Moonlight Butterfly said:
I think all of the women except one are dressed provocatively in soul calibur and even then the one exception is often posed in boobs and butt poses.
I don?t personally know, so I can?t really comment. Are the men dressed in equally ridiculous fashion? I would wager a guess that no character is wearing anything mildly appropriate and/or utilizing weapons that are realistic.
Moonlight Butterfly said:
As for you pondering of why this issue has come up recently I think it's becuase of the rise in online gaming and the increase in graphical quality...
Because now we?re able to distinguish a pair of breasts when we used to see pictures and/or poor texture maps on shitty resolutions? I suppose I can consider that, but I?m not convinced that?s really the heart of the issue. No one raised a stink with Ms Pacman and Samus beforehand. So it seems more character related than anything else. A lot of people have mentioned they don?t mind if it?s an integral part of the character.
Moonlight Butterfly said:
and jiggle physics
Aren?t we interested in the realistic portrayal of the human form?
Moonlight Butterfly said:
Also this is how Sophitia was dressed in the first Soul Calibur game I played
They look like two completely different characters to me. But I accept that people are resistant to any change of a favored character (I?m looking at you emo Dante!).
Moonlight Butterfly said:
Even rooster teeth revealed how this clothing was bloody silly to fight in resulting in a 'bashful panda' style where the woman would fight with her elbows on top of her boobs as her clothes fell off.
(Also note the first picture she looks determined and competent and in the second one she looks like she is going to pee herself and she just picked up the sword because it was laying around the house .) Surely you can see why I'm annoyed at the change in her portrayal.
I can see that the frustration. I don?t know what ?rooster teeth? is, but I imagine it?s pointing out sword fighting in a g-string isn?t realistic?
Trilligan said:
Well, for starters, it gets tricky when you start arguing what is 'appropriate to the character' and 'her own volition'. She has no volition outside of what is ascribed to her by her creators. It's very easy to say "Oh, she just likes to dress sexy" and leave it at that. Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. Emma Frost, for instance, is a character wherein the sexy dress and attitude is built in, essentially from the ground up. It's her personality and her representation, and as such her sexy attire works.
Perhaps it would solve some issues if people did just ask the creators without jumping to conclusions. ?Backlash? happen because people assign their own perceptions to someone else?s intentions. Then suddenly the situation is either cooled because they get an answer or heated because once again they don?t ask for clarification opting to further interpret someone else?s meaning. Shall we ask the creators of Soul Caliber? And if we do, will the answer satisfy?
Trilligan said:
Then you take someone like Wonder Woman, who was created explicitly as a part of the original author's bondage fantasies. Her sexy attire comes across differently in light of the greater context. It's no longer quite enough to just say "well, it's just the way she likes to dress" because there are other elements to those design decisions.
Wonder Woman?s origins being well known to me, the character has *dramatically* changed since her creation. All things considered, modern Wonder Woman is not the same character as Original Wonder Woman. I?m having trouble phrasing this, but; I have trouble accepting positions built upon mistaken premise. Like arguing regarding modern Wonder Woman when you apply Original Wonder Woman characteristics. Does that make sense?
Trilligan said:
So yes, you can't divorce your judgement completely from the narrative. But neither can you divorce it completely from the intent of the creator.
I agree completely. So why do so many people assume the intent was to harden penis?
Trilligan said:
You are assuming that the other nine female characters aren't also dressed in a way that could be considered pandering. Also, what do we know of Ivy's backstory? Is there anything in it about why she dresses the way she does?
No idea to be honest. I?m going to assume all those characters are over the top and unrealistic. I?m of the opinion that the characters reasoning wouldn?t make a difference to various people?s perceptions of the character and what she represents to them.
Trilligan said:
I don't play Soul Caliber, so I can't answer to any real degree. But, without some clearer picture between the two of us, statistical analysis of what may or may not be an acceptable level of pandering isn't going to be very informative.
It?s merely to illustrate that what can be objectively determined as statistically insignificant can?t be argued as a systemic issue. If 1 out of every 10 games (if that) has examples of gender related material that be discussed, either in pro or con of any ideology, it doesn?t support the argument that the entire industry is misogynist (or whatever position you argue).
Trilligan said:
I can say, however, that when you're fighting a bunch of people armed with swords and other sharp and deadly things, exposed skin is probably not a good idea. Even if the design of the clothes was endorsed by Ivy and given some realistic justification within her character and backstory, it would still be insane because she's fighting people with deadly weaponry. So there's that.
It?s a stylized game. I don?t expect them to consider what?s realistic or feasible. Ancient armor in many periods didn?t completely cover human skin; just the bits those sharp and pointy objects has a tendency to poke.
Trilligan said:
Another game I haven't played. I've seen Gay Tony from the GTA IV DLC considered both a great example and a bad example of how to make a gay character, but I haven't played that either. I do know there are well done gay characters out there (Arcade Gannon, for one), and I imagine there are poorly done ones as well. But that's kind of tangential, anyway.
It merely further illustrates the idea that a single character among many is often the focus of controversy as if they were in a vacuum. And of course, that there ?poor? or ?good? representation is often a matter of debate.
Trilligan said:
Don't watch that show, either. You are just full of references I don't get.
My bad, I work with what I know. Just trying to use examples where people have often taken a single character archetype and applied it to the entire genre they exist in without consideration of their individual circumstance. Perhaps using a broader example; Princess Peach being a representation of how all women are portrayed in games.
Trilligan said:
But, as I kinda expressed elsewhere, it's less this or that specific example and more the big-picture; the general trend in place. The general trend is that women are hypersexualized whether they ought to be or not.
And that?s where I simply don?t see the evidence people claim exist. We have few examples where this actually occurs; it can?t nearly be the trend people make it out to be. If we examine all the games of a specific year for evidence of hypersexualization of females, I?d wager real money that the ?trend? comprises a miniscule amount, probably not even 5% (pulling that number out of my ass). A ?general? trend would indicate a significance of more than 50%, making it ?normal?.
Trilligan said:
I'm guessing reasonable discussion of the topic. Do I win a cookie? Of course I don't, because you're trying to imply that feminists are inherently unreasonable, which is bullshit, because you're conversing with an inherently reasonable man who considers himself a feminist.
Feminism comes in many colors sir, some are entirely unreasonable. I?m merely pointing out that it?s difficult to argue against the position that there is a systemic issue of sexism because it?s met with the argument that doing so supports a systemic issue of sexism. Sort of like how people who point out the real statistics of Domestic Violence are accused of supporting a system which advocates and/or ignores violence against women.
Trilligan said:
More to the point - the fact of the matter is that none of these examples exist in a vacuum. Any single one of them taken on their own, in or out of context, is not indicative of anything more than the fact that someone on the art team liked this or that design and it was generally well-received by the development team and the game testers. It's the collective weight of the whole - when all those design decisions and poorly represented characters are taken in sum, rather than as individual cases in isolation - that is when the underlying attitudes become a problem. You say that they are statistically insignificant, but they really aren't. There are a lot of these kinds of characters. Even if there's only one per game, there's still a lot of games, and one per each game still adds up to a lot.
I?m asking for some real evidence to support that the sum of these cases actually adding up to a significant amount. As far as I can see, people are merely applying the coverage of media as indicative of the problem. Say for example you looked at these games http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7274/7619451560_2371b4cffb_z.jpg what percentage do you really think are going to indicate an underlying problem of sexism, hypersexualization or any issue which is argued as damaging to/for women? Keep in mind that most of these are A titles, not taking into consideration of a multitude of additional web based games, PC games (other than Blizzard created) and mobile games created in the same time frame. I don?t think it?s too much to ask for those arguing a systemic issue to be able to provide some actual evidence that isn?t taken in a vacuum, because I haven?t seen any; and I?ve been looking.
