Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 24 NEXT
 

Sepko:

generals3:
So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

"I applaud women who want to vote, but I'm not going to lobby for the government to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a citizen in any way." - This is what you sound like.

Right. Because there are so many people who lobby for different political ideologies to be represented. You can't imagine how many right wingers lobby for more left wing parties and vice-versa.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else: It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.
Are we done trying to justify not giving girl gamers a fair go?

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

generals3:

Sepko:

generals3:
So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

generals3:

Sepko:

"I applaud women who want to vote, but I'm not going to lobby for the government to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a citizen in any way." - This is what you sound like.

Right. Because there are so many people who lobby for different political ideologies to be represented. You can't imagine how many right wingers lobby for more left wing parties and vice-versa.

I'm not even going to touch that.

generals3:

Sepko:
I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else: It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.
Are we done trying to justify not giving girl gamers a fair go?

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

Paradoxrifts:
Arguably the current triple-A model is only made sustainable by charging a premium price to a targeted demographic, the only other alternative to that has been the development of rental-only online play, or free-to-pay dollar gougers. Some of which are good, most of which are bad, but without exception all those who play those sorts of games do so under the all-seeing eye of online DRM and the game's own finite existence.

So thanks, but no thanks. This general inclusiveness you speak of can play hide and go fuck itself so far as I'm concerned. It is not in my best interests to play along.

Arguably the Triple-A model is a bloated unmitigated mess where companies have lost money despite good sales because they threw too much money at projects that didn't need it.
Film went through a period like this too. Film history time!
The era of the Cleopatra's and Ben Hur's had films being made with massive budgets, so massive that despite the generally positive outcomes they couldn't get a profit. Hollywood almost crashed because of this. Since then they've figured how to better distribute their money and still make good and enjoyable films for the most part. And this was after they figured out they could advertise to both genders. See what I'm saying here?
And you've never seem to have heard of indie games, unless you don't like that sort of thing, for which I pity you.
So with proper money management we can have games that already cater to boys, and those weird pink things that allegedly cater to girls, and those that *le gasp* cater to both! What a tremendously outrageous notion.

Sepko:

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

Are you trolling? I really need to ask because it feels like it. The point is (and has always been, unless you forgotten how this discussion started) that consumers care about their own needs. And why should that be different if women are those whos needs aren't being met? Whether the "opposing" group are poor people or women, it doesn't matter. And if it does elaborate.

Sepko:

I'm not even going to touch that.

Off course you aren't because it shows how little people care about the desires of others. And this thus shows how hypocritical it is to insult someone because he shows no special interest in the needs of female gamers.

generals3:

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

You have totally missed the point haven't you? The point is that I as a costumer don't care about the preferences of other costumers. And the characteristics of the "opposing" group is obviously irrelevant. It should always be. Otherwise you're showing an unjustified discriminatory behavior. If it's ok to stick my finger to casuals why is not to do the same to female gamers pushing for their preferences?

And i'm all in favor of women voting. Because voting is a right. This however is the gaming market, it's about goods which are privileges which people decide to acquire for themselves or not. And i don't give a shit if other people aren't getting the games they want. I'm not a communist, i don't believe in the idea everyone should have the same privileges.

And if me not considering the female demographic as inherently weaker to other groups and thus needing my assistance makes me an asshole i'll gladly be one.

Sepko:

generals3:

Sepko:

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Hagi:

Sepko:

generals3:

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Because it's insinuating that women are on the same level as them. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. Also, comparing an entire gender to a class of people seems a bit jarring.

I know your questions are directed to Jim Sterling, but your comment caught my eyes and I would like to share my opinion about it.

DrOswald:
Is the character of Bayonetta a contributing factor to the objectification of women in video games even though she is portrayed more as an idealized woman than a sex object?

Bayonetta is a tricky subject. Because there is one side that see objectification in her and another side who see her as idealised and as a female power fantasy like Kratos is for men.
I'd say there is a bit of both. I would like to know what the author intended for her but it wouldn't really change the mind of anybody. Both stance do stand.
Personally I interpret her more as a power fantasy, she is definitely sexualised a lot but, and you summarised it well, I don't feel she is objectified.
But still her look is mostly designed with a male ideal of beauty. Also "beauty" is not an important part of an empowerment fantasy. (look at Kratos, the sex is part of the fantasy but he doesn't need to be handsome or desirable, he just take what he wants) Also we can't deny the whole male gaze with camera angles and the power of stripping.

Yet, I still think she is a power fantasy but I think the creators wanted to still appeal to the male audience but with a hint of "reversing" in it. If you see what I mean, like, they took the usually over sexualised character and gave her power, agency, character. Somehow, a bit like Dante, who is a textbook male fantasy but they also clearly sexualised him a bit for the female audience.

DrOswald:
If Bayonetta has been created by women to appeal to women but was otherwise identical, would the character still be considered an example of objectification? Should the character still be considered an example of objectification?

I don't really have an answer to this question. I don't think it needs one but I found it funny because I thought, at first, that Bayonetta was designed by a woman. I don't think I would have a different opinion if I knew from start she was designed by a man since my very first impression was bad. And I only started to see the character behind the sexualisation when I heard about the game story and all. But the trailers gave me a bad "porno in sheep's clothings" vibe. Then I saw the gameplay (and the level and enemy design) leaned about the story and the character.

DrOswald:
In the video game community, there is a certain reaction to female characters. These characters are always condemned as objectification of women, etc. We praise the any female character that is non-sexual, often holding them up as examples of strong female characters even when their only defining feature is a lack of sexuality in a crowd of highly sexual female characters. On the other hand, developers are criticized for creating any hint of sexuality in a female character, even in female characters that are strong female characters in every respect. The most recent character I can bring forward as an example is Elizabeth of Bioshock infinite.

I think you are wrong here. There is a definite difference between sexualisation and objectification. (And there is even a difference between sexual and sexualised but that's another topic.) The problem is that they often go hand in hand. But to just give a single example or two, or three.
Peach, Zelda, Samus.

Peach is not sexualised at all with her relatively "cartoony" almost chibi proportions and art style I am not sure we can even consider her sexy. She is not sexual in the slightest, yet she's very much objectified in most games. Actually in every game where she is not played she is a textbook damsel in distress. Which means she's just a goal, an object.
What I mean is that a character can be objectified without being sexualised.

Samus was sexualised even in the nes, just a bit, if you were fast enough. We can even say it was quite objectifying to make of her body a trophy to earn the right to oogle. On the other side, with nes graphics, it would be hard to show she is actually female without showing her in bikini or with a dress. Anyway, it's part of her character that, under her armor, she is a very sexy woman. And she is a textbook female power fantasy. Even when they gave her her infamous Zero Suit, there have been a little uproar but almost everyone rolled with it and, in the end, it did not deter her character.
Until, Another M, which totally changed Samus and stripped her of almost everything that made her a power fantasy.
My point is we can make a character sexy and even sexualise her without objectifying her.

Zelda is a bit more complicated. But we can agree that she is not sexualised (or at least not much) and that she do get "damsel in distressed" in every game WITHOUT losing her character, her agency, her importance nor her power. Some argue that it is still objectification. I say yes. But I don't say just "yes". I say "yes, but" ! She is objectified temporarily in every game, but what I really remember Zelda for is not her time as a captive but rather all the other badass things she did, does, is aknowledged doing. So we can't really say that Zelda is an "objectified character" since she doesn't lose power, agency, relevance or character. We rarely see female character doing things on screen but, with Zelda, we really get the vibe that it is her story and Link is the side character that helps her attain her goals.
Zelda is Batman and you play Robin in the very moment where Batman needs you, but it's still clear that Batman did and does most of the work.
What I'm trying to say is agency, power, responsability is not a matter of protagonist, main character or anything. Zelda is a supporting character and still is more empowered than Link. And Link isn't objectified at all either. It shows we can make games without objectifying anyone with good writing.
Zelda serie is basically a power fantasy for everyone. (even bronies, epona is such a bad ass)

DrOswald:
The vast majority of people loved Elisabeth, but the criticism I most often saw against her was that her dress showed off too much cleavage and that this cheapened the character. And it is true that the dress she wears is sexy. But it is hardly an objectifying sexuality. And this is only one of many examples I could bring to the table.

I think the criticism comes more from the fact Ken Levine said that he was surprised that peoples oogle at Elizabeth, even saying something along the line of "people on internet think much more about her breasts than we did". Which means that they didn't sexualise her dress on purpose with the intent to make her sexy. (Considering who she is, it would have been a bad idea) But that they made her sexy "by default". They certainly wanted her to be attractive and I don't think they went "What is attractive ? Oh I know, boobs, cleavage and corsets !" they came to that outfit "naturally" without having sexualisation in mind. And that, to me, is the problem with her design. It's not that sexualisation is bad, it just show a weird idea about female beauty being equal to sexuality.
Also I just think it is not the kind of character that benefits from sexualisation. But the character is still likable and the game still good.

But that's sexualisation, not objectification. So, what about it ? Well, there is this little fact that Ken Levine wanted her to pose on the box art and publisher didn't want that. They put her on the rear cover and decided to make an "america fuck yeah bro dude FPS" front cover. That, to some peoples, felt like they dropped the ball for Elizabeth and agreed to present her as less important, less a character, less a person than Booker.
Now, I have some kind of question too. If Ken Levine did not talk about his failed struggle to put her forward would anyone have raised an eyebrow at the cover featuring her only on the back ?
I don't think so, if anything he put the issue forward and made peoples aware that even such small detail is important. So, yeah, I don't think Bioshock or Ken Levine deserve the heat they get about this whole sexualisation and objectification. If anything they are good examples of trying to progress with the gender issue.

DrOswald:
It seems to me that the forward thinking video game community has settled into a dangerous position against female sexuality. So many of us have been fighting for so long against negative depictions of female sexuality that we automatically react any depiction of female sexuality as a bad thing. We are essentially embracing a very old and very damaging idea: That women are not to be sexual.

Again, I think you are wrong. As stated above, and as my Kratos example shows, there is a difference between Sexuality, Sexualisation and Objectification. But the three often like to go hand in hand ... in hand. So it's easy to bunch the three together.
As an example Kratos is not sexualised, is not objectified but he is very much sexual. Peach is neither sexual nor sexualised and yet she's objectified. Zelda is not sexual at all, maybe a bit sexualised, and not objectified (even with her little "damsel in distress" moment. Samus is sexualised, not sexual and not objectified too. (Unless you take another M but I try to forget about this mess) And Bayonetta is very sexualised, definitely sexual yet manages to not be objectified.
I don't think the gaming community is against sexual female. Also I don't think the enemy is "negative depiction of female sexuality". If anything most peoples, or at least most feminists, want the female sexuality to be more depicted in all shapes and form. Sexuality doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be bad, it can get ugly too. The problem with female sexuality in games is that, usually, the woman is passive and not that sexual. They are just a sex toy for the male character and lose any little agency or character they may have had in the first place.
Sexuality is complex and media often simplify all of this to a rather stupid "ideal" of sex where men are aggressive, predatory, pushing while women are passive trophies that requires men to complete some task or compete with others to earn.
And it's not just sex but also romance in general, in video games romance is about studying your prey, learning what she needs, wants, like, and exploit them until she agrees to let you get in her pants.

Personally I much prefer no representation at all than a bad representation. Now, I know I'm in the minority, but I would not mind at all if sexuality was left out of most games, often it doesn't add anything at best and at worst it can deter to some characters. I don't mean to censor it or to make it a taboo but that's a mature subject that needs mature writers and a mature audience to be done well.
And by mature I don't mean 18+ "adult games" which, for the most, are actually very immature.

And that's kind of my point about it. We don't really need more sex in games. We need it to be well written.

generals3:

Sepko:

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

Are you trolling? I really need to ask because it feels like it. The point is that consumers care about their own needs. And why should that be different if women are those whos needs aren't being met? Whether the "opposing" group are poor people or women doesn't matter. And if it does elaborate.

This isn't about consumerism it's about a sense of community, game companies sell to our community so whatever's in our community matters. And of course it matters what your so-called "opposing" group is, how freakin' jaded are you? You're comparing women, as a whole mind you, to a class of general people, and a lower class at that. How do you not see how much that's fucking horrible of you?

generals3:

Sepko:

I'm not even going to touch that.

Off course you aren't because it shows how little people care about the desires of others. And this thus shows how hypocritical it is to insult someone because he shows no special interest in the needs of female gamers.

How little you care, perhaps. But, happily, not everyone in the gaming community's like you, so we can all live on happy with the knowledge that there are those of us who care at least a little bit about the opposite gender in our community.

generals3:

Sepko:
And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

You have totally missed the point haven't you? The point is that I as a costumer don't care about the preferences of other costumers. And the characteristics of the "opposing" group is obviously irrelevant. It should always be. Otherwise you're showing an unjustified discriminatory behavior. If it's ok to stick my finger to casuals why is not to do the same to female gamers pushing for their preferences?

And i'm all in favor of women voting. Because voting is a right. This however is the gaming market, it's about goods which are privileges which people decide to acquire for themselves or not. And i don't give a shit if other people's aren't getting the games they want.

And if me not considering the female demographic as inherently weaker to other groups and thus needing my assistance makes me an asshole i'll gladly be one.

The characteristics of the "opposing" group is incredibly relevant, how could it not be? Are we living in some fantasy world where everything on god's green Earth is equal ground?
And again you're comparing women to completely the wrong things, the casuals are a collection of a small batch of both male and female gamers. The collection of female gamers is the entire collection of female gamers, and as members of the opposite gender they deserve to have a voice in gaming because they're the freakin' entire collection of female gamers.
You also seem to like touting about female gamers being weaker and needing help, do you not know how revolutions work? Admittedly, an extreme example but it gets the point across. People helping people is the best way to go about change, and so for those people who care about how women are portrayed in games they will help out the cause, that includes men as well, because why not? Straight people helped out the gays getting equal rights, should they not have done anything, just because they were straight thus having no stake in it at all? The same applies here, albeit on a smaller scale, but it still matters to a great deal of people. And all your business tripe doesn't change the fact that people want change.

Sepko:

Hagi:

Sepko:

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Because it's insinuating that women are on the same level as them. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. Also, comparing an entire gender to a class of people seems a bit jarring.

Heh, it just keeps getting better...

Might I ask what level that might be, in the kindest way possible of course?

Sepko:

Paradoxrifts:
Arguably the current triple-A model is only made sustainable by charging a premium price to a targeted demographic, the only other alternative to that has been the development of rental-only online play, or free-to-pay dollar gougers. Some of which are good, most of which are bad, but without exception all those who play those sorts of games do so under the all-seeing eye of online DRM and the game's own finite existence.

So thanks, but no thanks. This general inclusiveness you speak of can play hide and go fuck itself so far as I'm concerned. It is not in my best interests to play along.

Arguably the Triple-A model is a bloated unmitigated mess where companies have lost money despite good sales because they threw too much money at projects that didn't need it.
Film went through a period like this too. Film history time!
The era of the Cleopatra's and Ben Hur's had films being made with massive budgets, so massive that despite the generally positive outcomes they couldn't get a profit. Hollywood almost crashed because of this. Since then they've figured how to better distribute their money and still make good and enjoyable films for the most part. And this was after they figured out they could advertise to both genders. See what I'm saying here?
And you've never seem to have heard of indie games, unless you don't like that sort of thing, for which I pity you.
So with proper money management we can have games that already cater to boys, and those weird pink things that allegedly cater to girls, and those that *le gasp* cater to both! What a tremendously outrageous notion.

You're drawing a false equivalency between movie making and game development. Good-looking, slickly produced film can be delivered on a shoe string budget. Great immensely playable games can also be delivered on a shoe string budget too. Good-looking, immensely playable games made on a shoe string budget on the other hand just don't exist, or are products of love made by people willing to work for next to nothing either because they love it and for one reason or another have the spare time on their hands to do it, or they want to break into professional game creation and this is their way of making their own opportunities. It's disingenuous at best to point at some of the graphically superior independent games out there as examples of how games can be made cheaply when damn near all of them are 50% game and 50% resume.

And yeah, people just like you are, again, always bitching about Hollywood film being created by and for a predominately male audience. So you might want to watch your six for friendly fire on that one.

Hagi:

Sepko:

Hagi:

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Because it's insinuating that women are on the same level as them. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. Also, comparing an entire gender to a class of people seems a bit jarring.

Heh, it just keeps getting better...

Might I ask what level that might be, in the kindest way possible of course?

Are we insinuating something here, or can I go back to arguing with the other guy?

Paradoxrifts:
And yeah, people just like you are, again, always bitching about Hollywood film being created by and for a predominately male audience. So you might want to watch your six for friendly fire on that one.

You might want to check your history cuz I don't think I've heard that being said since the 80's. These days it's all "A black guy can't play the Human Torch, that'll ruin the lore!"

Sepko:

This isn't about consumerism it's about a sense of community, game companies sell to our community so whatever's in our community matters. And of course it matters what your so-called "opposing" group is, how freakin' jaded are you? You're comparing women, as a whole mind you, to a class of general people, and a lower class at that. How do you not see how much that's fucking horrible of you?

Because in this context the make up of the group is irrelevant. This is me not caring about the preferences of other consumers. Poor, rich, male, female, hippies, muslims, christians, idc what the make up is, all i want is the market to please me. If it's horrible of me to consider all the consumers as consumers when lobbying for my preferences as a consumer than i'll just be a horrible person.

There is no more gaming community as a car owner community. All we have in common is that we play games. All the gaming communities i care about are those who i interact with in games. Do you really think i care about WoW gamer number 948562 or CoD player number 51482145? No. And why should I? I don't interact with him and he probably doesn't like the same things as i do.

How little you care, perhaps. But, happily, not everyone in the gaming community's like you, so we can all live on happy with the knowledge that there are those of us who care at least a little bit about the opposite gender in our community.

So you never complain about mechanics because you wouldn't want to lobby against something other people like? Well you're an awesome altruist but somehow i doubt you are like that and have just decided to be sexist and discriminate based on gender and consider female gamers as deserving a special treatment. In which case i'd say: good job on bringing forth ideals from the Renaissance era (thinking women somehow need special assistance from men), i'll just hide in my corner with all those crazy thoughts like "the gender of my 'opponents' is irrelevant".

The characteristics of the "opposing" group is incredibly relevant, how could it not be? Are we living in some fantasy world where everything on god's green Earth is equal ground?
And again you're comparing women to completely the wrong things, the casuals are a collection of a small batch of both male and female gamers. The collection of female gamers is the entire collection of female gamers, and as members of the opposite gender they deserve to have a voice in gaming because they're the freakin' entire collection of female gamers.
You also seem to like touting about female gamers being weaker and needing help, do you not know how revolutions work? Admittedly, an extreme example but it gets the point across. People helping people is the best way to go about change, and so for those people who care about how women are portrayed in games they will help out the cause, that includes men as well, because why not? Straight people helped out the gays getting equal rights, should they not have done anything, just because they were straight thus having no stake in it at all? The same applies here, albeit on a smaller scale, but it still matters to a great deal of people. And all your business tripe doesn't change the fact that people want change.

How could it not be? Oh i don't know, maybe because to me as a costumer those people are just other costumers who are trying to get the industry to do things i may not approve. I know that the idea of putting all gamers on an equal foot is silly but i thought i'd give it a shot.

And they have the right to have a voice. But i don't have the obligation to be their voice. Just like casuals have a right to have a voice and i don't have the obligation to be their voice.

Unlike gay rights we're not talking about rights here. We're talking about a privilege. No one has the "right" to have the gaming industry making games they like, it's the industry which decides what it makes and who it will please and it's up to costumers to tell them they'll make money pleasing them. I'm not a communist, i don't advocate equal privileges.

generals3:
Because in this context the make up of the group is irrelevant. This is me not caring about the preferences of other consumers. Poor, rich, male, female, hippies, muslims, christians, idc what the make up is, all i want is the market to please me.

Well at least you're a douchebag to everyone in equal amounts. I suppose that deserves a medal from someone.

generals3:
I'm not a communist, i don't advocate equal privileges.

Not even for the genders? How very sad. Meanwhile, the rest of us in not-horrible-person land will be trying our darndest to help make change. You're right, you don't have an obligation to speak up, but don't act like being indifferent makes you special in some way, because it just makes you look like an asshole. And if that's how you want to roll, fine, have fun, we won't miss you. You can have all the games that cater just to you personally and only to you. We'll be over here trying new things with our new girl friends and all the cool ideas they brought.

Well, I very much disagree. I think when making the assertion that something is an industry wide problem it would be very pertinent to actually look at the games that have been released recently instead of using a video clip from a 10 year old video game that has been played in every single one of these videos before.

Did you read my argument? Did I ever mention ten year games? This hasn't just been a problem for the past five months. This has been a problem since the dawn of gaming. If you're so keen on research, you have to realize that isn't a substantive amount of data to draw conclusions from. Not even close. This is a small slice of time to look at for such a large scale problem. Figuring out what games released had these problems in the recent past allows us more data to pull from when determining the scale of the problem now as compared to the past. No one is arguing, "BECAUSE THESE GAMES TEN YEARS AGO WERE SEXIST OR PROBLEMATIC, SO GAMES IN GENERAL ARE!" I'm talking about some research to know more about what the problem really is.

Also you seem to be arguing that the games which have "objectification" in them sell better than the many, many others without, so basically that a lot more people want to play these video games and possibly ignore a lot of the ones that would be "different" or might appeal to a niche. Congratulations, you might have just found out how a "market" works and why AAA games are often designed the way they are.

Uh, no. Wrong on both counts. I'm just seeing how visible the objectification is in the industry as a whole. AAA games may have a worse problem than indy games in this regard. I don't know. But looking at sales is a good indicator of seeing what more people are exposed to in gaming. Or who knows, maybe this objectification is only really in games desperate to sell because they're garbage. It could be that the only problem is in how people can do stupid things because of desperation.

But we won't KNOW until we see the research.

And you're making a correlation/causation argument. Just because a game objectifies women does not mean it sells better. Just because a game fails to do so does not mean it sells more poorly. It could be a factor that affects sales in a negligible way, one that we can't necessarily notice because of how small it is. It could be that we can't calculate such an impact with the current data we have.

Additionally I don't care about "proving" any of this, the burden of proof lies with the accuser... I don't know if
you've ever heard that before. I was just making an observation that I think this claim of an "industry problem" is bollocks of the highest degree.

I have. Are you familiar with what the standards of evidence are?

Oh boy, wouldn't want to make anyone feel like something wasn't made for them, say like having different kinds of games for different kinds of people say Casual, Mobile, PC Games, Console games or god forbid having different genres like RPGs, Shooters or Strategy games that some people might not like.

You're not talking about game genres. You're talking about platforms. You're not talking about types of games. You're talking about the devices we play them on. But in any case...

Yeah. Different types of games should exist. Again, if you only read my post, maybe you'd see that. Games that are targeted toward men, including how they portray women, don't have to disappear. But when it gets to the point where it's essentially a boys club, where women feel uncomfortable playing their RPGs, shooters, or strategy games because of how they portray women? I think that's a problem worth looking at and discussing. I think different types of games need to be made.

Then I guess Activision is on the right track, because Call of Duty seems to appeal to the broadest possible market. Best make everything a Modern War shooter, set the difficulty to "brain dead" and generally try to get the broadest market appeal possible. I don't think you would like the resulting games very much.
Also I couldn't disagree more, what you describe sounds to me like a recipe for making the blandest and most boring game possible, or god forbid it "offend" anyone with anything. What I'm immediately thinking of is this:
image

Again, this is nonsense. If you even...say, read my post, you'd see how I laud games that mix things up, and I use diversity as the answer to the problem of sexism/unfavorable treatment of women in games.

We also established above, there are many, many games that "don't pander to those things", there is additionally always the possibility of building a team and going on KickStarter if one has some great idea.

One game does not a change in the industry make. But it's a step.

There are many RPG and Adventure developers lately that couldn't get any publishing deal because there supposedly wasn't a "market" for their games. Guess what they did? They took to KickStarter and appealed directly to the people that wanted a certain kind of game, they didn't take to the forums and bitched about it. There are hundreds of examples from Double Fine, Obsidian, Brian Fargo/InXile, Larian Studios and others.
Surely if there was such a high demand for specific content featuring female characters, someone would have used that pitch by now or could do it and get great amounts of dollars?

Because it's not something you market a game around! It's one of many different choices in the design of your game. You can't sell a game on that. It's not like selling an RPG or a Shooter. "treats women acceptably" is not a genre.

It's still more than these "this is my opinion, based on muh feelings, and my opinion is fact" rants every other week. At least they tried the right methodology, even if they failed in the execution. What "Jim Sterling" thinks from his position of ignorance and all the stuff he misrepresents as "facts" isn't even worth that much.

I don't always agree with Jim, but he cites real sources and doesn't come into a discussion trying to falsify data. Those people aren't saying, "This is my opinion based on my feelings, and my opinion is fact."

But what they are saying is, "this is my opinion based on my feelings, and here's the facts to back it up, including people that say we should change how you're able to live your life. Oh, it's all falsified and exaggerated, though".

The rest just isn't my arguments or it's irrelevant.

Sepko:

Paradoxrifts:
And yeah, people just like you are, again, always bitching about Hollywood film being created by and for a predominately male audience. So you might want to watch your six for friendly fire on that one.

You might want to check your history cuz I don't think I've heard that being said since the 80's. These days it's all "A black guy can't play the Human Torch, that'll ruin the lore!"

No, they're pretty much always bitching about it. Never stopped. You should look it up, assuming of course that your 'bleeding liberal heart' could possibly shoulder anymore burdens then the one that you're clearly carrying for the video game industry. :P

And I'm officially on record as being against the directors of superhero movies changing damn near any element of canon from the original source material. Unless I happen to like the change, in which case I never doubted their epic vision for even a moment.

Idris Alba got two thumbs up from me after I saw Thor. He made an epic space alien viking.

Paradoxrifts:

Sepko:
You might want to check your history cuz I don't think I've heard that being said since the 80's. These days it's all "A black guy can't play the Human Torch, that'll ruin the lore!"

No, they're pretty much always bitching about it. Never stopped. You should look it up, assuming of course that your 'bleeding liberal heart' could possibly shoulder anymore burdens then the one that you're clearly carrying for the video game industry. :P

And I'm officially on record as being against the directors of superhero movies changing damn near any element of canon from the original source material. Unless I happen to like the change, in which case I never doubted their epic vision for even a moment.

Idris Alba got two thumbs up from me after I saw Thor. He made an epic space alien viking.

I'll reiterate: I don't think I've recently heard that being said in any substantially important way since the 80's :P Hollywood's pretty much got the whole lady-man advertising thing downpat. Gaming's still got a way to go with that.

Also Idris Alba was fucking boss

Sepko:

generals3:
Because in this context the make up of the group is irrelevant. This is me not caring about the preferences of other consumers. Poor, rich, male, female, hippies, muslims, christians, idc what the make up is, all i want is the market to please me.

Well at least you're a douchebag to everyone in equal amounts. I suppose that deserves a medal from someone.

generals3:
I'm not a communist, i don't advocate equal privileges.

Not even for the genders? How very sad. Meanwhile, the rest of us in not-horrible-person land will be trying our darndest to help make change. You're right, you don't have an obligation to speak up, but don't act like being indifferent makes you special in some way, because it just makes you look like an asshole. And if that's how you want to roll, fine, have fun, we won't miss you. You can have all the games that cater just to you personally and only to you.

Yeah i know it's sad that i'm not a sexist. I'm sorry for being a douchebag who lobbies for his preferences like the vast majority of consumers and that i don't make a sexist exception for women. I don't expect other gamers to lobby for my preferences and i shouldn't be expected to do it for others.

Being indifferent shouldn't make me special but you seem hell bent into claiming it does. You have thrown quite a few insults my way because i act equally indifferent towards everybody's preferences instead of considering women as special snowflakes. If anything i'm trying to point out how your sexist vision makes you special.

I'm actually still baffled by this concept that just because the group on the other side consists of females i should act differently. Maybe i just took that whole emancipation thing too seriously.

generals3:

Sepko:

generals3:
I'm not a communist, i don't advocate equal privileges.

Not even for the genders? How very sad. Meanwhile, the rest of us in not-horrible-person land will be trying our darndest to help make change. You're right, you don't have an obligation to speak up, but don't act like being indifferent makes you special in some way, because it just makes you look like an asshole. And if that's how you want to roll, fine, have fun, we won't miss you. You can have all the games that cater just to you personally and only to you.

Yeah i know it's sad that i'm not a sexist. I'm sorry for being a douchebag who lobbies for his preferences like the vast majority of consumers and don't make a sexist exception for women. I don't expect other gamers to lobby for my preferences and i shouldn't be expected to do it for others.

Being indifferent shouldn't make me special but you seem hell bent into claiming it does. You have thrown quite a few insults my way because i act equally indifferent towards everybody's preferences instead of considering women as special snowflakes.

I'm actually still baffled by this concept that just because the group on the other side consists of females i should act differently.

So asking the game industry to treat the women-folk a little nicer is somehow "a sexist exception for women"? On what planet exactly, cuz I don't believe Earth people make ridiculous statements like that.

I don't expect other gamers to lobby for my preferences and i shouldn't be expected to do it for others.

Ok, fine, don't, doesn't mean other people won't do it. Don't really have much to go on with your preferences anyway with your Civ and MSG and WoW and multiplayer shooters. Real diverse, highly demanding for your satisfaction.

You have thrown quite a few insults my way because i act equally indifferent towards everybody's preferences instead of considering women as special snowflakes.

Well now that I know you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything that doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction, I'm failing to see why I should continue arguing with you. Your rather bleak and useless view on what's being discussed on this thread isn't exactly helpful, and it's taken, what, 5 hours to figure that it wasn't even worth being argumentative towards you because you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything that doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction. I hope that works out, especially if you get a girlfriend, I'd like to set a timer to see how long it takes before she walks out because you asked her why something she wants to do should concern you.

An actual example of men being objectified might be useful by adding a little context to this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYkwziTrv5o

If this were the norm and men asked to be shown with a little bit more dignity, I'm sure we could all agree that they might have a point.

Sepko:

So asking the game industry to treat the women-folk a little nicer is somehow "a sexist exception for women"? On what planet exactly, cuz I don't believe Earth people make ridiculous statements like that.

It is if it is only expected to be done for them. If i can try to lobby for a harder WoW despite all those who may not like it without being an asshole, than why should i give special attention to the needs of female gamers? Why is a gamer expected to suddenly act selflessly towards female gamers while we're known to be a selfish bunch of twats who complain and flame on gaming forums when there are things we don't like. No really go look at the forums of games, see how altruistic we are. See how many people go like "I think it's a good thing WoW became so easy despite me not liking it because casual players like it". Forums are usually filled with people flinging poo at each other. Even this one. Look at topics about EA and tell me how much this forum cares about all those costumers who like EA.

And actually, ironically, you're doing it yourself right now as well. You seem to think that making more female oriented games would make things better and lobby for it. Regardless of what other gamers may think.

Well now that I know you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction, I'm failing to see why I should continue arguing with you. Your rather bleak and useless view on what's being discussed on this thread isn't exactly helpful, and it's taken, what, 5 hours to figure that it wasn't even worth being argumentative towards you because you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction. I hope that works out, especially if you get a girlfriend, I'd like to set a timer to see how long it takes before she walks out because you asked her why something she wants to do should concern you.

Well, why what she wants to do would concern me is quite obvious. However what female gamer 2381257 wants... Well i don't see it. Unless she's going to somehow make my life better by being given a game she likes i don't see it. Her gaming needs being satisfied worry me just about as much as your car desires being met.

Sepko:

generals3:

Sepko:

Not even for the genders? How very sad. Meanwhile, the rest of us in not-horrible-person land will be trying our darndest to help make change. You're right, you don't have an obligation to speak up, but don't act like being indifferent makes you special in some way, because it just makes you look like an asshole. And if that's how you want to roll, fine, have fun, we won't miss you. You can have all the games that cater just to you personally and only to you.

Yeah i know it's sad that i'm not a sexist. I'm sorry for being a douchebag who lobbies for his preferences like the vast majority of consumers and don't make a sexist exception for women. I don't expect other gamers to lobby for my preferences and i shouldn't be expected to do it for others.

Being indifferent shouldn't make me special but you seem hell bent into claiming it does. You have thrown quite a few insults my way because i act equally indifferent towards everybody's preferences instead of considering women as special snowflakes.

I'm actually still baffled by this concept that just because the group on the other side consists of females i should act differently.

So asking the game industry to treat the women-folk a little nicer is somehow "a sexist exception for women"? On what planet exactly, cuz I don't believe Earth people make ridiculous statements like that.

I don't expect other gamers to lobby for my preferences and i shouldn't be expected to do it for others.

Ok, fine, don't, doesn't mean other people won't do it. Don't really have much to go on with your preferences anyway with your Civ and MSG and WoW and multiplayer shooters. Real diverse, highly demanding for your satisfaction.

You have thrown quite a few insults my way because i act equally indifferent towards everybody's preferences instead of considering women as special snowflakes.

Well now that I know you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything that doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction, I'm failing to see why I should continue arguing with you. Your rather bleak and useless view on what's being discussed on this thread isn't exactly helpful, and it's taken, what, 5 hours to figure that it wasn't even worth being argumentative towards you because you're just an equally indifferent asshole to everything that doesn't concern you and your bubble of personal satisfaction. I hope that works out, especially if you get a girlfriend, I'd like to set a timer to see how long it takes before she walks out because you asked her why something she wants to do should concern you.

I'm skeptical as to whether anything anyone has said in the entire thread can fairly be called "helpful".

Why would you possibly think this post was a good idea? Granted, last guy who insulted me did it twice and got 2 warnings, whatever the hell that means... Doesn't mean you should push your luck too.

Exercise some good-judgement, why not?

Sexual Harassment Panda:
I'm skeptical as to whether anything anyone has said in the entire thread can fairly be called "helpful".

Why would you possibly think this post was a good idea? Granted, last guy who insulted me did it twice and got 2 warnings, whatever the hell that means... Doesn't mean you should push your luck too.

Exercise some good-judgement, why not?

Yeah nah I got out just then. I'm usually a bit more fluid with my insults so maybe I just got past it or something, but yeah thanks for the tip.
Thanks, Sexual Harrassment Panda! *jingle*
(couldn't resist)

Sepko:

I bid thee farewell, Equally Indifferent Asshole to Everything That Doesn't Concern You and Your Bubble of Personal Satisfaction, may you die alone, surrounded by all the games you lobbied for yourself :)

Now now, how is that supposed to somehow be insulting. Obviously dying alone would be awesome, all i need is my bubble of personal satisfaction. And unfortunately my lobbying isn't working that well, I need more altruistic people like you on the casual players' side to lobby for more difficult games they don't like. Also don't forget to tell the gaming industry that RTS's need more attention, we RTS fans aren't being treated nicely either. (I simply hope that you saw what I did there and maybe you'll someday realize that being blindly idealistic and insulting people who aren't won't get you anywhere)

*selfish asshole out*

generals3:

Sepko:

I bid thee farewell, Equally Indifferent Asshole to Everything That Doesn't Concern You and Your Bubble of Personal Satisfaction, may you die alone, surrounded by all the games you lobbied for yourself :)

Now now, how is that supposed to somehow be insulting. Obviously dying alone would be awesome, all i need is my bubble of personal satisfaction. And unfortunately my lobbying isn't working that well, I need more altruistic people like you on the casual players' side to lobby for more difficult games they don't like. Also don't forget to tell the gaming industry that RTS's need more attention, we RTS fans aren't being treated nicely either. (I simply hope that you saw what I did there and maybe you'll someday realize that being blindly idealistic and insulting people who aren't won't get you anywhere)

*selfish asshole out*

Difference being, had you been a friend I totally would've helped you out, except you're not a friend, you're an ass. An immense one. Your indifference to everything makes me want to choke a puppy, but instead I just won't lobby for your stupid crap, because you're an ass. An immense one. And that's fine, shows I have people-feelings and principles.
*cut*

Spearmaster:

TAdamson:

Spearmaster:
snip

snip

So creating something that someone likes is passive exclusion? Because of the fact that someone else might not "like" it? If that is the case I would like to create a list things I'm passively excluded from but I don't want to crash the forum listing it all.
This idea of passive exclusion also seems to say that people are excluding them selves based on personal taste, not being passively excluded by a game. We usually call this personal choice not passive exclusion.

If using the word entitlement is weasely and inappropriate what can be said for the term passive exclusion? As long as nobody claims a right or privilege to be provided with changes to games ill stop using the term entitled but only if people don't use a ridiculous term like passively excluded.

Of course creating something that some people like and that others don't is not exclusion. But the people who don't enjoy that product are passively excluded when nothing is created to appeal to that other audience. It's like inviting a bunch of Muslims and Jews and vegetarians around and only serving pork buns. They could eat... Nothing "real" is stopping them. Except in this case we are talking about around 50% of the population.

This isn't the fault of any single game or genre of game but a problem of culture across the entire medium. It's not that Dragon's Crown of DoA shouldn't exist it'd just be nice to have more of something that balances them.

Nobody has a "right" to anything apart from hopefully basic civil rights. But we definitely have a right to say "there should be". (ie There should be better female characters. That is not entitlement. Entitlement implies rights and the use of it here suggests that people who would like gaming to be more properly mature are somehow grasping for rights that they of course do not have.

Sepko:

Difference being, had you been a friend I totally would've helped you out, except you're not a friend, you're an ass. An immense one. Your indifference to everything makes me want to choke a puppy, but instead I just won't lobby for your stupid crap, because you're an ass. An immense one. And that's fine, shows I have people-feelings and principles.
*cut*

Ok, i just had to come back to point out the irony. I guess i'm an asshole for not considering people i don't know and probably will never interact with me as not being my friends.

TAdamson:

Of course creating something that some people like and that others don't is not exclusion. But the people who don't enjoy that product are passively excluded when nothing is created to appeal to that other audience. It's like inviting a bunch of Muslims and Jews and vegetarians around and only serving pork buns. They could eat... Nothing "real" is stopping them. Except in this case we are talking about around 50% of the population.

This isn't the fault of any single game or genre of game but a problem of culture across the entire medium. It's not that Dragon's Crown of DoA shouldn't exist it'd just be nice to have more of something that balances them.

Nobody has a "right" to anything apart from hopefully basic civil rights. But we definitely have a right to say "there should be". (ie There should be better female characters. That is not entitlement. Entitlement implies rights and the use of it here suggests that people who would like gaming to be more properly mature are somehow grasping for rights that they of course do not have.

But here's an important point. The gaming industry isn't run by one corporation. So who's the one actually excluding anybody? Every company is trying to make money and trying to make what they think sells the most, that seems to make sense. What if the vast majority of them think that selling male-centric content does that? Who's wrong than? What if hundreds of people were organizing parties and most thought pork would be the most liked meat? Is there something wrong with that? Now you can say that they should maybe think of those who don't like pork. But that's where the argument should end, shouldn't it? (and in most cases it doesn't end there unfortunately, it becomes a "let's try to shame and guilt the industry the most we possibly can"-fest)

generals3:

Sepko:

Difference being, had you been a friend I totally would've helped you out, except you're not a friend, you're an ass. An immense one. Your indifference to everything makes me want to choke a puppy, but instead I just won't lobby for your stupid crap, because you're an ass. An immense one. And that's fine, shows I have people-feelings and principles.
*cut*

Ok, i just had to come back to point out the irony. I guess i'm an asshole for not considering people i don't know and probably will never interact with me as not being my friends.

A friend to the cause, komrade!

Sepko:
So with proper money management we can have games that already cater to boys, and those weird pink things that allegedly cater to girls, and those that *le gasp* cater to both! What a tremendously outrageous notion.

No way, it's totally impossible to make characters that men and women can both enjoy and find cool! Better stop with that line of reasoning fast, or the next thing you know we'll have to start being clever and insightful about how we approach this kind of stuff and that's just way too much to ask of people who do this for a living.

Objectification is the reduction of a person to an object.

Let me emphasize the word that everybody seems to have forgotten:

Objectification is the reduction of a PERSON to an object.

PERSON.

Kratos is not a person. He is lines of code. He is an object created for my entertainment (and yours, if you like God of War games), and is therefore very much a "thing" I want to "own." If I hop on Amazon right now, I can purchase the collector's edition of him for $80 + s&h. If I buy every GoW game, I will possess every line of code that can possible be identified as Kratos and will therefore possess HIM in a way that allows me to act out my power fantasies and satisfy my entertainment cravings without ever letting Kratos "initiate" a session or have any say in our player-to-character relationship.

Is buying and possessing a person wrong? Yes.

Is buying and possessing Kratos wrong? No. Why? Because Kratos is NOT a person. He does not exist outside code embedded in a disk or saved in a hard drive. If you disagree, feel free to sue Sony for human trafficking (demigod trafficking?).

With the definition of objectification in mind--and paying SPECIAL attention to the word "PERSON"--Jim's video is simply an assertion that female gamers aren't getting the entertainment they desire out of the video game industry, which is a problem but is a far fucking cry from the dehumanization of the entire gender. Believe it or not, video games are not responsible for prostitution, sex trade, domestic violence, rape, the glass ceiling, the wage gap, etc., so please stop making videos to suggest so.

generals3:

TAdamson:
snip

But here's an important point. The gaming industry isn't run by one corporation. So who's the one actually excluding anybody? Every company is trying to make money and trying to make what they think sells the most, that seems to make sense. What if the vast majority of them think that selling male-centric content does that? Who's wrong than? What if hundreds of people were organizing parties and most thought pork would be the most liked meat? Is there something wrong with that? Now you can say that they should maybe think of those who don't like pork. But that's where the argument should end, shouldn't it? (and in most cases it doesn't end there unfortunately, it becomes a "let's try to shame and guilt the industry the most we possibly can"-fest)

Well that just it isn't it. It's not just one company. It's a culture problem. The perception, probably true, that games are played primarily by 12 to 25 year old males.

But that's a chicken and egg problem. Are guys, being inherently less social, naturally more likely to play games thus resulting in culture/content that is more male-centric? Or are games played mostly by guys because women are put off by the culture/content of games?

I don't have a real problem with, as you put it, the "let's try to shame and guilt the industry the most we possibly can"-fest, mostly because the industry is made up of companies and you can't really hurt their feelings. But I wouldn't call it shaming. It's more about provoking discussion.

It's like you don't even understand what kind of society we live in. I'll give you a tip. It's a late capitalist society. Meaning, anything, and everything, will be objectified. Complaining about objectification in a capitalist society is pointless.

Off Topic but how many times has he used that DOA beach volleyball clip?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . . . 24 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here