-
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
I was watching some music videos and Drake's "Nice for What" came on.
Female directed.
Tons of gorgeous women.
Aaaand not sexualized.
Cool and beautiful shots of girls just having fun (they're still being sexy, but don't need to put their box in the camera to do it lol)
(you may have to view on youtube to actually work, but enjoy!)
Female directed.
Tons of gorgeous women.
Aaaand not sexualized.
Cool and beautiful shots of girls just having fun (they're still being sexy, but don't need to put their box in the camera to do it lol)
(you may have to view on youtube to actually work, but enjoy!)
Last edited:
Well it is the summer banner. They generally are the most thirst driven banners of the year for any gatcha game.
New Fire Emblem Heroes summer banner. Let's have a look.
First up, Noire: is this pose even possible? Feels like it needs to be sent over to the Hawkeye Initiative for examination by the archer-contortionist himself.
Dear lord. Kill it with fire.
The twisted ones are among us, run for your lives! :DDear lord. Kill it with fire.
Everything is political, even trying to not be political is political.
At the end of the day, the problem with every David Cage game is that they are about David Cage. No amount of extra writers or developers has been able to mitigate this as of yet, and I don't foresee it happening in the future. Despite Detroit easily being the most playable of Cage games, it's still extraordinarily problematic due to the politics being filtered through the lens of Cage.
Last edited:
I'm so disappointed that some of those won't get filled in.
At the end of the day, the problem with every David Cage game is that they are about David Cage. No amount of extra writers or developers has been able to mitigate this as of yet, and I don't foresee it happening in the future. Despite Detroit easily being the most playable of Cage games, it's still extraordinarily problematic due to the politics being filtered through the lens of Cage.
I'm a little behind on the official bingo sheet, but I randomized my own and I'm pretty sure it will, haha. The workshopping for those squares was great and some purposeful out there options selected. The game doesn't reach the absurd levels of Beyond Two Souls it seems.
And the irony is that if such absurdity were included the game would actually be better, rather than worse. (And on that Bingo card, I count at least 3 Bingos that I'm aware of...)
Haha, good to know.
Cage really seemed to play it safe, which means it's just mediocre and adds absolutely nothing new to the 'androids are alive' sci-fi trope. It's both disappointing and exactly what I expected at the same time. The world building is so absurd and I can't suspend my disbelief at all, nearly every scene I've witnessed had a moment where I couldn't believe how dumb something was (if not outright offensive because of the numerous hamfisted civil rights metaphors).
The only thing it has going is presentation.
As a woman, I agree and disagree with this thread. Some of the argumentation is decent, but most of it is over-simplified. Men are very visual. Just a quick google-search will show you many articles to support this claim:
So it's natural for capitalistic ventures (like video-games) to cash in on this very real biological aspect. Harlequin Romances cash in what women like (with more focus on senses and a cerebral experience).
You simply can't throw evolutionary biology out of the window here. What we do need are more women in the industry. I, personally, dislike harlequin romances (they're simply made for a vicarious experience; I dislike such things on principle), but women dominate the Romance genre and know what women want. Same would be true for video-games as well. More women should come into the industry to make games for women. This criticism can only go so far.
So it's natural for capitalistic ventures (like video-games) to cash in on this very real biological aspect. Harlequin Romances cash in what women like (with more focus on senses and a cerebral experience).
You simply can't throw evolutionary biology out of the window here. What we do need are more women in the industry. I, personally, dislike harlequin romances (they're simply made for a vicarious experience; I dislike such things on principle), but women dominate the Romance genre and know what women want. Same would be true for video-games as well. More women should come into the industry to make games for women. This criticism can only go so far.
I'm mostly just glad that Cyberpunk 2077 is a thing because Cage has a way of poisoning the well that is often unjustified and the not-so-far future aesthetic via the likes of Shadowrun is one of my favorites.
I don't think anyone is really making statements as to evolutionary biology so I'm not sure I see where that's coming from. Just stating that men are visual is itself an oversimplification. Most arguments aren't really towards the capital argument, but there's plenty of provisional evidence in every media that objectification and reliance on the male gaze is by no means necessary, whether you're talking small scale projects or billion dollar blockbusters.
Last edited:
Almost no sci-fi media I consume at this point adds anything substantially new, but it can still be very entertaining. Detroit is like iRobot for me. Not particularly deep, but a fun popcorn blockbuster. Some nice acting, music and good choice implementation to make it worthwhile. No substantial plotholes helps too and the world building, while not outstanding, is still a solid effort with some nice lore to be discovered within which is more that can be said for some other stuff.
To stay somewhat on-topic, going off YouTube, Twitch, the fanart on Twitter and our OT Detroit seems to be quite popular with women which I found interesting. Especially Connor seems to be their favorite
New Fire Emblem Heroes summer banner. Let's have a look.
First up, Noire: is this pose even possible? Feels like it needs to be sent over to the Hawkeye Initiative for examination by the archer-contortionist himself.
We've also got Innes, who clearly shops at the same assymetrical surf shack as Tidus.
Followed by Cordelia. Managing to be cavalry in those ankle-busting high-heeled sandals. And shopping at the same surf shack as Pyra. At least she didn't follow Innes I suppose. Cool shell/harpoon thing detail though.
Finally, Tana. Why bother with an Armourslayer Sword when you can whip everyone into submission with a beach towel.
Except for the first one with her back, I don't really see a problem with the rest considering that it is a summer thing.
Hm, let's see, in real life wars... did the army ever strip down because "Ahh it's too hot, I'm better off fighting half naked with a lot of skin exposed, essentially leaving myself extremely vulnerable to blows."?
I fully agree on this statement. Thats such a good point. This doesn't happen in real life, so then why should it be portrayed in video games. With graphics in video games seeming to look more "real" these days, logic doesn't seem to.
Well it's a gatcha game. You aren't supposed to generally take the silly filler event stuff seriously. That's why their weapons are shit like inflatable water toys and watermelon axes.
With games like Gone Home, The Last of Us and The Last Guardian, I feel moved by them as much as any piece of creative work. There's something genuine about the storytelling and emotional impact that transcends it being just a game or just a story. When I play a David Cage game, even Detroit, which might be his best, I'm just like, "Yep. This sure is a game that looks like a movie."
Last edited:
Well...there was the Battle of Telamon in 225 BC where the Celts fought in the buff against the Roman Empire.
...The Romans won.
Like I said, based that it's an obvious summer promotion, the designs are fine as they are. I'm only talking about it in that aspect, idk how it is into the game or what happens, never played it.
I really never understood this line of thinking and always seemed like such a cop out to me. Women are visual creatures too, very much so. I mean hell we're stereotyped to hell and back as being good at art and design so on and then somehow when it comes to sex we're supposed to magically not care about visuals.
"Evolutionary biology" is becoming a catchphrase for pseudoscience based on what that particular person feels.
Most stuff like this are just stand alone filler stories that they put out between the bigger story pieces if they have one.
I felt more from Hyper Light Drifter's story than any David Cage game.
Well that's nice, I disagree with nearly all of your points there and think it's a very mediocre piece of media that fails at delivering any of its messages.
I'm extremely excited to see what they do with the setting, I want to a real return to that 80s punk aesthetic (which that e3 trailer looked to deliver on).
While I agree that that first one is obviously the issue out of the four, there is also the fact that, when offering swimwear/marriage banners, most of the characters are the young female ones. It's not uncommon to have banners consisting solely of groups of scantily-clad young women out of a combined cast of hundreds of characters, it's incredibly unbalanced. You can argue that 'that's what sells/that's gacha', but it's still part of the problem.
Well they were more balanced last year, but they probably adjusted the ratio based on who was spending the most. It sucks for people who wanted more male servants.
Oh, I'm sure that's what happened, I still don't think it's a good thing just because it's more profitable though- the game rakes in the cash anyway. In addition to the increasing ratio focussing on scantily-clad young women, even when the costume isn't necessarily the issue, there's also the posing in that the girls are drawn to show off their curves as much as possible while the guys just stand there. That's why I find the Hawkeye Inititive so amusing. I wonder what the 'damaged' art will look like, as there's also a tendency for the girls to look embarrassed/scared while the guys look stoic/angry. There are some nice art/outfits, but it's some of the trends I find annoying.
Last edited:
I agree. We also need to throw bones, carefully examine the inards of birds, and ask a Hollow Earther for input. You just can't throw that kind of knowledge out of the window!
I think you are oversimplifying to an almost comical extent, especially with the evo psych line. Remember: it's pseudoscience. It's not testable, and largely based on stereotypes. Things are like so and so today, therefore they must have been like this ten thousand years ago, and therefore, it's natural and the way people are. But that's simply not the case, and usually doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny - and discards the impact of culture almost entirely.
The romance genre, is it "what women want"? Why is fanfic (ie, non-commercial, done for fun and the enjoyment of other fanfic fans) different from that genre, then? Isn't the romance genre actually just what men allowed to sell to women historically? Female sexuality hasn't even been acceptable-ish for even ten years - that's the blink of an eye in terms of a society! "This arouses a woman" is still a punchline in media. You yourself devote a line to distance yourself from what other women supposedly want. Isn't that telling?
Videogames aren't like this because of evo psych pseudoscience. It's much simpler: They're like this because marketing departments decided to gender their audience to maximize engagement of the male audience, who was slightly bigger a percentage at the time. That's it. The existance of entire ranges of games (that the mainstream videogame industry largely ignores, such as adventure/hidden object games) proves that quite well. Look at indie games. Many of these were extremely successful despite a lack of sexdoll characters. Why is that? That wasn't only women. There's a lot of men whose tastes the industry ignores with their current design trends, too.
I'd argue that the sexdoll designs we see so often are just the "nochunky sauce" issue for female character designs, not some evopsych mandatory thing with no alternative.
Do you have any counter-argument bar a snide start to your post (and sprinkles of it every where else)? The first two paragraphs are literally pointless, with your whole antagonistic approach. If you have some research articles, then you can show me. Things, by the way, don't change so quickly in regards to evolution. Sexuality is more instinct based and less culture based: it's actually moulded or dictated by cultural trends in more ways than one. And culture always changes. In fact, it changes geographically and periodically. It's a two-fold change. I didn't claim culture shouldn't be considered: I said that evolutionary biology shouldn't be discarded entirely. There's a clear cut difference between these two. Your lack of understanding of my simple post is baffling.
You do realize that women writers dominate Romance genre (currently), right? I've got no clue what you're even suggesting, as the rest of your post comes across as random ideas that have little to do with my post. I was talking about women being more in tune with how women want to be portrayed in the media, hence the example of Romance Genre and its popularity. What does your paragraph have anything to do with mine?
Women are not as visual as men, and the link clearly explains why: "... their sexual motivation pathways have more connections to the sub-cortical reward system than in women." Though this is just one of the few reasons.
I believe you misunderstood my post, which is absurdly simple: I stated that evolutionary biology shouldn't be thrown out entirely in the analyses of this topic. There's a maw of difference between this, and what you're implying.
Did I claim it's a necessity? Three people replied to my post, and all three failed to grasp a post so simple.
Last edited:
It always surprise me how low some men think about themselves/their gender.
Edit:well the poster was a woman. Still a false and stupid argument (that men also use it).
The thing that bothers me the most about summer Noire and the back thing is I just don't see how that's attractive. Now, I'm mostly lesbian so it should be attractive to me, right? Nope. It just looks wrong on so many levels. Do guys find this attractive?
It's a real shame, too. She's one of the few female characters with actual musculature that I've seen. Just look at her, she's ripped! That's awesome.
It's a real shame, too. She's one of the few female characters with actual musculature that I've seen. Just look at her, she's ripped! That's awesome.
A few things I want to say from your last few posts:
1. Nowadays women aren't limited to writing romances. I'd argue that some of the best known authors of this century are women. See The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. Especially the later, which has made her author one of the richest people in Great Britain. Considering that writters get like 15% of a book actual price at best, she must have sold quite a few millions.
2. Appealing to all senses and a cerebral experience is not something that is exclusive to Harlequin romances. Writting has limitations, like every other form of storytelling, because you're limited to the use of words print in a paper or in a screen. Any actually good writter knows how to use different resources to circumvent that limitation to produce the desired effect to the reader. That's why stuff like metaphors exist. Furthermore, doing descriptions using "the 5 senses" is something that you often learn in creative writting courses.
3. It's possible that capitalistic ventures would use this supposed biological aspect for titillation. It's possible to do so without trying to knock at my 13 years old self door and asking him if that character is hot enough for me.
4. Hormone responses and brain neural connections can take shape and change due to a huge variety of reasons. A lot of those are acquired through life. Addictions, for example, exist because of the reward centers of the brain, so there is biological reasons for their existence, but that doesn't mean they aren't a direct consequence of a certain and acquired behavior. Even if there is proof that maybe men are more "prone" to those than woman, I don't see anywhere that those are genetic and not a consequence of the overflowing amount of information that we're exposed to since early age.
5. We know next to nothing about how sexuality, gender identity and all those things actually work right now. Researchers even recognise that fact.
6. The test subjects here can't be isolated from cultural influences, so I honestly can't find the conclussions... well, conclussive enough. Pair that with the fact that the world has only recently taken an interest in sexuality and gender identity and I think it's absolutely too early to take those as fact. If lets say, in 30 years, stuff like watching porn, masturbating and the likes are not taboo among women anymore (like they aren't for a big proportion of men under 40) and the results are the same, then I'll review my views. Until then, I'd say that this tests are flawed due to the stark differences between men and women backgrounds, so I'll take the information given with a pinch of salt for now.
Loved the part about "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like".
It's very different when heterosexuality is shoved in your face everywhere, whereas displays of homosexuality are still extremely rare to this day (let alone positive displays of homosexuality).
Finally, a decent response:
1: I didn't suggest that women are limited to writing Romances: I used the Romance Genre as a analogy as it's dominated by women. It's just an analogy, not a 'be all and end all' paradigm.
2: That's not what I mentioned, but you've brought a good argument on the table: these writers know which senses to target because they're women. My main argument was that women can understand women better in regards to 'sexual' content.
3: Absolutely, which is why I suggested that both things should be considered, and this time for women, too. Developers should consider that, which sexual markers do they enjoy in visual mediums? Because pandering, if that's the reason for capitalistic ventures, shouldn't be limited to men only.
4: Could very well be true, but there has to be some co-relation between the two, no? I don't believe it's wise to dismiss this altogether.
5: More or less agreed.
6: I don't know how many would agree with me, and maybe that's an extreme stance, but I really despise main-stream pornography. Sure, search does show that men and women search for different things, and porn is being made for women now, too, but man, it needs to be regulated ... so, I'm more or less in agreement with this argument as well.
No, you implied it. Just as you're implying that I failed to grasp your post without actually responding to any of my comments. So once again, what does evolutionary biology have to do with the vast majority of responses here that are not basing any of their argumentation on it? And if you more or less agree with RalchAC that we know next to nothing about sexuality from a research perspective, how is it relevant?
Gay people kissing does not rely on reinforcing societal norms about a woman's role to appeal to men sexually.
That's not how implicature works, and I if wanted to say something, I would've said it outright. I'm fairly blunt by nature. Your post mostly talked of things my post had little to do with. That was a response to OP, not anything else. If I wanted to respond to someone's comments, I would've quoted the said person. So to say that you didn't grasp a simple post (and responded with a bizarre argument about 'responses') would be an understatement. Unless you expect someone to read 300 plus pages, which no one would have the time nor the patience for, then this argument is going off a tangent to Lord knows where.
Also, I said 'more or less'--I didn't state "I completely agree." Whilst more research is needed, it isn't sound to completely discard existing research. To state that we know "next to nothing" about sexuality is hyperbolic.
Last edited:
Funny, because I'd say this entire response is being intentionally obtuse, aside from the last part.
So are you going to answer the question about why you're bringing up evolutionary biology when no one else is using it as a form of argumentation, or are you going to continue to sidestep it?
edit: and actually, since I've got some free time, I can go point-by-point as to how my initial argument directly addresses the points you made in detail, if you'd like.
*sigh* Ok.
Last edited:
You almost hit the jackpot with irony.
Why can't I bring it up? "Others haven't brought it up, so you can't bring it up!" What sort of absurd and juvenile argument is this?
Last edited:
There really isn't any deep reason for it. I saw the original post and thought it needed to be stated. That's all there's to it.
So if you yourself don't have a particularly strong reason for bringing it into the conversation, do you understand why others might also consider it to not be particularly relevant to the discussion?
How's it irrelevant to the discussion that centers on depictions of sex in video-games? It seems to me that you simply want to dig a mountain out of a mole-hill at this point.
- Status