|
I liked the NES version of Zelda.
I still play it to this day.
As a 12 year old kid, all I wanted to do was wander out in the wilderness, throwing boomerangs at bats and slashing at anything that I couldn't deflect with a big shield. But I always wondered when Link ate, or went to the restroom, or even slept. It seemed exhausting to me to try to wander all over the world AND defeat nine dungeons in a day.
I totally forgot the whole point was to "save the princess". Oops. LOL
Of course, I also liked the fourth Shrek movie due to Fiona's "rescuing" herself from the tower.
|
Sometimes I forget that I should probably get around to saving Zelda too. Although my first one was Ocarina of Time.
Just one more heart piece until I get a new heart container... oh, what? I only need two more Gold Skulltulas until I get a prize? Damn, time to go scour Hyrule Field for a few hours looking for more. Oooh, what's this? A trading subquest? A FISHING MINIGAME? Screw princesses, I want to catch the big whopper!
Damn. I spent so many hours sitting around that pond with a fishing rod in hand trying to catch the eel in the middle.
Because I'd like to see diversity in the gaming industry. There's a need for change because people who are not okay with the status quo have nowhere (or at least a limited number of places) to look.
Well I'd like to see MMORPGs with permadeath. And I'd like to see more motion-controlled fencing-style games. Those things would also add diversity to the industry, but they are not considered compelling cases. Sexism is - because there's a moral element to it. And that's fine! Let's just be honest and up front about it.
Ah, right, the classic dismissal of someone's problems. "If you have a problem, go make your own game!"
That's anything but a dismissal. That's an honest take on how to improve the existing choices in the marketplace.
Actually, I'm currently studying Computer Science, and the video game industry is one area I'm considering entering after I graduate.
That's great, and I encourage you to do so. It sounds like you have a lot of good ideas that would expand what's available for gamers.
However, a AAA video game doesn't come from just one person. Even an indie game is hard-pressed to come from one person. I wouldn't be able to make music, for example. Or art and other visual assets.
EVEN IF I found a team of like-minded individuals and we started an indie studio and managed to cobble together our own creation AND managed to get it on platforms such as Steam and the like... such a game will likely not get widespread recognition. Not to mention will probably be much lower quality than what is produced by AAA studios with big budgets and big production teams. And that means little (and not so little) girls looking for their chance to save the prince will still struggle to find what they're looking for.
So all we can do is ask people who actually have a reasonable ability to put these changes into action to please consider doing so.
Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but... this sounds like a list of excuses. I note your phrasing: "all we can do is..." No - that's NOT all you can do. That's all you are currently *willing* to do. Of course changing the status quo is hard... but if you really care about things changing, then you need to roll up your sleeves and dig in to the hard work of doing something about it.
And you're right - the odds ARE stacked against you. You probably won't get a huge following, or massive critical acclaim, or even make much money. And you're right, little girls will "still struggle to find what they're looking for"... but you'll have made it easier for them, even if just a little bit. And if that cause really matters to you, then I think that would be a pretty powerful motivator.
And sure, you're not going to make a huge impact - but it WILL have an effect... maybe bigger than you expect. And in time, those effects start adding up. You, by yourself, can only do so much, but if you set the example, other people will follow. I mean, you clearly care about this - you seem passionate, intelligent, and capable. I see no reason why someone like you *can't* find other like-minded individuals to start putting together the kinds of games that people want to see.
So don't just be content to talk about change - START the change. Help show us that we don't have to eat EA's table scraps. Because let's face it - they're making lots of money under their current business model - there's no reason for them to change. Tap into that market that they're neglecting, and show them what a colossal mistake they're making.
Make the games that you want to play - and if you're as talented as I think you are, then others will make those kinds of games, too... and buy them as well.
I know I would. I have a little daughter of my own, after all, and I want her to have the kind of games that you're talking about.
Sometimes I forget that I should probably get around to saving Zelda too. Although my first one was Ocarina of Time.
Just one more heart piece until I get a new heart container... oh, what? I only need two more Gold Skulltulas until I get a prize? Damn, time to go scour Hyrule Field for a few hours looking for more. Oooh, what's this? A trading subquest? A FISHING MINIGAME? Screw princesses, I want to catch the big whopper!
Damn. I spent so many hours sitting around that pond with a fishing rod in hand trying to catch the eel in the middle.
That's part of why Zelda games always frightened me a little - I was afraid I would miss out on the tons of hidden goodies that I would never think to look for.
Case in point: YOU COULD CATCH AN EEL???!?!?!
Because I'd suck at it. Either doing it myself or trying to organize a project.
Because video games a highly competitive, multimillion dollar industry these days and breaking into it on anything but the indy fringes is really hard.
And one more marginal indy game won't have a noticeable effect anyway.The best I can do is vote with my money and maybe convince a few other people to do the same.
This sounds a lot like "because it's hard."
But then, so are all of the things in life worth doing.
I mean, one might ask: if there's nothing wrong with games being sexist - if, as you say, people can still enjoy Mario and Zelda and all that - then why is there a need for change?
That is one of the places that Anita Sarkeesian went wrong in blog entry on this subject. It is like she wrote her blog for a fairly limited "feminist" audience, who share many of the same views she does. But her actual audience ended up being much larger.
What that means is that she needed to "connect the dots" for those who many not automatically understand (or agree with) what she is saying. Which is that, the young girls played these games may have felt that their lives and adventures are limited, and defined by the men around them.
These conversations tend to proceed poorly (IMHO) because people are not very specific about what action they want taken - I don't think it's deliberate, people often have an idea that they want things to change, but they don't know how, exactly. This vagueness leads to others inferring a great deal more than what's originally intended. If you just want more games with female protagonists, ok, great! Let's just be very clear and explicit about that.
Here she might have been better served to combine parts I & II, so that her blog also covers much of the more recent games. Without this, it is hard to gauge how serious she feels the problem still is. Talking about the games of the 80s and 90s, gives a great historical perspective, but this provides very little understanding of the current - and more relevant - situation.
However, people don't have to create (and fund) their own games for this to change. They can - and should - vote with their dollars.
What that means is that she needed to "connect the dots" for those who many not automatically understand (or agree with) what she is saying. Which is that, the young girls played these games may have felt that their lives and adventures are limited, and defined by the men around them.
Exactly. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, even if some folks disagree with it. It's worth expressing explicitly.
However, people don't have to create (and fund) their own games for this to change. They can - and should - vote with their dollars.
Though it's difficult to "vote with dollars" if there are few/no "candidates" (i.e. games with suitable heroines) on the market, eh?
Man, that metaphor got kinda weird.
|
|
princeimrahil,
As I read your logic, you're kind of arguing that we shouldn't protest a government decision if we're not interested in getting involved in a political party (or running as an independent). And I strongly disagree.
Not everyone is in a position to make a video game. I happen to be in a situation where, in the future, I might be able to. But there are plenty of people who are already set in their careers who are simply unable to throw everything aside to learn the skills required to make a game. Especially if you're talking the indie scene where your chances of a game getting some degree of popularity (and you making enough money out of it to justify re-education and time spent in development and etcetera) aren't exactly high.
We ALL can, however, vote with our wallets, and let our voices be heard by the suits that run companies like EA and Ubisoft. We can fund games on Kickstarter that feature powerful women and aren't cheesy fanservice. We can put money towards the companies that DO listen ... I've spent a lot of money on Guild Wars 2, for example, because ArenaNet is super awesome for this kind of thing. And we can keep on making Youtube videos and blog entries and forum discussions about how the status quo isn't what we want. Eventually companies will get the idea.
|
|
That is one of the places that Anita Sarkeesian went wrong in blog entry on this subject. It is like she wrote her blog for a fairly limited "feminist" audience, who share many of the same views she does. But her actual audience ended up being much larger.
To be fair, her youtube channel is named Feminist Frequency, and she normally DOES write for a feminist audience. :P
Though it's difficult to "vote with dollars" if there are few/no "candidates" (i.e. games with suitable heroines) on the market, eh?
Man, that metaphor got kinda weird.
That is part of the problem with the way she cut her presentations. In her "In my next installment" section, she implies that such games have started to appear.
But, you are, to a point, right. Part of "voting with dollars" is joining the funding for new projects that might help address that balance.
That is one of the places that Anita Sarkeesian went wrong in blog entry on this subject. It is like she wrote her blog for a fairly limited "feminist" audience, who share many of the same views she does. But her actual audience ended up being much larger.To be fair, her youtube channel is named Feminist Frequency, and she normally DOES write for a feminist audience. :P
True.
However, one positive of the HORRIBLE harassment that she has been forced to endure is the publicity gained her the opportunity to expose more people to her way of thinking.
I just wish she had been more able to capitalize on it. :(
|
|
It's a bit of a double-edged sword.
Her Kickstarter supporters are likely all feminists (or at least sympathetic to the feminist point of view) and wouldn't appreciate having a Feminism 101 justification behind every point she has. But reaching out to a larger audience might require some of that.
There's value in education, but people who approach Sarkeesian's videos with the type of bile that she's faced so far are probably not going to care either way. (I saw a screencap of the Youtube comments before they were disabled... it wasn't pretty.)
It's a bit of a double-edged sword.
Her Kickstarter supporters are likely all feminists (or at least sympathetic to the feminist point of view) and wouldn't appreciate having a Feminism 101 justification behind every point she has. But reaching out to a larger audience might require some of that.
True. I had not thought of that problem.
There's value in education, but people who approach Sarkeesian's videos with the type of bile that she's faced so far are probably not going to care either way. (I saw a screencap of the Youtube comments before they were disabled... it wasn't pretty.)
Nor was I concerned about them.
I was thinking of the large number of people, like myself, who had never heard of Feminist Frequency before the blow-up caused the these immature and hateful people who attacked her (and the resultent wide spread publicity).
Hey Alice, I'm glad musicians don't think the way gamers do, or we'd all be listening to Justin Beiber :)
Some days people just gotta starve for art, some days dreams will only start and finish in a surburban garage, but if we don't like whats being peddaled, it comes down to a few brave souls to take guitar (or keyboard in this case...wow, applies to both!) and just go do it.
princeimrahil,
As I read your logic, you're kind of arguing that we shouldn't protest a government decision if we're not interested in getting involved in a political party (or running as an independent). And I strongly disagree.
Allow me to clarify, then: I'm saying that taking direct action is more effective than simply talking (which is not to say that there is no utility to talking, but our contemporary culture tends to equate "consciousness-raising" with actually *solving problems*). So I would characterize my argument as more akin to saying that there's no point in protesting against a government decision unless you are going to vote... and that organizing a political party (or at least a "movement" around an issue) is going to be more effective than writing editorials to the newspaper.
However, I think it best to curtail the analogies here - they tend to distract from the real conversation at hand.
Not everyone is in a position to make a video game. I happen to be in a situation where, in the future, I might be able to. But there are plenty of people who are already set in their careers who are simply unable to throw everything aside to learn the skills required to make a game. Especially if you're talking the indie scene where your chances of a game getting some degree of popularity (and you making enough money out of it to justify re-education and time spent in development and etcetera) aren't exactly high.
We ALL can, however, vote with our wallets, and let our voices be heard by the suits that run companies like EA and Ubisoft. We can fund games on Kickstarter that feature powerful women and aren't cheesy fanservice. We can put money towards the companies that DO listen ... I've spent a lot of money on Guild Wars 2, for example, because ArenaNet is super awesome for this kind of thing. And we can keep on making Youtube videos and blog entries and forum discussions about how the status quo isn't what we want. Eventually companies will get the idea.
Allow me to say that the strategy, as currently practiced, seems a bit backwards. Instead of focusing on the good games - instead of heaping praise on the titles that give us the kind of female figures that we want - instead of putting the spotlight on humble, aspiring game developers who are trying to break the mold - instead of starting/rallying kickstarters to get these kinds of games in development... instead of all of that, the focus seems to be on calling out the flaws of the games that present problematic sexual politics.
That's not a winning strategy. You can't say to EA, "these games are awful, we want something else," when they can point to 5 million units being sold for a $50 million profit. You can't just blithely assume that "eventually companies will get the idea." They won't, not that way, because they're already making money hand over fist. The way to get them to change is to create successful games, because once they see that success, they'll start imitating it. And once that starts happening, the momentum will REALLY get going.
In other words, as Lord Fyre pointed out, there's a problem of matching the message to the audience. If you're trying to convince powerful game producers to change their strategy, you need to make sure that your message is tailored to them. Sending a message of "your super-popular, mega-profitable games are not what people want to buy" is simply not going to translate. Instead of ranting about the games you dislike, you should be raving about the games you DO like. Heck, that's a basic rhetorical tactic: people like "uppers," but they're less enthusiastic about "downers."
Let me ask another question (and this is genuine, I am only passingly familiar with Anita Sarkeesian's work): How much time has she devoted to giving favorable attention to the POSITIVE games that she wants emulated? And how does that compare to the amount of unfavorable attention that she has given to games that she feels are problematic? I'm willing to bet there's a rather lopsided imbalance there.
And to clarify, as I close this post: I'm not saying you can't/shouldn't critique problematic games. What I'm saying is that the current strategy of dumping on popular but problematic games is not likely to be effective. Raving about the quality games that you want to see (and then trying to produce more of them) is much more likely to change the marketplace than ranting about what you dislike, and just waiting (hoping?) for the powers that be to come around.
Hey Alice, I'm glad musicians don't think the way gamers do, or we'd all be listening to Justin Beiber :)
Some days people just gotta starve for art, some days dreams will only start and finish in a surburban garage, but if we don't like whats being peddaled, it comes down to a few brave souls to take guitar (or keyboard in this case...wow, applies to both!) and just go do it.
Shifty, are you saying that, as long as you armed with THREE CHORDS AND THE TRUTH, that the POWER OF ROCK will overcome all?
Because I can get behind that.
|
|
Creating a song and releasing a small-scale run of an indie album doesn't take months and possibly years of work, utilising people of wildly different skill sets (artists vs. programmers vs. writers vs. musicians vs. etc...)
Indie bands also have the chance of being picked up by a record company/label to continue doing what they like - whereas an indie studio who gets bought out by a big company like EA might not have nearly as much freedom...
|
|
princeimrahil, I can't speak for Sarkeesian exactly (we've only seen one out of many videos - this is her first work about video games so far)... but I think many feminist gamers DO speak out when there's something good. It may not be obvious if you're not in these sorts of discussion spaces, but I know a certain feminism-aligned gaming subreddit speaks very highly of games that don't fall into the usual traps. I'm sure many other places do as well. There's been a lot of talk on the ArenaNet forums (and elsewhere) about the awesome female characters they have in their game and praising them for it... or the awesome way they dealt with people spouting racist/sexist/homophobic/etc slurs in their game (temp bans!)
I think there's more merit in critique than you suggest. People complaining about the Mass Effect 3 ending got them to release a whole new ending for that game. People complaining about MMO balance get patches and updates to fix those classes. People complaining that there aren't certain features will get them added to games. So how is complaining about the lack of strong female protagonists and cheesecake art any different?
You do illuminate a potent issue though. AAA companies don't want to risk what is already making them millions with what's a "risky" idea that goes against the status quo. The one Assassin's Creed game that has a female protagonist... is on the PSP Vita. Does anyone even OWN a Vita?
I honestly believe that if Nintendo released a new series with a female lead it would sell as well as if it had a male lead. I'd certainly buy pretty much anything that came out of Nintendo. But they don't seem interested in trying that...
You do illuminate a potent issue though. AAA companies don't want to risk what is already making them millions with what's a "risky" idea that goes against the status quo. The one Assassin's Creed game that has a female protagonist... is on the PSP Vita. Does anyone even OWN a Vita?
The irony is that Tomb Raider (with a female protagonist) was/is enormously successful.
I honestly believe that if Nintendo released a new series with a female lead it would sell as well as if it had a male lead. I'd certainly buy pretty much anything that came out of Nintendo. But they don't seem interested in trying that...
Which is sad. And as Lara Croft showed us, you don't have to take a big risk even - She was/is somewhat sexualized, but is, none the less, a strong, competent heroine.
This circles back again to the title of this thread. It IS possible to find a balance between the wants of the various branches of a game's customer base.
princeimrahil, I can't speak for Sarkeesian exactly (we've only seen one out of many videos - this is her first work about video games so far)... but I think many feminist gamers DO speak out when there's something good. It may not be obvious if you're not in these sorts of discussion spaces, but I know a certain feminism-aligned gaming subreddit speaks very highly of games that don't fall into the usual traps. I'm sure many other places do as well. There's been a lot of talk on the ArenaNet forums (and elsewhere) about the awesome female characters they have in their game and praising them for it... or the awesome way they dealt with people spouting racist/sexist/homophobic/etc slurs in their game (temp bans!)
My point is that this is not the primary emphasis - the message that is being focused on and projected outside of the "femisphere" (if I may coin a term).
I think there's more merit in critique than you suggest. People complaining about the Mass Effect 3 ending got them to release a whole new ending for that game. People complaining about MMO balance get patches and updates to fix those classes. People complaining that there aren't certain features will get them added to games. So how is complaining about the lack of strong female protagonists and cheesecake art any different?
At the risk of coming across as snarky, I have to say that I would hardly call the "new" ME3 ending a compelling example of the wonders that fan criticism can achieve - it's an extra thousands words or so of text with a few still images. Whoop-dee-freaking-doo.
And I would argue that people complaining about game features are already *paying customers* - companies are responding to MMO subscribers (or purchasers of add-on content). It makes sense to cater to them. It makes less sense to cater to a crowd that appears (to them) to be a fringe that is not buying their products... especially when they are asking them to change part of a formula that appears to appeal to a lot of existing, *paying* customers.
I honestly believe that if Nintendo released a new series with a female lead it would sell as well as if it had a male lead. I'd certainly buy pretty much anything that came out of Nintendo. But they don't seem interested in trying that...
Well, they ARE working on Bayonetta 2... but I doubt that's what you're going for.
In Nintendo's case, I think they're more interested in games that aren't "lead-centric." The big titles they have on deck are Mario Kart, Smash Bros, etc... stuff that offers a pretty big range of characters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds a lot like "because it's hard."
But then, so are all of the things in life worth doing.
Nah, not really. I mean it sounds all industrious and ambitious to say so, and I'm sure I used to say stuff like that myself all the time back when I was a typical Type A sort of person before I had kids and stuff.
Now I've learned that almost all of the really "worth doing" stuff in life is pretty easy really. Playing ball with a kid. Eating a banana split on a hot summer day. Fishing with your brother. Going out to eat with an old friend. Watching a sunset over the mountains. ...
I mean really, the best things are easy. What's hard is figuring out how to do those things more often.
|
|
I honestly believe that if Nintendo released a new series with a female lead it would sell as well as if it had a male lead. I'd certainly buy pretty much anything that came out of Nintendo. But they don't seem interested in trying that...
Again, I'm still pulling for a Legend of Zelda game that actually stars Zelda in the lead role. :)
(one that isn't made for Philips CDi, though that goes without saying)
Hell, given how many incarnations of those characters there are and just how common female Link cosplayers are, I think an official "Femlink" could work just fine.
God, I hope they get Samus Aran back on track.
Just remembered: I would punch an abomination if it meant getting Alexandra Roivas a new game.
|
|
I actually like Bayonetta. Sexy and kicks butt. It's one of those middle lines that Lord Fyre mentioned (although a little more towards the 'sexy' side of things than Lara Croft). But... yeah, it's not exactly what I mean. I certainly wouldn't be advocating that to the people looking for a Zelda-type game with a female lead. :)
Nintendo may not be the best example anyway, because they do tend to stick to their pre-established franchises. (What's the last new one they made anyway? Pikmin?) But any of the bigger studios will work here.
Mikaze, FemLink would be awesome. Although it might make some of the Link x Zelda shippers incredibly uncomfortable. (And certainly puts an interesting twist into the Zoran marriage rites...) :D
Alexandra Roivas
Just googled this name. OH GOD PLEASE NO MORE ETERNAL DARKNESS. Those sanity effects are too scary ;_;
|
|
Mikaze, FemLink would be awesome. Although it might make some of the Link x Zelda shippers incredibly uncomfortable. (And certainly puts an interesting twist into the Zoran marriage rites...) :D
I imagine it'll produce more shippers to pick up the slack though. ;)
Just googled this name. OH GOD PLEASE NO MORE ETERNAL DARKNESS. Those sanity effects are too scary ;_;
I actually like Bayonetta. Sexy and kicks butt. It's one of those middle lines that Lord Fyre mentioned (although a little more towards the 'sexy' side of things than Lara Croft).
More the the point, it is also a way forward for the AAA companies, who may, understandably, be reluctant to take risks with their investor's money.
Or better design the game from a largely gender neutral viewpoint, then allow the player to choose their protagonist. (... with the heroine option being towards the "sexy" side if the company is still nervous.)
Consider Anita Sarkeesian's example of StarFox Adventures if Krystal had been a fully playable character - even with her bikini costume - rather then simply the "prize" at the end.
|
|
I just recalled another, and this time extremely severe, example of already established female videogame characters getting derailed:
Do you remember the Valis series? It was an early 90's-ish sidescrolling action series. Anime-style art. Female leads in each one. It was a pretty fanservicey series IIRC, but it was an early "female player character that kicks ass" videogame regardless.
The rights to that series got bought by a company that makes hentai games.
There's something deeply depressing about that.
Dammit, I just remembered the only female Belmont in Castlevania getting retconned too. Ugh.
The Castlevania example is a particularly painful one, because the reasons given for it actually parallel a lot of the arguments against inclusiveness that turn up even on these boards at times. Rather than focusing on any plot-derailing elements of the Sonia Belmont entry in the Castlevania series, the reasons given for its exclusion from the Castlevania timeline boiled down to one thing: "It would be historically inappropriate to have a female vampire hunter at that point in history".
Historically inaccurate. In Castlevania. Castlevania is a series that runs more on sugar-high kids' Universal Monsters fanfiction than anything resembling historical accuracy. This is a series that has Church Witches as a thing. This a series that had motorcyles in 1852. But a female vampire hutner was just too much a stretch.
:(
How many male lead characters get retconned out of their series for flimsy excuses concerning their gender or get consigned to star in nonconsensual porn?
Probably not that many.
I just recalled another, and this time extremely severe, example of already established female videogame characters getting derailed:
Do you remember the Valis series? It was an early 90's-ish sidescrolling action series. Anime-style art. Female leads in each one. It was a pretty fanservicey series IIRC, but it was an early "female player character that kicks ass" videogame regardless.
Exactly! ;)
The rights to that series got bought by a company that makes hentai games.
There's something deeply depressing about that.
Dammit, I just remembered the only female Belmont in Castlevania getting retconned too. Ugh.
:(
|
|
Or better design the game from a largely gender neutral viewpoint, then allow the player to choose their protagonist. (... with the heroine option being towards the "sexy" side if the company is still nervous.)
This is basically the modern standard. I really wish we could move on from showing off midriffs and wearing bikini armor (unless you're showing off the chests of the male character as well, in which case go for your life).
Plenty of games don't suit having multiple protagonists though (e.g., strongly story based games like JRPGs, point and click adventure games, visual novels, etc.) - and that's fine. I want to see more of BOTH! More Heavy Rains and Icos and God of Wars, and more The Longest Journeys (brilliant game with a very awesome non-sexualised female protagonist - it's a bit dated in the graphics but definitely check it out on Steam if you're into point-and-click adventure/good storytelling) and Bayonettas and Mirror's Edges.
Consider Anita Sarkeesian's example of StarFox Adventures if Krystal had been a fully playable character - even with her bikini costume - rather then simply the "prize" at the end.
Especially if it released as the original game (where Krystal is doing the adventuring to save her world), and especially if it released in the N64 days, I think it would be lauded, to be honest. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider Anita Sarkeesian's example of StarFox Adventures if Krystal had been a fully playable character - even with her bikini costume - rather then simply the "prize" at the end.Especially if it released as the original game (where Krystal is doing the adventuring to save her world), and especially if it released in the N64 days, I think it would be lauded, to be honest. :)
Not to mention, I think it would have (at least in the U.S.) been a HUGE smash hit! (See Tomb Raider.)
On the original topic, I just wish there were more scantily clad men. Most women put up with scantily clad women -- unless they are convinced there's some sort of political message to it. But add scantily clad men and suddenly all this male homophobia pops up, men act like it's physically repulsive to see an attractive specimen of their own sex.
You know, DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball would have been just as much fun if all the characters had been available, not just the female ones. :/
You say that, but I think a lot of people can reasonably infer a reason to be ... let's say, "touchy" here. If the argument runsa) Games x, y, and z have some sexist elements to them.
and
b) Having sexist elements in game is BAD because it affects people in x,y,z waysIt's hard not to infer that
c) People who like games with sexist elements must be bad/sexist (to some degree).
Part of the problem is that people automatically jump to C and then react defensively.
Lets say you and I were friends and we're waiting in line at the movie theater together. If I'm standing on your foot (without realizing it), I'm okay with you telling me that your foot hurts and I'm causing it. It doesn't make me a bad person that I was standing on your foot, I just didn't realize it before you said something. I only become a bad person after you tell me and I say "how do you like this!" and proceed to start jumping on your foot.
I'm pro sex, I like to have sex (just for fun or realism) in my games and I like everything with it in real life.
The thing that bores me to death is the fact that sex always has to be with pretty people, common people and normal people can't have sex in games because sex (in both clothes, behavior and the actual act) is only for pretty big boobed females. The others can just rot.
I think too much pretty faces in games/movies and stories is just wrong and it gives many people the feeling they don't count in this world as only pretty people are cool/wanted and heroes.
Bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the reason I like "scantly-clad" women is because they have such an awesome body in comparison to guys and can get more attention and admiration about it then men.
This is one of the most idiotic arguments in the world and I hear it all the time. You are, I assume, a heterosexual male. You find women more attractive than men. There's nothing wrong with that. But you need to recognize that you find women attractive because of your sexual orientation, not because it's a universal truth.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.
Not everyone likes scantily clad women. I don't actively dislike them, necessarily, but they don't do anything for me. In terms of interest, they would rank somewhere above filing cabinets and below potted plants. I would much rather look at a scantily clad male, thank you very much. That's my orientation.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.
Yes, but I'm sure homosexual women don't mind either.
I heard a comedian once say something like for heterosexual women, a guy showing a nice six-pack was like the Notebook, while a guy showing off his penis was like Alien 3. LOL. My wife found that hilarious.
You say that, but I think a lot of people can reasonably infer a reason to be ... let's say, "touchy" here. If the argument runsa) Games x, y, and z have some sexist elements to them.
and
b) Having sexist elements in game is BAD because it affects people in x,y,z waysIt's hard not to infer that
c) People who like games with sexist elements must be bad/sexist (to some degree).
Part of the problem is that people automatically jump to C and then react defensively.
Lets say you and I were friends and we're waiting in line at the movie theater together. If I'm standing on your foot (without realizing it), I'm okay with you telling me that your foot hurts and I'm causing it. It doesn't make me a bad person that I was standing on your foot, I just didn't realize it before you said something. I only become a bad person after you tell me and I say "how do you like this!" and proceed to start jumping on your foot.
I agree with you that people jump to defense too quickly. But it is understandable in many cases on sensitive issues like this. People see many cases where the original argument against the offensive behavior is overly aggressive, so defensiveness is the immediate reaction - and often, they don't feel like the original behavior was bad, or even agree that it exists, so that exacerbates the reaction.
To use your analogy: It's as you're standing on my foot, and I tell you that my foot hurts and you're causing it. You, unfortunately, have been angrily yelled at several times that day by people for stepping on their foot, once or twice when you were standing several feet away. Understandably, you associate my assertion with that made by the other, angrier people, and react like I'm being unreasonable.
The only way to put the problem down is by everybody coming at it calmly from the beginning. Sadly, the original outcry almost always comes from people being ignorant or hurtful in some way, so emotions are always going to be running high.
Was anybody else struck with the whole, "I grew up on Nintendo ... it will always have a special place in my heart.", comment was in the same vein as someone saying a bunch of anti-African American statements followed by, "But I'm not racist because I have many black friends." (obviously not equivalent, but the same vibe)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
:(Yeah.
It's enough to make me want to take up learning Flash again just to make a rough version of the Metroidvania game I always wanted to see.
Not picking on you, Mikaze, but do you have a problem with Shanoa?
Or Charlotte?
Mind, Charlotte is half of a Power Duo, so it's a case of 'choose your protagonist', but she still counts as a rather decent Castlevania protagonist, even if the method of powering her up is a pain and she has that fanservicey spin-taunt with pixel-jiggle.
However, on the subject of female protagonists in games, I find myself less offended and more annoyed that people overlook Tina/Terra from Final Fantasy VI (III in the US) because she wasn't Miss GRRL POWAA. She had depth, she had characterization, and for once it was a female character undergoing transforming into something of the 'Other' way before Witchblade even existed. Celes was not entirely a bad thing, though her unitard combined with the Opera scene and her post-apocalyptic breakdown moment if you didn't do that mini-portion right had heavy helpings of, well, 'chick-ification'.
Back in the 8-bit days, there was Athena, by SNK, which was a platformer that trended towards the heavily girly, but wasn't a bad action game - it was put out in a time where the whole magical girl angle was not yet really a thing in the western world. She's since cameo'd/alternate-interpretation-appeared in King of Fighters, SVC Chaos, and a few other games.
While fighting games in general tend towards the sausagefest, there are some that have done fairly well on the female characters, even if they do not approach parity in numbers. Samurai Shodown is a prime example of this with regards to both Nakaruru, the Ainu girl, and Charlotte (recurring theme it seems, that name) the French fencer. There was even a main villainess in the series long before others were attempting comparable roles in the form of Mizuki.
Most people had a love or hate relationship with the game, but Tenchu features a male and female protagonist option. Another game inspired by the series. Red Ninja, was female protagonist only, though there was substantially more fanservice, in conjunction with the fact that her weapon of choice was a garrote that was also her rappel line among other functions.
Another from the Playstation 1 era, who seldom gets much in the way of appreciation, is Aya Brea, from Parasite Eve, one of my favorite action RPGs of all time (with one of my favorite soundtracks to boot). Not unlike Tina/Terra, she's become something of the 'Other', taken to greatest extremes in her Liberation power at the end of the game, and while she does wear an evening dress at the beginning of the game, it's because she's on a date...and STILL has the sense to have her gun on her, as she's a police officer. She's definitely not a damsel in distress.
I wonder how many people know who Michelle Heart is outside of an assist in Marvel Vs. Capcom. HINT: she's from a Legendary old school shooter.
Also gender is not an issue in every videogame. I mean in Gran Turismo three you have to be looking at people int the crowd to really see people most of the time you are just racing cars. Although why not a gender ambiguous protaganist or one where it is never revealed and you are in armor.
I just recalled another, and this time extremely severe, example of already established female videogame characters getting derailed:
Do you remember the Valis series? It was an early 90's-ish sidescrolling action series. Anime-style art. Female leads in each one. It was a pretty fanservicey series IIRC, but it was an early "female player character that kicks ass" videogame regardless.
The rights to that series got bought by a company that makes hentai games.
There's something deeply depressing about that.
Dammit, I just remembered the only female Belmont in Castlevania getting retconned too. Ugh.
The Castlevania example is a particularly painful one, because the reasons given for it actually parallel a lot of the arguments against inclusiveness that turn up even on these boards at times. Rather than focusing on any plot-derailing elements of the Sonia Belmont entry in the Castlevania series, the reasons given for its exclusion from the Castlevania timeline boiled down to one thing: "It would be historically inappropriate to have a female vampire hunter at that point in history".
Historically inaccurate. In Castlevania. Castlevania is a series that runs more on sugar-high kids' Universal Monsters fanfiction than anything resembling historical accuracy. This is a series that has Church Witches as a thing. This a series that had motorcyles in 1852. But a female vampire hutner was just too much a stretch.
:(
How many male lead characters get retconned out of their series for flimsy excuses concerning their gender or get consigned to star in nonconsensual porn?
Probably not that many.
I would strongly suggest you play valis again through older eyes- it was far more cheesecakey/aimed at the male audience of the time than you might be remembering.
And what exactly is wrong with companies that make hentai games? Remember, this is japan- the company that makes tomorrows hentai game is probably making a deep rpg this week and will be making a platformer next week. Look at the talent that is working on the game itself, noty the company.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
More than anything, I find the lack of *choice* to be the issue, especially in video games. I have drawn more than a few pieces of fan service, have played more than a few games where there was a damsel in distress, ran quite a few games where there were many interesting characters of all kinds for tabletop games. But rarely am I given the *choice* between the Pretty Pretty Princess Supermodel protagonist and the Rugged Tough Been-Through-a-Meatgrinder Lady protagonist in a video game.
And I want the choice.
In my opinion the reason I like "scantly-clad" women is because they have such an awesome body in comparison to guys and can get more attention and admiration about it then men.This is one of the most idiotic arguments in the world and I hear it all the time. You are, I assume, a heterosexual male. You find women more attractive than men. There's nothing wrong with that. But you need to recognize that you find women attractive because of your sexual orientation, not because it's a universal truth.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.
Not everyone likes scantily clad women. I don't actively dislike them, necessarily, but they don't do anything for me. In terms of interest, they would rank somewhere above filing cabinets and below potted plants. I would much rather look at a scantily clad male, thank you very much. That's my orientation.
Actually plenty of studies have shown that both men and women will stare at scantily clad women, and neither men nor women stare much at scantily clad men. This study indicates that men find the majority of women somewhat attractive, while women find the majority of men to be unattractive. However it also shows that men direct about 2/3 of their attention to the 1/3 of the most attractive women while women give "unattractive" men more attention than they give the "hottest" men.
Men and women are actually different. I know that's a horribly politically incorrect thing to say. But it nevertheless happens to be true.
I'm with the thread title. I like my scantily clad heroines, damsels in distress, and busty wenches.
I also like tiger-thong barbarians that put Arnold to shame and Matthew Bomer-esqe rogues. And yes, I want them shirtless.
For me it really depends on the game. If the mood is right, anime sized swords are cool. Otherwise, I object. Same goes with the scanty sexualized images.
|
|
Men and women are actually different. I know that's a horribly politically incorrect thing to say. But it nevertheless happens to be true.
Not really? Most people accept that there are some differences between men and women. The argument simply arises whether it is biological or sociological in origin, something that is pretty difficult to determine because they are inextricably linked and it's somewhat of a "chicken or egg" situation...
There's also a big difference between "Some evidence suggests that women process sexual attraction differently to men" and "The wage gap exists because women innately do not have a drive to become certain careers".
Tina/Terra from Final Fantasy VI
Terra was AWESOME. Now I'm one of the weird people who really enjoyed FF13 (although my experience may have been coloured by my constant Vanille x Fang shipping...) but Lightning can't hold a candle to Terra. FF6's story and characterisation is amazing, especially with a female lead, and especially for a game back in the SNES days.
That said, I believe reading that apparently Terra wasn't considered the "lead character" by the designers, and it's more of a collectively shared role between her, Locke, uhh... was it Edward? The prince dude... and Celes. Or something like that. Will have to source where I read that first.