How gamergate ruined games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Lightknight:
If you are going to warp the term "sex negative" around however a group defines what is good or bad sexuality then that's quite an amazing shifting goalpost. I'm just talking about something that sees something being depicted as sexy as an inherent negative. Like a low-cut shirt being worse than a normal shirt or something.

That's not what I asked. Sex negativity and positivity have very specific academic meanings. Do you know what they are? This is not shifting the goalpost, this is cementing the goalpost. Do you or do you not know?

By bullying and shaming developers for doing so, sometimes to the point of job loss if the developers/project managers dare respond, they are trying to remove occurrences of sexualization from media even though it's merely their own personal view and sensibilities they're trying to police on others' works. Conversely, people getting outraged that they would dare voice their wants and desires and trying to shame developers who do try something different are likewise guilty of similar things so please don't take this as a one sided piece so much as an attempt to deconstruct what's happening internally from both sides.

Pics or it didn't happen. I have not seen what you are describing outside of a few dark corners of social media that only GGers and other cranks take seriously. I have never once in my life seen any evidence that this alleged attitude is a genuine threat to the industry.

I mean, here's one of Nathan Grayson trying to take a developer to task for making sexy characters:

I'm taking Grayson's side on this one. Those were reasonable questions to ask and art most certainly does not exist in a vacuum. And yeah, dude's answer was a stupid one. That he apologized was his prerogative. What else have you got?

If you demonize sexuality being portrayed in games, you likewise demonize the consumption of it. Do you disagree with that implication/inference? It's pretty basic logic there.

For the second time, that is not what I asked. Who is saying this specifically? Give me the names.

And I do disagree. Because that's a faulty leap of logic that ignores the content of the criticisms and stonewalls any further discussion.

But it's just not empirically wrong for any developers to do that.

Who is saying that it is? Name names. If you've put as much thought into this as you claim, it should be easy to answer these questions. And yet you keep evading.

If everything ends up being fanservice, that's unfortunate, but it's no one's individual responsibility to not cater to their fans.

What on earth are you talking about? What does that have to do with anything I said?

Lightknight:
I'm saying that the physical qualities that make males traditionally attractive are hard to sexualize in the same way that a female's traits are.

You've obviously never tried. Talk to more artists and you'll find out just how easy it is to make pandering bullshit no matter the audience. Any graphic artists here want to vouch for this?

A vagina, asshole and penis can all kill your game if you get an adult rating. But male characters still frequently have that bulge and have for a long time.

No comment on how he doesn't have to wear impractical speedos or bend at the waist constantly for no good reason?

If you say it's not to look attractive then that's the biggest load of malarky in existence.

I'm saying that's a power fantasy. And nothing you've said refutes that.

Not only do we all want to look sexy, but women take it to a whole other level by undergoing actual procedures to hit their goals.

Now is that a biological compulsion or a societal pressure? The difference between the two does in fact matter.

Lightknight:
snip

Presenting male characters as sexy or sexualizing male characters isn't inherently bad. But having 90% of the important male characters in the medium sexualized is. However that's not the case in gaming. Games have lots of important male characters that aren't sexualized or even sexy.

Is Sully sexualized?

image

If you aren't into mature men, you'd probably won't find Sully sexy.

CaitSeith:

The paragraphs with comments about the design of the female characters are fully quoted.

Title: Swords and sorcery and cleavage abound in Dragon's Crown
1. "Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream: crazy, violent and full of impossibly large breasts."
2. Developer's previous work
3. "But the game's repetitive structure and a troublesome presentation of women prevent Dragon's Crown from transcending its juvenile influences."
4. Premise.
5. Mechanics.
6. Visuals and mechanics.
7. Mechanics and praise to boss fight design.
8. Differences with Vita
9. Boss fight design.
10. Mechanics.
11. Positive mechanics.
12. Mechanics and level design.
13. Side content design.
14. Visual design.
15. "Dragon's Crown's serious liberties with female anatomy are distracting. Two player characters - the Amazon and the Sorceress - are explicitly sexualized, with breasts literally bigger than their heads with rear ends to match, and plenty of the screen real estate is dedicated to their respective jiggles and sashays. But at least these characters are powerful women, with agency and a penchant for destroying rooms full of bad guys."
16. "The same can't be said for the female NPCs that fill Dragon's Crown's dungeons and other environments. Most of the women in the game are barely clothed, with heaving chests, backs twisted into suggestive positions, some with their legs spread almost as wide as the screen. They're presented as helpless objects, usually in need of rescue. It's obvious, one-sided and gross."

Wrap up: "Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"
17. "It's a fun mix of RPG tropes and dynamic brawler action. But I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments, and the forced grind through the same stages dulled my excitement."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where he's shaming anyone who enjoys the game. And for droning on and on, I see it only briefly at the beginning and at the last 3 paragraphs; while the other 11 paragraphs (the biggest ones) don't mention anything negative about the female characters.

It's the first time I read the review, and, for such big controversy, I expected something more condemning or assertive than this.

"Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenage boy's dream."

"Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"

Translation...

The only people who could possibly like this crap are horny, immature teenagers who are looking for something to jerk off to, and any adults who actually like this drivel are obviously immature jerk offs who never grew up. The developer who made this game is not even apologetic about it, but they probably should be.

If that's not shaming, then I don't know what is?

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

The paragraphs with comments about the design of the female characters are fully quoted.

Title: Swords and sorcery and cleavage abound in Dragon's Crown
1. "Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream: crazy, violent and full of impossibly large breasts."
2. Developer's previous work
3. "But the game's repetitive structure and a troublesome presentation of women prevent Dragon's Crown from transcending its juvenile influences."
4. Premise.
5. Mechanics.
6. Visuals and mechanics.
7. Mechanics and praise to boss fight design.
8. Differences with Vita
9. Boss fight design.
10. Mechanics.
11. Positive mechanics.
12. Mechanics and level design.
13. Side content design.
14. Visual design.
15. "Dragon's Crown's serious liberties with female anatomy are distracting. Two player characters - the Amazon and the Sorceress - are explicitly sexualized, with breasts literally bigger than their heads with rear ends to match, and plenty of the screen real estate is dedicated to their respective jiggles and sashays. But at least these characters are powerful women, with agency and a penchant for destroying rooms full of bad guys."
16. "The same can't be said for the female NPCs that fill Dragon's Crown's dungeons and other environments. Most of the women in the game are barely clothed, with heaving chests, backs twisted into suggestive positions, some with their legs spread almost as wide as the screen. They're presented as helpless objects, usually in need of rescue. It's obvious, one-sided and gross."

Wrap up: "Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"
17. "It's a fun mix of RPG tropes and dynamic brawler action. But I found its over-exaggerated art style alienating and gross in its depiction of women even as it shines in building a world of fantastic monsters and environments, and the forced grind through the same stages dulled my excitement."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see where he's shaming anyone who enjoys the game. And for droning on and on, I see it only briefly at the beginning and at the last 3 paragraphs; while the other 11 paragraphs (the biggest ones) don't mention anything negative about the female characters.

It's the first time I read the review, and, for such big controversy, I expected something more condemning or assertive than this.

"Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenage boy's dream."

"Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"

Translation...

The only people who could possibly like this crap are horny, immature teenagers who are looking for something to jerk off to, and any adults who actually like this drivel are obviously immature jerk offs who never grew up. The developer who made this game is not even apologetic about it, but they probably should be.

If that's not shaming, then I don't know what is?

Your translation machine seems to be a little off.

First, it isn't the people who like it; it's the people who created it.

Second, are you telling me that fantasy-obsessed teenage boys are by default horny, immature and always looking for something to jerk off? Because that isn't written on the review at all (and this isn't the kind of game that you can play with just one hand).

Third, it never says that being unapologetic is bad.

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:

"Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenage boy's dream."

"Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy"

Translation...

The only people who could possibly like this crap are horny, immature teenagers who are looking for something to jerk off to, and any adults who actually like this drivel are obviously immature jerk offs who never grew up. The developer who made this game is not even apologetic about it, but they probably should be.

If that's not shaming, then I don't know what is?

Your translation machine seems to be a little off.

First, it isn't the people who like it; it's the people who created it.

I think it's both. "Fantasy-obsessed" is shaming the people who like the game. I think by "fantasy" she means sexual fantasy, not elves and orcs fantasy. "Unapologetic" is shaming the developer for making a cheap buck off of teenagers who are obsessed with their sexual fantasies.

Second, are you telling me that fantasy-obsessed teenage boys are by default horny, immature and always looking for something to jerk off? Because that isn't written on the review at all (and this isn't the kind of game that you can play with just one hand).

Yes, see above.

Third, it never says that being unapologetic is bad.

In my experience when someone says someone is unapologetic, it means that a common opinion would be that their behavior is shameful, but surprisingly the person feels no shame and regrets nothing. In other words, the person refuses to apologize for his behavior.

Kerg3927:
I think by "fantasy" she means sexual fantasy, not elves and orcs fantasy.

Which would hold water if Dragon's Crown didn't have things like wizards and dragons. But it does, and the later definition takes priority (specially with the rest of the review talking about the classes and bosses).

"Unapologetic" is shaming the developer for making a cheap buck off of teenagers who are obsessed with their sexual fantasies.

Unapologetic not only means it doesn't offer an apology; it means it doesn't try to hide or excuse what it is (used when describing works that break the standards); and it was never used towards the developer.

Is it my imagination or you seem pretty determined on finding something offensive in the review?

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think by "fantasy" she means sexual fantasy, not elves and orcs fantasy.

Which would hold water if Dragon's Crown didn't have things like wizards and dragons. But it does, and the later definition takes priority (specially with the rest of the review talking about the classes and bosses).

"Unapologetic" is shaming the developer for making a cheap buck off of teenagers who are obsessed with their sexual fantasies.

Unapologetic not only means it doesn't offer an apology; it means it doesn't try to hide or excuse what it is (used when describing works that break the standards); and it was never used towards the developer.

Not sure if you actually believe what you're typing or if you're just making a lawyer's argument and choosing to interpret the article in the way that favors your "side." I suspect the latter, but it doesn't matter.

It IS up to interpretation, and in my opinion the article is pretty blatantly condescending toward the way women are portrayed in the game AND condescending toward anyone who would enjoy seeing women portrayed that way AND condescending toward the developers for making the game as such.

I mean, shit, she says it's "gross." In my opinion, she probably thinks the people who made the game and the people who liked it are "gross," too. That's the tone that comes across to me.

Is it my imagination or you seem pretty determined on finding something offensive in the review?

I'm not offended by the article. I don't care. Not my type of game. I don't find the art style of the women attractive, either. It's too exaggerated for me. But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

Kerg3927:

CaitSeith:

Kerg3927:
I think by "fantasy" she means sexual fantasy, not elves and orcs fantasy.

Which would hold water if Dragon's Crown didn't have things like wizards and dragons. But it does, and the later definition takes priority (specially with the rest of the review talking about the classes and bosses).

"Unapologetic" is shaming the developer for making a cheap buck off of teenagers who are obsessed with their sexual fantasies.

Unapologetic not only means it doesn't offer an apology; it means it doesn't try to hide or excuse what it is (used when describing works that break the standards); and it was never used towards the developer.

Not sure if you actually believe what you're typing or if you're just making a lawyer's argument and choosing to interpret the article in the way that favors your "side." I suspect the latter, but it doesn't matter.

It IS up to interpretation, and in my opinion the article is pretty blatantly condescending toward the way women are portrayed in the game AND condescending toward anyone who would enjoy seeing women portrayed that way AND condescending toward the developers for making the game as such.

I mean, shit, she says it's "gross." In my opinion, she probably thinks the people who made the game and the people who liked it are "gross," too. That's the tone that comes across to me.

Is it my imagination or you seem pretty determined on finding something offensive in the review?

I'm not offended by the article. I don't care. Not my type of game. I don't find the art style of the women attractive, either. It's too exaggerated for me. But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

What I have always found quite telling in the criticisms of the Sorceress and Amazon in Dragon's Crown is that most writers criticising the game for its depiction of women completely fail to mention the Elf. Even more interestingly, it seems to be a deliberate omission because that character is a female, yet normally proportioned.

Deadguy2322:

What I have always found quite telling in the criticisms of the Sorceress and Amazon in Dragon?s Crown is that most writers criticising the game for its depiction of women completely fail to mention the Elf. Even more interestingly, it seems to be a deliberate omission because that character is a female, yet normally proportioned.

If you're talking about things you think to be a problem, why talk about something that isn't a problem?

Like, if you're reading criticisms about the Amazon and the Sorceress, the Elf has as much relevance as the Fighter, the Dwarf, or the Wizard.

Kerg3927:

I'm not offended by the article. I don't care. Not my type of game. I don't find the art style of the women attractive, either. It's too exaggerated for me. But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

Your not offended by the article, but you're fantasizing about the motivations and mental state of its writer to paint her in a negative light.

EDIT: I mean, you're literally arguing that you can understand why people think that reviewer is offended by the game based on things she didn't actually write. That the tone of the article is condescending because you're assuming what the writer thinks of the audience because she has some criticisms of some wildly bizarre anatomy.

And Dragon's Crown is unapologetically sexual. Time was, saying so wasn't verboten.

altnameJag:

Kerg3927:

I'm not offended by the article. I don't care. Not my type of game. I don't find the art style of the women attractive, either. It's too exaggerated for me. But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

Your not offended by the article, but you're fantasizing about the motivations and mental state of its writer to paint her in a negative light.

EDIT: I mean, you're literally arguing that you can understand why people think that reviewer is offended by the game based on things she didn't actually write. That the tone of the article is condescending because you're assuming what the writer thinks of the audience because she has some criticisms of some wildly bizarre anatomy.

And Dragon's Crown is unapologetically sexual. Time was, saying so wasn't verboten.

Say you're a mature, adult dude. You like playing games with scantily clad, large-breasted women. You're playing Dragon's Crown.

You see this article where someone says that this game was obviously made for immature, teenage boys. You are not an immature, teenage boy. You're not going to be at least a little offended?

Another example. Say you love steak. You read a restaurant review about your favorite steak house, and it's written by a vegetarian who calls the food "gross" and says it's obviously intended for unsophisticated, ignorant people. You're not going go wtf? You're not going to ask why a vegetarian is even critiquing a steak house in the first place?

To me, that was the original gist of gamergate, although I did not participate, and as I understand it, the "movement" ended up devolving into a convoluted mess. It began as steak lovers telling the vegetarian food critics to leave their steak houses alone.

Deadguy2322:

Kerg3927:
snip

What I have always found quite telling in the criticisms of the Sorceress and Amazon in Dragon?s Crown is that most writers criticising the game for its depiction of women completely fail to mention the Elf. Even more interestingly, it seems to be a deliberate omission because that character is a female, yet normally proportioned.

Why should the elf be mentioned when critizicing the characters that have exagerated attributes? That's like critizing the magic users and expecting that they mention rogue.

Kerg3927:

But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

...by interpreting the criticism towards the game as implicit criticism towards its audience. Regardless if the criticism is valid or not, that's a pretty bad habit.

Kerg3927:

Say you're a mature, adult dude. You like playing games with scantily clad, large-breasted women. You're playing Dragon's Crown.

You see this article where someone says that this game was obviously made for immature, teenage boys. You are not an immature, teenage boy. You're not going to be at least a little offended?

I know I'm certainly not. It reminds me of a little quote I heard when I was younger.

image

Micheal Bay movies were obviously made for immature teenage boys, and yet older men can clearly watch them without being offended by this knowledge. FFS, I still look up episodes of Spongebob, a show that was made for children. Enjoying something that was clearly intended for a less mature audience is not something I get particularly insulted over.

Is Dragon's Crown designed to appeal to immature teenage boys? Probably. So what? Pacific Rim probably was too, and I fucking loved that movie. Same with Mad Max Fury Road. They're dumb action movies. Dumb action movies that are VERY well put together, but still dumb action movies. And I wouldn't have them any other way.

Kerg3927:

Say you're a mature, adult dude. You like playing games with scantily clad, large-breasted women. You're playing Dragon's Crown.

You see this article where someone says that this game was obviously made for immature, teenage boys. You are not an immature, teenage boy. You're not going to be at least a little offended?

No. Because I was an immature teenage boy once, and I know I would had found the boobies artistry way funnier than now. Even if bouncing boobs still make me chuckle a little, that gets old fast now and I appreciate the game for much more.

Another example. Say you love steak. You read a restaurant review about your favorite steak house, and it's written by a vegetarian who calls the food "gross" and says it's obviously intended for unsophisticated, ignorant people. You're not going go wtf? You're not going to ask why a vegetarian is even critiquing a steak house in the first place?

Bad example. The author doesn't fit the vegetarian model, because the author likes to play action-RPG and beat 'em up games (and that's what Dragon's Crown is).

EDIT: And what are you doing in the first place reading reviews from a vegetarian website?

CaitSeith:
If you aren't into mature men, you'd probably won't find Sully sexy.

/raises hand

I do.

Then again, that isn't that surprising, given that I'm an older female. Also it has nothing to do with his looks and everything to do with Suly, like Nathan, fitting the "Han Solo" roguish-bad-boy-with-a-heart-of-gold archetype. Throw in a dash of father-figure and a bit of daddy issues and, yeah, that works...

To be honest I can't think of a single male video game character I've ever found attractive based on looks. Not really surprising, given that, as is commonly the case with women, in my relationships I've never particularly been driven by appearance. Sure, I'd watch a movie of Brad Pitt brushing his teeth for an hour because he's just that hot, but in general it's not looks that particularly interest me.

I'm not saying they're irrelevant, just not particularly high on my priority list.

Whenever the discussion of sexualizing women in media comes up, inevitably someone points to muscular men, "bulges", or what have you as 'proof' that men are just as sexualized. The problem is that it assumes that women are as drawn to these things as men are to chain mail DD-cup bikinis, and, more importantly, that the muscles and bulges are aimed at the needs and desires of women at all.

In bodybuilding there's a meme best illustrated here:

image

The notion that overly muscular men in video games are 'sexualized' in the same sense that women are makes the same mistake.

Kerg3927:

altnameJag:

Kerg3927:

I'm not offended by the article. I don't care. Not my type of game. I don't find the art style of the women attractive, either. It's too exaggerated for me. But I think she WAS offended by the game, and I can understand how people who liked the game would be offended by her review.

Your not offended by the article, but you're fantasizing about the motivations and mental state of its writer to paint her in a negative light.

EDIT: I mean, you're literally arguing that you can understand why people think that reviewer is offended by the game based on things she didn't actually write. That the tone of the article is condescending because you're assuming what the writer thinks of the audience because she has some criticisms of some wildly bizarre anatomy.

And Dragon's Crown is unapologetically sexual. Time was, saying so wasn't verboten.

Say you're a mature, adult dude. You like playing games with scantily clad, large-breasted women. You're playing Dragon's Crown.

You see this article where someone says that this game was obviously made for immature, teenage boys. You are not an immature, teenage boy. You're not going to be at least a little offended?

No, I'm a mature, adult dude.

Another example. Say you love steak. You read a restaurant review about your favorite steak house, and it's written by a vegetarian who calls the food "gross" and says it's obviously intended for unsophisticated, ignorant people. You're not going go wtf? You're not going to ask why a vegetarian is even critiquing a steak house in the first place?

Nope. You really trying to tell me this game reviewer working for this game site doesn't even like games?

To me, that was the original gist of gamergate, although I did not participate, and as I understand it, the "movement" ended up devolving into a convoluted mess. It began as steak lovers telling the vegetarian food critics to leave their steak houses alone.

...by saying the vegetarian food critics aren't even real foodies, and that anybody criticizing trends in steakhouses is automatically a fake vegetarian foodie.

Myria:
The notion that overly muscular men in video games are 'sexualized' in the same sense that women are makes the same mistake.

You mean a bunch of guys who launch into a years-long panic attack protecting anime titties from imagined threats are clueless when it comes to women in general? Best twist ending ever.

CaitSeith:

Lightknight:
snip

Presenting male characters as sexy or sexualizing male characters isn't inherently bad. But having 90% of the important male characters in the medium sexualized is. However that's not the case in gaming. Games have lots of important male characters that aren't sexualized or even sexy.

See, I disagree that having 90% or 100% sexualized is somehow inherently bad. Upon what moral construct is that idea being based on? I don't mean to be contrarian but in a medium where you can literally make every character perfect or better than perfect, why is there some kind of moral imperative to introduce entropy?

Is Sully sexualized?

This is kind of the point I'm trying to make. Sully is about as sexualized as men can be. It's not that men can't be sexy, it's just that what makes a man sexy (in general, individual preferences may vary) appears to be a lot more vague. But yeah, Sully is a suave "most interesting man in the world" kind of attractive. If I were into that, I'd certainly give Sully a go. No shame in saying that.

Now, perhaps men aren't really able to be sexualized in the same way because women are largely seen as the gate keepers of sex. So women are the ones men desire to have sex with and men are the ones women allow (or do not allow) to have sex with them. Perhaps that has informed how socially desirable traits have evolved in our modern cultures, I'm not sure. But that kind of social power disparity of sex is bound to make one side the object to be pursued and the other side the pursuer. That's a natural consequence of that dynamic.

But please understand an anecdotal example of an older man in a video game doesn't really make a point. There are a lot of all kinds in video games nowadays so here's anecdote for anecdote:

image

You may laugh but Evelyn does this thing where she takes out her dentures and makes you really rethink what is important in a mate...

Joking aside, I also think she's attractive. Maybe I just don't mind older people?

Hahaha! :D

Myria:
Sure, I'd watch a movie of Brad Pitt brushing his teeth for an hour because he's just that hot, but in general it's not looks that particularly interest me.

I'm not saying they're irrelevant, just not particularly high on my priority list.

And this seems to be a lot more common in women than people seem to acknowledge. Women are a lot more forgiving of looks than men tend to be and that usually ends up meaning that a guy needs to be more capable in some way to attract than just looking good.

Whenever the discussion of sexualizing women in media comes up, inevitably someone points to muscular men, "bulges", or what have you as 'proof' that men are just as sexualized. The problem is that it assumes that women are as drawn to these things as men are to chain mail DD-cup bikinis, and, more importantly, that the muscles and bulges are aimed at the needs and desires of women at all.

I will give a slight amount of caution to this anecdote. I am not a body builder but am VERY muscular. I was in wrestling in high school and for some reason my muscles don't seem to atrophy over time like I would have expected so the hulking shoulders and arms I got during those times seem to have stuck with me even into my 30s.

That being said, I have had an immense amount of "success" regarding attraction to my musculature. I personally value my intellect above everything else by miles as the single greatest contribution to my life, but women have outright stated that as something that really drew them to me. I've had several women practically drool over those muscles in sometimes creepy ways but usually flattering.

Basically, women are attracted to muscular guys because that triggers healthy connotations for the same reason large breasts and whatever else trigger that in men. They are NOT normally attracted to insanely buff guys because that actually triggers an unnatural appearance which detracts but women will still date and marry and love them for the same reason they would a fat guy.

But that point aside, please understand that I am by no means a womanizer or one-night stand kind of guy. So don't think I'm talking about vast hordes of women throwing themselves at me and me wading through them with indifference as some men would like to imply. I'm one of those old-fashioned commitment types.

The notion that overly muscular men in video games are 'sexualized' in the same sense that women are makes the same mistake.

The bodybuilder physique is an attractive body type to many women. A lot of us nerds (yes, I was in wrestling but was also president of the chess club in high school and college) have strong negative connotations towards the muscular jock types, especially as portrayed in media nowadays as automatic bullies. But a lot of women do appreciate a muscular guy.

But people who focus on just the muscular characters are failing to recognize the other ways

BeetleManiac:

Myria:
The notion that overly muscular men in video games are 'sexualized' in the same sense that women are makes the same mistake.

You mean a bunch of guys who launch into a years-long panic attack protecting anime titties from imagined threats are clueless when it comes to women in general? Best twist ending ever.

Ad hominem attacks even to the nameless/faceless masses do not suit a conductive discussion between parties. Surely they don't think Marcus Fenix is attractive. But someone like Gladiolus from the new Final Fantasy? Sure.

image

Do you think of that character as being sexualized or not? I'd say he is but again, I don't have a problem with that.

Lightknight:
Ad hominem attacks even to the nameless/faceless masses do not suit a conductive discussion between parties. Surely they don't think Marcus Fenix is attractive. But someone like Gladiolus from the new Final Fantasy? Sure.
Do you think of that character as being sexualized or not? I'd say he is but again, I don't have a problem with that.

Are you going to answer any of my previous questions?

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
If you are going to warp the term "sex negative" around however a group defines what is good or bad sexuality then that's quite an amazing shifting goalpost. I'm just talking about something that sees something being depicted as sexy as an inherent negative. Like a low-cut shirt being worse than a normal shirt or something.

That's not what I asked. Sex negativity and positivity have very specific academic meanings. Do you know what they are? This is not shifting the goalpost, this is cementing the goalpost. Do you or do you not know?

It's synonymous with Antisexualism and the demonization of sex. Decrying the depiction of sexiness in videogames falls into that category pretty easily even if it doesn't have the same motivation behind it as the traditional conservative antisexualism does. But my application of the term across the two groups fits logically here.

Feel free to define it as you mean it if you're defining it differently.

I'm prosexualism if I haven't made that point clear. I think it does far more harm to demonize and repress than it does to depict and allow humans to be humans.

Pics or it didn't happen. I have not seen what you are describing outside of a few dark corners of social media that only GGers and other cranks take seriously. I have never once in my life seen any evidence that this alleged attitude is a genuine threat to the industry.

Do you want me to cite articles where they try to call out various artists like Hideo Kojima or the team behind Nier for their female characters? Where they try to shame and ridicule them? The very idea that they think being offended by their art gives them the right to attack them is disappointing. How about the debacle between the incredibly pointless Tracer pose?

I'm unsure why you disagree that the current atmosphere towards sexualized females in games or other media isn't negative. It seems like a given that I shouldn't have to establish. I'll ask this just once since I work for a living and my time is at a premium when I'm usually in front of a computer. Do you really disagree with this to the point where I need to cite it or are you just giving me a hard time because debating point for point can be a fun passage of time?

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is another movement counter to that one in which they make it hostile to even consider taking constructive criticism on the degree of sexualization in their art. I have no problem seeing that happening and ridiculing it so I'd hope you'd give me the common courtesy of acknowledging the people on the opposite side from them as well.

See, I have the extreme fortune of not giving any fucks. I enjoy games for the story and the adventure. The escapism too even though I don't consider my life in need of escape. So I'm able to sit back and look at both sides without getting all foamy at the mouth. I am sex-positive, so I have philosophical leanings to support depictions of sexuality in games but as long as a game is fun I don't actually care unless the point of the game is sexuality which it very rarely is.

I'm taking Grayson's side on this one. Those were reasonable questions to ask and art most certainly does not exist in a vacuum. And yeah, dude's answer was a stupid one. That he apologized was his prerogative. What else have you got?

I didn't say if Grayson was right or wrong. It's your prerogative to side with either. I'm merely presenting the sort of example of a journalist with a goal in mind along the lines of claiming there's a moral imperative to address sexuality in games and hopefully along his own personal sensibilities. I do consider that to be antisexualism.

For the second time, that is not what I asked. Who is saying this specifically? Give me the names.

Again, I'm more than happy to continue this discussion with you but I've got to ask you to avoid making me dredge through the internet to proof fairly accepted/known givens just for the sake of it. I hesitate to throw Anita Sarkeesian out here due to the insane reactions invoking her name can achieve. But yes, she had significant issues with portraying women as sexy and her narrative got a lot of traction within the journalism community. If you forced me to go hunting, I would merely track down her videos and the numerous articles that spawned around the times she released her videos in support and the significant radio silence of counterpoints against her. Even when she mis-defined terms like objectification as though being acted upon makes you objectified because you are the "object" of a sentence (e.g. "Respect Women!" would objectify women by her definition because that is the object of the sentence being acted upon. That's not how the term objectify works).

Do you really want a dozen links doing that or can you accept this and move along? Even if you walked through all of them and agreed with all of them it doesn't mean

And I do disagree. Because that's a faulty leap of logic that ignores the content of the criticisms and stonewalls any further discussion.

I'm not sure the content of the criticism is relevant.

For example, I have no problem with porn. Do you? Because it is by far the biggest "objectifier" of women as sexualized plaything. So if I'm talking with someone who would like to see porn eradicated then I'd like to know that to better inform future discussions regarding sexuality. If you don't have a problem then I've got to question the consistency of your internal logic here.

BeetleManiac:

If you say it's not to look attractive then that's the biggest load of malarky in existence.

I'm saying that's a power fantasy. And nothing you've said refutes that.

Sure, but what advantage or positive feature isn't a power fantasy to some? The alternative is just to make something less attractive or less powerful so what is the point of that in most games? The horror genre is a good one to go the other route of removing the availability of such power fantasies. But power fantasies aren't negative when entertainment is the primary tool of escapism.

Not only do we all want to look sexy, but women take it to a whole other level by undergoing actual procedures to hit their goals.

Now is that a biological compulsion or a societal pressure? The difference between the two does in fact matter.

The desire to look attractive to mates and members of society is absolutely biological. What specifically constitutes beauty shifts by culture. For example, we like shapely or large breasts in today's American society, so women get breast implants. But in cultures where the desire was for things like small feet they'd practice feet binding.

However, sometimes culture's desires are also biologically based. Things that signal the idea of a healthy specimen frequently show up at the top of the list in cultures across time even if some weirder (non-health based) ones show up in other places.

So even if the latter is driven by society, society's attraction may be more heavily influenced by biology than you might think. Though, what isn't driven by biology at some level? Biology and DNA being literally programming on which we're built.

BeetleManiac:

Lightknight:
Ad hominem attacks even to the nameless/faceless masses do not suit a conductive discussion between parties. Surely they don't think Marcus Fenix is attractive. But someone like Gladiolus from the new Final Fantasy? Sure.
Do you think of that character as being sexualized or not? I'd say he is but again, I don't have a problem with that.

Are you going to answer any of my previous questions?

I responded to shorter posts first. I am not ignoring you and I do appreciate you taking time.

Lightknight:
Feel free to define it as you mean it if you're defining it differently.

I'm prosexualism if I haven't made that point clear. I think it does far more harm to demonize and repress than it does to depict and allow humans to be humans.

Sex negativity is the idea that some or all aspects of human sexuality are inherently harmful. Sex positivity by contrast dictates that sexuality is neither inherently harmful or helpful, it's all in how you behave about it. Above all, consent is the final arbiter. If you sexualize someone without their consent, then you are the asshole in that equation. Note, that is an impersonal "you."

Do you want me to cite articles where they try to call out various artists like Hideo Kojima or the team behind Nier for their female characters? Where they try to shame and ridicule them? The very idea that they think being offended by their art gives them the right to attack them is disappointing. How about the debacle between the incredibly pointless Tracer pose?

Yes. Pics or it didn't happen.

I'm unsure why you disagree that the current atmosphere towards sexualized females in games or other media isn't negative. It seems like a given that I shouldn't have to establish.

Sex positivity does not mean that criticism of the portrayal of sexuality in media is verboten. It simply changes the nature of the criticism. Most of the criticism of sex I see in modern media is of the, "Does this add anything to the work or is it just pandering?" variety.

Personally, I think that sex crammed in purely for the sake of titillation disregarding the larger experience of the work is an insult to the audience's intelligence and tells you that whoever pushed for that to be added doesn't have a lot of faith in what they're selling.

I'll ask this just once since I work for a living and my time is at a premium when I'm usually in front of a computer. Do you really disagree with this to the point where I need to cite it or are you just giving me a hard time because debating point for point can be a fun passage of time?

Yes, I do. Because it's not self-evident. You're making a lot of conclusions, but you're not showing me the connective tissue. You go straight from Point A to Point F. You're assuming the worst about people's motives and deny that there is any other way to read them. And that's fine if demagoguery is your intention. I am however giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't doing this to be a demagogue.

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that there is another movement counter to that one in which they make it hostile to even consider taking constructive criticism on the degree of sexualization in their art. I have no problem seeing that happening and ridiculing it so I'd hope you'd give me the common courtesy of acknowledging the people on the opposite side from them as well.

This is your perception of what is going on. None of your arguments indicate what epistemology you used to come to these conclusions. As a result, it sounds more like special pleading and argument from emotion.

See, I have the extreme fortune of not giving any fucks. I enjoy games for the story and the adventure. The escapism too even though I don't consider my life in need of escape. So I'm able to sit back and look at both sides without getting all foamy at the mouth. I am sex-positive, so I have philosophical leanings to support depictions of sexuality in games but as long as a game is fun I don't actually care unless the point of the game is sexuality which it very rarely is.

Good for you. I'm not asking how you feel about sex, I'm asking for evidence of your assertions and what you've provided so far is a lot of rhetoric. But rhetoric is not evidence.

I didn't say if Grayson was right or wrong. It's your prerogative to side with either. I'm merely presenting the sort of example of a journalist with a goal in mind along the lines of claiming there's a moral imperative to address sexuality in games and hopefully along his own personal sensibilities. I do consider that to be antisexualism.

You extrapolated all of that based on what? Why does his criticism have to have a sinister agenda. I'm re-reading that piece and I don't see where you're getting this from.

Again, I'm more than happy to continue this discussion with you but I've got to ask you to avoid making me dredge through the internet to proof fairly accepted/known givens just for the sake of it.

You've been asked for citations. If you can't provide them in good faith, that's on you.

I hesitate to throw Anita Sarkeesian out here due to the insane reactions invoking her name can achieve. But yes, she had significant issues with portraying women as sexy and her narrative got a lot of traction within the journalism community. If you forced me to go hunting, I would merely track down her videos and the numerous articles that spawned around the times she released her videos in support and the significant radio silence of counterpoints against her. Even when she mis-defined terms like objectification as though being acted upon makes you objectified because you are the "object" of a sentence (e.g. "Respect Women!" would objectify women by her definition because that is the object of the sentence being acted upon. That's not how the term objectify works).

Post her videos that you think prove your point.

Do you really want a dozen links doing that

Yes.

I'm not sure the content of the criticism is relevant.

For example, I have no problem with porn. Do you? Because it is by far the biggest "objectifier" of women as sexualized plaything. So if I'm talking with someone who would like to see porn eradicated then I'd like to know that to better inform future discussions regarding sexuality. If you don't have a problem then I've got to question the consistency of your internal logic here.

What does any of that have to do with the content of the criticism? I thought we were talking about video games, why are you bringing up porn? If you must know, I watch a lot of porn. At the same time, I'm an advocate for better regulations on the industry to keep the people in it safe and I really think they need to clean house because there are some objectively awful people in there who should be accountable for their crimes including but not limited to exploitation and rape. As long as everyone involved in porn is consenting and nothing shady is going on behind the scenes, then there's no problem. Like I said, consent makes all the difference. Do you disagree?

Lightknight:
Sure, but what advantage or positive feature isn't a power fantasy to some? The alternative is just to make something less attractive or less powerful so what is the point of that in most games? The horror genre is a good one to go the other route of removing the availability of such power fantasies. But power fantasies aren't negative when entertainment is the primary tool of escapism.

Not inherently. But there is still a difference between poorly made and well-made. Nathan Drake is a power fantasy because he's good-looking, impossibly athletic, keeps a cool head in high pressure situations and can mow down hordes of foreign devils single-handedly with only a couple of guns. A love interest who has no personality beyond "tits" or "tsundere" is not a good character. They're just there for titillation to check off another box on the "Shit the Lowest Common Denominator Wants" list.

Also, you keep bringing up escapism. Why? Do you believe that's all games can be? Do you want games to be regarded as an art medium or don't you?

The desire to look attractive to mates and members of society is absolutely biological. What specifically constitutes beauty shifts by culture. For example, we like shapely or large breasts in today's American society, so women get breast implants. But in cultures where the desire was for things like small feet they'd practice feet binding.

However, sometimes culture's desires are also biologically based. Things that signal the idea of a healthy specimen frequently show up at the top of the list in cultures across time even if some weirder (non-health based) ones show up in other places.

So even if the latter is driven by society, society's attraction may be more heavily influenced by biology than you might think. Though, what isn't driven by biology at some level? Biology and DNA being literally programming on which we're built.

May? If? You think or you know? This sounds like so much boilerplate evo-psych biological determinism. I need you to develop this thought. How much are we defined by our programming and how much by our choices? Are we anything more than our programming? Or are we just locked into a cycle of Eat/Sleep/Screw/Die, not necessarily in that order?

Now I feel like playing Dragon's Crown again. Thank you, thread.

Right?

I mean, I'm playing through Senran Kagura Estival Versus instead, but still.

It's a playground of sexualized, under aged characters, frequently introduces huge tone shifts in service to fan service, and multiple character engaging with, getting away with, and glorifying sexual harassment, and has almost a laser guided obsession with a stereotypical teen males libido.

And I'm having fun with it because, oddly, stating facts about a thing doesn't offend me. Senran Kagura is a rolling dumpster fire...an entertaining rolling dumpster fire, but one which probably shouldn't be heavily emulated by the rest of the medium. Is Dragon's Crown a "fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream: crazy, violent and full of impossibly large breasts"?

Well, yeah. And I'd expect a review to mention that, because, shockingly, it's extremely relevant to whether or not someone's going to like it. This reviewer had a problem with some of those aspects, which she clearly identified and clarified. And since reviews are inherently subjective...fair enough.

Then again, this is the same hobby that's more than willing to lob death threats and other harassment at a reviewer for mentioning they thought GTA 5's level of sexism and transphobia was a bit much...while still giving the game a 9.5/10. Talk about having a chilling effect on discourse.

SK is so over-the-top such as to be a self-aware parody. This isn't as much a teen's dream as it is an adult's joke take on a teen's dream. When people conflate the two is shows ignorance and nothing more. Like, in the 3ds game, when you beat it you unlock the option to physically blow on your 3ds mic to cause their skirts to fly up. I haven't laughed so hard with a game unlock in forever lol.

Dragon's Crown, on the other hand, was going for a specific art-style, the one found in ye-olde dnd books, and that's what it based itself on. It was just an aesthetic choice basically, with everything being over-exaggerated, not like SK where everything else is in proportion outside of the fanservice.

If you say so, though I've played a lot of D&D, and I certainly don't remember anything approaching Dragon's Crown levels.

Hell, nothing by Frank Frazetta comes close to Amazon or Sorceress, and he loved his muscley lady.

altnameJag:
If you say so, though I've played a lot of D&D, and I certainly don't remember anything approaching Dragon's Crown levels.

Hell, nothing by Frank Frazetta comes close to Amazon or Sorceress, and he loved his muscley lady.

It's inspired by them, not a carbon copy. It's like if you take that style and turn it up to 11.

Debate is not only still fine, it's encouraged and completely alive and well. Games are still discussed, reviewed, trashed, exalted and enjoyed en masse. The results of GG was to get rid of the feminist/SJW crowd who insisted games push social agendas, measured all games based on identity politics and the gender/sexuality of the characters in it. Stuff that gamers don't give a shit about, don't want in their games and don't like being told they're [blank]ist for disagreeing.

Talk about games, talk about characters, talk about the worlds, criticise away, discuss their merits, but leave out the "progressive" politics. Now that the feminists/SJWs have moved on to wherever else it is they've gone (university campuses from the looks of it), we can get on with playing games again.

KingsGambit:
The results of GG was to get rid of the feminist/SJW crowd who insisted games push social agendas, measured all games based on identity politics and the gender/sexuality of the characters in it. Stuff that gamers don't give a shit about, don't want in their games

Funny to see you use the words "get rid", considering GGers swore up and down that they weren't trying to act as gatekeepers and that GG wasn't supposed to be about politics. Turns out, they were a bunch of liars.
More than anything else, it was the constant lies and deceit - and a complete lack of honesty - that led to GG's downfall.

And besides, when did 'gamers' collectively decide that politics shouldn't be in videogames? Some of the best games use copious amounts of politics as a plot device to great effect. Bioshock for instance uses very heavy political themes, and is commonly lauded as one of the best games of recent times.

KingsGambit:

Talk about games, talk about characters, talk about the worlds, criticise away, discuss their merits, but leave out the "progressive" politics.

Yup, only room for CONSERVATIVE politics in gaming.

And gods help you if you go in against them...

KingsGambit:
Debate is not only still fine, it's encouraged and completely alive and well. Games are still discussed, reviewed, trashed, exalted and enjoyed en masse. The results of GG was to get rid of the feminist/SJW crowd who insisted games push social agendas, measured all games based on identity politics and the gender/sexuality of the characters in it. Stuff that gamers don't give a shit about, don't want in their games and don't like being told they're [blank]ist for disagreeing.

Talk about games, talk about characters, talk about the worlds, criticise away, discuss their merits, but leave out the "progressive" politics. Now that the feminists/SJWs have moved on to wherever else it is they've gone (university campuses from the looks of it), we can get on with playing games again.

Wait a sec, did you stop playing games because "feminists/SJWs" said mean things about them? Why? I've been playing games and talking about games this whole time, and I am hugely interested in the representation and politics of the games I play.We never went anywhere

As to the main topic, the one thing I think Gamergate "ruined" is the way we talk about games. Take the recent Cuphead debacle, I think if that happened five years ago we could all have ourselves a chuckle about some dude playing a video game bad

Now we had to have a discussion about that dude's right to talk about games in the first place

KingsGambit:
The results of GG was to get rid of the feminist/SJW crowd who insisted games push social agendas, measured all games based on identity politics and the gender/sexuality of the characters in it.

If only. But it did manage to create some breathing room, and that's a start.

IceForce:

Funny to see you use the words "get rid", considering GGers swore up and down that they weren't trying to act as gatekeepers and that GG wasn't supposed to be about politics. Turns out, they were a bunch of liars.
More than anything else, it was the constant lies and deceit - and a complete lack of honesty - that led to GG's downfall.

Well, gotta hand it to you. That's some quality grandstanding on very little solid ground. Gatekeeping? Lies? Deceit? "Complete lack of honesty"? That's actually quite an accurate description of the ethical standards in "games journalism".

IceForce:
And besides, when did 'gamers' collectively decide that politics shouldn't be in videogames? Some of the best games use copious amounts of politics as a plot device to great effect. Bioshock for instance uses very heavy political themes, and is commonly lauded as one of the best games of recent times.

I know you weren't invited to the Grand Assembly, but we didn't actually decide that "politics shouldn't be in videogames". We decided videogames shouldn't play politics. Much like Bioshock doesn't.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 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