Is sexy the same as sexism?
Are sexualization and objectification the same?
Discuss these intriguing questions in this thread (and not in the Zelda one).
But really, try to keep any debate about this subject inside of this thread.
>Is sexy the same as sexism?
There exists a razor thin line between the two, but no, sexy doesn't equal sexism by default. Look at Zero Suit Samus as an example – though Samus looks sexy in the Zero Suit, her sexiness in no way defines her as a character.
It kind of did in Other M, along with her frailty as a woman.
I mean what other reason was there for her armor to vanish and the camera to pan around her ass during her breakdown?
So tired of this.
Plus4 is worse than tumblr. Go fuck right off. Your OP is a complete exaggeration and complaining about objectification for a god damned Japanese-made video game is completely pointless because THAT'S HOW THEY ROLL.
"thats how they roll" is a retarded defence, its meaningless and doesn't stop what they are doing from being bad.
>Is sexy the same as sexism?
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
Like, fuck I really hope I don't have to explain the difference to full grown people, Christ.
What we are really talking about here is how games are unfairly geared towards male audiences in pursuit of profit and how they attempt to use sex appeal to lure gamers which results in objectification and thusly creates very gross contingents of fans.
Add two things to every game and the problem goes away, a sexualized male and a non-sexualized female, boom, everyone is happy.
I don't get the "male power fantasy" argument for the male design in games, in the sense as making it not as bad as the sexualized females. Those guys are still impossible ideals, and if you consider teenagers to be so impressionable that they will grow into patriarchal rape culture-fueled mysoginistic oppressors and so on, then the male characters would also be damaging in some sense. At least those designs would be lend to body-image issues equally as problematic as teenge girls wishing to be like the current pop star, but I don't think I haver ever seen somebody making that argument.
Of course, one wrong does not make another wrong right, but it is odd to me that people would denounce half of the problem and ignore the other.
Again, this is going under the assumption that teenagers are THAT impressionable. If you say they are and that they will turn into sexual objectificators because they see big boobs in their games, then it's a bit hypocrite to also say they one teen won't take a gun and start shooting people because they do so in their games.
> designed by a woman
> told by Kamiya to make her as refined an smart looking as possible
> thematically, her being a witch is actually interesting, as those were the few positions of power for women allowed in oldschool fiction
> total badass
> confident, independent, flirty without being slutty
> her sexuality depicted as a positive trait
> game explores themes of maternity and dealing with daddy issues in a MUCH more positve way than Other M
> her growing friendship with Jeanne is something you rarely see depicted in games with female mains
She should be hailed as a feminist icon, and yet plenty of people discard her as being cheap fapbait and whatnot.
>I don't get the "male power fantasy" argument for the male design in games, in the sense as making it not as bad as the sexualized females.
This is because you've already completely misunderstood the argument before you've even begun. It's not about one being 'better' than the other. It's about them being different from one another. It's a counter-argument to the claim that hey, look, fucking He-Man's got his shirt off, sexualization goes both ways! Well, no, because He-Man isn't designed to make girls want to bang him, he's designed to make boys want to be him. Different things. You can argue until you're blue in the face about whether that's harmful in itself or not but they still remain different things.
Shitty marketing? Most feminists I know who've actually played the game feel as you do.
This implies that anyone actually accepts Other M as canon (or as ever having existed).
> he's designed to make boys want to be him
So, it IS objectification.
Also, you cherry-picked a part of my post without addressing the rest. I do admit that calling one being better or worse is stupid, but that's exactly my point. Striving for equality should benefit all parts involved, not just your "side". By dismissing that there is another half to the problem, you ARE weakening your argument.
> You can argue until you're blue in the face about whether that's harmful in itself or not
You know, you don't sound much better than the THATS HOW THEY ROLL guy up there in the thread.
Uh, no. What I'm saying is that you are taking the power fantasy/sexual fantasy dichotomy in a vacuum, when in reality it only comes up in response to people conflating (examples only, substitute your own if you don't like them) He-man and Zero Suit Samus.
Sexy is not the same as sexism, but sexy can easily be sexism and many times is. Male power fantasy isn't objectification, but rather deification, practically the exact opposite. Tiki is right in that with games with sexy girls there should be sexy guys too (and being ripped is not enough) and in games where the guys cover up the girls should too.
Bayonetta's arguable in that she is great at female empowerment even though at first glance she's everything wrong with the industry, but Zero Suit Samus is possibly the worst example you could ever choose. She's the only sexualized character Nintendo has got, and sexualization absolutely defines the Zero Suit.
Yeah Other M, which is probably the game that had the most screentime for the Zero-suit design (other than Smash but that barely counts) is also the only Metroid that beat you over the head with "She's a woman! Her emotions make her incapable of making tough decisions!"
Because I don't think she's a particularly interesting character. At least any more than say Dante was but Dante at least had the benefit of having some interesting co-stars that helped him along in DMC3. The most Bayo has is Luka and he's comic relief for 70% of the game. Along with that OTHER comic relief character and that OTHER semi-comic relief character. Another one if we count the kid.
As an icon I think she's just okay. As a character I think she falls flat, mostly cause her story wasn't very good.
Oh also all the bitching about her anatomy probably didn't help.
>"thats how they roll" is a retarded defence, its meaningless and doesn't stop what they are doing from being bad.
But it's NOT bad. It's their CULTURE. It's acceptable, and even encouraged, in THEIR country. And saying that they should change, just because they don't meet YOUR expectations of what's socially acceptable, only enforces the idea that America is the world police.
Remember when Mirror's Edge came out? That's an American-made game. Yet in Japan, there was fanart of her having anime eyes and bigger boobs. And guess what? That was accepted as a superior design over there. Over here, obviously we think it's pretty offensive, but that single piece of edited art stirred up a lot of attention for the game.
So yeah, "That's how they roll" IS an acceptable defense, because unless you want to change the entirety of how Japan treats women, you're not doing a damn thing by bitching and moaning.
Japan is a country which is outwardly and unembarassedly backwards in relation to sexual politics, and even any other kind of "being different." This is a country whose motto is "The nail that sticks up will get hammered down."
Do not use the fact that "Japan is fine with it!" as though it makes sexist behavior or design palatable. You may as well be saying "It was fine with America in the 1950's!"
I'm not saying it's fine. I'm saying that this isn't about what appeals to the market, it comes down to the country itself, and there is absolutely NO fucking point in complaining because unlike American video game companies, they're not going to listen to your shit, for obvious reasons. Especially since it's NEVER going to change. Ever.
And that's why your analogy is poor, because America evolved pretty quickly over time, while Japan has been in an effectual state of limbo.
This is essential a sexual politics thread. Why is it in the video game section? Throw it in /baw/ or something, not here.
Otaku culture is really not something you should just shrug off as cultural differences. It's terrible no matter how you look at it, even compared to the rest of Japan which is already sexist (and we can say that even if it is cultural differences that influence that.) This game isn't being bitched about because it's yet another game with stupid sexist shit in it, it's because it's a a game with stupid sexist shit in it that generally has much higher standards. It's saying that Dynasty Warriors is worse than Nintendo for pandering to otakus, and you don't have to be a SJW to see that.
Nor does it even make the game trash, it looks like a good game. You can say it looks like a good game while also noting that it's got that shit in it.
>He-Man isn't designed to make girls want to bang him, he's designed to make boys want to be him.
You don't see how there might be at least a *little* overlap between those two thoughts? Especially given how much of a cultural imperative it is for men to have sex in order to be seen as successful?
Oh there's overlap certainly but it isn't intentional on the company's part at all. The female audience doesn't come into play at all for a character like He-Man.
In fact if a bunch of female fans were to start liking He-man the companies response would probably be to shut it down and start over. It happened with Young Justice.
The toy industry is fucked up.
Given how internet nerdlingers are still upset about him in exactly the way that Kojima appears to have been going for, I'm going to say Raiden was one of the most impressive works of art in video gaming history.
>This is essential a sexual politics thread. Why is it in the video game section? Throw it in /baw/ or something, not here.
It's in response to the Zelda design decisions and how they relate to the sexism issues in Gamer Culture. Essentially, one of the people in the Zelda thread decided that they wanted to not be bothered by being forced to think about difficult issues that were relevant to the discussion at hand, so they created another thread to try and toss it into so they could continue trying to pretend that the issue doesn't exist.
>so they could continue trying to pretend that the issue doesn't exist.
You have any idea how much you sound like tumblr right now? I want to talk about Zelda, not shit that's bigger than Zelda. I'm not pretending it doesn't exist, I just DON'T FUCKING FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING IT.
>I just DON'T FUCKING FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING IT.
Then put pressure on the developers you follow to stop kicking hornet's nests like this. Being forced to hear about people being upset by their decisions is a price the developers are making YOU pay by making those decisions. It is a discussion about Zelda, and has every right to be had in a Zelda thread.
Don't get me wrong--I don't think you REALIZE that what you're doing is marginalizing controversial opinions. I think you're just self-centered enough to think that the fact that you are being irritated by the discussion justifies you working in ways to silence the voices of those who have those opinions.
>It is a discussion about Zelda
Wrong, you ignorant fuck. It's a discussion about feminism, using Zelda as an example. It has NOTHING to do with Zelda, you're just using Zelda as a way to make it easier for you to force your third-wave hardcore feminism in people's faces, because Zelda happens to be popular.
Are we silencing you? No. But I am so FUCKING tired of seeing this discussion pop up everywhere. What about the ones who don't give a fuck? Do our opinions not matter? Are we such horrible people that we need to put up with your shit, "for the good of all"?
You can actually SEE the conversation polarize and witness the middle ground vanish RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES!
>But I am so FUCKING tired of seeing this discussion pop up everywhere. What about the ones who don't give a fuck?
That's called "tacit approval." You approve of the actions of the openly sexist members of the community, at least enough to not want to do anything to prevent them from doing it. You are trying to paint yourself as having the moral high ground by pretending like you're just not taking a side, but you ARE taking a side.
Tumblr logic, people.
But ok, keep doing what you're doing. Insane people never think they're insane.
Are you actively working to stop slavery in Africa?
Are you actively working to stop child prostitution from happening around the world?
What about the widening gap between the upper and lower classes, are you actively trying to help that issue?
Because if you aren't actively fighting those things then according to your logic you approve of all of them and take sides with slave owners, pimps and corrupt politicians.
And this all because the new Zelda has a costume that shows a bit of her thighs.
Look at you wrought OP. Are you proud?
>pointing out that True Neutrality does not exist makes one a tumblr nutjob
The following are generic statements and apply to many contexts, not limited to this thread's topic:
If you do not take any side at all (this does not imply that only two sides exist), you do not make a statement of neutrality, you are eliminating yourself from the discussion entirely. You do not count, because you effectively do not exist. You do not increase any side's number.
This means that the side that has the greater numbers will win. You might not directly support it, but you did nothing to lower its numbers either. You may believe you do not support the winner, but you definitely did not mind the winner winning.
If you "do not care", it means you implicitly agree with WHOEVER IS WINNING NO MATTER WHO, because that is what absolute neutrality leads to.
Since we're doing this now apparently, I've gotta say, feminism as it relates to gaming is doing a very good job of making themselves look impossible to please. As much as the (childish, immature, retarded) opposition claims that feminism just wants to take away the toys and ruin everything, complaints like these that can't seem to look at the bigger picture
We've got a game where you play as Zelda in combat situations. She's not running around using her superpowers of crying like Peach, or waiting for permission to be badass like Samus in Other M. She's out there fighting the good fight with light arrows and adventuring without being a pure pallete swap of a male character.
We've got Bayonetta kicking the ass out of the Bechdel test and passing that with flying colors, again being badass, having all kinds of agency, unique powers out the wazoo.
Yet there's always something to find fault in, isn't there? Just once could you guys maybe celebrate something instead of complaining about exposed thighs? So acter all the rigamarole about how you should judge women by their actions and character and not what they're wearing, now it's okay because....because what? Because you're doing it? Because you're offended? Because it appeals to male audiences?
At the very least, talk about the good as well as the bad? I wouldn't mind you complaining about the Sorceress in Dragon's Crown if you didn't also pretend as if the elf didn't exist. Yeah, Dead or Alive is full of fanservice, but it's got one of the most gender balanced casts in fighting game history and none of the women are damsels.
No one is entirely happy with ANY game, but it's possible to accept the flaws without making a huge deal about how offended you are. These things are supposed to be fun, remember? Maybe stop trying to suck it all out in the name of a constantly shifting and moving target that you claim is equality. For all the talk about how gamers are trying to marginalize your opinions, I have to wonder, what about all the women that have been playing video games for the last 3 decades and are chill and have no problem, HAD no problems, until this recent wave of Internet Feminism started talking on their behalf and making everyone involved suspicious of them?
>opinion must imply action or it does not exist
Would you argue in favor of either of those? Would you argue against people who are against those?
>derailment stratagem: escalation of context
How are your examples on the same level as the opinions of "gamers" about political topics?
Since the context is the "gaming community": you might not actually be as neutral as you claim; you are opposed to this topic in particular, not to any topic regarding acceptable/non-acceptable behavior in the "gaming community".
You do not believe that this topic is an issue, because it does not affect you beyond seeing discussion that you do not want to see, so you do not want it discussed.
>Are we silencing you? No. But I am so FUCKING tired of seeing this discussion pop up everywhere.
But you do want people to stop talking about it where you might see it because seeing it [hurts your feelings]. That looks awfully similar to the opinion you appear to oppose.
I love how completely overexaggerated OP's pic is.
Third-wave feminists can go die.
Looks pretty mild to me.
It'd be funny if there was a similar pic directed at Stubble Jaw, but I know that'd go right over you asshats.
>Since we're doing this now apparently, I've gotta say, feminism as it relates to gaming is doing a very good job of making themselves look impossible to please.
Feminism and feminists are not some sort of singular entity. No more than a political party or any other group of people. Fix your thoughts and don't think of groups as wholes. Think of them as being made up of individuals, because they are.
You aren't going to "please feminists" anymore than you're going to "please gamers". Do you have any idea how many people fall under that umbrella? That's one of the reasons there are so many different games out there: because everyone has their own opinions and tastes.
>Look at you wrought OP. Are you proud?
Yes. The Zelda thread is on topic now and you can hide this one if you don't like it.
Note that Other M wasn't what introduced the Zero Suit, it wasn't designed with that game in mind.
>Yes. The Zelda thread is on topic now and you can hide this one if you don't like it.
Which just goes to prove the earlier point: this thread was created so that people who are happy with the status quo can pretend that the people who aren't happy with the status quo don't exist. Like they've been doing all along.
We know the issue exists. We just think there's an appropriate place for everything.
We want to talk about Zelda as the series in the Zelda thread. This thread is for the concept in general.
Of which I am not fit to discuss.
>You do not believe that this topic is an issue, because it does not affect you beyond seeing discussion that you do not want to see, so you do not want it discussed.
You're blatantly putting words into my mouth at this point. I do believe this topic is an issue, I really do. But I don't think it's as pervasive and omnipresent as a lot of people make it out to be.
When Other M came out, I complained about it's portrayal of Samus both as a character and as a woman, and the blatantly sexist overtones that came with it.
You talk about tacit approval, but when I think something stinks I make a fuss about it. We just might not agree on what constitutes a problem (for example, cleavage in a Zelda game).
Dude, we're fucking acknowledging you and this issue right now. This is the busiest thread on the board. And yeah, other people can ignore you if they want to. Instead of complaining that every single person isn't listening to you talk about sexism in games, why don't you get back to talking about sexism in games? There's a big crowd in this thread and you have the stage, you want people to hear your gripes and we're listening. So let's get back on topic - what specifically is bothering you? We know it bothers you that some people aren't listening to your problems, but what are those problems? Tell us.
>You talk about tacit approval, but when I think something stinks I make a fuss about it. We just might not agree on what constitutes a problem (for example, cleavage in a Zelda game).
Which is the same thing as saying you approve of it, yes. That's exactly what I said. You tacitly approve of the character designs in the new Zelda. I'm glad you're following me on this.
You don't care about this issue. You just want to argue. You're a piece of shit that gives people who actually work on this issue the shit image they have to work with on top of everything else.
I don't care about pretenses, lock this fucking thread.
Although, it could also be some troll hoping to put everyone off the subject so it doesn't get brought up again. I'm not sure which is more pathetic.
> You tacitly approve of the character designs in the new Zelda
Not that guy, but this is a ridiculous statement. You guys are acting like zealot fanatcis, zero tolerance for anything that isn't within your views. When talking about friggin' viodeogames. I am all for equality, and I do think there are problems how female characters and developed in games... but I don't "taciitly" approve this new Zelda design, I fucking approve it loud and clear.
The recent Ubisoft brouhaha with the female assassins in unity? That's an actual issue worth complaining, one that shows the underlining problems with the industry. But Zelda showing a bit of her thighs? Are you people for real? Are you guys now just scanning for videogame news for new excuses to be offended? Because that's how I read it. Choose your fights, Don Quixote fighting the windmills only made him appear as a fool and a lunatic.
>I don't "taciitly" approve this new Zelda design, I fucking approve it loud and clear.
Then how is it a controversial statement? You're the one getting defensive about it. The only reason you should take offense to someone saying you approve of those designs is if you feel like you should feel ashamed of approving of those designs.
I am not taking offense, I have no idea why do you think that. Ijust think it is ridiculous that all of this argument was spawned from that particular piece of artwork, which has absolutely nothing wrong going on.
When you go extreme with a view you usually end up circling the spectrum, for instance you can fight tumblr with tumblr.
i.e. the weirdly fufuheaded reaction to this "highly sexualized" costume could be called slut shaming.
This kind of shit is why Kotaku thrives on game culture because it's priorities are all fucked up.
Sweet Christ, a cop literally tore the testicles off a black boy, getting your delicates in a bunch over this design? Get your head on straight.
Y'know what the difference between old and new feminism is? Old-school feminism got shit done. They took to the streets, made their voices heard to everyone and fucking DEMANDED change. And you know what? They got what they wanted.
These days, all I see is angry rants on forums, blogs or other forms of social media. And you know what? It's totally meaningless. If you really care about this issue, then put some actual fucking effort into fighting for it. Organize a protest-rally in front of Ubisoft's offices, or something. Get mainstream media attention. Form an actual united front. Pick your battles. This kind of armchair-activism and scathing articles on niche websites will not change anything.
>Feminism and feminists are not some sort of singular entity.
Didn't say it was. I said *as it relates to gaming*. Although if it'll make you feel better, I'll continue to divide that into "The vocal majority of persons that identify as feminist and speak on the subject of video games."
Because god forbid we actually admit there's a problem instead of just doing the same old "we're not all like that song and dance".
>I just DON'T FUCKING FEEL LIKE DISCUSSING IT.
Then fucking don't. Nobody said you had to get involved.
>Just once could you guys maybe celebrate something instead of complaining about exposed thighs
Happens all the time. Seriously, all the goddamn time. Games like Fantasy Life, Pokemon, Dark Souls don't get shat on, they're celebrated. Legend of Zelda isn't constantly shat on, and people celebrate that the game has multiple playable female characters. That doesn't make Tecmo's shitty additions go away though. People do not have to add a disclaimer that they do not hate everything any time they wat to say anything remotely negative.
>Happens all the time.
Not by the same people, not in the same amounts, not with the same volume, and never in the same statement.
Video games are never not going to be sexist because there's always going to be something to complain about. So why bother trying to appease the unpleasable?
You realize of course that "Zelda Designs" refers to "Designs in the Zelda video game, i.e. Hyrule Warriors" not necessarily just the designs of the Zelda character, yes? The design of the Zelda character herself is not an issue for everyone who has problems with the juvenile costume designs in Hyrule Warriors. She's actually one of the BETTER designs in that game.
Since when? The vast bulk of the complaints have been about Zelda the character. Specifically the lower neckline on the breast plate and the flappy open skirt thing. No one is complaining about Impa or Midna, and we don't know enough about the sorceress to talk about it one way or the other.
>Feminism and feminists are not some sort of singular entity. No more than a political party or any other group of people. Fix your thoughts and don't think of groups as wholes. Think of them as being made up of individuals, because they are.
NOT ALL MEN
Impa and Midna are good. Cia and the new girl are awful (and we can say that about their designs without playing through the whole game first, and we can say that about Cia's motivation as Nintendo handed it to us), while Zelda is good with problems compared to her regular design.
>Cia and the new girl are awful (and we can say that about their designs without playing through the whole game first
I really don't see how Cia is any worse than Twinrova or Veran or Ruto, except that now you notice because it's not using blocky or pixelated low-def renditions. (And because now there's more casuals in the pool.)
What the fuck does that even mean in this context? Are you just shouting buzzphrases to try and look like you have a point?
All those games have shown graphics that properly show off the characters. Veran, Ruto and Twinrova can be seen as sexy yes. But they're designs that aren't sexy for sexy's sake, and they all actually show off the characters' personalities and roles in ways that Cia fails to.
The Great Fairies are known as titfairies because of their relative nudity, but they're a creepy fantastical strange design that uses female sexuality for the sake of the character. Cia is very clearly the boobwitch, a character with an incredibly boring sexy-and-nothing-else design and a motivation of wanting to bone Link so hard she turned evil. Even if you don't want to say it's sexist, there's no way you can think it's not boring.
But they're designs that aren't sexy for sexy's sake, and they all actually show off the characters' personalities and roles in ways that Cia fails to.
>Cia and the new girl are awful (and we can say that about their designs without playing through the whole game first, and we can say that about Cia's motivation as Nintendo handed it to us),
How can you possibly know the full extent of the character's personality and role when all you have to go on is a press release? They may surprise you. The only real difference between Cia at this point and Veran and Ruto and Twinrova is *hindsight*. Heck, we don't even know the "new girl"s *name* yet, and we're already dismissing her on what, her bare midriff alone?
I'm dismissing the midriff, and I'm dismissing "lusted for Link so hard she turned evil." Nobody's complained about things we don't know. Cia may turn out to be an okay character, the new girl might be really likable. Their designs will still be bad. The whole point is that you can get a sense of power or mystic alien or fae creep when you look at previous characters who had some skin showing. The new designs are sexy for sexy's sake, and that's about all you can say about them. The new Zelda design is great about adding armor to make her look more likea general for a war game, but then the only reason the top bits of her dress disappear is because... for sexy's sake. Sexy for sexy's sake, especially in a series where that's not usually the case, can be called problematic without being considered totally out of line. Nobody would want a moe harem in the next LoZ, after all.
Actually, it occurs to me that you've contradicted your own logic. If Cia's motivation, either in part or in full, is that she wants to seduce Link, isn't that an in universe justification for her dressing as a seductress might, and is therefore not merely for the pleasure of the audience?
No. Because Cia is not a real person, she is a character created by a committee who decided her motivation based on focus testing and extensive thought about what message they wanted to send. If they decided on "Seduction," they did it to give the audience boners.
Good lord, you're worse than Moe.
Lock this goddamn thread right now.
Okay I've decided when we do this I'm posting a picture of the character so let's look, yes, she is dressed quite provocatively.
We could also mention the great fairy, but lets get back to that.
Lets start thinking with what you were dancing around, which is character design.
Now typically when you design a character you do so with a role in mind for them to play in the story, let's look at Cia's role in the story then.
"Originally a person of morals, Cia has grown provocative and aggressive due to her corruption. She is not afraid to speak openly about her desires and thus, have a strong sense of self. She wants to make the world and everything in it hers, especially Link."
So a women who has fallen to evil temptation in pursuit of physical desires.
Now if you compare the designs of the other female characters her design makes sense, she's a lust driven, possessed evil sorceress.
That is with the exception of the great fairy the only provacative female design I could find in the game though if you'd like to propose more we'll have that discussion.
So what this conversation now boils down to is, Is Cia's design bad? In my opinion and given the context of her role in the story I would say no.
Now with the design of the great fairy this is much simpler, she's the same design from Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, a giant green women in drag queen style make up means you can't broker any arguments that she doesn't fit in the games.
Bearing this in mind Cia's design seems even less out of place.
I can't find anything on the "new girl" that's being talked about here.
Said it on the Zelda thread (which more or less got me a GTFO as a reply) and I will say it again here.
I find it extremely odd that so many posters are having this argument, while plus4chan has a board like /pco/.
It would be like the employees of a store that has a sex shop and porn section having a loud and passionate argument about sexism and degradation of women by mysonogistic media and how should NOT be tolerated no exceptions... while standing right next to racks of porn blu-rays, a wall-covering poster of topless pornstar, and a mannequin dressed in full S&M gear. Except, those employess at least would have the excuse of needing the money.
So to review, the other older designs of Veran, Ruto, etc, are okay, even though they were equally designed by committee, get a pass, because, "they all actually show off the characters' personalities and roles in ways that Cia fails to".
You're not going to say *how* they do this. Just they just do.
Cia's design however, fails to meet any of these required points, because reasons, and is very clearly only fore the puerile enjoyment of the audience, even if they flat out tell you "this is her personality and role." and her design coincides with that immensely.
Again, not going to explain why this is an exception to the rule. It just is.
Do you at least see how inconsistent you're being?
...Is this just because you hate Team Ninja? I could respect that.
This board, like many others, is just another reflection of the internet at large. tumblr (which most of plus4 posters seem to hail from these days) is also 85% porn, 13% screaming cunts and 2% actual discussion. We're actually doing fairly well, since I'd say our share of actual discussion is way larger.
Apparently in some people's minds, being against having juvenile sex fantasies inserted into non-pornographic media means being against porn in general.
It's kinda funny. Instead of a containment board we only have a containment thread, because we're so tiny.
I'd argue being unable to handle that there are people who like sexiness and sex fantasies are the juvenile ones. I mean at least the people making skimpy clothed characters are doing what they consider to be fun rather than attempting to impose some sort of black and white morality over how much skin on a character is being shown.
The comic is great but that post is full of misunderstandings of feminism, waves right? First was suffergette's who protested and accomplished much like the right to vote however they were very full of religion fervor and blamed the drink for abuse they suffered rather than abusers; then comes second wave which in all honesty pretty much got women back to square one after they lost so much in rights following WW2 and got them full rights (sans labor, which is the kind of actual injustice that we should be concerned with as opposed to what videogame characters are wearing) then third wave which I saw blamed in this thread for something which was dumb, like really dumb.
See Third wave feminism which we are still kinda in is the best wave of feminism yet, both first and second wave had REALLY REALLY shitty aspects like severe racism and poor generation communication hence why it is in waves rather than continous, third wave is world wide inclusive, it has protest vastly more than any other femisnt movement though a lot of people don't see that because of western media bias, Third Wave is global hence many of the protest happen in countries where they are ignored by the media, so don't talk shit about modern feminism when what you are really talking about is faux-femisnist hash-tag activists (usually males and well meaning but misguided though that's a little too judgmental on my part) who have no idea what actual female issues are.
That said we're going to see a lot more of this soon, Videogames are a relatively new-industry and the industry is realizing there is a growing need for good female representation and while it's irritating how much of the criticism is misguided it will eventual even itself out and the industry will be more accepting of game concepts, hell that's a huge chunk of why indies are blowing up while Triple A's fail left and right, because Triple A's have to fit in a lot of restrictive boxes.
>both first and second wave had REALLY REALLY shitty aspects like severe racism and poor generation communication hence why it is in waves rather than continous, third wave is world wide inclusive, it has protest vastly more than any other femisnt movement though a lot of people don't see that because of western media bias,
So all the women of color that feel marginalized and claim that the feminist movement as it stands has become very western and white middle class centric are full of shit? Internalized misogynists? Only seeing the media bias?
How come every time any piece of feminism comes under criticism by anyone, the go to response is "that's not feminism"?
Leaving this here because I thought it was kind of interesting, especially the last sentence.
You missed the point of what I was saying, those are all problems that are very valid with feminism.
I just don't think this is a feminist issue, I think this is a case of misguided and well-meaning people.
The old adage, you know? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I just think it's really disingenuous to assume that anyone that's full of shit must be a "faux-feminist" or a misguided dude. Really, is that even a thing? Because of its size and the fact that it's so schism-ed, all you need to be feminist is to identify as such. They do, so they're part of the movement, and thus make the movement worthy of criticism.
Now, if you want to organize a campaign to kick them out, that's a different story altogether and one plenty of people would love to support.
Listen, I mentioned that's my opinion and a very judgmental one at that and I could be very wrong about it.
As for the matter of banning ignorant people from anything I'm against that because it backfires and we've seen that and it's WAAAAAAAAAY worse.
You wanna educate people, give them a sense of perspective and focus on things but not kick them out, it just makes bitter monsters and the world has far too many of those already.
> The fact that Mario was Italian didn't matter to me and many others back when I was speedrunning Super Mario Bros. at 7 years old. 13 years later and it still doesn’t bother me that Patricia Wagon is a white female, arguably the opposite of me: a black male. To say or imply that non-white people cannot relate to white characters or that women cannot relate to male characters is patronising to say the least.
Truer words have never been said. If race and gender don't matter at all (and it realy doesn't) then it's odd to make such a huge deal about race and gender in videogames. Yes, it would be nice to have more female and "POCs" (a term I seriously dislike), but some of the louder voices in the argument make it sound like they simply can't connect with a white male characters, which is equally as bigoted as a white guy saying he won't play with a female or a black characters.
I've never really seen it as me personally identifying or connecting but more is it a good story plus is the game fun to play. Course either of those failing and I kinda lose interest right quick.
The bottom line is the when it comes to sex appeal usage it's a very slippery slope.
In short terms, it boost sells because there is no shortage horny boys, that would at least remember the game.
But for the long term, it's damaging for scaring away girls and parents. And worst, developers can and will uses it more as a crutch. Or the, also damaging, opposite effect of them avoiding the use of females altogether.
>But for the long term, it's damaging for scaring away girls and parents.
It really depends how the sex appeal is employed, though. Let's take Dead or Alive, probably the most glaring case of sexual objectification of female characters in gaming... and yet you would be surprised as to how big the franchise's female fanbase is. I recall reading about this one DoA fangirl who had an absolutely HUGE collection of all sort of stuff related to the games, and when asked if all the dolls and posters and thotchkes with big breasted girls wearing skimpy outfits bothered her, the answer was more or less "nope, they are all so pretty and cool". I think the difference is that the Team Ninja guys may be huge perverts, but they treat the girls with care (remember, Itagaki considered them his daughters, hahahaha) instead of just being meat to feed the beasts, and it shows. The franchise is almost two decades old and still going strong, so It's pretty clear the T&A hadn't hurt the sales in the log rung, and least not just for being T&A.
As for the parents, I think nobody but Nintendo cares. It's been a while since children had been the main target of the video game industry.
If race and gender don't matter at all, then what's the problem with people wanting more of it? Even if the game companies "cowtow and pander" and make characters those things, it has no negative influence, because it doesn't matter.
Or maybe for all the talk about how games are sexist, all this complaining does is garner the opposite effect. Remember Remember Me? Then you're one of maybe a dozen people. Meanwhile everyone and their grandmother was talking about Dragon's Crown and how it was leading to the downfall of society. All that negative hype did was make Dragon Crown's public profile bigger; it marketed the game for the developers in such a huge way that it sold almost three times as many copies as a game that was supposedly the right way to do things.
A big deal is made about how Publsihers are sexist for not making more games like the former, but for all the talk about how it needs to be done, those games (regardless of quality. I liked BG&E) have a tendency to flop hard. Just like The Quiet or Lara getting almost raped in the New Tomb Raider or Kratos glorifying violence against women by stabbing a Medusa in the chest, all these complains do is stir up interest in the titles. They don't affect sales in the long or short term in any way. And the reason, as hard as it is to hear, is likely because the people voicing those complaints were never going to be swayed into buying the games one way or the other, and as soon as something else to complain about comes out, they switch targets again.
>Let's take Dead or Alive, probably the most glaring case of sexual objectification of female characters in gaming... and yet you would be surprised as to how big the franchise's female fanbase is.
Given that it's the most gender balanced fighting game out there and all the women in it are consummate badasses with (and I am not using this term ironically) fully developed back stories, and a surprisingly deep and well structured plot? That doesn't surprise me in the least.
It's almost as if they're able to look past the boobs or aren't judging a game solely on some invisible ever shifting metric of "is it objectification".
In fact, it's worth noting that for all the complaints levied against them, the fighting game franchises with the biggest female audiences are Dead or Alive, Soul Calibur, and King of Fighters. All of which are successful, all of which are long running, and all of which have big titted scantily clad ninjas or dominatrixes as their poster children. I'll confess that I flat out thought women as a whole just weren't into fighting games, but that's because it turned out that's because I was looking where I expected to find them; in Capcom and Smash tournies.
> then what's the problem with people wanting more of it?
There is absolutely no problem with that. Not even sure how did you extract "it is wrong to want more" from my post. I am clearly talking about the more extremist views, like that Kotaku gal who said "GTAV sure looks awesome but I am not going to play it it because the three characters are males", what the hell?
>Kratos glorifying violence against women by stabbing a Medusa in the chest
I never quite got that controversy. Kratos is violent brute who disembowels whoever he pleases, it's not like you only kill women in those games.
>"GTAV sure looks awesome but I am not going to play it it because the three characters are males", what the hell?
Honestly, what's even crazy about that? People decide to play or not play games by all sorts of arbitrary metrics. To not buy buy a video game because its characters look generic and typical is a very normal thing, even for people who have nothing to do with sexism at all. It's no less crazy than being irritated by CoD being the same thing over and over, despite being what I'm sure are perfectly fine games.
> It's no less crazy than being irritated by CoD being the same thing over and over
That makes sense because it is a statement about the games as a whole backed by pretty damning proof, the "me too" is a valid complain. That's no arbitrary metric by any means. Arbitrary metrics would be not playing COD because one character was a brit and fuck those britbong cunts.
With the GTAV thing, she had no idea what the characters wer like, how they were going to be developed and characterized. The sum up of her argument was that the game looked great and tons of fun, but she wasn't playing it because the characters were males.
Let's be honest, if I used the same argument about GTA SA, that I thought looked great but I would refuse to play it simply because CJ was black, what would you think of me?
You'd be racist. Hypothetically, of course. And if a game said they made sure not to have any black people and you said that'd be great, you'd be racist.
The example we're talking about here is the latter.
Noting is wrong with wanting more of X. That's not what we're seeing. What we're seeing is "I want more of X, but will complain about Y because it's the opposite of X, and when X comes out I won't buy it in lieu of complaining about Y2, and if anyone calls me out on this, I'll blame the publishers of X for not marketing it enough, the fans of Y for being immature misogynists, and then move onto Z when I've properly shamed everyone and absolved myself of any fiscal or even proverbial responsibility to actually support the things I'm demanding."
That controversy only makes sense if you've bought into the dogma, or speak it fluently enough to farm it for pageviews.
> And if a game said they made sure not to have any black people and you said that'd be great, you'd be racist.
Are you for real? GTA SA had no asian main character, and at no point there was the intention of having one, so by argument anybody who liked it is a racist. Sleeping Dogs had an asian main character which means he wasn't black . Totally a racist game!
Come on man, think a bit before posting.