Maybe I am a prude...or maybe I'm going up or maybe I'm right

[Tim_Buoy]

Nearly naked lades have always sold to hot blooded young men. It's 'human nature' as they say. You sir may be the rare exception to the rule..and for that Bravo!

Personally I'd like to see a few more scantly clad men...just to make things even. >_>

then i sir will direct you to this
<youtube=rj1EDNVQsgY>

 

[conflictofinterests]

SNIP

Are you telling me supermans costume serves to do anything apart from show off his muscles and crotch? How does that show off his personality etc?

SNIP

It is the quintessential superhero costume. Yeah, it's skin tight, yeah it shows off how strong and virile the man is, but it serves to set him apart from the average person with bright, simple, primary colors and a lack of frills (except for a cape). Superman's clothes actually convey all there is to know about him, except maybe moral alignment. He's strong, he's simple, he's different.

 

[Alucard788]

LOL All of these 'suggestions' you guys are throwing at me is really amusing....and in a way a sort of interesting perspective look, at what straight guys would consider, 'more scantly clad men please'.

Notice how all of them are parody, or comedy.

Interesting. ^_^

 

[Kahunaburger]

Don't flatter yourself. Ignoring your bodies natural urges isn't maturity. You shouldn't be losing enough hormones to effect your libido that much until you're a lot older.

Also I don't care what women think about it. Just like I don't care what other men think about a Chippendale catalogue or whatever.

Just because they're a women doesn't give them any more authority on the subject of sexuality than I have.

I really don't understand this hyper sensitive attitude people have towards sexuality. We enjoy it, why shouldn't we parade it? Is it actually hurting anybody? Are you simple enough to actually believe that the objectification of aesthetic diminishes respectability?

Is it any-more just to attack a person for flaunting their attractiveness than it is to berate someone for not being attractive?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not that pointless fanservice makes anyone mad. It's that it's boring, silly, and a little sad.

So we shouldn't enjoy something because it doesn't serve any purpose aside from pure enjoyment?

I'm sorry but I find it a little difficult to care what you or anyone else thinks of what I enjoy.

I'd advise you to take the same approach with the things you enjoy. It's very liberating.

The issue is that looking at game characters wearing skimpy clothing isn't particularly enjoyable, and frequently undermines the game's design and/or storytelling. If you want sex, have sex. If you want porn, look at porn. I find it immensely silly that people get defensive about their fanservice when they have a planet full of people they can have sex with and an internet full of porn to look at.

Since when did simply looking and enjoying transcend into lecherous gratification?

This is society talking through you. We can enjoy the visual aesthetic of a semi naked person without it being solely aroused. High fashion often has provocative designs as does art involving the pureness of the human form. Are you saying there is no artistic validity to something like H.R. Giger's work because it's so provocative. (I probably couldn't post it here.)

Why does there have to be anything other than pure aesthetic enjoyment? You don't have to get off on it. There's a difference between sexual gratification and simple appreciation.

I would be more likely to believe that if making female video game characters half-naked actually served the aesthetic rather than (as it does in most cases) undermining it. Also, considering that you were talking about how enjoyment of fanservice is a function of "libido" a form of "parading sexuality" a few posts ago, you will have to forgive me for taking your "it's just about the aesthetics, honestly" line with a massive grain of salt.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

Good gravy! Scandolous conduct from a lewd young madam!

I think its a bit crazy to express weary disdain at females in gaming/Fantasy/anything wearing ridicolously little amounts of clothing because its just one of those things we have to put up with. That said, sometimes it does get pretty stupid.....

 

[Hagi]

Thank you for an honest answer! I was really expecting to be flamed into oblivion for even asking it.

It would seem that much like human sexuality , the answers are as complex as each individual person. However what I find interesting is that while boobies are quite literary'everywhere' male nudity and full exposure is still very much 'taboo'. Could it be that, in some odd way, naked and sexualised men are 'the final frontier' in terms of popular media catching on?

Then again my own perception and taste in 'sexy'men can be vastly different from other gay fellas...

Hmm lots to think on...all stemming from Harleys boobs...thanks Harley! ^_^

I advise you to visit your nearest large book store and look at the 'romance' section. Unless you've stepped into a few of the rare more literary stores you're likely confronted with row upon row of books featuring shirtless male supermodels on the cover.

There's plenty of popular media with 'naked' (at least equally naked to comic and video game women) and sexualised men. It's just different media.

Though most of those 'romance' books are more aimed at a straight female audience and not a gay audience.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Don't flatter yourself. Ignoring your bodies natural urges isn't maturity. You shouldn't be losing enough hormones to effect your libido that much until you're a lot older.

Also I don't care what women think about it. Just like I don't care what other men think about a Chippendale catalogue or whatever.

Just because they're a women doesn't give them any more authority on the subject of sexuality than I have.

I really don't understand this hyper sensitive attitude people have towards sexuality. We enjoy it, why shouldn't we parade it? Is it actually hurting anybody? Are you simple enough to actually believe that the objectification of aesthetic diminishes respectability?

Is it any-more just to attack a person for flaunting their attractiveness than it is to berate someone for not being attractive?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not that pointless fanservice makes anyone mad. It's that it's boring, silly, and a little sad.

So we shouldn't enjoy something because it doesn't serve any purpose aside from pure enjoyment?

I'm sorry but I find it a little difficult to care what you or anyone else thinks of what I enjoy.

I'd advise you to take the same approach with the things you enjoy. It's very liberating.

The issue is that looking at game characters wearing skimpy clothing isn't particularly enjoyable, and frequently undermines the game's design and/or storytelling. If you want sex, have sex. If you want porn, look at porn. I find it immensely silly that people get defensive about their fanservice when they have a planet full of people they can have sex with and an internet full of porn to look at.

Since when did simply looking and enjoying transcend into lecherous gratification?

This is society talking through you. We can enjoy the visual aesthetic of a semi naked person without it being solely aroused. High fashion often has provocative designs as does art involving the pureness of the human form. Are you saying there is no artistic validity to something like H.R. Giger's work because it's so provocative. (I probably couldn't post it here.)

Why does there have to be anything other than pure aesthetic enjoyment? You don't have to get off on it. There's a difference between sexual gratification and simple appreciation.

I would be more likely to believe that if making female video game characters half-naked actually served the aesthetic rather than (as it does in most cases) undermining it. Also, considering that you were talking about how enjoyment of fanservice is a function of "libido" a form of "parading sexuality" a few posts ago, you will have to forgive me for taking your "it's just about the aesthetics, honestly" line with a massive grain of salt.

I'm not saying that there can't be bad designs. Take that X blade thing for instance... But something like tomb raider. Of course that adds to the aesthetic.

As men we're naturally turned on by the look of the female form. That's part of the appreciation of it.

That doesn't mean we're going to whack off to it.

Let's put it this way - if someone were to make a game and say "let's make this game look like a Boris Vallejo cover" that would be alright (if aiming a little low), because the general lack of clothing would fit the aesthetic. The issue is that most games that feature scantily-clad characters don't even manage that. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that 90% of games (including tomb raider) that feature scantily clad characters tend to do so as a marketing gimmick or as an attempt to distract players from the games' shortcomings, not as anything remotely resembling an artistic decision.

 

[Kahunaburger]

one of those things we have to put up with.

Personally, I think that if there's an aspect of a genre or medium that we "have to put up with," that's something I wouldn't mind seeing change.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

one of those things we have to put up with.

Personally, I think that if there's an aspect of a genre or medium that we "have to put up with," that's something I wouldn't mind seeing change.

Its all very well wishing things would change:

"I wouldn't mind seeing a break with the COD style from FPS developers these days."

 

[Kahunaburger]

Don't flatter yourself. Ignoring your bodies natural urges isn't maturity. You shouldn't be losing enough hormones to effect your libido that much until you're a lot older.

Also I don't care what women think about it. Just like I don't care what other men think about a Chippendale catalogue or whatever.

Just because they're a women doesn't give them any more authority on the subject of sexuality than I have.

I really don't understand this hyper sensitive attitude people have towards sexuality. We enjoy it, why shouldn't we parade it? Is it actually hurting anybody? Are you simple enough to actually believe that the objectification of aesthetic diminishes respectability?

Is it any-more just to attack a person for flaunting their attractiveness than it is to berate someone for not being attractive?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not that pointless fanservice makes anyone mad. It's that it's boring, silly, and a little sad.

So we shouldn't enjoy something because it doesn't serve any purpose aside from pure enjoyment?

I'm sorry but I find it a little difficult to care what you or anyone else thinks of what I enjoy.

I'd advise you to take the same approach with the things you enjoy. It's very liberating.

The issue is that looking at game characters wearing skimpy clothing isn't particularly enjoyable, and frequently undermines the game's design and/or storytelling. If you want sex, have sex. If you want porn, look at porn. I find it immensely silly that people get defensive about their fanservice when they have a planet full of people they can have sex with and an internet full of porn to look at.

Since when did simply looking and enjoying transcend into lecherous gratification?

This is society talking through you. We can enjoy the visual aesthetic of a semi naked person without it being solely aroused. High fashion often has provocative designs as does art involving the pureness of the human form. Are you saying there is no artistic validity to something like H.R. Giger's work because it's so provocative. (I probably couldn't post it here.)

Why does there have to be anything other than pure aesthetic enjoyment? You don't have to get off on it. There's a difference between sexual gratification and simple appreciation.

I would be more likely to believe that if making female video game characters half-naked actually served the aesthetic rather than (as it does in most cases) undermining it. Also, considering that you were talking about how enjoyment of fanservice is a function of "libido" a form of "parading sexuality" a few posts ago, you will have to forgive me for taking your "it's just about the aesthetics, honestly" line with a massive grain of salt.

I'm not saying that there can't be bad designs. Take that X blade thing for instance... But something like tomb raider. Of course that adds to the aesthetic.

As men we're naturally turned on by the look of the female form. That's part of the appreciation of it.

That doesn't mean we're going to whack off to it.

Let's put it this way - if someone were to make a game and say "let's make this game look like a Boris Vallejo cover" that would be alright (if aiming a little low), because the general lack of clothing would fit the aesthetic. The issue is that most games that feature scantily-clad characters don't even manage that. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that 90% of games (including tomb raider) that feature scantily clad characters tend to do so as a marketing gimmick or as an attempt to distract players from the games' shortcomings, not as anything remotely resembling an artistic decision.

Why is appealing to a persons sexuality automatically pandering? Is it pandering when we appeal to our love of puzzles? Or shooting? Deep stories, Or ancient world destroying demons etc?

It's just an aspect of why someone likes something. Why is it automatically cheap because it involves sex or sexuality?

I honestly don't understand that sort of reasoning. It comes strait from a very conservative thought process.

It's pandering when the purpose of it is shallow sex appeal* vs. making the game better. There are entire franchises based on this sort of pandering - people aren't playing Tomb Raider for the platforming or Dead or Alive for the fighting. It's hardly the only way games pander, either. Duke Nukem Forever is pandering to the CoD fanboys with regen health and cover-based shooting, Dragon Age 2 is pandering to people who like twilight-esque "romance" with Fenris/Anders, and so on.

Sexuality is okay in games. Immature and weak handling of sexuality is annoying and kind of sad.

*and, I mentioned earlier, you've gotta be pretty inexperienced if you classify a picture of a scantily clad woman as being meaningful "sex appeal."

 

[AgentNein]

one of those things we have to put up with.

Personally, I think that if there's an aspect of a genre or medium that we "have to put up with," that's something I wouldn't mind seeing change.

Its all very well wishing things would change:

"I wouldn't mind seeing a break with the COD style from FPS developers these days."

But the world's not set in stone, so people can do more than WISH these things would change. They can be vocal of their criticism for one. They can vote with their dollars, they can make their own comics that don't pander or objectify every single female character.

I'm getting more cynical about it as time goes on though, mainstream superhero comics, have they really matured much? Or have they just made people think they've matured when they're just pandering to the same juvenile audience that WANTS to think they're mature? I'm pretty sick of it all.

 

[4173]

Don't flatter yourself. Ignoring your bodies natural urges isn't maturity. You shouldn't be losing enough hormones to effect your libido that much until you're a lot older.

Also I don't care what women think about it. Just like I don't care what other men think about a Chippendale catalogue or whatever.

Just because they're a women doesn't give them any more authority on the subject of sexuality than I have.

I really don't understand this hyper sensitive attitude people have towards sexuality. We enjoy it, why shouldn't we parade it? Is it actually hurting anybody? Are you simple enough to actually believe that the objectification of aesthetic diminishes respectability?

Is it any-more just to attack a person for flaunting their attractiveness than it is to berate someone for not being attractive?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not that pointless fanservice makes anyone mad. It's that it's boring, silly, and a little sad.

So we shouldn't enjoy something because it doesn't serve any purpose aside from pure enjoyment?

I'm sorry but I find it a little difficult to care what you or anyone else thinks of what I enjoy.

I'd advise you to take the same approach with the things you enjoy. It's very liberating.

The issue is that looking at game characters wearing skimpy clothing isn't particularly enjoyable, and frequently undermines the game's design and/or storytelling. If you want sex, have sex. If you want porn, look at porn. I find it immensely silly that people get defensive about their fanservice when they have a planet full of people they can have sex with and an internet full of porn to look at.

Since when did simply looking and enjoying transcend into lecherous gratification?

This is society talking through you. We can enjoy the visual aesthetic of a semi naked person without it being solely aroused. High fashion often has provocative designs as does art involving the pureness of the human form. Are you saying there is no artistic validity to something like H.R. Giger's work because it's so provocative. (I probably couldn't post it here.)

Why does there have to be anything other than pure aesthetic enjoyment? You don't have to get off on it. There's a difference between sexual gratification and simple appreciation.

I would be more likely to believe that if making female video game characters half-naked actually served the aesthetic rather than (as it does in most cases) undermining it. Also, considering that you were talking about how enjoyment of fanservice is a function of "libido" a form of "parading sexuality" a few posts ago, you will have to forgive me for taking your "it's just about the aesthetics, honestly" line with a massive grain of salt.

I'm not saying that there can't be bad designs. Take that X blade thing for instance... But something like tomb raider. Of course that adds to the aesthetic.

As men we're naturally turned on by the look of the female form. That's part of the appreciation of it.

That doesn't mean we're going to whack off to it.

Let's put it this way - if someone were to make a game and say "let's make this game look like a Boris Vallejo cover" that would be alright (if aiming a little low), because the general lack of clothing would fit the aesthetic. The issue is that most games that feature scantily-clad characters don't even manage that. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that 90% of games (including tomb raider) that feature scantily clad characters tend to do so as a marketing gimmick or as an attempt to distract players from the games' shortcomings, not as anything remotely resembling an artistic decision.

Why is appealing to a persons sexuality automatically pandering? Is it pandering when we appeal to our love of puzzles? Or shooting? Deep stories, Or ancient world destroying demons etc?

It's just an aspect of why someone likes something. Why is it automatically cheap because it involves sex or sexuality?

I honestly don't understand that sort of reasoning. It comes strait from a very conservative thought process.

It's pandering when the purpose of it is shallow sex appeal* vs. making the game better. There are entire franchises based on this sort of pandering - people aren't playing Tomb Raider for the platforming or Dead or Alive for the fighting. It's hardly the only way games pander, either. Duke Nukem Forever is pandering to the CoD fanboys with regen health and cover-based shooting, Dragon Age 2 is pandering to people who like twilight-esque "romance" with Fenris/Anders, and so on.

Sexuality is okay in games. Immature and weak handling of sexuality is annoying and kind of sad.

*and, I mentioned earlier, you've gotta be pretty inexperienced if you classify a picture of a scantily clad woman as being meaningful "sex appeal."

For a certain subsection of the market, shallow sex appeal IS making the game better. Are their tastes so wrong or invalid?

To me it seems like people in this thread are using pandering as code for "including stuff I don't like."

Unless the actual argument is people are wrong to like whatever, I don't think pandering is an appropriate word choice.

 

[Casual Shinji]

And the funny thing is that Harley looks way sexier when 90% of her body is covered.

Which is why I hate the redesign in both Arkham Asylum and Arkham City.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Don't flatter yourself. Ignoring your bodies natural urges isn't maturity. You shouldn't be losing enough hormones to effect your libido that much until you're a lot older.

Also I don't care what women think about it. Just like I don't care what other men think about a Chippendale catalogue or whatever.

Just because they're a women doesn't give them any more authority on the subject of sexuality than I have.

I really don't understand this hyper sensitive attitude people have towards sexuality. We enjoy it, why shouldn't we parade it? Is it actually hurting anybody? Are you simple enough to actually believe that the objectification of aesthetic diminishes respectability?

Is it any-more just to attack a person for flaunting their attractiveness than it is to berate someone for not being attractive?

You seem to be missing the point here. It's not that pointless fanservice makes anyone mad. It's that it's boring, silly, and a little sad.

So we shouldn't enjoy something because it doesn't serve any purpose aside from pure enjoyment?

I'm sorry but I find it a little difficult to care what you or anyone else thinks of what I enjoy.

I'd advise you to take the same approach with the things you enjoy. It's very liberating.

The issue is that looking at game characters wearing skimpy clothing isn't particularly enjoyable, and frequently undermines the game's design and/or storytelling. If you want sex, have sex. If you want porn, look at porn. I find it immensely silly that people get defensive about their fanservice when they have a planet full of people they can have sex with and an internet full of porn to look at.

Since when did simply looking and enjoying transcend into lecherous gratification?

This is society talking through you. We can enjoy the visual aesthetic of a semi naked person without it being solely aroused. High fashion often has provocative designs as does art involving the pureness of the human form. Are you saying there is no artistic validity to something like H.R. Giger's work because it's so provocative. (I probably couldn't post it here.)

Why does there have to be anything other than pure aesthetic enjoyment? You don't have to get off on it. There's a difference between sexual gratification and simple appreciation.

I would be more likely to believe that if making female video game characters half-naked actually served the aesthetic rather than (as it does in most cases) undermining it. Also, considering that you were talking about how enjoyment of fanservice is a function of "libido" a form of "parading sexuality" a few posts ago, you will have to forgive me for taking your "it's just about the aesthetics, honestly" line with a massive grain of salt.

I'm not saying that there can't be bad designs. Take that X blade thing for instance... But something like tomb raider. Of course that adds to the aesthetic.

As men we're naturally turned on by the look of the female form. That's part of the appreciation of it.

That doesn't mean we're going to whack off to it.

Let's put it this way - if someone were to make a game and say "let's make this game look like a Boris Vallejo cover" that would be alright (if aiming a little low), because the general lack of clothing would fit the aesthetic. The issue is that most games that feature scantily-clad characters don't even manage that. Being pretentious about it doesn't change the fact that 90% of games (including tomb raider) that feature scantily clad characters tend to do so as a marketing gimmick or as an attempt to distract players from the games' shortcomings, not as anything remotely resembling an artistic decision.

Why is appealing to a persons sexuality automatically pandering? Is it pandering when we appeal to our love of puzzles? Or shooting? Deep stories, Or ancient world destroying demons etc?

It's just an aspect of why someone likes something. Why is it automatically cheap because it involves sex or sexuality?

I honestly don't understand that sort of reasoning. It comes strait from a very conservative thought process.

It's pandering when the purpose of it is shallow sex appeal* vs. making the game better. There are entire franchises based on this sort of pandering - people aren't playing Tomb Raider for the platforming or Dead or Alive for the fighting. It's hardly the only way games pander, either. Duke Nukem Forever is pandering to the CoD fanboys with regen health and cover-based shooting, Dragon Age 2 is pandering to people who like twilight-esque "romance" with Fenris/Anders, and so on.

Sexuality is okay in games. Immature and weak handling of sexuality is annoying and kind of sad.

*and, I mentioned earlier, you've gotta be pretty inexperienced if you classify a picture of a scantily clad woman as being meaningful "sex appeal."

For a certain subsection of the market, shallow sex appeal IS making the game better. Are their tastes so wrong or invalid?

To me it seems like people in this thread are using pandering as code for "including stuff I don't like."

Unless the actual argument is people are wrong to like whatever, I don't think pandering is an appropriate word choice.

Yeah, I think that the people scantily clad characters in games appeal to need to get out more, and I don't like the concept of having crappy stuff shoehorned into my entertainment because some other people have bad taste.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Nearly naked lades have always sold to hot blooded young men. It's 'human nature' as they say. You sir may be the rare exception to the rule..and for that Bravo!

Personally I'd like to see a few more scantly clad men...just to make things even. >_>

for you:

OT: I dont really have much of an opinion on it all.


yes, sometimes wearing a micro bikini into battle is a bad idea.

yes, having tons of armor is a bad idea sometimes.


As long as it makes sense for the character, example is a majority of Marvel girls sometimes, I'm okay with it.

LOL how vintage of you! Thank you. *giggle*

I do agree with that point as well. However I do find that perhaps...just perhaps...bobbies have reached a saturation point? Can you straight guys answer that for me, I don't mean it in a mean way really, is there a boobie saturation point? A point where it just becomes 'meh'. I'm genuinely curious.

Actually Harley looks more clothed than most.

You make a good point actually. Compared to what other game girls wear this isn't that bad. Also to your other question; yes. I do think we see boobs a little too much in games. I don't mean to say there are too may hot girls (can't have too many hot girls), but there is just too much overly exposed skin at times when it doesn't make sence to have a lot of skin exposed.

I mean, you don't have to show off all of the girl's flesh to make her look hot.

p.s. Skin tight clothing is not quite the best answer.

 

[newwiseman]

I've always though the power of a female character was directly proportional to the amount of bare skin that is showing. Are you implying their abilities are driven by something other than partial nudity?