horizon: Zero Dawn which was lent to me and I'm excited to play with the missus.
Speaking of which, we're playing through Beyond: Two Souls (which I got via PS Plus and has been sitting forever on my PS4 HD) to finish it and delete it to make space for the H:ZD install, and it's funny because just yesterday I was thinking "Wow, a David Cage game without an unnecesary female shower scene or attempted rape scene? I'm impressed!". Sure enough, that very same play session, both of them show up in quick succession (in entirely unrelated chapters, because the game is out of order chronologically).
And people wonder why I don't give Cage the benefit of the doubt anymore.
You did better than me to give hm another shot- I gave up after Heavy Rain.
I love a good PI story, and unreliable narrators. However,
at the point Cage requires the player to clean up fingerprints quickly after, rather than before, calling the police is ridiculous. That it's later revealed to be the murderer, a master planner who immediately calls the police on himself and only then thinks about cleaning up the crime scene once he hears the sirens is silly. That he manages to brutally, silently murder someone in seconds with an oblivious witness in the next room and making the player some weird kind of split personality all in order to go 'ah hah! You didn't think it was him!' later on was even worse. That it's all for absolutely zero consequence anyway even if you bungle it is the cherry on top.
Yeah, Heavy Rain has plot holes so big you can confortably drive an 18 wheeler through them, and the way it lies to the player as to the inner thoughts of a main character just so that the plot can work is frankly embarrasing.
Beyond is nothing particularly special either and it's almost hilarious how you're clearly supposed to identify with the main character yet she comes across as an useless, annoying, entitled whiny brat in every single scene, including (especially, in fact) when she's a fully grown adult (not that it stops her from being the occasional white saviour; Cage's games are a veritable library of bad tropes). But the missus loves adventure games, and cinematic games like these make for relatively enjoyable low-energy couch play. And, hey, free is free.
It just infuriates me when Cage's rabid fans demand that you have played every single one of his games before you're allowed to even point out trends in most of them. Like the article condemning Detroit's many narrative and tone-deaf faults; you can't discuss it at all unless you've bought and completed the game. How convenient that the only ones allowed to criticise him as a writer are the ones willing to pay 60$ for his latest game at launch; that's surely not going to skew the ratio of praise-to-criticism or anything. /s
I've been watching a friend of mine play through bits of Detroit, and it seems really heavy-handed. It's a tough ask for £50 or whatever when we've got Humans on TV at the moment that covers similar subject matter of civil rights and AI really well, with a mix of great characters. My wife's favourite is a synth (android) called Niska who takes zero crap from anyone, but it's all framed around a single family that allows it to touch on various imagined issues. The mother is a lawyer who stumbles into being a synth rights representative when the AI synthetics awaken, the father has lost his job to them, the daughter is used to one as almost a surrogate parent, the eldest as an IT project and the young boy has a crush on one. It's elegant and so nice to watch sci-fi that isn't (largely) about running around with guns, it's asking 'what if' about various relationships instead.
I don't know whether you have access to it in Spain, it's on series 3 here now, but I really recommend it- as usual with UK TV the series are short, eight episodes in this case.
Last edited:
- Status