Female Gamers: Are you tired of being presented with no dignity?
- Thread starter sabaducia
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I usually just lurk, but for this thread I actually had to make an account...
I think one of the biggest assumptions being made here is that women are being portrayed as sex objects because that's what men want, the video game market is mostly men, and therefore women shouldn't complain. While it is true that currently the market IS dominated by male players, why why WHY should that matter?
Sure, we are going to assume that this element (boobs) somehow appeals to most of an established market (again, a supposition). But 50% of the population is female. This part of the population is, if we're going by the numbers, mostly untapped. Now, if you were a savvy developer without an identity yet, would you go for the market that's having its needs met? Or, would you try to cater to an audience that is not really covered?
50% of the population is, for the most part, not being engaged by this industry. There is a huge potential for growth there. And what about video games SHOULD make them a product consumed only by males? This isn't a gender-specific "enhancement" drug, item of clothing, beauty product, etc. I know that personally I started gaming when I was about 5 when I was given my first Super Nintendo (and I haven't looked back since!). There is NO REASON companies in industries like comics or video games should only focus on men, and it would be so, so easy for any company to fix this problem (much less competition too).
The Wii, of course, is an interesting example of this (you could do a business school case study on it, I'm sure). Sony & Microsoft? Went for the supposedly "right" audience. The Wii? Going for casual gamers (read: people disenfranchised by the current industry, like females and older people). I'm not going to say that the Wii is a rousing sales success (i don't feel like digging through the numbers to figure it out), OR that there weren't other factors that helped it out, but it probably was a better move for Nintendo than trying to compete the way it kinda did with the Gamecube.
Now as for charges of sexism in games, period:
Can I straight up say I love Ivy? I bought Soul Calibur 2 for her, and ONLY for her, LOL (then I appreciated it for the guys...). I don't MIND "sexy"-type characters in games. I don't necessarily find that big-breasted character designs are offensive to me. It just... and here's the big thing... DEPENDS ON THE GAME. And you know what else? DEPENDS ON THE GIRL PLAYING.
Let's take WoW. I *personally* find the character designs for the females in that game to be, oddly, more offensive than the design for Ivy. Ivy IS sex. She is based on a dom, she is a dom.... that's what she is, and the whole franchise is based on two-dimensional characterizations (really). I have NO problem with this, because EVERYONE in the series is like that. But WoW? That is supposed to be the game-world face of YOU. YOU give that character depth. If we're talking the humans here (and I'm going to be simplistic and focus on the humans and night-elves), we have hideously ugly men, all with facial hair (its been a while since I looked at it; I hope this has changed), and women who... yawn.
They stick their tongues out, roll back their shoulders, wiggle around, and yawn.
This, for some reason, upsets me way more than Ivy. Its like, here's this girl who moves and breathes as though she's your little pocket pet. Its really disturbing. The design for Ivy is upfront about the sex, the design for the WoW girls tries to hide it like its "dirty."
Samus, too, is a character that I feel got shafted. She starts out in massive body armor, but now she's being trotted out in that Zero Suit number. Somehow, we are expected to find this "okay" because, HEY, she USUALLY wears a bulky suit, RIGHT? Wrong. I LIKED her in the bigger suit. Why did that have to change?
Anyway, long story short: sex and sexy clothes are fine. Attractive characters are fine. Those things have always been true and will never, ever change, no matter how equal our respective sexes/genders become. What is not okay is how female characters are treated. If everyone looks ridiculous (soulcal), I don't care. If not everyone does, or if there's a super creepy factor to the design (WoW); if women are truly treated as props rather than people... that's where the problem lies.
As for fashion, I'd say that women's magazines cater to a different expectation that women have about other women. The expectations DO rely on superficial things, but a slightly different set. Its about "other women liek clothes and want guys to liek them," rather than "girl will be mah sperm receptacle." It doesn't SEEM to different, but its about intent. As for the looks..... the ideal in any given society will always be achievable only by a minority. We just have more time on our hands to focus on our supposed ideal.
I think one of the biggest assumptions being made here is that women are being portrayed as sex objects because that's what men want, the video game market is mostly men, and therefore women shouldn't complain. While it is true that currently the market IS dominated by male players, why why WHY should that matter?
Sure, we are going to assume that this element (boobs) somehow appeals to most of an established market (again, a supposition). But 50% of the population is female. This part of the population is, if we're going by the numbers, mostly untapped. Now, if you were a savvy developer without an identity yet, would you go for the market that's having its needs met? Or, would you try to cater to an audience that is not really covered?
50% of the population is, for the most part, not being engaged by this industry. There is a huge potential for growth there. And what about video games SHOULD make them a product consumed only by males? This isn't a gender-specific "enhancement" drug, item of clothing, beauty product, etc. I know that personally I started gaming when I was about 5 when I was given my first Super Nintendo (and I haven't looked back since!). There is NO REASON companies in industries like comics or video games should only focus on men, and it would be so, so easy for any company to fix this problem (much less competition too).
The Wii, of course, is an interesting example of this (you could do a business school case study on it, I'm sure). Sony & Microsoft? Went for the supposedly "right" audience. The Wii? Going for casual gamers (read: people disenfranchised by the current industry, like females and older people). I'm not going to say that the Wii is a rousing sales success (i don't feel like digging through the numbers to figure it out), OR that there weren't other factors that helped it out, but it probably was a better move for Nintendo than trying to compete the way it kinda did with the Gamecube.
Now as for charges of sexism in games, period:
Can I straight up say I love Ivy? I bought Soul Calibur 2 for her, and ONLY for her, LOL (then I appreciated it for the guys...). I don't MIND "sexy"-type characters in games. I don't necessarily find that big-breasted character designs are offensive to me. It just... and here's the big thing... DEPENDS ON THE GAME. And you know what else? DEPENDS ON THE GIRL PLAYING.
Let's take WoW. I *personally* find the character designs for the females in that game to be, oddly, more offensive than the design for Ivy. Ivy IS sex. She is based on a dom, she is a dom.... that's what she is, and the whole franchise is based on two-dimensional characterizations (really). I have NO problem with this, because EVERYONE in the series is like that. But WoW? That is supposed to be the game-world face of YOU. YOU give that character depth. If we're talking the humans here (and I'm going to be simplistic and focus on the humans and night-elves), we have hideously ugly men, all with facial hair (its been a while since I looked at it; I hope this has changed), and women who... yawn.
They stick their tongues out, roll back their shoulders, wiggle around, and yawn.
This, for some reason, upsets me way more than Ivy. Its like, here's this girl who moves and breathes as though she's your little pocket pet. Its really disturbing. The design for Ivy is upfront about the sex, the design for the WoW girls tries to hide it like its "dirty."
Samus, too, is a character that I feel got shafted. She starts out in massive body armor, but now she's being trotted out in that Zero Suit number. Somehow, we are expected to find this "okay" because, HEY, she USUALLY wears a bulky suit, RIGHT? Wrong. I LIKED her in the bigger suit. Why did that have to change?
Anyway, long story short: sex and sexy clothes are fine. Attractive characters are fine. Those things have always been true and will never, ever change, no matter how equal our respective sexes/genders become. What is not okay is how female characters are treated. If everyone looks ridiculous (soulcal), I don't care. If not everyone does, or if there's a super creepy factor to the design (WoW); if women are truly treated as props rather than people... that's where the problem lies.
Well, you have to change that a bit: If you are the fringe of any given demographic (female gamers, I'm going to guess, were probably not the specific target for a lot of JRPGS), you have to put up with a certain degree of bull to get along. I like fantasy novels. Unless I'm reading women-specific neo-pagan feminist-fantasy (the only female-oriented fantasy I can seem to find), females are treated like props in fantasy too, because its mostly 'for guys.' That doesn't mean that I LIKE it. I just put UP with it. Same with guys who, say, like to craft. Crafting accessories are usually pretty "girly." He might HAVE a floral sewing basket from JoAnns, but if that was his only option, he's kinda stuck, right?Dragonchixx said:
As for fashion, I'd say that women's magazines cater to a different expectation that women have about other women. The expectations DO rely on superficial things, but a slightly different set. Its about "other women liek clothes and want guys to liek them," rather than "girl will be mah sperm receptacle." It doesn't SEEM to different, but its about intent. As for the looks..... the ideal in any given society will always be achievable only by a minority. We just have more time on our hands to focus on our supposed ideal.
Umm, you are your own harshest critic. The only way a fictitious character would objectify women is of women allow themselves to be objectified by it. It is easy to shrug things like this off. You're only inadequate if *you* think you're inadequate. The way both men and women are portrayed in pornography is unrealistic. The way men and women are portrayed in games is unrealistic, the way we are all portrayed in almost every facet of the media is bloody unrealistic.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
The whole point of Video Games, Books, or Movies is for you to escape through entertainment. To be honest these arguments against overexposed females in games is just as bovine scat as arguments against pornography. If you find that you compare yourself to a video game character in any serious way, then go seek help, because the problem doesn't lie in the game, it lies with you.
An overweight girl who's happy with who they are is much more attractive then a slender girl who isn't happy with who they are. You can easily tell them apart too. If games were all meant to be simulators which were ultra-realistic then yes I'd totally agree with the judgments against ill-proportioned characters, but that's not the case at all.
Arehexes said:Sorry to say this but this is true, sex sells. And most males are stupid enough to buy any game thatAvykins said:
A)Involves shooting and killing (Halo)
B)Has big boobs (Dead or Alive)
C)is a sports game(Madden...idk why it's the same thing each year mostly)
D)Involves shooting and Killing (gears of war)
the top apart is true. most gamer chicks arent drop dead gorgious so for someone to complain about looks it seems a bit shallow. on another note games are like storys in a digital format and storys are fantasys. fantasys are meant to distract you from ur either crappy or boring or both life. now video games arent even close renderings of great storys by shakespear n other great writers but they do there jobs reguardless. so with that being said how can anyone critisize a game for having a chick that is bearly wearing anything and/or has huge boobs when your playing someone elses fantasy. dont like it dont play it. now on to the a) b) c) d) part. first off yes most males are stupid. for some reason they always have to prove who has a bigger dick so that doesnt help. anywho... a) & d) those games are entertaining so just becuz they have shooting n killing doesnt mean its something that has to be bought. turok has shooting n killing but is hardly played anymore. b) if u wanted something to say for big boobs u should of put dead or alive beach volleyball since my gf actually wanted me to get doa4 n the volley one. as of now doa 4 gets played since i dont have soul cali anymore T.T n the volley is gathering dust. i point out these since i have several female friends that enjoy those games so just saying males is a poor statement. C) on the i agree with. if guys buy sports games like religiously then their lacking in the part of the brain that has...oh lets say grey matter
i dunno it just bugs me when gamer girls complain about the looks of others either real or not since i see it as them having small egos or are "concerned" about there own appearence
If it ruins their game experience, then they should simply not play the game. I hated the characters in Gears of War, I didn't like them. Ironically, though I thought the characters in Army of Two were rather fun.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Eh we could all go for more Zoe Castillos, Jades, Zoey, and Alyx Vances in our games, but I'm not going to start ragging down on other characters like Ivy because they're not down to earth or realistic looking. I'm sorry but there are no solid arguments against games like DoA or Soul Calibur's portrayals of females. All it comes down to is "I don't like it when they do that and I want them to stop that!" Unfortunately that won't happen... There's something called freedom of speech and yes, accepting freedom of speech also means that you accept that you may be offended by what you see or hear. Without that acceptance then freedom of speech would not work, would it?
what about the real life women who are attractive and have large breasts? If we take all the large-bosomed lasses out of video games then they'll feel under-represented.
Besides, as a skinny male, i feel insulted that all the male leads i'm forced to play are tough muscly men, who can grow thicker stubble than i ever could. In terms of unrealistic proportions, the absurd breast:waist ratio commonly exhibited is no more unrealistic than, say, a man with average sized legs jumping 3 times his own height, which is also fairly common in video games. Video games are not meant to be realistic, no matter how much they may seem so. If video games were too realistic there would be no point playing them because you could get the same experience doing the realistic things you normally do in a day.
Besides, as a skinny male, i feel insulted that all the male leads i'm forced to play are tough muscly men, who can grow thicker stubble than i ever could. In terms of unrealistic proportions, the absurd breast:waist ratio commonly exhibited is no more unrealistic than, say, a man with average sized legs jumping 3 times his own height, which is also fairly common in video games. Video games are not meant to be realistic, no matter how much they may seem so. If video games were too realistic there would be no point playing them because you could get the same experience doing the realistic things you normally do in a day.
Marcus Fenix is covered in power armour and shoots people. Him having muscles the size of my flabby, overweight body is irrelevant. He could be obviously underweight and be just as effective as he is now - his power armour could hold him up. He doesn't need to be overly muscled and an unrealistic example of what a man should look like. It's therefore completely the same, get the fuck over it. You're a woman, not a completely different species - you get no different rights from guys.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Also, stop multiple posting, for fuck's sake.
Moot point.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
The organization by virtue of it's NAME is exclusionary.
It's called "Girl Gamers".
White men can join the NAACP even though by virtue of name it is an organization for Colored People (AkA Blacks).
They also impose conditions on "males" that join:
The portion in BOLD is a direct example of exclusionary conditions.
However it appears that the only requirement for "women" to join their "group" is that they simply be "women", regardless of their views or activities in gaming, most of which would only join simply by the allure of being able to be part of an "exclusive group".
Again, I pose the question... if someone started a group for "White Male Gamers" to promote getting more "white males into the hobby to support White male gamers", you would be able to hear the public outcry in the vacuum of SPACE, the bitching would be so loud.
Like I said before though, I've said my piece on this subject and keeping a healthy distance seeing as the suspensions and bans have already been running through here. I only returned to defend my point of view on this particular comment.
Still, I think it's quite a shame that girl gamers seemed to take particular offense to THIS particular issue, when there are MUCH more important things they could be addressing about women in games... or maybe it's just that women are so frequently cast in roles as ass-kicking heroines that it's hard to find ANY other grievance worth championing, considering there are few other topics worth bitching about that involve the women in gaming beyond physical design.
