Jimquisition: Objectification And... Men?

[generals3]

A power fantasy and idealism can very well entail objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a laughable argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.

Detrimental? Tell me how it is detrimental. What's detrimental about portraying women in a sexualized manner so i can start pestering all those chicks in skimpy clothes about how detrimental their clothing choices are. As far as i know there is nothing inherently detrimental to sexualization. Therefor i consider the idea of one way of objectifying to be more detrimental than an other rather odd. What matters is the end result, if a character is shit it is shit regardless of why. Some are more shit than others but the reasons why are hardly relevant, what matters is how shitty they are in the end.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to not understand. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.

I hope you realize the idea that sexualization leads to objectification is a very toxic one. And Jim doesn't debunk my arguments at all. Making lots of unfounded claims doesn't make an argument, unfortunately for Jim (and you it seems). And you may also have noticed that i have often used that against you. Just like i do now, the claim that sexualization leads to objectification is unfounded and ludicrous. Sexualization can be used to objectify (if you want to create a sex object) but the former doesn't necessarily lead or imply the lather. And just claiming it does doesn't make it true.

 

[Sepko]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.

You're going to have a wonderful girlfriend, I'm sure. Unless you already have one, in which case she should run. Fast.
Also what does this have to do with how you spend your money? Do you not buy games that have respectful depictions of women or something?

 

[generals3]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Because consumers are usually so worried about other potential consumers. I doubt you'll find many BMW drivers lobbying for BMW to create cheaper cars to allow poorer people to have access to BMW awesomeness. And this goes for pretty much anything. Actually in a way this whole crusade to help the female demographic somehow reminds of the damsel in distress trope. Because that's what it looks like, white knights desperately trying to save those damsels. If women want games to cater to them it's up to them to lobby for it. I don't expect Iphone users to complain to apple about the fact their prices drive people like me away.

 

[Sepko]

A power fantasy and idealism can very well entail objectification, the idea they're mutually exclusive is a laughable argument. Take the muscled up warrior fantasy, if you appeal to that fantasy you don't need to create a character with any kind of agency. As long as it is beefed up and kicks ass it's ok. It could have the personality of a washing machine and be a puppet of other characters but it would still be the "Schwarzenegger" power fantasy. A fighting machine can be a power fantasy but it doesn't make the fact it's a machine go away. On the opposite side you need to keep in mind that a sexual fantasy can be more than an object. Naomi was a great example of that.

And you're telling me this is somehow equally if not more detrimental than how women are portrayed in games? Please tell me this so I can laugh at my screen in terrified disbelief.

Detrimental? Tell me how it is detrimental. What's detrimental about portraying women in a sexualized manner so i can start pestering all those chicks in skimpy clothes about how detrimental their clothing choices are. As far as i know there is nothing inherently detrimental to sexualization. Therefor i consider the idea of one way of objectifying to be more detrimental than an other rather odd. What matters is the end result, if a character is shit it is shit regardless of why. Some are more shit than others but the reasons why are hardly relevant, what matters is how shitty they are in the end.

This is just getting blabbery now. It matters a great deal why a character is shit; so developers can figure out why they were shit and don't repeat their shitty mistakes. And then better characters are made. Discussions are being had about sexualisation and objectification of women in games and has thus led to a steady increase in more respectable female characters. Not on the level of male characters, but they're getting there.

You seem to have missed the crucial point of the paragraph you seemed to not understand. If i can debunk every argument used to claim women are being objectified than i can safely claim i hold the answer to the topic. And i don't need to have played every game to do that. For instance if someone says: this character is obviously being objectified because she's being sexualized. Than i can come in and say: sorry but sexualization =/= objectification therefor you're wrong. I don't need to even play the game in question to debunk obviously broken arguments. So let alone the need to play more 50% of the games to disprove similarly bad arguments about the industry in general.

Sexualisation isn't objectification, sexualisation leads to objectification. I literally said this about 2 posts ago. And you haven't "debunked" anything, just restated old and tired arguments that hold no ground that Jim's debunked in a few of his videos along with this one. You should look them up.

I hope you realize the idea that sexualization leads to objectification is a very toxic one. And Jim doesn't debunk my arguments at all. Making lots of unfounded claims doesn't make an argument, unfortunately for Jim (and you it seems). And you may also have noticed that i have often used that against you. Just like i do now, the claim that sexualization leads to objectification is unfounded and ludicrous. Sexualization can be used to objectify (if you want to create a sex object) but the former doesn't necessarily lead or imply the lather. And just claiming it does doesn't make it true.

How is it toxic?
Also making unfounded and ludicrous claims from 4 games you've played doesn't make an argument either. Especially where really only one of them has any discussion value for this topic.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Sorry mate, but too fucking bad. I work hard for my money, and I'll spend it however I like.

You're going to have a wonderful girlfriend, I'm sure. Unless you already have one, in which case she should run. Fast.

Cute. I'll be sure not to be a complete barbarian. I'll at least give her the number of the local women's shelter on the way out, but only if I can figure out how to retrieve a number from speed dial once you've entered it.

Also what does this have to do with how you spend your money? Do you not buy games that have respectful depictions of women or something?

I once joked about that. Just to see what sort of reaction I'd get you see. Good for at least half a dozen paragraphs worth of frustrated rage. But reading threads like this, with people just like you getting busy riding high in the saddle of your morality horses and evangelising like you're some sort of preacher, I could understand people not buying games they know you'd like simply to spite people like yourself.

But I'm afraid you just don't rate that highly on my giveashit-ometer to influence what games I buy. But to return on message, if one video game developer isn't willing to develop games for me in mind then I'll have no trouble finding one that does, and if no game developers are willing to develop games for me then I'm sure I can find something else to spend my money on.

Welcome to the free market, komrade.

 

[generals3]

This is just getting blabbery now. It matters a great deal why a character is shit; so developers can figure out why they were shit and don't repeat their shitty mistakes. And then better characters are made. Discussions are being had about sexualisation and objectification of women in games and has thus led to a steady increase in more respectable female characters. Not on the level of male characters, but they're getting there.

It's hard to argue if you're continuously shifting your point. Why they are shitty is important to make them less shitty, sure. But it isn't for anything we were debating. Is a walking pair of tits worse than a walking blob of muscles? And if yes, why? Both are obviously shitty objectified characters.

How is it toxic?
Also making unfounded and ludicrous claims from 4 games you've played doesn't make an argument either. Especially where really only one of them has any discussion value for this topic.

Think of the implications in real life. If you still don't see how such an idea is toxic than wow. You have had lots of "slutwalks" to counter such a mindset, don't let their efforts be in vain. Sexualization is an aesthetic choice and says nothing about the rest, whether in RL, games, comics, movies or whatever.

I'm making 0 claims. That's the beauty. Pointing to how claims are unfounded is not making unfounded claims. That would make making unfounded claims way too easy. The fact that sexualization =/= objectification is fact, the idea that sexualization doesn't lead to objectification is fact as well considering nowhere in any definition is it told that sexualization leads to objectification. In order to prove the contrary in the video game industry the burden of proof lies on you. Just saying it is like that doesn't make it true.

 

[Sepko]

But I'm afraid you just don't rate that highly on my giveashit-ometer to influence what games I buy. But to return on message, if one video game developer isn't willing to develop games for me in mind then I'll have no trouble finding one that does, and if no game developers are willing to develop games for me then I'm sure I can find something else to spend my money on.

Welcome to the free market, komrade.

It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.

Welcome to general inclusiveness.

So we shouldn't even bother to think about the female demographic? That's kind of a bit narrow-minded, and horrible.

Because consumers are usually so worried about other potential consumers. I doubt you'll find many BMW drivers lobbying for BMW to create cheaper cars to allow poorer people to have access to BMW awesomeness. And this goes for pretty much anything. Actually in a way this whole crusade to help the female demographic somehow reminds of the damsel in distress trope. Because that's what it looks like, white knights desperately trying to save those damsels. If women want games to cater to them it's up to them to lobby for it. I don't expect Iphone users to complain to apple about the fact their prices drive people like me away.

Gaming isn't some boys club y'know, it's a growing community where more and more of the female demographic is joining in. Even in the hardcore sector; my own sister is in a CoD clan. And it's not like women aren't doing anything about being represented, they're lobbying, they're talking about it, even on this forum, you yourself rather haphazardly talked to a few.
And with this "If women want games to cater to them it's up to them to lobby for it" tripe, holy shit you're an asshole. As a community we should be as inclusive as we can, and with jackoffs like you being reminiscent of the dickweeds who didn't think women should've had the right to vote, or should lobby for it themselves, the inclusiveness thing is a bit of a hard climb. Jesus christ, I'm seriously done with you. You're not worth my time anymore. Fucking hell, the nerve of some people.

 

[generals3]

Gaming isn't some boys club y'know, it's a growing community where more and more of the female demographic is joining in. Even in the hardcore sector; my own sister is in a CoD clan. And it's not like women aren't doing anything about being represented, they're lobbying, they're talking about it, even on this forum, you yourself rather haphazardly talked to a few.
And with this "If women want games to cater to them it's up to them to lobby for it" tripe, holy shit you're an asshole. As a community we should be as inclusive as we can, and with jackoffs like you being reminiscent of the dickweeds who didn't think women should've had the right to vote, or should lobby for it themselves, the inclusiveness thing is a bit of a hard climb. Jesus christ, I'm seriously done with you. You're not worth my time anymore.

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

And i'm not inclusive? I beg to differ. I applaud women who pick on gaming, but i'm not going to lobby for games to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a costumer in any way. If i were to lobby for games to refuse female gamers you'd have point but i don't. I just don't lobby for developers to change their games so they cater more to women. Women are more than welcome to play any games they want. The only barrier is that their taste doesn't match the offer. How the fuck is that my problem?

 

[Sepko]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

And i'm not inclusive? I beg to differ. I applaud women who pick on gaming, but i'm not going to lobby for games to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a costumer in any way. If i were to lobby for games to refuse female gamers you'd have point but i don't. I just don't lobby for developers to change their games so they cater more to women. Women are more than welcome to play any games they want. The only barrier is that their taste doesn't match the offer. How the fuck is that my problem?

"I applaud women who want to vote, but I'm not going to lobby for the government to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a citizen in any way." - This is what you sound like.
I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else: It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.
Are we done trying to justify not giving girl gamers a fair go?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

But I'm afraid you just don't rate that highly on my giveashit-ometer to influence what games I buy. But to return on message, if one video game developer isn't willing to develop games for me in mind then I'll have no trouble finding one that does, and if no game developers are willing to develop games for me then I'm sure I can find something else to spend my money on.

Welcome to the free market, komrade.

It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.

Welcome to general inclusiveness.

The only thing I'm afraid of is not getting value for my money. Neither film nor television share the same marketing model as video games. Arguably the current triple-A model is only made sustainable by charging a premium price to a targeted demographic, the only other alternative to that has been the development of rental-only online play, or free-to-pay dollar gougers. Some of which are good, most of which are bad, but without exception all those who play those sorts of games do so under the all-seeing eye of online DRM and the game's own finite existence.

So thanks, but no thanks. This general inclusiveness you speak of can play hide and go fuck itself so far as I'm concerned. It is not in my best interests to play along.

 

[generals3]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

"I applaud women who want to vote, but I'm not going to lobby for the government to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a citizen in any way." - This is what you sound like.

Right. Because there are so many people who lobby for different political ideologies to be represented. You can't imagine how many right wingers lobby for more left wing parties and vice-versa.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else: It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.
Are we done trying to justify not giving girl gamers a fair go?

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

 

[Sepko]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

"I applaud women who want to vote, but I'm not going to lobby for the government to cater more to them because that doesn't help me as a citizen in any way." - This is what you sound like.

Right. Because there are so many people who lobby for different political ideologies to be represented. You can't imagine how many right wingers lobby for more left wing parties and vice-versa.

I'm not even going to touch that.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked someone else: It's not like developers are gonna suddenly turn heel and ignore male gamers, what's wrong with having them think about what female gamers think in their development process as well as male gamers? Are we afraid of the cooties or something? It's not that hard to imagine, seeing as film and tv have been doing it for their audiences for decades now.
Are we done trying to justify not giving girl gamers a fair go?

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

 

[Sepko]

Arguably the current triple-A model is only made sustainable by charging a premium price to a targeted demographic, the only other alternative to that has been the development of rental-only online play, or free-to-pay dollar gougers. Some of which are good, most of which are bad, but without exception all those who play those sorts of games do so under the all-seeing eye of online DRM and the game's own finite existence.

So thanks, but no thanks. This general inclusiveness you speak of can play hide and go fuck itself so far as I'm concerned. It is not in my best interests to play along.

Arguably the Triple-A model is a bloated unmitigated mess where companies have lost money despite good sales because they threw too much money at projects that didn't need it.
Film went through a period like this too. Film history time!
The era of the Cleopatra's and Ben Hur's had films being made with massive budgets, so massive that despite the generally positive outcomes they couldn't get a profit. Hollywood almost crashed because of this. Since then they've figured how to better distribute their money and still make good and enjoyable films for the most part. And this was after they figured out they could advertise to both genders. See what I'm saying here?
And you've never seem to have heard of indie games, unless you don't like that sort of thing, for which I pity you.
So with proper money management we can have games that already cater to boys, and those weird pink things that allegedly cater to girls, and those that *le gasp* cater to both! What a tremendously outrageous notion.

 

[generals3]

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

Are you trolling? I really need to ask because it feels like it. The point is (and has always been, unless you forgotten how this discussion started) that consumers care about their own needs. And why should that be different if women are those whos needs aren't being met? Whether the "opposing" group are poor people or women, it doesn't matter. And if it does elaborate.

I'm not even going to touch that.

Off course you aren't because it shows how little people care about the desires of others. And this thus shows how hypocritical it is to insult someone because he shows no special interest in the needs of female gamers.

I have never said there was something "wrong" with it. If you feel like being a white knight be my guest. But what is wrong with doing what gamers always do, focus on what matters to them? Do you think the gamers who complain about games being too easy or hard, too violent or too soft care about those who like it the way it is? Do you think the casuals in WoW cared a bit about players like me, who like a challenge, when they bitched about the difficulty during Cata? And do you think i cared about the casuals when i complained about how easy WoTLK was? No. Gamers rarely give a fuck about the preferences of other gamers. And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly. Screw that, equality, i'll fight for my needs regardless of who sits on the other end. Casuals, women, CoD'ers, i don't care who you are, if we don't share the same goal don't expect me to aid your cause as a consumer.

And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

You have totally missed the point haven't you? The point is that I as a costumer don't care about the preferences of other costumers. And the characteristics of the "opposing" group is obviously irrelevant. It should always be. Otherwise you're showing an unjustified discriminatory behavior. If it's ok to stick my finger to casuals why is not to do the same to female gamers pushing for their preferences?

And i'm all in favor of women voting. Because voting is a right. This however is the gaming market, it's about goods which are privileges which people decide to acquire for themselves or not. And i don't give a shit if other people aren't getting the games they want. I'm not a communist, i don't believe in the idea everyone should have the same privileges.

And if me not considering the female demographic as inherently weaker to other groups and thus needing my assistance makes me an asshole i'll gladly be one.

 

[Hagi]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

 

[Sepko]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Because it's insinuating that women are on the same level as them. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. Also, comparing an entire gender to a class of people seems a bit jarring.

 

[Valnyan]

I know your questions are directed to Jim Sterling, but your comment caught my eyes and I would like to share my opinion about it.

Is the character of Bayonetta a contributing factor to the objectification of women in video games even though she is portrayed more as an idealized woman than a sex object?

Bayonetta is a tricky subject. Because there is one side that see objectification in her and another side who see her as idealised and as a female power fantasy like Kratos is for men.
I'd say there is a bit of both. I would like to know what the author intended for her but it wouldn't really change the mind of anybody. Both stance do stand.
Personally I interpret her more as a power fantasy, she is definitely sexualised a lot but, and you summarised it well, I don't feel she is objectified.
But still her look is mostly designed with a male ideal of beauty. Also "beauty" is not an important part of an empowerment fantasy. (look at Kratos, the sex is part of the fantasy but he doesn't need to be handsome or desirable, he just take what he wants) Also we can't deny the whole male gaze with camera angles and the power of stripping.

Yet, I still think she is a power fantasy but I think the creators wanted to still appeal to the male audience but with a hint of "reversing" in it. If you see what I mean, like, they took the usually over sexualised character and gave her power, agency, character. Somehow, a bit like Dante, who is a textbook male fantasy but they also clearly sexualised him a bit for the female audience.

If Bayonetta has been created by women to appeal to women but was otherwise identical, would the character still be considered an example of objectification? Should the character still be considered an example of objectification?

I don't really have an answer to this question. I don't think it needs one but I found it funny because I thought, at first, that Bayonetta was designed by a woman. I don't think I would have a different opinion if I knew from start she was designed by a man since my very first impression was bad. And I only started to see the character behind the sexualisation when I heard about the game story and all. But the trailers gave me a bad "porno in sheep's clothings" vibe. Then I saw the gameplay (and the level and enemy design) leaned about the story and the character.

In the video game community, there is a certain reaction to female characters. These characters are always condemned as objectification of women, etc. We praise the any female character that is non-sexual, often holding them up as examples of strong female characters even when their only defining feature is a lack of sexuality in a crowd of highly sexual female characters. On the other hand, developers are criticized for creating any hint of sexuality in a female character, even in female characters that are strong female characters in every respect. The most recent character I can bring forward as an example is Elizabeth of Bioshock infinite.

I think you are wrong here. There is a definite difference between sexualisation and objectification. (And there is even a difference between sexual and sexualised but that's another topic.) The problem is that they often go hand in hand. But to just give a single example or two, or three.
Peach, Zelda, Samus.

Peach is not sexualised at all with her relatively "cartoony" almost chibi proportions and art style I am not sure we can even consider her sexy. She is not sexual in the slightest, yet she's very much objectified in most games. Actually in every game where she is not played she is a textbook damsel in distress. Which means she's just a goal, an object.
What I mean is that a character can be objectified without being sexualised.

Samus was sexualised even in the nes, just a bit, if you were fast enough. We can even say it was quite objectifying to make of her body a trophy to earn the right to oogle. On the other side, with nes graphics, it would be hard to show she is actually female without showing her in bikini or with a dress. Anyway, it's part of her character that, under her armor, she is a very sexy woman. And she is a textbook female power fantasy. Even when they gave her her infamous Zero Suit, there have been a little uproar but almost everyone rolled with it and, in the end, it did not deter her character.
Until, Another M, which totally changed Samus and stripped her of almost everything that made her a power fantasy.
My point is we can make a character sexy and even sexualise her without objectifying her.

Zelda is a bit more complicated. But we can agree that she is not sexualised (or at least not much) and that she do get "damsel in distressed" in every game WITHOUT losing her character, her agency, her importance nor her power. Some argue that it is still objectification. I say yes. But I don't say just "yes". I say "yes, but" ! She is objectified temporarily in every game, but what I really remember Zelda for is not her time as a captive but rather all the other badass things she did, does, is aknowledged doing. So we can't really say that Zelda is an "objectified character" since she doesn't lose power, agency, relevance or character. We rarely see female character doing things on screen but, with Zelda, we really get the vibe that it is her story and Link is the side character that helps her attain her goals.
Zelda is Batman and you play Robin in the very moment where Batman needs you, but it's still clear that Batman did and does most of the work.
What I'm trying to say is agency, power, responsability is not a matter of protagonist, main character or anything. Zelda is a supporting character and still is more empowered than Link. And Link isn't objectified at all either. It shows we can make games without objectifying anyone with good writing.
Zelda serie is basically a power fantasy for everyone. (even bronies, epona is such a bad ass)

The vast majority of people loved Elisabeth, but the criticism I most often saw against her was that her dress showed off too much cleavage and that this cheapened the character. And it is true that the dress she wears is sexy. But it is hardly an objectifying sexuality. And this is only one of many examples I could bring to the table.

I think the criticism comes more from the fact Ken Levine said that he was surprised that peoples oogle at Elizabeth, even saying something along the line of "people on internet think much more about her breasts than we did". Which means that they didn't sexualise her dress on purpose with the intent to make her sexy. (Considering who she is, it would have been a bad idea) But that they made her sexy "by default". They certainly wanted her to be attractive and I don't think they went "What is attractive ? Oh I know, boobs, cleavage and corsets !" they came to that outfit "naturally" without having sexualisation in mind. And that, to me, is the problem with her design. It's not that sexualisation is bad, it just show a weird idea about female beauty being equal to sexuality.
Also I just think it is not the kind of character that benefits from sexualisation. But the character is still likable and the game still good.

But that's sexualisation, not objectification. So, what about it ? Well, there is this little fact that Ken Levine wanted her to pose on the box art and publisher didn't want that. They put her on the rear cover and decided to make an "america fuck yeah bro dude FPS" front cover. That, to some peoples, felt like they dropped the ball for Elizabeth and agreed to present her as less important, less a character, less a person than Booker.
Now, I have some kind of question too. If Ken Levine did not talk about his failed struggle to put her forward would anyone have raised an eyebrow at the cover featuring her only on the back ?
I don't think so, if anything he put the issue forward and made peoples aware that even such small detail is important. So, yeah, I don't think Bioshock or Ken Levine deserve the heat they get about this whole sexualisation and objectification. If anything they are good examples of trying to progress with the gender issue.

It seems to me that the forward thinking video game community has settled into a dangerous position against female sexuality. So many of us have been fighting for so long against negative depictions of female sexuality that we automatically react any depiction of female sexuality as a bad thing. We are essentially embracing a very old and very damaging idea: That women are not to be sexual.

Again, I think you are wrong. As stated above, and as my Kratos example shows, there is a difference between Sexuality, Sexualisation and Objectification. But the three often like to go hand in hand ... in hand. So it's easy to bunch the three together.
As an example Kratos is not sexualised, is not objectified but he is very much sexual. Peach is neither sexual nor sexualised and yet she's objectified. Zelda is not sexual at all, maybe a bit sexualised, and not objectified (even with her little "damsel in distress" moment. Samus is sexualised, not sexual and not objectified too. (Unless you take another M but I try to forget about this mess) And Bayonetta is very sexualised, definitely sexual yet manages to not be objectified.
I don't think the gaming community is against sexual female. Also I don't think the enemy is "negative depiction of female sexuality". If anything most peoples, or at least most feminists, want the female sexuality to be more depicted in all shapes and form. Sexuality doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to be bad, it can get ugly too. The problem with female sexuality in games is that, usually, the woman is passive and not that sexual. They are just a sex toy for the male character and lose any little agency or character they may have had in the first place.
Sexuality is complex and media often simplify all of this to a rather stupid "ideal" of sex where men are aggressive, predatory, pushing while women are passive trophies that requires men to complete some task or compete with others to earn.
And it's not just sex but also romance in general, in video games romance is about studying your prey, learning what she needs, wants, like, and exploit them until she agrees to let you get in her pants.

Personally I much prefer no representation at all than a bad representation. Now, I know I'm in the minority, but I would not mind at all if sexuality was left out of most games, often it doesn't add anything at best and at worst it can deter to some characters. I don't mean to censor it or to make it a taboo but that's a mature subject that needs mature writers and a mature audience to be done well.
And by mature I don't mean 18+ "adult games" which, for the most, are actually very immature.

And that's kind of my point about it. We don't really need more sex in games. We need it to be well written.

 

[Sepko]

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

Are you trolling? I really need to ask because it feels like it. The point is that consumers care about their own needs. And why should that be different if women are those whos needs aren't being met? Whether the "opposing" group are poor people or women doesn't matter. And if it does elaborate.

This isn't about consumerism it's about a sense of community, game companies sell to our community so whatever's in our community matters. And of course it matters what your so-called "opposing" group is, how freakin' jaded are you? You're comparing women, as a whole mind you, to a class of general people, and a lower class at that. How do you not see how much that's fucking horrible of you?

I'm not even going to touch that.

Off course you aren't because it shows how little people care about the desires of others. And this thus shows how hypocritical it is to insult someone because he shows no special interest in the needs of female gamers.

How little you care, perhaps. But, happily, not everyone in the gaming community's like you, so we can all live on happy with the knowledge that there are those of us who care at least a little bit about the opposite gender in our community.

And now we're comparing including girl gamers to complaining about game mechanics -______- You're not doing very well.

"And i find the idea that we should start behaving differently just because suddenly the "opposing" (not necessarily) group are women rather silly."
You really shouldn't, seeing as that's horrendously and stupidly disrespectful, and is an attitude that isn't going to get you any girlfriends any time soon. Unless you do have one already, in which case she hasn't realised you're comparable to the people who were indifferent/uncaring of women who wanted to vote, and she should run.

Don't breed, really, it would be better for all of us.

You have totally missed the point haven't you? The point is that I as a costumer don't care about the preferences of other costumers. And the characteristics of the "opposing" group is obviously irrelevant. It should always be. Otherwise you're showing an unjustified discriminatory behavior. If it's ok to stick my finger to casuals why is not to do the same to female gamers pushing for their preferences?

And i'm all in favor of women voting. Because voting is a right. This however is the gaming market, it's about goods which are privileges which people decide to acquire for themselves or not. And i don't give a shit if other people's aren't getting the games they want.

And if me not considering the female demographic as inherently weaker to other groups and thus needing my assistance makes me an asshole i'll gladly be one.

The characteristics of the "opposing" group is incredibly relevant, how could it not be? Are we living in some fantasy world where everything on god's green Earth is equal ground?
And again you're comparing women to completely the wrong things, the casuals are a collection of a small batch of both male and female gamers. The collection of female gamers is the entire collection of female gamers, and as members of the opposite gender they deserve to have a voice in gaming because they're the freakin' entire collection of female gamers.
You also seem to like touting about female gamers being weaker and needing help, do you not know how revolutions work? Admittedly, an extreme example but it gets the point across. People helping people is the best way to go about change, and so for those people who care about how women are portrayed in games they will help out the cause, that includes men as well, because why not? Straight people helped out the gays getting equal rights, should they not have done anything, just because they were straight thus having no stake in it at all? The same applies here, albeit on a smaller scale, but it still matters to a great deal of people. And all your business tripe doesn't change the fact that people want change.

 

[Hagi]

So can i tell you how bad your behavior is whenever you don't lobby for companies to cater to other demographics? Because i'm sure you use a lot of products/services for which you don't follow the standard i'm supposed to follow for gaming.

Like what? Seriously, like what?

Do you complain about any company making primarily expensive products/services which you use and would cost too much for poorer people because they don't cater to them? Heck do you complain to your internet provider that their price might exclude the poorest?

So wait, we're comparing women to poor people now? This is a gender of humans we're talking about here, you don't compare them to poor people. Jesus, learn some respect.

God, how dare he compare women to poor people. Those damn filthy uncivilized peasants! The mere thought of being compared to those inferior idiots who didn't even have the basic sense to be born of standing and money, ugh!

Learn some respect indeed! To compare a perfectly normal person to a poor person, the disgrace! The idea alone is ridiculous, comparing a female to one from the uncouth unwashed masses? Lunacy!

Erm... just between you and me though, don't tell anyone I said this, but what exactly's so bad about being compared to poor people?

Because it's insinuating that women are on the same level as them. And I mean that in the kindest way possible. Also, comparing an entire gender to a class of people seems a bit jarring.

Heh, it just keeps getting better...

Might I ask what level that might be, in the kindest way possible of course?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Arguably the current triple-A model is only made sustainable by charging a premium price to a targeted demographic, the only other alternative to that has been the development of rental-only online play, or free-to-pay dollar gougers. Some of which are good, most of which are bad, but without exception all those who play those sorts of games do so under the all-seeing eye of online DRM and the game's own finite existence.

So thanks, but no thanks. This general inclusiveness you speak of can play hide and go fuck itself so far as I'm concerned. It is not in my best interests to play along.

Arguably the Triple-A model is a bloated unmitigated mess where companies have lost money despite good sales because they threw too much money at projects that didn't need it.
Film went through a period like this too. Film history time!
The era of the Cleopatra's and Ben Hur's had films being made with massive budgets, so massive that despite the generally positive outcomes they couldn't get a profit. Hollywood almost crashed because of this. Since then they've figured how to better distribute their money and still make good and enjoyable films for the most part. And this was after they figured out they could advertise to both genders. See what I'm saying here?
And you've never seem to have heard of indie games, unless you don't like that sort of thing, for which I pity you.
So with proper money management we can have games that already cater to boys, and those weird pink things that allegedly cater to girls, and those that *le gasp* cater to both! What a tremendously outrageous notion.

You're drawing a false equivalency between movie making and game development. Good-looking, slickly produced film can be delivered on a shoe string budget. Great immensely playable games can also be delivered on a shoe string budget too. Good-looking, immensely playable games made on a shoe string budget on the other hand just don't exist, or are products of love made by people willing to work for next to nothing either because they love it and for one reason or another have the spare time on their hands to do it, or they want to break into professional game creation and this is their way of making their own opportunities. It's disingenuous at best to point at some of the graphically superior independent games out there as examples of how games can be made cheaply when damn near all of them are 50% game and 50% resume.

And yeah, people just like you are, again, always bitching about Hollywood film being created by and for a predominately male audience. So you might want to watch your six for friendly fire on that one.