Just Nut Up And Do It

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

The best you can really do in these kinds of situations is to not play and/or spend money on these games. Show them with your wallets that you think what their doing is not the way to make a good game. Also be sure to convince your friends not to buy their games and maybe even send a letter to the creators alerting them of their folly. If companies think only about how to get the most money, than just take away as much money as possible, and hold their hands while explaining exactly why their cash-grabbing attempt is bad, and then tell them how they actually should go about robbing us of our cash. Of course, many companies don't actually listen to giant walking-talking wallets, so talking might not always work.

Burst6:

RJ 17:

Burst6:
The thing that i hate most is the animation. I don't mind the clothes as much (why does so little armor protect anything at all? MAGIC!) but the animations...

Does the mage HAVE to belly dance when they cast magics? Oh god..

Yes. Yes they most specifically do. :P

Maybe it's a defense thing. If an enemy comes close while you're casting you use a princess peach style butt slam to knock them back. Keep those hips gyrating to save momentum.

But then what do the males get? hyper pelvic thrusts?

Heh, that would be an interesting attack animation. Maybe do it anime style, have the guy slowly lean back while yelling "Hyyyyyyper Pelllllllllvic" and then "THRUUUUUUUUUST!"

Nerexor:

Burst6:

RJ 17:
Yes. Yes they most specifically do. :P

Maybe it's a defense thing. If an enemy comes close while you're casting you use a princess peach style butt slam to knock them back. Keep those hips gyrating to save momentum.

But then what do the males get? hyper pelvic thrusts?

Heh, that would be an interesting attack animation. Maybe do it anime style, have the guy slowly lean back while yelling "Hyyyyyyper Pelllllllllvic" and then "THRUUUUUUUUUST!"

If you get a special upgrade it fires a white projectile that stops the enemy from moving.

.. too much?

I like tits. And super skimpy armor. I buy a lot of video games.

There is probably a connection here I am missing, but I bet the developers get it.

TopazFusion:

Dirty Hipsters:
This is armor. ARMOR!

Nothing new really.
See: Forsworn female armor in Skyrim, and female Raider armor in Fallout 3/NV.

Slightly makes sense for those two examples since Forsworn and Raiders are crazy, animal drug addicts who do little else than rut and kill each other, with little in the way of self preservation. Strange that Forsworn and Raider Armour is statistically similar to full leather equivalents. Hell, Forsworn armour has really high stats. (Or my light armor skill was too jacked up). It's jarring when characters who are supposed to be intelligent are portrayed in useless armour that exposes all their vital organs.

TopazFusion:

Dirty Hipsters:
This is armor. ARMOR!

Nothing new really.
See: Forsworn female armor in Skyrim, and female Raider armor in Fallout 3/NV.

Female raider armor in fallout isn't really the same thing though. For one, the raider armor for men is just as revealing since they wear basically the exact same armor in most cases. The armor in question is also mostly designed that way as an homage to post apocalyptic movies like Mad Max and aren't just there to over-sexualize the female characters.

It's not wrong to uh....admire, the female body.

Trust me, they like it.

I laughed so hard at "There is no hole too inhospitable and no pole too intimidating," that I spilled my soda all over my damned computer desk.

Emiscary:
Alright game designers: the (incorrect) assumption that your audience is composed mostly of adolescent males...

Do you think it's made up mainly of an audience that would respond more positively to this:
image

I presume you are equally mad as hell about the Twilight series for how it presents the male of the species? Eh? I'd like it if you could link me to a forum post where you expressed such outrage before hand on this matter. I don't care EITHER way, there is nothing wrong with a bit of fan service, what's wrong with, say, a girl putting up a poster of Justin Timberlake as he lifts up his vest to flash his abs. That doesn't mean he should be a gigolo!

Just go all the damned way. Design a race of sexually rapacious italian underwear models with pointy ears and neon hair that're born 18

Isn't that an argument from extremism? As in:

"Oh little bumble bee, you like honey do you? YOU LIKE HONEY?!!?! Here, have all the honey you can drink... I'll drown you in this WHOLE jar of honey!!! MUAHH HA HA HA! What? Is that too much honey, I though bees love honey?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5726yg7-5js at 3:50 for "ironic death".

It's kind of hard to gauge that women would have a problem with women in video games. Just Google Search for "Womens Magazine" then it's women, women everywhere. They may be more cheery than pouty, but it's not as if they are dressed like Benedictine nuns. But the principal is well established that there isn't a problem with showing some skin, there cannot be such a double standard.

This is nothing but harmless fan service for promotional material, please explain why a bit of sex appeal necessarily means players actually want (or deserve to get) a ridiculous parody of prostitution pixies. Also your use of the term "whore" is not appreciated by sex workers, it is hugely insulting and demeaning, what do you think justifies you going that far?

As to armour, it's a magical fantasy game, did you actually think there would be proportional armour? Wizards are commanding gigantic meteorites to crash onto their victims heads, dragons are breathing white hot fire and barbarians wield swords the size of ship anchors, depending on the steel armour that a 5'2" 100lbs hominid can wear on their frame is utterly futile.

Magical damage must be met with magical protection. It's not just the female that go without physical armour almost ALL the characters in fantasy fiction eschew armour in favour of magical protection. I mean look at what Conan the Barbarian wore, or didn't wear;

image

WHOA! What can you say about THIS! I did not search for "Conan the Barbarian Innuendo" or anything like that, this is just a totally standard promotional poster for Conan the Barbarian. Down, boy!

RazadaMk2:
there is a massive problem with the art direction and the jiggle physics, in that particular game especially.

It.
Cost.
Money.

Simple enough.

The amount of time it will take to design each and every armour set so it looks like something a stripper would floss with takes up money that could be used, I dunno, making the game fun? The amount of time and creative energy that will go into making every female armour work with the jiggle physics takes away from the time and money that could be used designing awesome battlegrounds or decent dungeons.

Money cannot make a game fun. Innovation and iteration can do that but that's separate from the money spent in character design.

The people who make the character designs are not the ones who balance gameplay. It's completely spurious to claim that this game's fun potential is compromised because it spent time making the characters look IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY! There are extensive jiggle physics in Team Fortress 2 though it's an entirely male cast, but it's for things like rubber gloves, hats and tubing, etc.

Was Gears Of War ruined because they spent so much time an effort on such intricate gore mechanics? Which are MUCH more complicated than designing a character with skin.

I find this somewhat odd, this is not the first thread complaining about female indecency in video games and I don't think it will be the last... but when has there EVER been a thread on Escapist complaining about excessive violence and gore?

Surely extreme physical violence is worse than someone daring to show some skin? I mean Gear of War advertises and gloats about the joys of shoving a chainsaw up someone's ass and sawing them in half! While they are still alive! Get some PERSPECTIVE!! Can you get more benign than partial nudity? This is the problem with the western world, we still have at our fundamentals an extreme negative characterisation of sexuality.

But entertainment violence; fictional depiction of extreme, psychopathic and sadistic violence is more than tolerated it is consistently defended as fundamental to free expression. We all argue rightly that it is not real, we don't REALLY want to do this, and it is not warping our minds. It's good wholesome fun to ram a car off the road in GTA and spray the vehicle with machine gun fire as the people try to escape. We baulk at the idea of banning a game that allows this.

If you seriously demand adult sexual content like a bit of nudity to be censored from games (either by self-censorship, industry censorship or government censorship) how can you then expect the same censorship NOT be applied to violence? And I'm not talking about sexual assault, I'm just talking about showing some cleavage!

You talk about this content not being suitable for children, yet will draw 13 year olds. This is an argument right out of Jack Thompson's playbook.

Do I oppose such violence? Not to a great extent. Along with partial-nudity I keep it in perspective.

Sean Hollyman:
I must be the only person who doesn't love boobs, ass, and even boober ass in games and films...

I'm attracted to transgirls, so I go you one further :P

OT: TERA is the biggest load of crap, pedo food and sleaze that the video game gods have ever dumped onto our heads. It's fifteen minutes of fame will end soon and I'll throw a little party.

Treblaine:

RazadaMk2:
there is a massive problem with the art direction and the jiggle physics, in that particular game especially.

It.
Cost.
Money.

Simple enough.

The amount of time it will take to design each and every armour set so it looks like something a stripper would floss with takes up money that could be used, I dunno, making the game fun? The amount of time and creative energy that will go into making every female armour work with the jiggle physics takes away from the time and money that could be used designing awesome battlegrounds or decent dungeons.

Money cannot make a game fun. Innovation and iteration can do that but that's separate from the money spent in character design.

The people who make the character designs are not the ones who balance gameplay. It's completely spurious to claim that this game's fun potential is compromised because it spent time making the characters look IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY! There are extensive jiggle physics in Team Fortress 2 though it's an entirely male cast, but it's for things like rubber gloves, hats and tubing, etc.

Was Gears Of War ruined because they spent so much time an effort on such intricate gore mechanics? Which are MUCH more complicated than designing a character with skin.

I find this somewhat odd, this is not the first thread complaining about female indecency in video games and I don't think it will be the last... but when has there EVER been a thread on Escapist complaining about excessive violence and gore?

Surely extreme physical violence is worse than someone daring to show some skin? I mean Gear of War advertises and gloats about the joys of shoving a chainsaw up someone's ass and sawing them in half! While they are still alive! Get some PERSPECTIVE!! Can you get more benign than partial nudity? This is the problem with the western world, we still have at our fundamentals an extreme negative characterisation of sexuality.

But entertainment violence; fictional depiction of extreme, psychopathic and sadistic violence is more than tolerated it is consistently defended as fundamental to free expression. We all argue rightly that it is not real, we don't REALLY want to do this, and it is not warping our minds. It's good wholesome fun to ram a car off the road in GTA and spray the vehicle with machine gun fire as the people try to escape. We baulk at the idea of banning a game that allows this.

If you seriously demand adult sexual content like a bit of nudity to be censored from games (either by self-censorship, industry censorship or government censorship) how can you then expect the same censorship NOT be applied to violence? And I'm not talking about sexual assault, I'm just talking about showing some cleavage!

You talk about this content not being suitable for children, yet will draw 13 year olds. This is an argument right out of Jack Thompson's playbook.

Do I oppose such violence? Not to a great extent. Along with partial-nudity I keep it in perspective.

In all fairness, Extreme violence in computer games is significantly less dangerous. I have just been dodging around the actual issue here because nobody wants to hear the real issues in play when you have videogames that look like softcore pornography.

Lets say 14 year old you is playing Gears of War 3, what are they going to be thinking

"OH MY GOD YEAH! LOOK! FUCKING YEAH! HIS BODY! IT LIKE, EXPLODED! YEAH! AWESOME! YEAH!"

And now lets make 14 year old you play TERA.

"Man, my character is hot. So is that one over there. I wish more girls looked like the chicks in Tera. Man, they are hot. Check out that ass."

One game is gratuitous, insane violence. The other is objectification of women, sexism to a level that is almost insane and is, quite frankly, revolting. I have nothing wrong with gears because I do not think that desensitization to violence will change somebody that much (Although that view is gradually changing thanks to another thread). But the objectification of women to the level that occurs within Tera is just... Insane.

WoW was bad. But truly, Tera takes the cake.

Distancing ourselves from the entire prudish debate and what is right and what is wrong, I will give you another clear example for why the female forms depicted in Tera are bad.

Did you know that Barbies proortions are all wrong? She will be unable to walk, forced to crawl constantly. Her intestine would be too short to properly digest food, she would have constant diahorrea. And then she would die due to malnutrition. And young girls want to be her. Their view on physical beauty has been warped by Barbie and now they wish to emulate someone who, if they existed, would crawl around, shit a lot and then die.

All of my arguments could be dismissed, if you wish, by calling me some moral crusader, some old bastard who doesnt like the way games are going. If you want, go ahead. I am only 20 and, like others, I have NOTHING wrong with nudity, partial nudity and "sexy" clothing, when it has its place. Key words there. When it HAS ITS PLACE. I would argue that its place is within sex scenes or similar. Not everywhere, constantly.

The promotional art for this game depicts a scantily clad women, bent over with her ass in the air, holding a dagger like its a cock she is about to give a good-ole-sucking. The SEXUALIZED nature of this game is unneccesary. And my argument about the money going the wrong way?

If the only thing you can find to sell your game is sex appeal and it is not a japanese sex simulator, Your game is shit.

So, in summary, I have nothing wrong with sex, nudity, violence and all of the rest. If they are in situations where they should be. I am not saying all revealing armours should be removed from feminine figures within computergames. Just that some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used.

Personally, at the age of 20, I would be uncomfortable playing Tera. I know my sister would be (23) and her bloke. I play fantasy games to feel awesome and kill dragons. Tera is so over sexualised, so obsessed with trying to get my cock to stand to attention that I find it revolting. To quote a female who posted here earlier.

"What if I want to play my fantasy, not your wank fantasy"

the difference between terra and almost every other game that abuses sex appeal, there is actually a game there too not just eye candy

and besides, so what!?

the characters are appealing to look at(if you like that sort of thing) and if you don't really care or are even offended but still want to play the game bizarrely you can just play a non-sexualised race and ignore the others

RazadaMk2:

Treblaine:

RazadaMk2:
there is a massive problem with the art direction and the jiggle physics, in that particular game especially.

It.
Cost.
Money.

Simple enough.

The amount of time it will take to design each and every armour set so it looks like something a stripper would floss with takes up money that could be used, I dunno, making the game fun? The amount of time and creative energy that will go into making every female armour work with the jiggle physics takes away from the time and money that could be used designing awesome battlegrounds or decent dungeons.

Money cannot make a game fun. Innovation and iteration can do that but that's separate from the money spent in character design.

The people who make the character designs are not the ones who balance gameplay. It's completely spurious to claim that this game's fun potential is compromised because it spent time making the characters look IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY! There are extensive jiggle physics in Team Fortress 2 though it's an entirely male cast, but it's for things like rubber gloves, hats and tubing, etc.

Was Gears Of War ruined because they spent so much time an effort on such intricate gore mechanics? Which are MUCH more complicated than designing a character with skin.

I find this somewhat odd, this is not the first thread complaining about female indecency in video games and I don't think it will be the last... but when has there EVER been a thread on Escapist complaining about excessive violence and gore?

Surely extreme physical violence is worse than someone daring to show some skin? I mean Gear of War advertises and gloats about the joys of shoving a chainsaw up someone's ass and sawing them in half! While they are still alive! Get some PERSPECTIVE!! Can you get more benign than partial nudity? This is the problem with the western world, we still have at our fundamentals an extreme negative characterisation of sexuality.

But entertainment violence; fictional depiction of extreme, psychopathic and sadistic violence is more than tolerated it is consistently defended as fundamental to free expression. We all argue rightly that it is not real, we don't REALLY want to do this, and it is not warping our minds. It's good wholesome fun to ram a car off the road in GTA and spray the vehicle with machine gun fire as the people try to escape. We baulk at the idea of banning a game that allows this.

If you seriously demand adult sexual content like a bit of nudity to be censored from games (either by self-censorship, industry censorship or government censorship) how can you then expect the same censorship NOT be applied to violence? And I'm not talking about sexual assault, I'm just talking about showing some cleavage!

You talk about this content not being suitable for children, yet will draw 13 year olds. This is an argument right out of Jack Thompson's playbook.

Do I oppose such violence? Not to a great extent. Along with partial-nudity I keep it in perspective.

In all fairness, Extreme violence in computer games is significantly less dangerous. I have just been dodging around the actual issue here because nobody wants to hear the real issues in play when you have videogames that look like softcore pornography.

Lets say 14 year old you is playing Gears of War 3, what are they going to be thinking

"OH MY GOD YEAH! LOOK! FUCKING YEAH! HIS BODY! IT LIKE, EXPLODED! YEAH! AWESOME! YEAH!"

And now lets make 14 year old you play TERA.

"Man, my character is hot. So is that one over there. I wish more girls looked like the chicks in Tera. Man, they are hot. Check out that ass."

One game is gratuitous, insane violence. The other is objectification of women, sexism to a level that is almost insane and is, quite frankly, revolting. I have nothing wrong with gears because I do not think that desensitization to violence will change somebody that much (Although that view is gradually changing thanks to another thread). But the objectification of women to the level that occurs within Tera is just... Insane.

WoW was bad. But truly, Tera takes the cake.

Distancing ourselves from the entire prudish debate and what is right and what is wrong, I will give you another clear example for why the female forms depicted in Tera are bad.

Did you know that Barbies proortions are all wrong? She will be unable to walk, forced to crawl constantly. Her intestine would be too short to properly digest food, she would have constant diahorrea. And then she would die due to malnutrition. And young girls want to be her. Their view on physical beauty has been warped by Barbie and now they wish to emulate someone who, if they existed, would crawl around, shit a lot and then die.

All of my arguments could be dismissed, if you wish, by calling me some moral crusader, some old bastard who doesnt like the way games are going. If you want, go ahead. I am only 20 and, like others, I have NOTHING wrong with nudity, partial nudity and "sexy" clothing, when it has its place. Key words there. When it HAS ITS PLACE. I would argue that its place is within sex scenes or similar. Not everywhere, constantly.

The promotional art for this game depicts a scantily clad women, bent over with her ass in the air, holding a dagger like its a cock she is about to give a good-ole-sucking. The SEXUALIZED nature of this game is unneccesary. And my argument about the money going the wrong way?

If the only thing you can find to sell your game is sex appeal and it is not a japanese sex simulator, Your game is shit.

So, in summary, I have nothing wrong with sex, nudity, violence and all of the rest. If they are in situations where they should be. I am not saying all revealing armours should be removed from feminine figures within computergames. Just that some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used.

Personally, at the age of 20, I would be uncomfortable playing Tera. I know my sister would be (23) and her bloke. I play fantasy games to feel awesome and kill dragons. Tera is so over sexualised, so obsessed with trying to get my cock to stand to attention that I find it revolting. To quote a female who posted here earlier.

"What if I want to play my fantasy, not your wank fantasy"

You're arguing a false premise: People don't need games or images of women to objectify them. We do that naturally. Guess what? Women also objectify men. Also, TERA is a game that has A super-sexualized race... but the male of that race is also super-sexualized. The other races are just fine. You may complain about the "little kids", but that's a stupid argument.

Also, I find it offensive that sexuality should be restricted only to "situations where they should be" in a fantasy game. My Amazon Warrior should not be dictated to "Cover up" just because society says so. As for your "Some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used" argument - There are a lot of promotional images for Tera, and not all of them emphasize the sexuality of the game.

You're also the only one bringing up the "Barbie" argument. It's also arguing a discredited statement, because "IT MAKES WOMEN WARP THEIR VIEW OF BEAUTY" is just "The Next Moral Panic" the media uses to boost ratings. People looking at sexuality in video games don't think "I wish more chicks look like the girls in Tera" than those playing Gears of War think "I wish I could shove a chainsaw up someone's ass and explode them into a million pieces in real life!"

Furthermore, your argument that "Sex is the ONLY thing Tera has to sell its game" is also false: It's just one of many of the game's advertised features, and the one that happens to be used in this particular promotional image. In fact, the most advertised feature is the dynamic combat. It also advertises OTHER character designs, not just the sexual ones.

Scow2:

RazadaMk2:

Treblaine:

Money cannot make a game fun. Innovation and iteration can do that but that's separate from the money spent in character design.

The people who make the character designs are not the ones who balance gameplay. It's completely spurious to claim that this game's fun potential is compromised because it spent time making the characters look IN ANY PARTICULAR WAY! There are extensive jiggle physics in Team Fortress 2 though it's an entirely male cast, but it's for things like rubber gloves, hats and tubing, etc.

Was Gears Of War ruined because they spent so much time an effort on such intricate gore mechanics? Which are MUCH more complicated than designing a character with skin.

I find this somewhat odd, this is not the first thread complaining about female indecency in video games and I don't think it will be the last... but when has there EVER been a thread on Escapist complaining about excessive violence and gore?

Surely extreme physical violence is worse than someone daring to show some skin? I mean Gear of War advertises and gloats about the joys of shoving a chainsaw up someone's ass and sawing them in half! While they are still alive! Get some PERSPECTIVE!! Can you get more benign than partial nudity? This is the problem with the western world, we still have at our fundamentals an extreme negative characterisation of sexuality.

But entertainment violence; fictional depiction of extreme, psychopathic and sadistic violence is more than tolerated it is consistently defended as fundamental to free expression. We all argue rightly that it is not real, we don't REALLY want to do this, and it is not warping our minds. It's good wholesome fun to ram a car off the road in GTA and spray the vehicle with machine gun fire as the people try to escape. We baulk at the idea of banning a game that allows this.

If you seriously demand adult sexual content like a bit of nudity to be censored from games (either by self-censorship, industry censorship or government censorship) how can you then expect the same censorship NOT be applied to violence? And I'm not talking about sexual assault, I'm just talking about showing some cleavage!

You talk about this content not being suitable for children, yet will draw 13 year olds. This is an argument right out of Jack Thompson's playbook.

Do I oppose such violence? Not to a great extent. Along with partial-nudity I keep it in perspective.

In all fairness, Extreme violence in computer games is significantly less dangerous. I have just been dodging around the actual issue here because nobody wants to hear the real issues in play when you have videogames that look like softcore pornography.

Lets say 14 year old you is playing Gears of War 3, what are they going to be thinking

"OH MY GOD YEAH! LOOK! FUCKING YEAH! HIS BODY! IT LIKE, EXPLODED! YEAH! AWESOME! YEAH!"

And now lets make 14 year old you play TERA.

"Man, my character is hot. So is that one over there. I wish more girls looked like the chicks in Tera. Man, they are hot. Check out that ass."

One game is gratuitous, insane violence. The other is objectification of women, sexism to a level that is almost insane and is, quite frankly, revolting. I have nothing wrong with gears because I do not think that desensitization to violence will change somebody that much (Although that view is gradually changing thanks to another thread). But the objectification of women to the level that occurs within Tera is just... Insane.

WoW was bad. But truly, Tera takes the cake.

Distancing ourselves from the entire prudish debate and what is right and what is wrong, I will give you another clear example for why the female forms depicted in Tera are bad.

Did you know that Barbies proortions are all wrong? She will be unable to walk, forced to crawl constantly. Her intestine would be too short to properly digest food, she would have constant diahorrea. And then she would die due to malnutrition. And young girls want to be her. Their view on physical beauty has been warped by Barbie and now they wish to emulate someone who, if they existed, would crawl around, shit a lot and then die.

All of my arguments could be dismissed, if you wish, by calling me some moral crusader, some old bastard who doesnt like the way games are going. If you want, go ahead. I am only 20 and, like others, I have NOTHING wrong with nudity, partial nudity and "sexy" clothing, when it has its place. Key words there. When it HAS ITS PLACE. I would argue that its place is within sex scenes or similar. Not everywhere, constantly.

The promotional art for this game depicts a scantily clad women, bent over with her ass in the air, holding a dagger like its a cock she is about to give a good-ole-sucking. The SEXUALIZED nature of this game is unneccesary. And my argument about the money going the wrong way?

If the only thing you can find to sell your game is sex appeal and it is not a japanese sex simulator, Your game is shit.

So, in summary, I have nothing wrong with sex, nudity, violence and all of the rest. If they are in situations where they should be. I am not saying all revealing armours should be removed from feminine figures within computergames. Just that some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used.

Personally, at the age of 20, I would be uncomfortable playing Tera. I know my sister would be (23) and her bloke. I play fantasy games to feel awesome and kill dragons. Tera is so over sexualised, so obsessed with trying to get my cock to stand to attention that I find it revolting. To quote a female who posted here earlier.

"What if I want to play my fantasy, not your wank fantasy"

You're arguing a false premise: People don't need games or images of women to objectify them. We do that naturally. Guess what? Women also objectify men. Also, TERA is a game that has A super-sexualized race... but the male of that race is also super-sexualized. The other races are just fine. You may complain about the "little kids", but that's a stupid argument.

Also, I find it offensive that sexuality should be restricted only to "situations where they should be" in a fantasy game. My Amazon Warrior should not be dictated to "Cover up" just because society says so. As for your "Some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used" argument - There are a lot of promotional images for Tera, and not all of them emphasize the sexuality of the game.

You're also the only one bringing up the "Barbie" argument. It's also arguing a discredited statement, because "IT MAKES WOMEN WARP THEIR VIEW OF BEAUTY" is just "The Next Moral Panic" the media uses to boost ratings. People looking at sexuality in video games don't think "I wish more chicks look like the girls in Tera" than those playing Gears of War think "I wish I could shove a chainsaw up someone's ass and explode them into a million pieces in real life!"

Furthermore, your argument that "Sex is the ONLY thing Tera has to sell its game" is also false: It's just one of many of the game's advertised features, and the one that happens to be used in this particular promotional image. In fact, the most advertised feature is the dynamic combat. It also advertises OTHER character designs, not just the sexual ones.

Hmm. I would argue against the idea of this being a moral panic. It doesnt have many of the key traits, plus the entire idea of a moral panic is batshit insane. Cohen was talking out of his arse. Interesting to read though.

That aside...

You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom because images have an affect upon people. A lot of annorexics (Female, in particular) will cite the "Perfect Body" arguments. By that I mean will cite the nature of the media and the images that it portrays makes, the current definition of beauty. So my "Barbie" defence? In my eyes (And the eyes of others, but obviously not you) it holds weight.

Sexism is not ok, objectifying women as sex objects = sexism, ergo, this game is inherrently sexist and therefore not ok. Should be simple enough logic to follow.

You are arguing that we objectify women naturally so that makes it ok. Well, you know what? I disagree. It may be natural to notice how attractive someone is, this I will admit. But drawing as much attention you can to this, treating women simply as sex objects, well, that is simply not ok. Finally, what is a "Natural" thing to do is culturally based. A few hundred years ago it was a "Natural" to enslave black people and make them pick cotton. Your definition of natural seems to simply be "The majority hold the opinion that the following is ok".

It is naturally for a heterosexual man to find a beautiful female beautiful. It is also natural if this then fosters thoughts about sex. However, Objetifying women purely as sex objects is not ok. And if you deny that this is the aim of the promotional pictures being discussed, well, you are quite simply blind.

So!

In summary!

I may be the only one on this forum making the barbie defence, but the barbie defence holds water and I am not the only one who holds this opinion.
Objectifying women purely as sex objects is bad. If you deny this, well, it sorta makes you sexist. Just saying.
I, personally, have no interest in playing such an inherently sexist, juvenile game.
I, personally, would rather games did not objectify women to this degree. I would rather society did not. I take offence when people think it is totally fine to do this. Objectifying women is distasteful, objectifying them to this degree is simply abhorrent.

And finally? This argument is circular. Most arguments on the internet are circular. But I have no time for this particular argument. Good day to you, Ser.

RazadaMk2:

In all fairness, Extreme violence in computer games is significantly less dangerous. I have just been dodging around the actual issue here because nobody wants to hear the real issues in play when you have videogames that look like softcore pornography.

Lets say 14 year old you is playing Gears of War 3, what are they going to be thinking

"OH MY GOD YEAH! LOOK! FUCKING YEAH! HIS BODY! IT LIKE, EXPLODED! YEAH! AWESOME! YEAH!"

And now lets make 14 year old you play TERA.

"Man, my character is hot. So is that one over there. I wish more girls looked like the chicks in Tera. Man, they are hot. Check out that ass."

One game is gratuitous, insane violence. The other is objectification of women, sexism to a level that is almost insane and is, quite frankly, revolting. I have nothing wrong with gears because I do not think that desensitization to violence will change somebody that much (Although that view is gradually changing thanks to another thread). But the objectification of women to the level that occurs within Tera is just... Insane.

WoW was bad. But truly, Tera takes the cake.

Distancing ourselves from the entire prudish debate and what is right and what is wrong, I will give you another clear example for why the female forms depicted in Tera are bad.

Did you know that Barbies proortions are all wrong? She will be unable to walk, forced to crawl constantly. Her intestine would be too short to properly digest food, she would have constant diahorrea. And then she would die due to malnutrition. And young girls want to be her. Their view on physical beauty has been warped by Barbie and now they wish to emulate someone who, if they existed, would crawl around, shit a lot and then die.

All of my arguments could be dismissed, if you wish, by calling me some moral crusader, some old bastard who doesnt like the way games are going. If you want, go ahead. I am only 20 and, like others, I have NOTHING wrong with nudity, partial nudity and "sexy" clothing, when it has its place. Key words there. When it HAS ITS PLACE. I would argue that its place is within sex scenes or similar. Not everywhere, constantly.

The promotional art for this game depicts a scantily clad women, bent over with her ass in the air, holding a dagger like its a cock she is about to give a good-ole-sucking. The SEXUALIZED nature of this game is unneccesary. And my argument about the money going the wrong way?

If the only thing you can find to sell your game is sex appeal and it is not a japanese sex simulator, Your game is shit.

So, in summary, I have nothing wrong with sex, nudity, violence and all of the rest. If they are in situations where they should be. I am not saying all revealing armours should be removed from feminine figures within computergames. Just that some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used.

Personally, at the age of 20, I would be uncomfortable playing Tera. I know my sister would be (23) and her bloke. I play fantasy games to feel awesome and kill dragons. Tera is so over sexualised, so obsessed with trying to get my cock to stand to attention that I find it revolting. To quote a female who posted here earlier.

"What if I want to play my fantasy, not your wank fantasy"

Well TERA is rated 17+ which is an R-rating, 14 year olds should not be playing this game. Objecting to this game because parents might be stupid enough to let them play it is like saying we shouldn't have cars because 14 year old boys should not be trusted to drive powerful motor vehicles and their parents might just give them their keys for no good reason.

Objectification
Ah yes, "objectification" the weasel word that sounds bad but means nothing (or more precisely whatever is convenient). Please, what do you ACTUALLY mean by objectification?? If you cannot define Objectification in unambiguously negative terms then I'll know you don't have any real issue with this.

how are those women "objects" any more than any male character in any video game? Realise they are inherently objects as THEY AREN'T ACTUALLY REAL! Marcus Fenix is not real! He is generated in a computer. What you are saying is video games and ALL creative arts objectify EVERYTHING which is a meaningless distinction. The great painting the Mona Lisa depicts a woman but the painting is just an object, so does ANY depiction of any living thing objectify it.

These women are not objects as they are given AGENCY! They are NOT just there to look pretty (as in a beauty pageant, a dictionary example of the use of "objectify") they only EXIST as playable characters to interact with the world in every way possible, the headline of TERA forums is "True Action Combat". They have in fact been the OPPOSITE of objectified they have been PERSONIFIED! These pixels have been given personhood, they have been animated and given the likeness and attitudes of a person and everything moves them further towards being a person.

Do you even stop to think about the words you are using? Or do you just reflexively say "objectify" whenever you see a beautiful woman? Without thinking

Revolting
Talk about hyperbole, a woman shows a bit of cleavage and pouts, all of a sudden you are "revolted". No. Blood is revolting. Vomit is revolting. Poop is revolting. A woman's cleavage is "risqué". How are you revolted by a woman's sexuality but not by what Cliffy B calls "chainsodomy"?!?

Please, you blind insistenc is NOT ENOUGH! In fact is is meaningless, it is one baseless opinion out of the possible opinions of 7 billion people on this planet:

Give me a REASON why it is insane for a woman to be depicted with sex appeal yet a 14 virtually sodomizing someone with a chainsaw is comparatively fine with you?!!?

Give me some evidence, not anecdote about barbie's supposed proportions. Its sounds like a BS made-up myth.

As to barbie IT'S STYLISED! Have you never heard of abstract art? Who ever said art had to perfectly imitate nature. If you really think art is supposed to work that way, explain this:

This was in 1931 they understood this. Ok, it was interrupted by the nazis who suppressed abstract art and forced all art to be naturalistic with natural proportions (like Der Furher liked it) but really since the turn of the 20th century we have understood artistic depictions aren't to be taken as a biological ideal, but exaggerated for expressive purposes. This is like blaming superman for people jumping of buildings thinking they can fly.

In Team Fortress 2, the Heavy has tiny legs in proportions to his arms and torso, does this mean the developers wanted the character to crawl everywhere?!? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO!! It's artistic expression, his legs were made small to accentuate his upper body strength! Same with barbie. I can dismiss your arguments by their lack of substance, not by labelling you a "moral crusader". I wouldn't use the "crusade" label as you haven't indicated any Christian religious motivation for your beliefs: more complete ignorance of the basics of art, you seem to be stuck in the 1830's of how forms should EVER be depicted.

This is not everywhere, I only saw that picture because the OP posted it! I tracked down the source of the image, it was on TERA's website behind an age-gate (that would catch any age-restriction software that kids have access to like at home or in school).

"Holding a dagger like it's a cock"

That's just sexist. If a man holds a weapon, it's a weapon. If a women holds a weapon, it's a penis.

image
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
- Sigmund Freud, And I Quote (hey, look what he's holding? A metaphorical penis?!?)

It's a pouty pose, but why bring dagger penis into this? Now THAT is obscene.

Sexualisation IS necessary if the artist is going for a certain sex appeal. That is not the ONLY appeal! It is intellectually dishonest just because something has one attribute therefore it ONLY has that attribute! Team Fortress 2 is funny, that doesn't mean it's ONLY appeal is to make fun. How do you depict in a 2 dimensional image the combat of TERA? For one sex appeal is a good way of getting people's attention and

It's hard to take you seriously on you now claiming discretion is needed. You are "revolted" by something as benign as some pouting. This is tame stuff, this is what you'd find on movie posters from decades before you were born. Kids see this any time they go to the beach.

Oh and finally you say it's not to your tastes? Not "your fantasy". Well are you suggesting this game should appeal to EVERYONE!>!?!? Are you saying that every game should be a grey, vanilla, lowest-common-denominator, derivative, no-risk, lazy work just so that they will all appeal to everyone and you in particular? Because that's what it'll take. GET REAL! Just because it doesn't match your personal tastes is NO REASON to object to ANYONE who likes it! Please, make a list of all the things you don't particularly care for, I'll start with my list *get dictionary*:

-Aardvard
-Abbot
-Abdomen
-Able
-Abiogenesis
-Above
-

(I may be here for some time. But you get the point, that most people don't care for most things I have to go through the dictionary)

So, wrapping up your issues come from:
-Baseless assertion that a woman's sexuality is worse than live dismemberment
-Misusing the term "insane" without any explanation
-Also misunderstanding of "objectification"
-Weasel words with "revolting" about female sexuality
-Woeful ignorance of artistic expression (Barbie proportions)
-discredited psychobabble about imaginary cocks
-False assumptions about availability (behind age gates, M-rated, only by choice)
-Narcissistic assumption that every game that doesn't fit personal tastes shouldn't be for anyone.

RazadaMk2:

Hmm. I would argue against the idea of this being a moral panic. It doesnt have many of the key traits, plus the entire idea of a moral panic is batshit insane. Cohen was talking out of his arse. Interesting to read though.

That aside...

You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom because images have an affect upon people. A lot of annorexics (Female, in particular) will cite the "Perfect Body" arguments. By that I mean will cite the nature of the media and the images that it portrays makes, the current definition of beauty. So my "Barbie" defence? In my eyes (And the eyes of others, but obviously not you) it holds weight.

Sexism is not ok, objectifying women as sex objects = sexism, ergo, this game is inherrently sexist and therefore not ok. Should be simple enough logic to follow.

You are arguing that we objectify women naturally so that makes it ok. Well, you know what? I disagree. It may be natural to notice how attractive someone is, this I will admit. But drawing as much attention you can to this, treating women simply as sex objects, well, that is simply not ok. Finally, what is a "Natural" thing to do is culturally based. A few hundred years ago it was a "Natural" to enslave black people and make them pick cotton. Your definition of natural seems to simply be "The majority hold the opinion that the following is ok".

It is naturally for a heterosexual man to find a beautiful female beautiful. It is also natural if this then fosters thoughts about sex. However, Objetifying women purely as sex objects is not ok. And if you deny that this is the aim of the promotional pictures being discussed, well, you are quite simply blind.

So!

In summary!

I may be the only one on this forum making the barbie defence, but the barbie defence holds water and I am not the only one who holds this opinion.
Objectifying women purely as sex objects is bad. If you deny this, well, it sorta makes you sexist. Just saying.
I, personally, have no interest in playing such an inherently sexist, juvenile game.
I, personally, would rather games did not objectify women to this degree. I would rather society did not. I take offence when people think it is totally fine to do this. Objectifying women is distasteful, objectifying them to this degree is simply abhorrent.

And finally? This argument is circular. Most arguments on the internet are circular. But I have no time for this particular argument. Good day to you, Ser.

Treblaine here, sorry to interject but I must object to your logic on most of these points:

"You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom "

Is an appeal to authority. The UK government also - for a long time but not any more - banned homosexuality and chemically castrated Alan Turing (the father of modern computing who also broke the Nazi enigma code) for it, so it's not exactly an impeccable guide on this. The law is what it is, but the law in itself is NOT a reasoned argument. That is the logic of dictators.

You are also a bit of a hypocrite, you object to majority opinion as majority opinion once allowed slavery. Isn't that in contradiction with your argument from authority with a democratic government banning size zero?

And where is the science linking Barbie to anotexia? I bloody well hate it when people play amateur psychologists and claim they are making scientific judgements when really they are no different from drawing correlations, they have no evidence, no scientific method. Banning the depiction of Size zero is fundamentally.

Between the two of you you are clearly using two different definitions of objectification.

Objectification is VERY simple: it is depiction of a person as an object. Not an "objective" but an "object" as in "inanimate thing". Sexuality FUNDAMENTALLY defies that as people are attracted to PEOPLE! Doing a sexy dance does not "objectify" them that is animating them and making them MORE like a person. And appropriate use of objectification is in a Beauty pageant where the contestants are encourage NOT to be animate, to have a fixed expression, reduced movement pausing as often as possible for still shots. That is objectification. So like a statue.

So, clearly finding someone sexy is not objectification, so clearly Scow2 is wrong on the use of that term which makes your argument moot your conclusions from his misuse of the term.

By the way the term "sex object" is clearly figurative, not literal. And you added it, not anyone else. You cannot conclude:
Thinks they are Sexy -> Thinks they are a sex object -> Objectification

Please, show the REASON that noticing sex appeal in this case or ANY case necessarily relates

Objectification happens outside sexuality. Soldiers are objectified, to stand still to attention, not unnecessary movement, no expressed emotion or individual personality. When they serve they are just supposed to be killing machines to kill whoever they are ordered to kill. Carry whatever they are ordered to carry. Like machines, they are treated as objects, not people, they are "Personnel". See, objectification is nothing inherently to do with sex.

Only rarely can it ever even be applied to sex! Almost impossibly to apply it to entirely created depictions where every effort is moved towards personification.

And this... this is why Guild Wars 2 will be better, as if there was ever any doubt.

I love how defensive people get when you point out needless hyper-sexualization in games. Mostly because I cannot imagine any context where you'd get the same kind of outrage at the *suggestion* that it should be curbed. Let's take say... "The Avengers". Now, if Joss Whedon had elected to dress Scarlett Johansson in a g-string & halter top and people complained about it, would you have marvel comic fans screaming:

"NO! NEVER! MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED SOMETIMES TO! RABBLE! ETC!" ?

If so mostly you'd just stare at them like they were a bunch of slack jawed idiots. Long story short: methinks the gamers doth protest too much. You don't *need* to have an erection at all times. And the fact that you insist that you do need one (or that there's some other more noble [and entirely fictitious reason] you wanna keep this shit in games...) implies some pretty sad things about you.

I for one respect these strong independent women's choice to use an alternate strategy to defeat their male opponents.

Rumpsteak:
I for one respect these strong independent women's choice to use an alternate strategy to defeat their male opponents.

Because marking yourself as a target for rape as well as death is a winning tactic :P

RazadaMk2:

Scow2:

RazadaMk2:

In all fairness, Extreme violence in computer games is significantly less dangerous. I have just been dodging around the actual issue here because nobody wants to hear the real issues in play when you have videogames that look like softcore pornography.

Lets say 14 year old you is playing Gears of War 3, what are they going to be thinking

"OH MY GOD YEAH! LOOK! FUCKING YEAH! HIS BODY! IT LIKE, EXPLODED! YEAH! AWESOME! YEAH!"

And now lets make 14 year old you play TERA.

"Man, my character is hot. So is that one over there. I wish more girls looked like the chicks in Tera. Man, they are hot. Check out that ass."

One game is gratuitous, insane violence. The other is objectification of women, sexism to a level that is almost insane and is, quite frankly, revolting. I have nothing wrong with gears because I do not think that desensitization to violence will change somebody that much (Although that view is gradually changing thanks to another thread). But the objectification of women to the level that occurs within Tera is just... Insane.

WoW was bad. But truly, Tera takes the cake.

Distancing ourselves from the entire prudish debate and what is right and what is wrong, I will give you another clear example for why the female forms depicted in Tera are bad.

Did you know that Barbies proortions are all wrong? She will be unable to walk, forced to crawl constantly. Her intestine would be too short to properly digest food, she would have constant diahorrea. And then she would die due to malnutrition. And young girls want to be her. Their view on physical beauty has been warped by Barbie and now they wish to emulate someone who, if they existed, would crawl around, shit a lot and then die.

All of my arguments could be dismissed, if you wish, by calling me some moral crusader, some old bastard who doesnt like the way games are going. If you want, go ahead. I am only 20 and, like others, I have NOTHING wrong with nudity, partial nudity and "sexy" clothing, when it has its place. Key words there. When it HAS ITS PLACE. I would argue that its place is within sex scenes or similar. Not everywhere, constantly.

The promotional art for this game depicts a scantily clad women, bent over with her ass in the air, holding a dagger like its a cock she is about to give a good-ole-sucking. The SEXUALIZED nature of this game is unneccesary. And my argument about the money going the wrong way?

If the only thing you can find to sell your game is sex appeal and it is not a japanese sex simulator, Your game is shit.

So, in summary, I have nothing wrong with sex, nudity, violence and all of the rest. If they are in situations where they should be. I am not saying all revealing armours should be removed from feminine figures within computergames. Just that some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used.

Personally, at the age of 20, I would be uncomfortable playing Tera. I know my sister would be (23) and her bloke. I play fantasy games to feel awesome and kill dragons. Tera is so over sexualised, so obsessed with trying to get my cock to stand to attention that I find it revolting. To quote a female who posted here earlier.

"What if I want to play my fantasy, not your wank fantasy"

You're arguing a false premise: People don't need games or images of women to objectify them. We do that naturally. Guess what? Women also objectify men. Also, TERA is a game that has A super-sexualized race... but the male of that race is also super-sexualized. The other races are just fine. You may complain about the "little kids", but that's a stupid argument.

Also, I find it offensive that sexuality should be restricted only to "situations where they should be" in a fantasy game. My Amazon Warrior should not be dictated to "Cover up" just because society says so. As for your "Some discretion on behalf of the publishers should be used" argument - There are a lot of promotional images for Tera, and not all of them emphasize the sexuality of the game.

You're also the only one bringing up the "Barbie" argument. It's also arguing a discredited statement, because "IT MAKES WOMEN WARP THEIR VIEW OF BEAUTY" is just "The Next Moral Panic" the media uses to boost ratings. People looking at sexuality in video games don't think "I wish more chicks look like the girls in Tera" than those playing Gears of War think "I wish I could shove a chainsaw up someone's ass and explode them into a million pieces in real life!"

Furthermore, your argument that "Sex is the ONLY thing Tera has to sell its game" is also false: It's just one of many of the game's advertised features, and the one that happens to be used in this particular promotional image. In fact, the most advertised feature is the dynamic combat. It also advertises OTHER character designs, not just the sexual ones.

Hmm. I would argue against the idea of this being a moral panic. It doesnt have many of the key traits, plus the entire idea of a moral panic is batshit insane. Cohen was talking out of his arse. Interesting to read though.

That aside...

You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom because images have an affect upon people. A lot of annorexics (Female, in particular) will cite the "Perfect Body" arguments. By that I mean will cite the nature of the media and the images that it portrays makes, the current definition of beauty. So my "Barbie" defence? In my eyes (And the eyes of others, but obviously not you) it holds weight.

Sexism is not ok, objectifying women as sex objects = sexism, ergo, this game is inherrently sexist and therefore not ok. Should be simple enough logic to follow.

You are arguing that we objectify women naturally so that makes it ok. Well, you know what? I disagree. It may be natural to notice how attractive someone is, this I will admit. But drawing as much attention you can to this, treating women simply as sex objects, well, that is simply not ok. Finally, what is a "Natural" thing to do is culturally based. A few hundred years ago it was a "Natural" to enslave black people and make them pick cotton. Your definition of natural seems to simply be "The majority hold the opinion that the following is ok".

It is naturally for a heterosexual man to find a beautiful female beautiful. It is also natural if this then fosters thoughts about sex. However, Objetifying women purely as sex objects is not ok. And if you deny that this is the aim of the promotional pictures being discussed, well, you are quite simply blind.

So!

In summary!

I may be the only one on this forum making the barbie defence, but the barbie defence holds water and I am not the only one who holds this opinion.
Objectifying women purely as sex objects is bad. If you deny this, well, it sorta makes you sexist. Just saying.
I, personally, have no interest in playing such an inherently sexist, juvenile game.
I, personally, would rather games did not objectify women to this degree. I would rather society did not. I take offence when people think it is totally fine to do this. Objectifying women is distasteful, objectifying them to this degree is simply abhorrent.

And finally? This argument is circular. Most arguments on the internet are circular. But I have no time for this particular argument. Good day to you, Ser.

It's not as circular as you seem to think it is.

Britain banned Size 0 models as a response to a Moral Panic. Yes, Anorexia's a problem - but then again, so are a LOT of eating disorders, no matter what the society's definition of "Beautiful" is. Some people are naturally Size 0. There is a problem with the Modeling Industry, and almost everyone recognizes it. What continues to confound me is that nobody's realized the fortune to be had by modeling larger women. However, the modelling industry is by definition objectification.

You want to argue all objectivication to women to any degree is sexist. In that case, "Everyone's a little bit sexist."

Treblaine:

RazadaMk2:

Hmm. I would argue against the idea of this being a moral panic. It doesnt have many of the key traits, plus the entire idea of a moral panic is batshit insane. Cohen was talking out of his arse. Interesting to read though.

That aside...

You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom because images have an affect upon people. A lot of annorexics (Female, in particular) will cite the "Perfect Body" arguments. By that I mean will cite the nature of the media and the images that it portrays makes, the current definition of beauty. So my "Barbie" defence? In my eyes (And the eyes of others, but obviously not you) it holds weight.

Sexism is not ok, objectifying women as sex objects = sexism, ergo, this game is inherrently sexist and therefore not ok. Should be simple enough logic to follow.

You are arguing that we objectify women naturally so that makes it ok. Well, you know what? I disagree. It may be natural to notice how attractive someone is, this I will admit. But drawing as much attention you can to this, treating women simply as sex objects, well, that is simply not ok. Finally, what is a "Natural" thing to do is culturally based. A few hundred years ago it was a "Natural" to enslave black people and make them pick cotton. Your definition of natural seems to simply be "The majority hold the opinion that the following is ok".

It is naturally for a heterosexual man to find a beautiful female beautiful. It is also natural if this then fosters thoughts about sex. However, Objetifying women purely as sex objects is not ok. And if you deny that this is the aim of the promotional pictures being discussed, well, you are quite simply blind.

So!

In summary!

I may be the only one on this forum making the barbie defence, but the barbie defence holds water and I am not the only one who holds this opinion.
Objectifying women purely as sex objects is bad. If you deny this, well, it sorta makes you sexist. Just saying.
I, personally, have no interest in playing such an inherently sexist, juvenile game.
I, personally, would rather games did not objectify women to this degree. I would rather society did not. I take offence when people think it is totally fine to do this. Objectifying women is distasteful, objectifying them to this degree is simply abhorrent.

And finally? This argument is circular. Most arguments on the internet are circular. But I have no time for this particular argument. Good day to you, Ser.

Treblaine here, sorry to interject but I must object to your logic on most of these points:

"You are trying to declare that images have no affect upon people. This is false. Size 0 models have been banned within the United Kingdom "

Is an appeal to authority. The UK government also - for a long time but not any more - banned homosexuality and chemically castrated Alan Turing (the father of modern computing who also broke the Nazi enigma code) for it, so it's not exactly an impeccable guide on this. The law is what it is, but the law in itself is NOT a reasoned argument. That is the logic of dictators.

You are also a bit of a hypocrite, you object to majority opinion as majority opinion once allowed slavery. Isn't that in contradiction with your argument from authority with a democratic government banning size zero?

And where is the science linking Barbie to anotexia? I bloody well hate it when people play amateur psychologists and claim they are making scientific judgements when really they are no different from drawing correlations, they have no evidence, no scientific method. Banning the depiction of Size zero is fundamentally.

Between the two of you you are clearly using two different definitions of objectification.

Objectification is VERY simple: it is depiction of a person as an object. Not an "objective" but an "object" as in "inanimate thing". Sexuality FUNDAMENTALLY defies that as people are attracted to PEOPLE! Doing a sexy dance does not "objectify" them that is animating them and making them MORE like a person. And appropriate use of objectification is in a Beauty pageant where the contestants are encourage NOT to be animate, to have a fixed expression, reduced movement pausing as often as possible for still shots. That is objectification. So like a statue.

So, clearly finding someone sexy is not objectification, so clearly Scow2 is wrong on the use of that term which makes your argument moot your conclusions from his misuse of the term.

By the way the term "sex object" is clearly figurative, not literal. And you added it, not anyone else. You cannot conclude:
Thinks they are Sexy -> Thinks they are a sex object -> Objectification

Please, show the REASON that noticing sex appeal in this case or ANY case necessarily relates

Objectification happens outside sexuality. Soldiers are objectified, to stand still to attention, not unnecessary movement, no expressed emotion or individual personality. When they serve they are just supposed to be killing machines to kill whoever they are ordered to kill. Carry whatever they are ordered to carry. Like machines, they are treated as objects, not people, they are "Personnel". See, objectification is nothing inherently to do with sex.

Only rarely can it ever even be applied to sex! Almost impossibly to apply it to entirely created depictions where every effort is moved towards personification.

You are innocently naive if you believe that sexuality cannot be objectified. I've seen it. Real objectification of actual women (or even roleplayed women) is offensive and abhorrent. You're right in correcting that I've misused the term. However, you have too by assuming Objects are inanimate. Modeling is Objectification, as are Exotic Dancers, because they're expressing pre-defined animation to define their actions: Yeah, they can choose the actual flow of the routine, but they're doing it as an expression of their body (An object), not themselves.

In your use, Tera DOES objectify women. But then again, so do ALL player-character models. And that's simply because the "body" of the character is an object, and nothing more. A modestly-dressed model is just as objectified as a nude or scantily-clad one. All you can do when looking at the model(Object) is make judgements based on an object.

Scow2:
You are innocently naive if you believe that sexuality cannot be objectified. I've seen it. Real objectification of actual women (or even roleplayed women) is offensive and abhorrent. You're right in correcting that I've misused the term. However, you have too by assuming Objects are inanimate. Modeling is Objectification, as are Exotic Dancers, because they're expressing pre-defined animation to define their actions: Yeah, they can choose the actual flow of the routine, but they're doing it as an expression of their body (An object), not themselves.

In your use, Tera DOES objectify women. But then again, so do ALL player-character models. And that's simply because the "body" of the character is an object, and nothing more. A modestly-dressed model is just as objectified as a nude or scantily-clad one. All you can do when looking at the model(Object) is make judgements based on an object.

"You are innocently naive if you believe that sexuality cannot be objectified."

You are incorrect if you think I said that. So why even entertain that baseless supposition? It muddies the issue.

I said finding someone sexy doesn't NECESSARILY lead to objectification. I gave examples of where is does exist even and the limitations of the definition of Objectification, such as Beauty Pageant Models or Soldiers on parade.

TERA doesn't objectify women, there are no women to objectify. For a REAL woman to be limited to set animations of a regimented dance, that is objectifying. To take a 3D model and to make it move like a person, that is personification. And when you are cast as the character to ROLE PLAY it is even more personified as it is to be used by an actual person to role play.

"A modestly-dressed model is just as objectified as a nude or scantily-clad one."

If that is your unique definition of objectification then it is a useless one as it is too broad. If all creative arts objectify every living thing then it's a pointless distinction.

Realise an object even if not a person can be personified, with a character and intentions and agency and free will (even if just an illusion of all of that).

image

This is not Kermit The Frog.

Think about that. Even though how he is depicted, all you know about him and how he acts he is not Kermit THE frog.

I tried to back back out of this thread. It is usually a good idea when things get too heated, I do not particularly want to get banned.

Firstly, my use of the word objectify. I am using it as it is commonly used. Within this context I am stating that turning women into sex objects (As the art style does. It does not bring to mind "Epic Warrior", instead it makes one think of a cheap porno. I am not the only one who thinks this). As in, the women are not being treated as women, but as things a man would want to stick his penis into, first and foremost.
Secondly, my barbie facts? Just simple things one could find out if one was bored enough. On another note, her arms are ridiculously out of proportion and her neck is simply too long.
Thirdly, my notes on annorexia. These come from several sources: Studying psychology, Studying sociology and, primarily, dating several annorexics. Oh, and a bulimic. Now, I will state freely that one of the key causes of annorexia is a lack of control (Or the feeling that one lacks control) however, the current fixation on thin people within the west is also a contributing factor. Media depictions of beauty within the west are also contributing to this. As for my comments on the banning of size zero models? Well, this was primarily done because being that thin causes major health issues, including heart failure. However, it was also done due to the negative impact it was seen to be having on society: Stating that an unhealthy lifestyle was attractive.

And finally, because I believe all of the above neatly summarizes my opinion, the argument that this is art and they can do whatever they like? My answer? So what. They could have chosen to do whatever they like and they chose to make a race that dresses like strippers, they chose to promote their game with SFW pornography. They CHOSE this art style. And, as a human, with free will, I can CHOOSE to find this art style not to my taste and I can choose to find it abhorrent.

It does make me feel ill when I see things like this. Because this, this could be damaging. This is simply pandering to anyone with a penis "Play this game! We have boobs! Lots of boobs!" and I find it distasteful. I find it disgusting. I find the defence of this hyper sexualization, this sexism, I find it disgusting.

A woman can be depicted as attractive without being depicted as sexy. A woman can be depicted as feminine without being depicted as a sex object. Fuck it, a woman does not need to be attractive or feminie to be a woman.

And now, I quote someone who seems to be agreeing with me, on general terms at least:

Emiscary:
I love how defensive people get when you point out needless hyper-sexualization in games. Mostly because I cannot imagine any context where you'd get the same kind of outrage at the *suggestion* that it should be curbed. Let's take say... "The Avengers". Now, if Joss Whedon had elected to dress Scarlett Johansson in a g-string & halter top and people complained about it, would you have marvel comic fans screaming:

"NO! NEVER! MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED SOMETIMES TO! RABBLE! ETC!" ?

If so mostly you'd just stare at them like they were a bunch of slack jawed idiots. Long story short: methinks the gamers doth protest too much. You don't *need* to have an erection at all times. And the fact that you insist that you do need one (or that there's some other more noble [and entirely fictitious reason] you wanna keep this shit in games...) implies some pretty sad things about you.

And I am done. Any issues you have with my opinions or use of language simply do not matter to me. I accept I will not change your mind. You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into, I think that it is wrong to do so. You love how women are depicted in games, I want games and gamers to grow the fuck up.

There was a fight for gender equality in textbooks at schools. I think its about time the same fight happened within games.

Oh no, sexually suggestive women are being promoted to increase a game's popularity. Let's throw another fucking tantrum about it. When will we live in a world where everyone in video games is either a pudgy, shapeless woman or a gangly, acne-scarred man? When will our self-esteem stop being relentlessly assaulted by good-looking, sexually suggestive character models?! When, God, when?!

The only boobs or ass that I like are ones that exist in reality and that I am allowed, scratch that, encouraged to touch. I'm so sick of being sold sexuality by mass media or even having to hear some dude say "oh, check her out." I don't care. I'm over it. Make the game characters completely naked and give them sex organs so big they obscure gameplay. It means nothing to me. Even that pretty real life waitress is a waste of my time. She is never ever going to have sex with me, I have no idea what she's even like, or what she likes. I will not expend the one calorie to tilt my head in her direction.

I'll extend that to pornography, too. There is nothing on this big old internet of ours that's going to make me orgasm quicker/better than I can with the power of my own imagination.

zelda2fanboy:
The only boobs or ass that I like are ones that exist in reality and that I am allowed, scratch that, encouraged to touch. I'm so sick of being sold sexuality by mass media or even having to hear some dude say "oh, check her out." I don't care. I'm over it. Make the game characters completely naked and give them sex organs so big they obscure gameplay. It means nothing to me. Even that pretty real life waitress is a waste of my time. She is never ever going to have sex with me, I have no idea what she's even like, or what she likes. I will not expend the one calorie to tilt my head in her direction.

I'll extend that to pornography, too. There is nothing on this big old internet of ours that's going to make me orgasm quicker/better than I can with the power of my own imagination.

I'll agree to the first point, but not the second.

I've got a pretty impressive collection of porn and I'm hooked into some of the better porn sharing communities. I'm now at the point where my imagination and my porn feed one another in a gloriously creepy cycle of perversion. It really is awesome. ;)

Emiscary:

I'll agree to the first point, but not the second.

I've got a pretty impressive collection of porn and I'm hooked into some of the better porn sharing communities. I'm now at the point where my imagination and my porn feed one another in a gloriously creepy cycle of perversion. It really is awesome. ;)

I have a massive porn collection too, but I never look at it anymore. I can get the same result with my eyes closed in the dark. It was a combination of a different kind of masturbation and the discovery of a fetish site that specialized in writing only. I figured out to write one of my own stories in the same style and once I did that, I could structure twisted fantasies in my head.

Fiz_The_Toaster:

DoPo:

Dirty Hipsters:

That's not even the worst or most "in your face" of it.

image

This is armor. ARMOR!

I see your armour and rise you ARMOUR!

Because to hell with vital organs!

The boobs must be protected!

The amount of skin covered on a female is inversely proportional to the protection of her armor. This is a scientific fact!

Jodah:

Fiz_The_Toaster:

DoPo:

I see your armour and rise you ARMOUR!

Because to hell with vital organs!

The boobs must be protected!

The amount of skin covered on a female is inversely proportional to the protection of her armor. This is a scientific fact!

Can't argue with science because science is serious business.

so...What's TNA?

BlakBladz:
so...What's TNA?

We're only allowed to tell you if you're under 18.

Are you under 18? :)

RazadaMk2:
I tried to back back out of this thread. It is usually a good idea when things get too heated, I do not particularly want to get banned.

Firstly, my use of the word objectify. I am using it as it is commonly used. Within this context I am stating that turning women into sex objects (As the art style does. It does not bring to mind "Epic Warrior", instead it makes one think of a cheap porno. I am not the only one who thinks this). As in, the women are not being treated as women, but as things a man would want to stick his penis into, first and foremost.
Secondly, my barbie facts? Just simple things one could find out if one was bored enough. On another note, her arms are ridiculously out of proportion and her neck is simply too long.
Thirdly, my notes on annorexia. These come from several sources: Studying psychology, Studying sociology and, primarily, dating several annorexics. Oh, and a bulimic. Now, I will state freely that one of the key causes of annorexia is a lack of control (Or the feeling that one lacks control) however, the current fixation on thin people within the west is also a contributing factor. Media depictions of beauty within the west are also contributing to this. As for my comments on the banning of size zero models? Well, this was primarily done because being that thin causes major health issues, including heart failure. However, it was also done due to the negative impact it was seen to be having on society: Stating that an unhealthy lifestyle was attractive.

And finally, because I believe all of the above neatly summarizes my opinion, the argument that this is art and they can do whatever they like? My answer? So what. They could have chosen to do whatever they like and they chose to make a race that dresses like strippers, they chose to promote their game with SFW pornography. They CHOSE this art style. And, as a human, with free will, I can CHOOSE to find this art style not to my taste and I can choose to find it abhorrent.

It does make me feel ill when I see things like this. Because this, this could be damaging. This is simply pandering to anyone with a penis "Play this game! We have boobs! Lots of boobs!" and I find it distasteful. I find it disgusting. I find the defence of this hyper sexualization, this sexism, I find it disgusting.

A woman can be depicted as attractive without being depicted as sexy. A woman can be depicted as feminine without being depicted as a sex object. Fuck it, a woman does not need to be attractive or feminie to be a woman.

And now, I quote someone who seems to be agreeing with me, on general terms at least:

Emiscary:
I love how defensive people get when you point out needless hyper-sexualization in games. Mostly because I cannot imagine any context where you'd get the same kind of outrage at the *suggestion* that it should be curbed. Let's take say... "The Avengers". Now, if Joss Whedon had elected to dress Scarlett Johansson in a g-string & halter top and people complained about it, would you have marvel comic fans screaming:

"NO! NEVER! MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED SOMETIMES TO! RABBLE! ETC!" ?

If so mostly you'd just stare at them like they were a bunch of slack jawed idiots. Long story short: methinks the gamers doth protest too much. You don't *need* to have an erection at all times. And the fact that you insist that you do need one (or that there's some other more noble [and entirely fictitious reason] you wanna keep this shit in games...) implies some pretty sad things about you.

And I am done. Any issues you have with my opinions or use of language simply do not matter to me. I accept I will not change your mind. You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into, I think that it is wrong to do so. You love how women are depicted in games, I want games and gamers to grow the fuck up.

There was a fight for gender equality in textbooks at schools. I think its about time the same fight happened within games.

"Firstly, my use of the word objectify. I am using it as it is commonly used."

You are misusing it in a meaningless way that damages ability for us to discuss this issue. What do you ACTUALLY mean by "objectify" it clearly is not the dictionary definition? See I think you are just using it as a pejorative with no discussion value. "Pejorative", look that term up while you are looking up "objectify"

"I'm not the only one who thinks this"

Is no argument. Think about all the wrong and awful things that have been justified by "me and mah buddies think it's all right".

Your Barbie facts are mis-representative for your ignorance of how art works. It does NOT have to be in natural proportions, just because someone makes a doll, sculpture or painting of someone with long arms that doesn't mean the artist wants them to have weak and frail arms. Just as Pablo Picasso doesn't want women to have their faces smashed so their eyes are on the other side of their face.

"I have studied" is not a source. This is a source:

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/pulmonary_disorders/tumors_of_the_lungs/lung_carcinoma.html?qt=&sc=&alt=

about link between smoking and lung cancer. Not related, but an example of what it means to give a source.

Facile logic to ban unhealthy depictions, as by that logic fat people should be banned from television and obesity is a FAR greater problem in the western world. Banning depiction of thin people this without any science to actually indicate that this is the major causative or contributory factor in anorexia is wrong. It's amateur psychologist speculation.

And May I just comment on your breathless insensitivity:

"only appeal to those with a penis"

Have you never heard of homosexuality? Gay men would have no interest in this and again, invisible lesbians, their agency and interest is totally ignored and marginalised. Typical heterosexist narcissism.

Sex =/= sexism

Sexism is denigrating based on gender. TERA game is very well balanced, the female of this race are not disadvantaged in any measure of combat prowess or ability to influence the narrative.

Again, abuse of the term "Sex object" as nothing but a contrived pejorative.

You aren't adding any discussion value here, you are throwing meaningless insults and shallow fallacious "observations".

Video games are comparatively FAR more tame in terms of sex than film. Where is the video game equivalent of Wild Things? A major feature film that included a THREESOME! Or American pie with full frontal female nudity?

"Any issues you have with my opinions or use of language simply do not matter to me."

That's blatant denialism. You don't even bother to think about what a negative effect you are having on this discussion.

"You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into"

That's a blatant straw-man attack, I do not hold that stance and you know this as I've never said I hold that stance. You have fabricated that stance out of no where only to denigrate me in an Ad Hominem attack.

Games already have gender equality, there is exactly the same capability to sexually admire men is games like TERA, what you are talking about is NOT equality, you want an arbitrary and unequal ban on female sexuality. The characters are equally capable in combat and gameplay in general across genders and species even.

It's very clear what you want, it's very clear what your prejudices are, and it's very clear you don't have any good reason for holding your stance, and ESPECIALLY NOT for why they should ever be imposed on anyone else against their free will, not morally, not legally, not in any way.

If you want to have an actual reasoned discussion rather than throw around fallacies, facile logic, pejoratives, slurs under a facade of denialism then I'd welcome that. But so far you don't seem to be willing to do that. Your personal prejudice (your apparent disgust) is no argument and cannot justify your fallacies.

Treblaine:

RazadaMk2:
I tried to back back out of this thread. It is usually a good idea when things get too heated, I do not particularly want to get banned.

Firstly, my use of the word objectify. I am using it as it is commonly used. Within this context I am stating that turning women into sex objects (As the art style does. It does not bring to mind "Epic Warrior", instead it makes one think of a cheap porno. I am not the only one who thinks this). As in, the women are not being treated as women, but as things a man would want to stick his penis into, first and foremost.
Secondly, my barbie facts? Just simple things one could find out if one was bored enough. On another note, her arms are ridiculously out of proportion and her neck is simply too long.
Thirdly, my notes on annorexia. These come from several sources: Studying psychology, Studying sociology and, primarily, dating several annorexics. Oh, and a bulimic. Now, I will state freely that one of the key causes of annorexia is a lack of control (Or the feeling that one lacks control) however, the current fixation on thin people within the west is also a contributing factor. Media depictions of beauty within the west are also contributing to this. As for my comments on the banning of size zero models? Well, this was primarily done because being that thin causes major health issues, including heart failure. However, it was also done due to the negative impact it was seen to be having on society: Stating that an unhealthy lifestyle was attractive.

And finally, because I believe all of the above neatly summarizes my opinion, the argument that this is art and they can do whatever they like? My answer? So what. They could have chosen to do whatever they like and they chose to make a race that dresses like strippers, they chose to promote their game with SFW pornography. They CHOSE this art style. And, as a human, with free will, I can CHOOSE to find this art style not to my taste and I can choose to find it abhorrent.

It does make me feel ill when I see things like this. Because this, this could be damaging. This is simply pandering to anyone with a penis "Play this game! We have boobs! Lots of boobs!" and I find it distasteful. I find it disgusting. I find the defence of this hyper sexualization, this sexism, I find it disgusting.

A woman can be depicted as attractive without being depicted as sexy. A woman can be depicted as feminine without being depicted as a sex object. Fuck it, a woman does not need to be attractive or feminie to be a woman.

And now, I quote someone who seems to be agreeing with me, on general terms at least:

Emiscary:
I love how defensive people get when you point out needless hyper-sexualization in games. Mostly because I cannot imagine any context where you'd get the same kind of outrage at the *suggestion* that it should be curbed. Let's take say... "The Avengers". Now, if Joss Whedon had elected to dress Scarlett Johansson in a g-string & halter top and people complained about it, would you have marvel comic fans screaming:

"NO! NEVER! MEN ARE OBJECTIFIED SOMETIMES TO! RABBLE! ETC!" ?

If so mostly you'd just stare at them like they were a bunch of slack jawed idiots. Long story short: methinks the gamers doth protest too much. You don't *need* to have an erection at all times. And the fact that you insist that you do need one (or that there's some other more noble [and entirely fictitious reason] you wanna keep this shit in games...) implies some pretty sad things about you.

And I am done. Any issues you have with my opinions or use of language simply do not matter to me. I accept I will not change your mind. You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into, I think that it is wrong to do so. You love how women are depicted in games, I want games and gamers to grow the fuck up.

There was a fight for gender equality in textbooks at schools. I think its about time the same fight happened within games.

"Firstly, my use of the word objectify. I am using it as it is commonly used."

You are misusing it in a meaningless way that damages ability for us to discuss this issue. What do you ACTUALLY mean by "objectify" it clearly is not the dictionary definition? See I think you are just using it as a pejorative with no discussion value. "Pejorative", look that term up while you are looking up "objectify"

"I'm not the only one who thinks this"

Is no argument. Think about all the wrong and awful things that have been justified by "me and mah buddies think it's all right".

Your Barbie facts are mis-representative for your ignorance of how art works. It does NOT have to be in natural proportions, just because someone makes a doll, sculpture or painting of someone with long arms that doesn't mean the artist wants them to have weak and frail arms. Just as Pablo Picasso doesn't want women to have their faces smashed so their eyes are on the other side of their face.

"I have studied" is not a source. This is a source:

http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/pulmonary_disorders/tumors_of_the_lungs/lung_carcinoma.html?qt=&sc=&alt=

about link between smoking and lung cancer. Not related, but an example of what it means to give a source.

Facile logic to ban unhealthy depictions, as by that logic fat people should be banned from television and obesity is a FAR greater problem in the western world. Banning depiction of thin people this without any science to actually indicate that this is the major causative or contributory factor in anorexia is wrong. It's amateur psychologist speculation.

And May I just comment on your breathless insensitivity:

"only appeal to those with a penis"

Have you never heard of homosexuality? Gay men would have no interest in this and again, invisible lesbians, their agency and interest is totally ignored and marginalised. Typical heterosexist narcissism.

Sex =/= sexism

Sexism is denigrating based on gender. TERA game is very well balanced, the female of this race are not disadvantaged in any measure of combat prowess or ability to influence the narrative.

Again, abuse of the term "Sex object" as nothing but a contrived pejorative.

You aren't adding any discussion value here, you are throwing meaningless insults and shallow fallacious "observations".

Video games are comparatively FAR more tame in terms of sex than film. Where is the video game equivalent of Wild Things? A major feature film that included a THREESOME! Or American pie with full frontal female nudity?

"Any issues you have with my opinions or use of language simply do not matter to me."

That's blatant denialism. You don't even bother to think about what a negative effect you are having on this discussion.

"You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into"

That's a blatant straw-man attack, I do not hold that stance and you know this as I've never said I hold that stance. You have fabricated that stance out of no where only to denigrate me in an Ad Hominem attack.

Games already have gender equality, there is exactly the same capability to sexually admire men is games like TERA, what you are talking about is NOT equality, you want an arbitrary and unequal ban on female sexuality. The characters are equally capable in combat and gameplay in general across genders and species even.

It's very clear what you want, it's very clear what your prejudices are, and it's very clear you don't have any good reason for holding your stance, and ESPECIALLY NOT for why they should ever be imposed on anyone else against their free will, not morally, not legally, not in any way.

If you want to have an actual reasoned discussion rather than throw around fallacies, facile logic, pejoratives, slurs under a facade of denialism then I'd welcome that. But so far you don't seem to be willing to do that. Your personal prejudice (your apparent disgust) is no argument and cannot justify your fallacies.

Fuck it. I was going to back out. But with things like this, I am just prevented from doing so. I keep being dragged back in.

The only mistake I will admit to have made was the "Penis" comment due to being incredibly tired. You are right. Plenty of gay men would be uninterested, plenty of gay women would be interested. The point is that the characters are being depicted as sex objects.

Two quick points.

ob·jec·ti·fy

verb (used with object), ob·jec·ti·fied, ob·jec·ti·fy·ing.
to present as an object, especially of sight, touch, or other physical sense; make objective; externalize.

sex object

noun
a person viewed as being of little interest or merit beyond the potential for providing sexual gratification.

So, my use of the word objectify? I am stating that the women are being objectifyed as sex objects. Boom. Correct use of the word.

And now?

My final, closing statement?

You are very well spoken. Let me admit that. You take much more effort with your posts than I ever would. But, well, I will be ignoring your entire argument based on a single point.

"Games already have gender equality".

Bahahaha. No. Games do not have anything similar to gender equality. You attacked me for slipping up and forgetting about gay men at 3am? I attack you for using binary genders. Simple enough.

However, that is just a pointless distraction from the actual issue right? Nobody would bring up something so pointless, it was just a mistake, nothing more, right?

*sigh*

As for the debate?

Just keep reading that person I quoted. I have no reason to read rather eloquent personal attacks. If you cannot see how treating women as sex objects is bad, well, thats fine. Some people are blind to issues, I guess. If you cannot see how the insane level of sexualisation within computer games can be damaging or is just plain sexist, well, thats fine. Some people just dont care.

Oh, and when I stated that "You think it is totally fine to depict women as little more than things to put your cock into" this is the same point I use in many debates.

If you do not want to change something, you are agreeing with it. Since you are arguing that there is nothing wrong with the depiction of women in the way they are being depicted within TERA, you think there is nothing wrong with them being depicted as little more than things to put your cock into. You are defending the view so it is safe to assume as much.

pure.Wasted:

BlakBladz:
so...What's TNA?

We're only allowed to tell you if you're under 18.

Are you under 18? :)

no :(

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked