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

[Imp_Emissary]

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."

I agree with most of what your saying. I think games should have sexy women, but just having them half naked is not enough.

Also, are Fenris and Anders vampires? Or are you talking about them being "pretty boys", brody, or somting else.

 

[ThreeWords]

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.

as a straight guy, I think that there really is a saturation point.

I mean, yea, when we are younger we drool and fantasize about boobs, but as we get older something changes.

it could be us just getting burned out, being around girls so much, or we move on. It could be different for other guys though, so dont quote me on that.

yet it could just be broken down into what we find to be attractive to us, some guys like big or small boobs, other guys like big butts, some like them small, some like them taller.



Then again, there are some of us that see a size Triple G and think "oh god..... it is going to eat me! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!"

When I hear the phrase saturation point, I imagine the point at which breasts go from be impressive and attractive to ridiculous and impractical. A point passed by many fictional characters when you compare the proportions of their bodies...

 

[ThreeWords]

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.

A good point; stark nudity has become commonplace and boring, methinks.

 

[FalloutJack]

I know for a damn fact that there is a significant chunk of the female population that likes being scantily-clad. So, ummm...basically...it's not completely unrealistic.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I get what you're saying, but I've been playing videogames and reading comics since I was 6. I'm sorry, but I'm just so used to it by now. I do occasionally sigh disappointedly when characters get sluttified (see The 3rd Birthday). Although it is refreshing when female characters are non-sexualized. My favourite female comic character is FoxGlove from the Sandman series; precisely because she seems like a somewhat normal, likeable character.

Regarding the pic, I'm actually more bothered by Harleys new hairstyle. I'm jaded about the outfits, but stupid hair still gets on my nerves.

EDIT: Forgot to mention: it's a matter of marketing. You may know DC is relaunching most of their titles and making the characters younger specifically to appeal to younger people and try to get new readers. Since Harleys new teammate is apparently a former member of the Street Sharks, I'm pretty sure they're aiming that comic at the youth market and hoping horniness does the rest. I guess I'm just too old to be the target demographic. It's cool. I'm looking forward to Justice League Stupid Title Dark anyway.

whoa, the fuck happened to harley? not the clothes, but she's weilding a knife now? What happened to the pathetic little clown stalker I grew up with?

Also did you say Street Sharks? as in...


Street Sharks? Cause the little kid in me thinks that would be stupidly JAWESOME!

 

[Kahunaburger]

I agree with most of what your saying. I think games should have sexy women, but just having them half naked is not enough.

Also, are Fenris and Anders vampires? Or are you talking about them being "pretty boys", brody, or somting else.

Yeah, I agree - it's less "take out the sexuality" and more "do the sexuality right, and make sure it makes sense in context."

And the Fenris/Anders thing was more a throwaway line haha. I've never actually played DA2, and was basing it off this: http://www.stellarfour.com/2011/03/dragon-age-2-twilightening.html

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Sorry. Mix up.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I agree with most of what your saying. I think games should have sexy women, but just having them half naked is not enough.

Also, are Fenris and Anders vampires? Or are you talking about them being "pretty boys", brody, or somting else.

Yeah, I agree - it's less "take out the sexuality" and more "do the sexuality right, and make sure it makes sense in context."

And the Fenris/Anders thing was more a throwaway line haha. I've never actually played DA2, and was basing it off this: http://www.stellarfour.com/2011/03/dragon-age-2-twilightening.html

Yeah, I see what you mean. I don't like what they did to Anders in DO2. First, they get rid of almost all his humor and replace it with a big chip on his shoulder for templars, and all of a sudden he's a switch hitter? I have no problem with him being bi, but in Awakening they really showed him of as only into women. He flirts with the female followers, talks about liking women no stop, and they even make a joke when you come back to save him and the others in the last fight if your a boy (maybe girl too I don't know for sure) where he says; "You actually came back to save us? Have I mentioned how much I love you? Er, but not in that way."

Also, he picked on the elf mage girl in Awakening for hating humans too much, and now he's just like that for templars. I know that he never liked them,(and that becoming one with Justice changed him), but also in Awadening Wynne says that some mages want to get away from the Chantry all together, and he is against it. I was surprised to say the least that he wasn't for it, but now he won't except anything less than absolute removal.

Sorry, had to say that. Anyway, when women look like they are going to a swimsuit competition in a game, but are really going to a death match, then thats showing off skin.

 

[Twilight.falls]

Frankly I actually agree with you. Not because it's like "AAAH FLESH SO UNHOLY", it's nothing like that. Frankly, it just kills the immersion and willing suspension of disbelief half the time. And often, the reasons for this are so poorly written in and stupid that it just detracts from the narrative. Like you, I enjoy me the female body, but frankly, there's a time and place for everything. Is it OK to have scantily clad ladies in my movies and games? Of course! But only when it makes sense for the story. The sexytime should be a result of the narrative, the narrative should not a result of the sexytime (well, there's a time and place for THAT to, but...)

I side with you.

It makes no sense when to be scantily clad on the battlefield.

There's giant, world devouring demons rampaging all over the place. People are bashing skulls in with huge spiked maces. People are burning alive, getting shot, cut in half, devoured, frozen, electrocuted, stabbed, choked, poisoned, gutted, torn apart, disintegrated and otherwise maimed...

But that woman's boobs are falling out of her top.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

The biggest problem I have with Harley's redesign is that, well, it feels out of character for Harley, the very point of her name is that she's supposed to look (even a little bit) like a harlequin. I don't mind variations on the costume but, y'know, we need to be able to tell its her. There also doesn't seem to be much fun loving about this new Harley so... meh.

 

[rutger5000]

The necessity of clothing is a cultural construct, naked is how humans were built to be.
If you get offended by skin, fair enough, but I think the onus is on you to shield your eyes.

That, and skin sells things very well, cause it looks nice.

That's completly false. Humans were built to have a nice fur, then that wasn't enough anymore and we needed clothes to survive. Then the fur become ussless so we lost it.

 

[Sleepingzombie]

I´m the same, I think the character have a stronger impact if they dont "try to hard" with the "sexy". It does not matter if one thinks half-naked ladies are hot or not, its just cultural preasure and tastes. In related news im axesual.

If you want to go that way and have the character be the "half-naked" kind of sexy you should do it so it adds more mystery to the image.One way is to add some clothing but retain the look of the "half nakedness", strenghtes the appeal.

I think the sexy got to have a point and not just be pandering, even pandering can be done in a good, evokative way.

The artist should do the pandering with a real ounch behind it, not just watered-out heres cold, 21 year old hanna- she forgot her coat can you go get it for her?

 

[Weslebear]

The only time it get's on my nerves is when other people see something, like a show or film, that you love that incidentally involves some scantily clad characters and then instantly think that's why you watch it, which I find highly insulting.

Take the film Love Exposure, which I saw for the first time recently, emotionally I have never been that attached to characters, willing with every ounce of soul I have for everything to go right for them, I was in tears at the ending. It was in my eyes the greatest expression of the chaos and confusion of the emotion love, especially for the first time and how sexual feelings and religion play into that, despite the weirder scenes which I think really exaggerated the emotional confusion the characters were experiencing but enough film reviewing.

The problem with this is I know I can only recommend it to the more open minded of my friends purely due to the perverse nature of large segments of the film, which is to be expected in a film expressing the first sexual feelings of teenagers, but people won't see that. I will be called out as enjoying the film due to these perverse parts alone.

It's less the sexual content itself but how people have come to view it as something immature and immoral, for reasons only relating to the most primal of instincts.

This is as long as the sexuality is understandable in context, if it's there just to sell, because sex sells, then it's insulting. Straight up.

 

[Labyrinth]

Well, you should play Batman: Arkham Asylum. Most of the henchmen are shirtless.
Granted, they're all bald, tattooed and extremely thick with clown face-paint on. But they are scantily clad.

The difference here is in intent. Scantily clad women are there to be looked at for pleasure. Take any image of a woman showing some skin (and in the case of bodysuits, not even) and you're likely to be able to pick out something which is there for the heterosexual male gaze.

As for Joker's henchmen, they're not there to titillate. They're shirtless to make them more menacing rather than to provide viewing pleasure to an audience attracted to men. That's what Batman's skin-tight underwear is for.

 

[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."

Tomb raider was actually a pretty fantastic platform game when it first came out. The last few iterations have been somewhat behind the times. But the new one could verywell bring something back to the series.

Dead or alive though. That game was pure shite and you'd have no arguments from me that it isn't worth a damn. You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying though. I'm not saying a game with nothing but sex appeal is good. But there is nothing wrong with a game having sex appeal or just scantily-clad people in it as-long as it's not the sum of the games appeal.

The problem with what you're saying here is that this is all from your perspective. Pure aesthetic is meaningful in it's own right. There is an entire industry based on it. And to argue there is no artistic value to be found in it is to ignore hundreds of years of fashion and it's impact on modern culture.

Like I said. I'm not saying any game that has a ridiculously dressed woman in it is art. But you cannot dismiss a game simply for having a sexual aesthetic.

Once again, I don't disagree that in theory it is possible to have a game where an unrealistically sexualized character fits the aesthetic. I'm just saying that it almost never is done in a way that rises above pandering. I've never played a game and though "gee, I would be enjoying this game a lot less if she were wearing more clothing."

 

[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."

Tomb raider was actually a pretty fantastic platform game when it first came out. The last few iterations have been somewhat behind the times. But the new one could verywell bring something back to the series.

Dead or alive though. That game was pure shite and you'd have no arguments from me that it isn't worth a damn. You don't seem to be getting what I'm saying though. I'm not saying a game with nothing but sex appeal is good. But there is nothing wrong with a game having sex appeal or just scantily-clad people in it as-long as it's not the sum of the games appeal.

The problem with what you're saying here is that this is all from your perspective. Pure aesthetic is meaningful in it's own right. There is an entire industry based on it. And to argue there is no artistic value to be found in it is to ignore hundreds of years of fashion and it's impact on modern culture.

Like I said. I'm not saying any game that has a ridiculously dressed woman in it is art. But you cannot dismiss a game simply for having a sexual aesthetic.

Once again, I don't disagree that in theory it is possible to have a game where an unrealistically sexualized character fits the aesthetic. I'm just saying that it almost never is done in a way that rises above pandering. I've never played a game and though "gee, I would be enjoying this game a lot less if she were wearing more clothing."

It's not about enjoying it less if she wore more. It's why should she wear more?

Why is it acceptable for a man to wear skin tight clothing or walk around shirtless. But put a woman in a bikini and all of a sudden it's pandering?

Games, films and comics are stories (usually) about idealised humans. I don't see any kind of issue with that.

I don't think you read the entire argument. It's not that it *has* to be pandering, it's that the vast majority of games that feature scantily clad female characters are pandering - the female characters' choice of clothing doesn't work with the general aesthetic of the game. It's like putting cover-based shooting in Duke Nukem.