• The ResetEra Games of the Year Awards 2018 results are now live! Congratulations to all the winners!
  • Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

Why women criticise sexualised character designs (READ OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ourghostsofwar

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
951


Not sure what you're talking about here, but if it's the fact that my patience is thin for entertaining any more refusals to listen and learn after years of public terror campaigns, thousands of personal testimonies, and decades of research, then you're absolutely right that I have zero patience any longer. Either people are in support of diversity in games or they are implicitly supporting the misogynist status quo with their thickheaded arguments, gaslighting, and "just asking questions" as if this shit is up to debate.
I am in support of diversity in games. I also think you're wrong.
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,360
He did it for me.
For Bán.
For my mates.
For maybe a couple million more players.
Why aren’t we allowed to have a great character that is also hot?
Please let u be. Why aren’t we allowed to have this escpecially made for us?
Quiet is such an unbelievably small part of all gaming, that maybe you can think hey, you know what, let those guys have their Quiet.
Quiet isn't even a great character, she's straight up poorly written literally from the onset. The only reason people believe she has an arc is because she literally is the only character who experiences some form of change throughout the narrative.
-Huey starts and ends as a POS
-Liquid starts and ends as an annoying brat
-Ocelot starts and ends as a stoic straightman to contrast perpetually angry man Miller
-Miller starts and ends as a perpetually angry man to contrast stoic straightman Ocelot
-Quiet starts trying to assassinate Snake and goes from that to not trying to assassinate Snake after a single battle

The game is extremely poorly written. No one is arguing that you can't have a great character who's also attractive. But you may wanna start that line of discussion with actually having a great character first:
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
5,553
He did it for me.
For Bán.
For my mates.
For maybe a couple million more players.
Why aren’t we allowed to have a great character that is also hot?
Please let u be. Why aren’t we allowed to have this escpecially made for us?
Quiet is such an unbelievably small part of all gaming, that maybe you can think hey, you know what, let those guys have their Quiet.
This must be a joke, I am not buying it. You are literally reduced to begging to defend your argument. Is that a position you want to be in? Maybe a bit of introspection would help you, dude.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,427
It is if you're calling someone a Nazi to shut down a discussion. I voted for Clinton. I voted Democrat down the line last night. Suggesting someone is a Nazi because Lime can't be bothered to have a discussion on a forum where we're supposed to discuss things might not be intellectually dishonest. But then I don't know what that something else is.
And as a moderate conservative, I'm the last person that would throw up a defense for Lime willy-nilly. I think Lime causes huge problems in discourse and discussion, and exacerbates division between people, but I think he or she believes what they say. They admit to just being sick of real discourse and settling into a with-us-or-against-us mentality, and by admitting that, they're clearly being honest. They're not pretending to be some beacon of discourse; they've just resigned themselves to a militant role. That's not intellectually dishonest.

What that "something else" is, is you disagree with the stance he or she has taken. Just throwing out "intellectually dishonest" whenever you dislike something someone says just because you can't find the words to properly form a criticism is precisely why I say the term has pretty much lost all its value as a valid criticism. It's become a fancy-sounding euphemism for "I don't like what you're saying, so you must be doing something wrong." "Bad faith" is slowly falling into that category as well.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,646
I don't really want to write out her entire story here, but she goes from being a cold-hearted assassin in the first cutscene of the game to someone who is so affected by Snake and Kaz's sacrifices that she is willing to sacrifice everything for their ideals and their group by the end. Along the way you learn why she joins the Diamond Dogs and why she doesn't speak, which is a form of sacrifice in itself. You learn that her leaving the group is also a sacrifice. Now, it's not great stuff (pssst... Kojima's a shitty writer), but it was much more of an arc than anyone else had and her final scene where she saves Snake by calling Pequod at least got me to feel some emotion and empathy for her character, which is more than I can say about any other part of the story.
None of that seems to be reflected through her character design. I think they just designed her that way because they wanted her to be hot for the sake of having a hot character to look at and it doesn't make much sense in the setting, which seems like the reason why the "breathe through her skin" thing is there, to make it less obvious, but it didn't really work.
 

ourghostsofwar

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
951
On the bolded: Lime is having a discussion. In fact, a well versed one. It's being drowned out however by people going 'not all men!' and trying to justify sexualization so they can continue to fap.
If Lime was trying to have a "well versed" discussion, he wouldn't need to resort to calling everyone who disagrees with him a Nazi. No different than your accusation that people who are throwing up counter-arguments are doing so because of a need to fap. You're trying to get a rise out of people in order to bait them into getting themselves banned. It's lazy. Be better.
 

Cid

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
395
Ok people
I have an idea
This is no joke
Please hear me out
What if Kojima made a game centred around Quiet, and made it clear from the get go that the game is really intended for people who like the design of Quiet and the gameplay is a sniper game

So before you buy it you exactly know what to expect

Just like other games and books and films and music that is often made with a target audience
This Quiet game is made for fans of Quiet

Would that be better?
 

Chaparral

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
787
Canada
If Lime was trying to have a "well versed" discussion, he wouldn't need to resort to calling everyone who disagrees with him a Nazi. No different your accusation that people who are saying are throwing up counter-arguments are doing so because of a need to fap. It's lazy. Be better.
Even though said counter arguments are basically rooted in this sort of denial that a problem exists.

Ok people
I have an idea
This is no joke
Please hear me out
What if Kojima made a game centred around Quiet, and made it clear from the get go that the game is really intended for people who like the design of Quiet and the gameplay is a sniper game

So before you buy it you exactly know what to expect

Just like other games and books and films and music that is often made with a target audience
This Quiet game is made for fans of Quiet

Would that be ok?
No, it wouldn't, because Kojima is STILL PERPETUATING HARMFUL SEXUALIZATION WITH THE DESIGN OF QUIET.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,638
And as a moderate conservative, I'm the last person that would throw up a defense for Lime willy-nilly. I think Lime causes huge problems in discourse and discussion, and exacerbates division between people, but I think he or she believes what they say. They admit to just being sick of real discourse and settling into a with-us-or-against-us mentality, and by admitting that, they're clearly being honest. They're not pretending to be some beacon of discourse; they've just resigned themselves to a militant role. That's not intellectually dishonest.
Did I just read this? Holy shit dude.

If you don't understand why people are tired of answering the same non-questions over and over again even though they are literally rebutted in the OP of this thread I honestly don't know what to tell you. There's no "real discourse" here because the people asking these questions are actively evading the topic of this thread by derailing it into something else.
 

Popetita

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,957
TX|PR
I do know originally a lot of the developers or gamers where males that were kind of 'rejects' of society. You were a geek or loser in the past as it wasn't as mainstream. I saw and have read some articles and it seems a lot of those design came from the era and glorification of scifi/fantasy females that used that style. I think to Heavy Metal and stuff like that.

Gaming has become totally mainstream, but those "rejects" are still there and it is still their thing/hobby first as they were there first.

I guess a lot of it has been because of missed conversations. I saw female critics actively attacking those guys in the past because of the design instead of having a conversation and maybe understanding where it came from.

So my conclusion is that a lack of a real conversation that should've started a long time ago has led to this behavior from gamers. Both sides have valid points, they just needed to speak about them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,297
Did I just read this? Holy shit dude.

If you don't understand why people are tired of answering the same non-questions over and over again even though they are literally rebutted in the OP of this thread I honestly don't know what to tell you. There's no "real discourse" here because the people asking these questions are actively evading the topic of this thread by derailing it into something else.
Can't be restated enough.

If someone can't be arsed to at least read the OP and absorb the information therein, there is no real discussion to be had in the first place.
 
Oct 25, 2017
596
This thread's still about why women wouldn't like character designs made specifically for ogling the character and promoting objectification, right?
Apparently it's because women are the real sexists. How dare they deny us these well-constructed characters!

Can't you see that a mute character that you capture, beat up, lock in a jail cell and perv over, and who repays this by falling in love with you, giving strip-tease performances and eventually giving her life to save you - is a brilliant piece of characterisation. What a character arc!

Because she breathes through her skin and can't talk because she has a talking-disease and can't just write an explanation on a piece of paper because... I forget, but I'm sure it's explained and I must've just missed the memo because I was distracted by her jiggling her tits and arse in my face during every fucking helicopter ride.

It should be obvious that sexualising women while not doing so for men is going to alienate women and be cringeworthy for a lot of men.
 

Chaparral

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
787
Canada
Did I just read this? Holy shit dude.

If you don't understand why people are tired of answering the same non-questions over and over again even though they are literally rebutted in the OP of this thread I honestly don't know what to tell you. There's no "real discourse" here because the people asking these questions are actively evading the topic of this thread by derailing it into something else.
That's what makes this sort of 'discourse' so frustrating, especially for women. It's the same runaround horseshit of people putting well researched talking points, and specific people trying to do typical gaslighting and evading the issue. It's frustrating. And I'm frankly sick of it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,638
I do know originally a lot of the developers or gamers where males that were kind of 'rejects' of society. You were a geek or loser in the past as it wasn't as mainstream. I saw and have read some articles and it seems a lot of those design came from the era and glorification of scifi/fantasy females that used that style. I think to Heavy Metal and stuff like that.

Gaming has become totally mainstream, but those "rejects" are still there and it is still their thing/hobby first as they were there first.

I guess a lot of it has been because of missed conversations. I saw female critics actively attacking those guys in the past because of the design instead of having a conversation and maybe understanding where it came from.

So my conclusion is that a lack of a real conversation that should've started a long time ago has led to this behavior from gamers. Both sides have valid points, they just needed to speak about them.
What happened to all the women who were there first as well? Where's the real conversation about how they were actively pushed out of the industry over time?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,427
Did I just read this? Holy shit dude.

If you don't understand why people are tired of answering the same non-questions over and over again even though they are literally rebutted in the OP of this thread I honestly don't know what to tell you. There's no "real discourse" here because the people asking these questions are actively evading the topic of this thread by derailing it into something else.
Where did I say I didn't understand it? Of course I understand it. Trying to hold civil discourse while wading through filth is exhausting. I'm very well acquainted with it. And while I disagree with Lime on many things, I absolutely understand and empathize with the resignation of abandoning such an exhausting endeavor.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,638
Where did I say I didn't understand it? Of course I understand it. Trying to wade through filth while holding civil discourse is exhausting. I'm very well acquainted with it. And while I disagree with Lime on many things, I absolutely understand and empathize with the resignation of abandoning such an exhausting endeavor.
Maybe I misunderstood you but painting this as somehow being "militant" is pretty weird, you know. Meanwhile we're apparently going to pretend that the people "just asking questions" are merely having a difference of opinion when they are in fact (as proven by Morrigan's post earlier in this thread) actively bullying women out of the conversation, which happens pretty much every time this topic is discussed. It's god damn infuriating.
 

ourghostsofwar

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
951
Even though said counter arguments are basically rooted in this sort of denial that a problem exists.
That doesn't mean those counter-arguments are being thrown up because of a need to fap. ;)

The counter-arguments stand for themselves. If you want to resort to fap insults because you don't have it in you for whatever reason to respond to those counter-arguments, that's your problem. Not mine. I just don't see how that's constructive. I absolutely believe we should get more women into gaming. I don't believe reducing sexuality is the solution. It's like saying women can't enjoy beer because of the bent over blonde girl in the Budweiser commercial.

You're trying to frame the counter-arguments in a lazy way so you can brush aside the whole criticism like Trump does with his "Fake News" retorts: "faps", "denial" so you don't actually have to address the meat of the conversation. Which, judging by your posts thus far, is what you're going for.

Once again: For the whole" sexualization is bad" thing to actually carry any weight, the argument from proponents of reduced sexuality in games have to diminish the acceptance of sexualization is every single other medium. The context in which they're trying to make the argument is this:

01. The gaming industry is a boy's club.
02. There has to be more effort on the part of the industry to get women involved.
03. Because this is a boy's club, sexualization in video games must, therefore, be catering exclusively to the boys in this club.
04. By reducing sexualization in video games (because sex in video games intimidates them, makes them cringe, etc.), logically more women will get involved in the industry.

The fallacy of this argument is twofold. The first fallacy of this argument that women are incapable of enjoying sexualization, therefore by reducing sexualization in video games, games will become more welcoming. Are women incapable of enjoying Injustice 2? The counter-argument to this becomes, "No, but MORE women would be able to enjoy it." This leads back to my point 1 and 2. The goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get more girls and women involved in gaming by any means necessary. The reasoning behind the assumption that reducing sexualization will encourage more girls and women to get involved in what has traditionally been a boy's club is that because men have traditionally been behind the creation of that sexualization, such sexualization must, therefore, be directed at men and exclusionary to women by default.

The second fallacy of the argument thus becomes apparent, as showcased by your playboy analogy, in that if we look at the wider world outside of the video game industry, sexualization is not only around us, but it is traditionally celebrated. The dissonance from this results in accusations of "whataboutism" because in a wider context this argument that women are somehow walled off enjoying video games because of sexualization falls apart. The only way they can hold the argument together that sexualization is scaring off women is by acting like video games exist in a void separate from everything else in order to ward off those comparisons. That is where the term "whataboutism" comes into play. It's an attempt to ward off scrutiny of the argument because the goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get women into what has traditionally been a boy's club (again following my examples 1 and 2 from above).

The issue is that that the people making this argument don't really know why more women aren't into video games. It's why people were so perplexed that something like only 10% of Switch owners are women. They're taking every argument possible and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks in order to get more women into the industry. It's just that sexualization is an easy target because games with 0% fanservice in them is a more acceptable outcome than equal gender involvement and this whole thing becomes a "the end justifies the means" thing because they don't have a better answer.

 
Oct 27, 2017
426
It bears repeating: it is not the responsibility of women to handhold sexist men into being less regressive. Those men are accountable for their own actions* and the idea that ~all of this could've been avoided~ if only women handled the issue with kid gloves and coddling instead of honestly expressing how maddening the gaslighting is, is insulting to say the least.

*and when those viewpoints are made manifest in public-facing pieces of media, you can bet people have every right to criticise those aspects of the work. Criticism is not censorship.
 
Oct 25, 2017
690
Just because she has a better arc or w/e doesn't make it ok for her to be objectified. I can't holistically look at her like you say because the way she is dressed and how the game literally treats her as an object, it undermines all of her other qualities and arc. Maybe I would have cared about her character or her arc would have been impactful if she wasn't running around in a bikini and thong on the battlefield. Kojima can make things how he wants but people can still criticize his designs.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
5,065
UK
Ok people
I have an idea
This is no joke
Please hear me out
What if Kojima made a game centred around Quiet, and made it clear from the get go that the game is really intended for people who like the design of Quiet and the gameplay is a sniper game

So before you buy it you exactly know what to expect

Just like other games and books and films and music that is often made with a target audience
This Quiet game is made for fans of Quiet

Would that be better?
If the justification for her taking the field in torn fishnets is still ‘she breathes through her skin’ I’d probably still ask why she’s wearing anything on her legs at all, as opposed to shorts. But sure, I’d probably think it was less out of place in a pure ridiculous cheesecake game called ‘sexy snipers in fishnets’ than in a game with a history of practical characters with the same condition not needing to dress like that to survive.

I think it’s the crazy story to justify the outfit and attempt to short circuit criticism of what is pretty obviously done for fan-bait that just feels so much weirder than if he’d just said ‘I like pretty girls in stockings and so do my fans’ .
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,427
Maybe I misunderstood you but painting this as somehow being "militant" is pretty weird, you know. Meanwhile we're apparently going to pretend that the people "just asking questions" are merely having a difference of opinion when they are in fact (as proven by Morrigan's post earlier in this thread) actively bullying women out of the conversation, which happens pretty much every time this topic is discussed. It's god damn infuriating.
"With us or against us" is, by definition, militant. And comfortable. And after trying and trying and trying to have discourse and seemingly getting nowhere, it's easy to resign one's self to such a mentality. It's completely understandable. It's not ideal, but it is understandable.

For me, every time I post people misinterpret both my words and my intentions, claiming I mean something I don't, claiming I have motives I don't, which leads to me having to clarify over and over, which then also gets misinterpreted and new nefarious motives ascribed to me. That, too, is very exhausting.

However, I'm taking a Mediation class right now, and they're hammering home the importance of opening up discourse, so I'm doing my best to pass that along where I can. Maybe I'll give up one day, like Lime. Like I said, it's absolutely understandable.
 

Lime

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,266
And as a moderate conservative, I'm the last person that would throw up a defense for Lime willy-nilly. I think Lime causes huge problems in discourse and discussion, and exacerbates division between people, but I think he or she believes what they say. They admit to just being sick of real discourse and settling into a with-us-or-against-us mentality, and by admitting that, they're clearly being honest. They're not pretending to be some beacon of discourse; they've just resigned themselves to a militant role. That's not intellectually dishonest.
After seeing the same tired old arguments that implicitly keep the misogynist status quo in tact, after a freaking organized harassment campaign and threats to people's lives, including my own, after thousands of women coming out and telling men about patriarchy, after decades of academic research, and after several occasions of the games industry throwing women under the bus, I am drawing a line in the sand. People's value and integrity as human beings are not up to debate and people should stop entertaining discourse that implicitly reinforce the status quo (which many examples exist in this thread). Of course, I'd love to be proven otherwise, that male gamers actually care about women in games, but the actions by a significant portion of male gamers indicate that they don't care and they would rather have the uncomfortable topic go away so they can go back to their virtual waifus in peace.

If Lime was trying to have a "well versed" discussion, he wouldn't need to resort to calling everyone who disagrees with him a Nazi. No different than your accusation that people who are throwing up counter-arguments are doing so because of a need to fap. You're trying to get a rise out of people in order to bait them into getting themselves banned. It's lazy. Be better.
This is nonsense and you're manufacturing claims that have no basis in reality. I have not called people who disagree with me nazis. Although some people who disagree with me are actual nazis if that's who you are referring to.

Anyway, this is dumb meta-discussion about me for some weird reason. If you have a problem with me and my posts, you can contact me over PM, I'm very open to constructive criticism.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,638
"With us or against us" is, by definition, militant. And comfortable. And after trying and trying and trying to have discourse and seemingly getting nowhere, it's easy to resign one's self to such a mentality. It's completely understandable. It's not ideal, but it is understandable.

For me, every time I post people misinterpret both my words and my intentions, claiming I mean something I don't, claiming I have motives I don't, which leads to me having to clarify over and over, which then also gets misinterpreted and new nefarious motives ascribed to me. That, too, is very exhausting.

However, I'm taking a Mediation class right now, and they're hammering home the importance of opening up discourse, so I'm doing my best to pass that along where I can. Maybe I'll give up one day, like Lime. Like I said, it's absolutely understandable.
You do that. In the meantime maybe you could sit back, relax and let women express how they feel about these games without both sides-ing the discussion philosophically. Something that is also very "comfortable" to do when you aren't the one being culturally oppressed.

mostly because I feel like the developers couldn't think of any other reason that the game would sell.
Not to attack you specifically, but this kind of opinion confuses me so much. Like, the developers not being creative marketers bothers you MORE than women feeling excluded and sexism being reinforced culturally? I hope that's not the case and you just didn't consider that angle, but yeah.
 
Oct 28, 2017
190
Germany
I've read this thread for a while now, but I just wanna chip in my 2 cents (note: guy):

I don't think having "fanservice" (or whatever you want to call it, I prefer "sexual eyecandy" b/c "fanservice" can also be non-sexual and/or not related to humans/humanoid characters) in some quantity is inherently bad. That said, it turns me off a game much more easily if T&A is pushed front and centre, mostly because I feel like the developers couldn't think of any other reason that the game would sell. I played Senran Kagura and think it's OK at best; I played a few assorted games from Idea Factory/Compile Heart (notably, the first Neptunia in both incarnations and Mugen Souls) and think they're outright garbage. Maybe there are really good games behind the veneer of boobage somewhere, but whenever I see overzealously (and, if I may be so frank, tastelessly*) sexualised 'moeblobs' in the entire marketing campaign the tendency is to close my wallet and wait until people pop up and talk about whether there's more to the game or not and even then my reaction is generally a dismission, seeing how I prefer spending my money on games that I'd prefer over these kinds of titles (that, and I think that if you want to see T&A, no matter if its 2D or 3D, this shit's everywhere on the internet). It didn't help that the sheer volume of sexual eyecandy felt kind of numbing after a while - you've seen it so much it doesn't really affect you on any level anymore.

Which is probably why I also do agree that the problem isn't so much "sexy", it's that it is seemingly the only way female characters get portrayed, so it is much more a problem of scale rather than the idea of "sexiness" itself.

*panty 'jokes'. Hate 'em.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,297
That doesn't mean those counter-arguments are being thrown up because of a need to fap. ;)

The counter-arguments stand for themselves. If you want to resort to fap insults because you don't have it in you for whatever reason to respond to those counter-arguments, that's your problem. Not mine. I just don't see how that's constructive. I absolutely believe we should get more women into gaming. I don't believe reducing sexuality is the solution. It's like saying women can't enjoy beer because of the bent over blonde girl in the Budweiser commercial.

You're trying to frame the counter-arguments in a lazy way so you can brush aside the whole criticism like Trump does with his "Fake News" retorts: "faps", "denial" so you don't actually have to address the meat of the conversation. Which, judging by your posts thus far, is what you're going for.

Once again: For the whole" sexualization is bad" thing to actually carry any weight, the argument from proponents of reduced sexuality in games have to diminish the acceptance of sexualization is every single other medium. The context in which they're trying to make the argument is this:

01. The gaming industry is a boy's club.
02. There has to be more effort on the part of the industry to get women involved.
03. Because this is a boy's club, sexualization in video games must, therefore, be catering exclusively to the boys in this club.
04. By reducing sexualization in video games (because sex in video games intimidates them, makes them cringe, etc.), logically more women will get involved in the industry.

The fallacy of this argument is twofold. The first fallacy of this argument that women are incapable of enjoying sexualization, therefore by reducing sexualization in video games, games will become more welcoming. Are women incapable of enjoying Injustice 2? The counter-argument to this becomes, "No, but MORE women would be able to enjoy it." This leads back to my point 1 and 2. The goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get more girls and women involved in gaming by any means necessary. The reasoning behind the assumption that reducing sexualization will encourage more girls and women to get involved in what has traditionally been a boy's club is that because men have traditionally been behind the creation of that sexualization, such sexualization must, therefore, be directed at men and exclusionary to women by default.

The second fallacy of the argument thus becomes apparent, as showcased by your playboy analogy, in that if we look at the wider world outside of the video game industry, sexualization is not only around us, but it is traditionally celebrated. The dissonance from this results in accusations of "whataboutism" because in a wider context this argument that women are somehow walled off enjoying video games because of sexualization falls apart. The only way they can hold the argument together that sexualization is scaring off women is by acting like video games exist in a void separate from everything else in order to ward off those comparisons. That is where the term "whataboutism" comes into play. It's an attempt to ward off scrutiny of the argument because the goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get women into what has traditionally been a boy's club (again following my examples 1 and 2 from above).

The issue is that that the people making this argument don't really know why more women aren't into video games. It's why people were so perplexed that something like only 10% of Switch owners are women. They're taking every argument possible and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks in order to get more women into the industry. It's just that sexualization is an easy target because games with 0% fanservice in them is a more acceptable outcome than equal gender involvement and this whole thing becomes a "the end justifies the means" thing because they don't have a better answer.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. That second "fallacy" sure is something.

Why do you keep insinuating that because rampant sexualization is present in other mediums, it is suddenly somehow not a problem and that there is not a sizable number of women who would have a problem with those examples as well? Why do you continue to completely ignore everything the women in this very thread have attempted to put across?

And please stop trotting out the Switch demographic example as if it were indicative of anything. We know very well the survey question used in that example has a particular bias.
 

Cid

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
395
User warned: for the last time, stop trolling and derailing the thread. Final warning
Sniper Elite.

Not that you'd know about them; the main protagonist isn't scantily clad for the sake of providing jack off material.
Oh thanks, so Sniper Elite 4 on PS4 I see, came out this year, I’ll have a look

I must say though, all this killing, especially sniping, is really violent
Shouldn’t we also be more offended about ourselfs that we kill people all the time in so many games?
I dont know
Anyway, thanks for the tip
 

Pirate Bae

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,786
??
Oh thanks, so Sniper Elite 4 on PS4 I see, came out this year, I’ll have a look

I must say though, all this killing, especially sniping, is really violent
Shouldn’t we also be more offended about ourselfs that we kill people all the time in so many games?
I dont know
Anyway, thanks for the tip
So you've got a problem with killing, but no problems with treating women like shit when they're still alive. Gotcha.
 

Redcrayon

Zoinks!
Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
5,065
UK
Oh thanks, so Sniper Elite 4 on PS4 I see, came out this year, I’ll have a look

I must say though, all this killing, especially sniping, is really violent
Shouldn’t we also be more offended about ourselfs that we kill people all the time in so many games?
I dont know
Anyway, thanks for the tip
‘We should be worried about violence in games, not sexism’ is a poor argument- there’s enough space to discuss both, and this space is a thread specifically devoted to the latter. If you want to start a thread about the former and why you think it’s a problem, go for it.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,351
That doesn't mean those counter-arguments are being thrown up because of a need to fap. ;)

The counter-arguments stand for themselves. If you want to resort to fap insults because you don't have it in you for whatever reason to respond to those counter-arguments, that's your problem. Not mine. I just don't see how that's constructive. I absolutely believe we should get more women into gaming. I don't believe reducing sexuality is the solution. It's like saying women can't enjoy beer because of the bent over blonde girl in the Budweiser commercial.

You're trying to frame the counter-arguments in a lazy way so you can brush aside the whole criticism like Trump does with his "Fake News" retorts: "faps", "denial" so you don't actually have to address the meat of the conversation. Which, judging by your posts thus far, is what you're going for.

Once again: For the whole" sexualization is bad" thing to actually carry any weight, the argument from proponents of reduced sexuality in games have to diminish the acceptance of sexualization is every single other medium. The context in which they're trying to make the argument is this:

01. The gaming industry is a boy's club.
02. There has to be more effort on the part of the industry to get women involved.
03. Because this is a boy's club, sexualization in video games must, therefore, be catering exclusively to the boys in this club.
04. By reducing sexualization in video games (because sex in video games intimidates them, makes them cringe, etc.), logically more women will get involved in the industry.

The fallacy of this argument is twofold. The first fallacy of this argument that women are incapable of enjoying sexualization, therefore by reducing sexualization in video games, games will become more welcoming. Are women incapable of enjoying Injustice 2? The counter-argument to this becomes, "No, but MORE women would be able to enjoy it." This leads back to my point 1 and 2. The goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get more girls and women involved in gaming by any means necessary. The reasoning behind the assumption that reducing sexualization will encourage more girls and women to get involved in what has traditionally been a boy's club is that because men have traditionally been behind the creation of that sexualization, such sexualization must, therefore, be directed at men and exclusionary to women by default.

The second fallacy of the argument thus becomes apparent, as showcased by your playboy analogy, in that if we look at the wider world outside of the video game industry, sexualization is not only around us, but it is traditionally celebrated. The dissonance from this results in accusations of "whataboutism" because in a wider context this argument that women are somehow walled off enjoying video games because of sexualization falls apart. The only way they can hold the argument together that sexualization is scaring off women is by acting like video games exist in a void separate from everything else in order to ward off those comparisons. That is where the term "whataboutism" comes into play. It's an attempt to ward off scrutiny of the argument because the goal isn't to reduce sexualization as much as it is to get women into what has traditionally been a boy's club (again following my examples 1 and 2 from above).

The issue is that that the people making this argument don't really know why more women aren't into video games. It's why people were so perplexed that something like only 10% of Switch owners are women. They're taking every argument possible and throwing it at the wall to see what sticks in order to get more women into the industry. It's just that sexualization is an easy target because games with 0% fanservice in them is a more acceptable outcome than equal gender involvement and this whole thing becomes a "the end justifies the means" thing because they don't have a better answer.

Gaming is largely a boys club, and as part of that, some gamers are exclusionary by nature to want to "allow" any girls in. Think of it like children, as in literal children, behaving in tribalistic ways on a playground. I think most of us have experiences of the boys all grouping together, whilst the girls group together. Occasionally, there is overlap, but the boys might be playing sports and playing imaginary cops and robbers, and the girls more complex physical games like hopscotch/skipping or just playing/talking within their own company. Very rarely this is out of malice, it's more of an innate desire to tribe together with the familiar and form their own little hierarchies amongst themselves. Adults still do this at times, with gender specific clubs/places to go, or they take part in activities where it's like 90%+ of the same sex. As I'll go on to say below though, adults aren't children and some of the behaviour around clubs from adults is what is hostile/discriminatory/unnecessary.

In children, you can't really try and forcefully manufacture them not starting their own clubs as such (you're bordering on abuse if you act militant around a child's ability to experience/play through the eyes of a child), but you can educate them that it's both okay and healthy to inter-mix, and not go on about cooties, or mild-jabbing of each other because boys vs girls. Kids can play freely, but also still be educated. They absorb complex information like sponges, even if they still stick toy cars up their butts/noses and think monsters live under their beds. One of the biggest problems we have with children is adults just not knowing what to do with them. It's like taking care of little aliens. Whereas, we need more adults embracing how children view the world, the silly things they do, the dumb questions they ask, and importantly adults speaking to children as if they were adults. People that still talk to 4~5 year olds as if they were a literal baby (ooo booo ohh aaahhh ooo.. who's a good little boy....) are actually doing children a disservice (I know some of that is "fun talk" but some people do it far too often). Don't get overly frustrated either that when you try to talk about physics a child might get confused, but do talk to them about it anyway. It goes into their brains like a sponge and they do start thinking about complex things in life very early on.

The problem is when actual adults behave like children. This is a failure of a child to progress into adulthood and understand you can't really be a child forever. Yes, you can still joke about, play around and have an inner-child. Goodness knows more adults need to take the fucking tree log wedged up their ass out at times and remember how to enjoy life. However, many things about being a child, such as naivety, not being fully developed, having an incredibly simplistic view of the world and so on are supposed to be built upon via education and experience. Some adults who lack both education and experience end up remaining as a complete child on the inside, and this leads to them getting into situations amongst other adults where they are shunned, hated, disliked and for understandable reasons if they behave like assholes/say shitty things and are incredibly intolerant and close-minded.

All of that being said, yes, some of what you're touching on in your post links back to me trying to discuss differences between the sexes, averages, statistics, visual stimulation versus written and everything else I've argued at length. It's up to people whether or not they want to acknowledge some realities around consumer behaviour/psychology and biology, without thinking it's biological essentialism. It's not, it's a mixture of evolution, socialisation, personality traits and sometimes genetics/hormones and so on. Socially as a species we do aim to try and preach tolerance/acceptance and saying that yes, boys can be ballerinas and girls can work on oil rigs. That isn't always going to balance the books to 50/50. The principle of 50/50 is a noble one. For example, I support a political party that has a 50/50 gender cabinet split. I appreciate this and like that it's been attempted. As I mentioned earlier though, equal pay, equal representation under the law, and say in politics, attempts at equal opportunity, aren't necessarily on a level with trying to force hobbies/interests/genres. You can educate people they can play whatever they want and to try and not worry about stereotypes, but when we're dealing with hundreds of millions of people, sometimes the stats are simply going to show the sexes may navigate to different interests, on average. There are lots of reasons for this, some of which aren't due to negativity/hostile intent/abuse/etc, some of which can be, but overall such complexity is not just tied up in one neat one-liner.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
12,694
USA
This is one of the biggest problems I always had with The Witcher series. I tried playing the first and was instantly turned off with it's constant objectification of women.

I heard SO MUCH good shit about The Witcher 3, figured, "sure, I'll give this a shot maybe things have changed"

Every women is dressed in ridiculous/unrealistic outfits that expose their bodies. Top down shots, lingering camera angles on butt/chest. They're either helpless or "badass" sexualized warriors.

Tried playing this game 2 or 3 times and always uninstalled after like 20 minutes of playing.

HOW is this series not constantly called out for this shit?
 
Oct 25, 2017
422
Diablo 3
Overwatch
League of Legends
Dota 2
Hitman
Monster Hunter
Resident Evil
...The list goes on, and add to that pretty much every single: superhero game, JRPG, Vanillaware game, MMORPG, fighting game -- you want one of those without fanservice? Good luck.
?
Have you played the latest one? I think IOI really cleaned up their act following the previous games. No strippers or bondage nuns. All female targets are some sort of criminal mastermind like the men. Was great and refreshing to see. Didn't have to worry about killer strippers or anything.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,427
You do that. In the meantime maybe you could sit back, relax and let women express how they feel about these games without both sides-ing the discussion philosophically. Something that is also very "comfortable" to do when you aren't the one being culturally oppressed.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time I post, people ascribe words and motives to me to vilify me.

---

Anyway, back on topic. As I said, in response to people saying to just let them consume whatever media they want:
On topic: Things don't exist in a vacuum. Media we consume affects us--not always in obvious ways, or in the ways we'd expect (e.g. violent games don't necessarily cause a consumer to be more prone to violence)--but it does affect us. The isolationist thinking of "I like it, why can't you leave it alone" does encapsulate the values of an individualist society, but I don't think it reflects reality very well. We're social creatures. Even one's isolationist tendencies has an effect on those around him or her.
Everything we do and consume will affect those around us, either greatly or insignificantly or somewhere in between, but it will. And bringing up Jack Thompson is not a great argument either, it's just citing a crazy lawyer who went nuts in an attempt to suggest that media never affects us or our behavior whatsoever, which is demonstrably false.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,297
This is one of the biggest problems I always had with The Witcher series. I tried playing the first and was instantly turned off with it's constant objectification of women.

I heard SO MUCH good shit about The Witcher 3, figured, "sure, I'll give this a shot maybe things have changed"

Every women is dressed in ridiculous/unrealistic outfits that expose their bodies. Top down shots, lingering camera angles on butt/chest. They're either helpless or "badass" sexualized warriors.

Tried playing this game 2 or 3 times and always uninstalled after like 20 minutes of playing.

HOW is this series not constantly called out for this shit?
Normalization, mostly. It's so normalized at this point that a lot of folks can't even recognize how skeevy it all actually is.

Hell, when I look at Ciri I can't help but think about the eyeshadow (seriously, what?), the incredibly form-fitting leather, and the heels, and it's just like... yeah, this is pretty normal, but it's also pretty weird when you actually sit down and look at it. But most folks won't even notice that. Because she looks... normal. I mean, for a video game lady protag, anyway.
 

Cid

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
395
This is one of the biggest problems I always had with The Witcher series. I tried playing the first and was instantly turned off with it's constant objectification of women.

I heard SO MUCH good shit about The Witcher 3, figured, "sure, I'll give this a shot maybe things have changed"

Every women is dressed in ridiculous/unrealistic outfits that expose their bodies. Top down shots, lingering camera angles on butt/chest. They're either helpless or "badass" sexualized warriors.

Tried playing this game 2 or 3 times and always uninstalled after like 20 minutes of playing.

HOW is this series not constantly called out for this shit?
I dont know why
Maybe cause people think it fits the middle ages theme?
I never heard my girlfriend complain about all that stuff in Game of Thrones either
 

Hex

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,420
User was warned for: personal attacks
Who will stand up for the straight men being oppressed by feminism?
This really does not help your content for anyone not carrying a soap box.
Being a condescending fuckwit only makes you come off as a condescending fuckwit.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,558
I do know originally a lot of the developers or gamers where males that were kind of 'rejects' of society.
This is incorrect.

Gamers originally were men and women in equal measure and were marketed at in equal measure. Game covers and adverts literally had girls and boys playing games together as part of their advertising narrative. Indeed, some of the most renowned developers from the time were women.

It was after the mid-80s crash that, in order to corner a market, publishers (starting with Nintendo) only started marketing towards boys. They re-oriented the rhetoric around games to make them "toys - for boys".

but you're right that we’re still living with the horrible ramifications of this late-'80s/early-'90s decision
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
12,694
USA
I dont know why
Maybe cause people think it fits the middle ages theme?
I never heard my girlfriend complain about all that stuff in Game of Thrones either
GoT has some serious problems in that regard, and I am glad to see they toned things down in the last two seasons with sexual violence/nudity. But at least GoT has some really good female characters and the writers clearly spend time on making them feel well realized and satisfying.
 

Pirate Bae

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,786
??
This is one of the biggest problems I always had with The Witcher series. I tried playing the first and was instantly turned off with it's constant objectification of women.

I heard SO MUCH good shit about The Witcher 3, figured, "sure, I'll give this a shot maybe things have changed"

Every women is dressed in ridiculous/unrealistic outfits that expose their bodies. Top down shots, lingering camera angles on butt/chest. They're either helpless or "badass" sexualized warriors.

Tried playing this game 2 or 3 times and always uninstalled after like 20 minutes of playing.

HOW is this series not constantly called out for this shit?
You know, I disagree with you.

Triss and Keira are really the only ones with revealing outfits (and Triss' is an optional one). None of the women are sexualized warriors. Ciri is strong, independent, and not dependent on her gender or sexuality. Yen and Triss are different, because they are love interests, but their core character is not a reflection of them being sexual beings. You can choose not to sleep with either one of them. They are strong and great without their sexual nature, not because of it. Cerys is a strong warrior, and not sexualized at all. You can have sex with Shani, but there's more to her than that. She's smart, a great doctor, and a good friend of Geralt's. Syanna is a romance option, but she is cunning, clever, devious, and a unique character DESPITE that. That's the difference between an oversexualized character like Quiet and the women in TW3.

Sex in video games is not bad, so long as it is not the only option for the sake of fap material, and it's not shoved down the throats of the players "because that's the kind of game they wanted to make". It's a poor excuse. The women in TW3 are treated LIKE PEOPLE, not objects to be oogled by male consumers.

If you are referring to the opening scene, specifically, then I understand. It's very gratuitous and I'm not a super big fan of it. It's my biggest complaint about the treatment of women in the game. The whore houses are completely skippable and unnecessary, but on the other hand, they kind of fit in with the medieval style lore, so I'm kind of torn.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,690
This really does not help your content for anyone not carrying a soap box.
Being a condescending fuckwit only makes you come off as a condescending fuckwit.
You ask too much of women and other people that are just tired of seeing the same arguments again and again, tired of giving well written examples based on data of how certain issue affects them and then the answer they get is I just like TnA, please strop oppressing me, just let me be.

In cases like that, humor is the only thing left to remain sane.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,694
USA
You know, I disagree with you.

Triss and Keira are really the only ones with revealing outfits (and Triss' is an optional one). None of the women are sexualized warriors. Ciri is strong, independent, and not dependent on her gender or sexuality. Yen and Triss are different, because they are love interests, but their core character is not a reflection of them being sexual beings. You can choose not to sleep with either one of them. They are strong and great without their sexual nature, not because of it. Cerys is a strong warrior, and not sexualized at all. You can have sex with Shani, but there's more to her than that. She's smart, a great doctor, and a good friend of Geralt's. Syanna is a romance option, but she is cunning, clever, devious, and a unique character DESPITE that. That's the difference between an oversexualized character like Quiet and the women in TW3.

Sex in video games is not bad, so long as it is not the only option for the sake of fap material, and it's not shoved down the throats of the players "because that's the kind of game they wanted to make". It's a poor excuse.

If you are referring to the opening scene, specifically, then I understand. It's very gratuitous and I'm not a super big fan of it. It's my biggest complaint about the treatment of women in the game. The whore houses are completely skippable.
I admittedly didn't play the game long enough to get to the meat and potatoes of whatever the story has to offer, BECAUSE I was so turned off by what I saw with the little time I had played. Just fucking walking into an inn in town or a general store, it seemed like every women I saw was dressed entirely differently than men. There were ridiculous camera shots panning down to up with women leaning up against doorways, seemingly waiting for you to walk in and notice them.

It was so fucking distracting that every time I played the game, I just could not take it seriously enough to even progress.

I didn't get to know the main characters well enough. I never made it that far because essentially the extras were so obviously sexualized that I quit. Not to mention that I hated the gameplay but of course that's another issue in itself.

Normalization, mostly. It's so normalized at this point that a lot of folks can't even recognize how skeevy it all actually is.

Hell, when I look at Ciri I can't help but think about the eyeshadow (seriously, what?), the incredibly form-fitting leather, and the heels, and it's just like... yeah, this is pretty normal, but it's also pretty weird when you actually sit down and look at it. But most folks won't even notice that. Because she looks... normal. I mean, for a video game lady protag, anyway.
I dunno. To me that shit sticks out like a sore thumb. It was like playing a fantasy game from the 1990s.
 

Cid

Banned
Member
Oct 27, 2017
395
GoT has some serious problems in that regard, and I am glad to see they toned things down in the last two seasons with sexual violence/nudity. But at least GoT has some really good female characters and the writers clearly spend time on making them feel well realized and satisfying.
I dont know
There is so much murder in that series and child murder and child execution and mass murder that toning some things down but not the murdering seems a bit strange to me
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,360
Oh thanks, so Sniper Elite 4 on PS4 I see, came out this year, I’ll have a look

I must say though, all this killing, especially sniping, is really violent
Shouldn’t we also be more offended about ourselfs that we kill people all the time in so many games?
I dont know
Anyway, thanks for the tip
If you genuinely wanna have a conversation about the implications, effects, and portrayals of violence I implore you to start a thread about it as that's generally a conversation worth having especially as more and more games both narratively and mechanically have overtly and subtly critiqued the excessive violence in the medium from games like Undertale and Dishonored while also more and more games tone down violence completely and/or allow the player to complete them without any violence whatsoever, . As it stands though, bringing up violence while in a thread specifically about the sexualization of women in the medium reads less like a genuine concern about violence in the medium but moreso like a desperate attempt to deflect from the thread's topic.
 
Oct 25, 2017
12,694
USA
I dont know
There is so much murder in that series and child murder and child execution and mass murder that toning some things down but not the murdering seems a bit strange to me
There was a fan outcry after some shit they pulled in S5. Lots of unnecessary sexual violence that never happened in the books, for example.

They did a lot of shit for shock value, and that stuff was rightfully toned down.
 

Pirate Bae

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,786
??
I admittedly didn't play the game long enough to get to the meat and potatoes of whatever the story has to offer, BECAUSE I was so turned off by what I saw with the little time I had played. Just fucking walking into an inn in town or a general store, it seemed like every women I saw was dressed entirely differently than men. There were ridiculous camera shots panning down to up with women leaning up against doorways, seemingly waiting for you to walk in and notice them.

It was so fucking distracting that every time I played the game, I just could not take it seriously enough to even progress.

I didn't get to know the main characters well enough. I never made it that far because essentially the extras were so obviously sexualized that I quit.
I'm referring specifically to TW3. NPC townswomen are all moderately dressed, unless its the brothel. I never bothered to play the first two, and read the books instead.

Which are problematic in their own right, but I digress.
 

Morrigan

Armoring
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
7,489
It is if you're calling someone a Nazi to shut down a discussion. I voted for Clinton. I voted Democrat down the line last night. Suggesting someone is a Nazi because Lime can't be bothered to have a discussion on a forum where we're supposed to discuss things might not be intellectually dishonest. But then I don't know what that something else is.
If Lime was trying to have a "well versed" discussion, he wouldn't need to resort to calling everyone who disagrees with him a Nazi. No different than your accusation that people who are throwing up counter-arguments are doing so because of a need to fap. You're trying to get a rise out of people in order to bait them into getting themselves banned. It's lazy. Be better.
Please drop this line of rhetoric. It's an inflammatory derail attempt.

This really does not help your content for anyone not carrying a soap box.
Being a condescending fuckwit only makes you come off as a condescending fuckwit.
The irony in your post is really remarkable, do you know this?

You know, I disagree with you.

Triss and Keira are really the only ones with revealing outfits (and Triss' is an optional one). None of the women are sexualized warriors. Ciri is strong, independent, and not dependent on her gender or sexuality.
Can't really comment on the rest, but Ciri is a supposed hardened warrior who wears high heel, a corset, and has her bra visible. They just can't help themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.