I've noticed the last few weeks, and the last few days in particular, have been pretty heavy on the feminism topic, and how women are portrayed in video games. With the newest Sarkeesian video being released on the heels of the controversial Dragons Crown game, it seems like this has been one of the more common threads. Even the newest Jimquisition touched on the subject. While certain threads tended to deal with a specific example of (supposed) sexism, I was curious to see what people thought about the issue as a whole.
I noticed I seemed to be with the minority on this particular topic, in that I felt that a strong argument could be made that Dragons Crown and Hitman Absolution had some very sexist elements in them, and I even found myself agreeing with *some (certainly not all) of what Anita Sarkeesian said. A lot of people argued that games like Dragons Crown were a throw back to classic games, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Others said that the art style was an artistic choice that should be respected. Still more said that there was nothing wrong with sexualized women in games, because sex is natural, and is nothing to be ashamed of. The insinuation is that if you have a problem with scantily clad women, you must be a prude who opposes women expressing their sexuality, or you must be uncomfortable with sex in general.
In all honesty, I can't help but feel like these comments miss the point. I think a lot of people are irritable about the above games, not because there are sexually attractive women in them, but because sexual attraction seems to be their defining, and sometimes only, trait. They are typically valued or noticed for their sexuality, and nothing more. The creator of Dragons Crown basicly said he exagerated all the characters features to stand out, and it is pretty obvious which features he chose to emphasize. It also seemed a little juvenile to respond to criticism with what amounts to a gay joke.
I don't think video games being throwbacks necessarily validates keeping old fashioned ideas either. Plenty of Indie games kept the best aspects of classic games while successfully tailoring them to modern audiences through game play features.
I guess my main point is that there is a difference between a female character who is comfortable with her sexuality in a healthy and mature way, and a character who is essentially being exploited. A female warrior walking around in a metal bikini and high heels is clearly being exploited, as they are wearing completely inappropriate (in a practical combat sense) clothing. Was the new tomb raider really less attractive because she wasn't sporting an unrealistically massive chest? Personally I always found a well written character with an engaging personality more attractive, and kind of feel like a lot of creators try to cover up for a lack of writing skill by applying fan service.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against attractive women in games, I just feel that when their looks are their primary character trait, there's an issue. You really do begin to think of that person as an object. Tifa Lochheart, Aerith Gainsborough, Elena Fisher, and several characters from Mass Effect are quite attractive, but they are all well written characters with fully defined personalities completely independent of their appearance. I also don't have problems with sexual content in video games, as long as it serves the story (Mass Effect). The difference is that one is a sexy character who may or may not have a personality tacked on, while the other is a well rounded, confident, believable character who just happens to be attractive.
I wan't emphasize that I'm not insulting the taste of people who like the above games, most people seem to agree that their quite fun. It's easy, I'm sure, to appreciate them completely independently of any fanservice whatsoever, and that's fine. All I'm saying is that I think some of these criticisms atleast make a few good points, so for the sake of it I'll play devils advocate.
But what do you think? Should games cut out some of the fanservice, or are they fine as they are?
I noticed I seemed to be with the minority on this particular topic, in that I felt that a strong argument could be made that Dragons Crown and Hitman Absolution had some very sexist elements in them, and I even found myself agreeing with *some (certainly not all) of what Anita Sarkeesian said. A lot of people argued that games like Dragons Crown were a throw back to classic games, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Others said that the art style was an artistic choice that should be respected. Still more said that there was nothing wrong with sexualized women in games, because sex is natural, and is nothing to be ashamed of. The insinuation is that if you have a problem with scantily clad women, you must be a prude who opposes women expressing their sexuality, or you must be uncomfortable with sex in general.
In all honesty, I can't help but feel like these comments miss the point. I think a lot of people are irritable about the above games, not because there are sexually attractive women in them, but because sexual attraction seems to be their defining, and sometimes only, trait. They are typically valued or noticed for their sexuality, and nothing more. The creator of Dragons Crown basicly said he exagerated all the characters features to stand out, and it is pretty obvious which features he chose to emphasize. It also seemed a little juvenile to respond to criticism with what amounts to a gay joke.
I don't think video games being throwbacks necessarily validates keeping old fashioned ideas either. Plenty of Indie games kept the best aspects of classic games while successfully tailoring them to modern audiences through game play features.
I guess my main point is that there is a difference between a female character who is comfortable with her sexuality in a healthy and mature way, and a character who is essentially being exploited. A female warrior walking around in a metal bikini and high heels is clearly being exploited, as they are wearing completely inappropriate (in a practical combat sense) clothing. Was the new tomb raider really less attractive because she wasn't sporting an unrealistically massive chest? Personally I always found a well written character with an engaging personality more attractive, and kind of feel like a lot of creators try to cover up for a lack of writing skill by applying fan service.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against attractive women in games, I just feel that when their looks are their primary character trait, there's an issue. You really do begin to think of that person as an object. Tifa Lochheart, Aerith Gainsborough, Elena Fisher, and several characters from Mass Effect are quite attractive, but they are all well written characters with fully defined personalities completely independent of their appearance. I also don't have problems with sexual content in video games, as long as it serves the story (Mass Effect). The difference is that one is a sexy character who may or may not have a personality tacked on, while the other is a well rounded, confident, believable character who just happens to be attractive.
I wan't emphasize that I'm not insulting the taste of people who like the above games, most people seem to agree that their quite fun. It's easy, I'm sure, to appreciate them completely independently of any fanservice whatsoever, and that's fine. All I'm saying is that I think some of these criticisms atleast make a few good points, so for the sake of it I'll play devils advocate.
But what do you think? Should games cut out some of the fanservice, or are they fine as they are?
