All your points are valid, but I feel this is all the same stereotype. I don't think there is the "objectified woman", which is sexist, but luckily balanced out by a similar "objectified male". The two are part of the same picture, and reinforce the same stererotype. Men are valued for pyhsical strength, the capacity to endure and dish out violence, and being the active leader. Women are valued for being attractive, have soothing character traits (kind, honest, wise) and being the supporter (sidekick, "wise leader" etc.) of the active leader, or "Hero".Abomination said:But everyone is objectified in games in some way or another. Men are usually just fodder, a number you can kill for a high score. Women at least are given some value, if little/no agency. SOME men are given agency but every other man has next to zero value.
Everyone is projected in a crazy manner, with the dial turned up to 11 in Dragons Crown. I think only the Wizard and the Elf are able to consider themselves "unscathed" by the art style. When almost everything is drawn to ridiculous proportions how can you rationally just cherry-pick one aspect of the thing?
Look at the fighter's head. Look at it! If you're going for symbolism he's all brawn, no brains. The dwarf is a bare-chested savage.
Every man is drawn to look heroic, every woman is drawn to look attractive for those are the qualities that the majority of the people who will buy the product want to see those sexes appear as. It's art and it's commerce combined.
Women are not the only gender being portrayed in a negative manner. They are also portrayed in positive manners. The way they are portrayed is just different to men.
It is unfair to complain about the sexualization of women in video games without also highlighting the disposability of males in video games.
If it?s negative then the entire thing ? gaming - is negative? but it?s also a reflection of our society, not a contributor to it.
So that means that if you are an emptional, physically or mentally weak, or passive male, you are worth less (insultingly calling someone with those traits "gay" speaks volumes about that). Similarily, if you are an unattractive women, or you take on too much of a leading role, or have aggressive instead of soothing character traits, you may be valued less.
Whethe or not you consider this a bad thing is your own moral decision of course. We know shockingly little about how society interacts and what does and what doesn't influence how people think. So I think you are quite justified in taking the "null hypothesis" stance that there is no correlation between games and society. I find it likely that there is one, given that almost everyone in the younger generations is heavily exposed to games, but I am obviously no expert onthe matter.