Poll: Bikini or miniskirt - Which is more exploitative?

[godofslack]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

Actually, as someone who went on to study English, the correct grammar would have been: "With that out of the way."

In formal English, usually. But, this is a forum, where formal English is certainly not used, hell half the stuff on forums are barely even English. There are still debates if you can or can not use it at the start of a sentence, in formal English, but damn near every great writer does use it time to time. It's just one of those rules that have always been soft, and the only people who ever really followed them were some literary scholars and the extremely young.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Pick up a grammar checker while you're at it.

And with

> Comments on grammar (which was fine, by the way)
> Starts a sentence with "And."

Hmm. The words glass and house spring to mind.

Hate to be that guy, but yeah, that's allowed, it's just a rule created by grade school teachers to try and teach you the most formal type of writing possible.

Actually, as someone who went on to study English, the correct grammar would have been: "With that out of the way."

In formal English, usually. But, this is a forum, where formal English is certainly not used, hell half the stuff on forums are barely even English. There are still debates if you can or can not use it at the start of a sentence, in formal English, but damn near every great writer does use it time to time. It's just one of those rules that have always been soft, and the only people who ever really followed them were some literary scholars and the extremely young.

Beyond the validity of using and to start a sentence, in this case it was simply bad grammar.

What they said: "And with "stooping to their level" out of the way, we've come to the end of this pathetic train ride."

Better grammar: "With stooping to your level out of the way, we've come to the end of this pathetic train ride." Or, better still; "Now that I've stooped to your level," etc., etc.

Even if someone could argue for using the and, it's simply bad English to use one there, as it is redundant. I'm not an English Nazi in this context, mind. I'm simply pointing out their error, as they were so quick in attempting to do he same to myself. I also just don't like them and their attitude, so I'm more inclined to nitpick, lol.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

Context and realism are not the same thing. The reason I pick on Ivy rather than Darth Vader, Kilik, or the other guys is that the male characters aren't sold based on their sexuality. Ivy is a walking BDSM fetish, Taki is just plain naked, Cassandra is dressed like a cheerleader...I'm not sure if I should give Talim a pass just because she does seem chaste, but I'm told virginal fifteen-year-olds are the big fetish in Japan, so I don't know.

See, I don't see individual characters within the game as being sold, the entire game is sold based on its certain style. Beyond that, individual characters are rather shallow, all of them male and female alike. And most of them most you really remember are their weapons. Guy with big hammer, guy with big sickle, girl with wrist blades that kills me all the time, girl with whip sword. The only one who has any semblance of depth is Siegfried, and I think to criticize one of it's characters for "only being based on sex appeal" is really to be totally unfair to the game because it's not trying to set these characters up as much at all. Give them a single sentence backstory and let them have at it.

Are you saying men can't write women? Because I have to say, I find that idea pretty offensive, but I won't take you to task for it just yet because I'm not sure it's what you mean.

I'm not saying that they can't, just that it's really incredibly difficult for them to do so. The key to bringing a character off successfully, especially in something where you're having that character attack aliens in a suit of power armor, is to have a couple of moments of emotional connection with them, "I've done that," "I've felt that way," etc. And to be a man is quite simply a fundamentally different experience. We process visual information differently, we have different biologies, our brains work a little differently, and our social pressures are different. Why would you think that's insulting when I say that as a writer is really hard to overcome? It is, and more power to the really good writers that do it, but most writers are not really good writers.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

No, it doesn't. The word simply means using something for profit. So, when a female character in a video game is a size one supermodel with an epic motorboat, who profits from that? Certainly not the character, but the people who make her look like that.

How can a character profit from anything?

Characters can profit within the context of the fictional worlds they inhabit. Siegfried profits by covering himself in three hundred pounds of seamless metal so no one can stab him in his soft, squishy parts, but how does Ivy profit from wearing an outfit that covers as much surface area of her body as three strategically arranged snakeskin belts? She doesn't. It does not improve her survivability by even a fraction of a second. She looks like that because it will make boys want to buy the game.

Ok I will give you that the primary purpose of scantily clad charecters generally exist for the purpose of sex appeal. Now whats your point? You seem to be saying thats a bad thing, but you present no reasons why simply saying that if designers dress charecters in revealing attire for the benefit of the players of the game then we should all see this as a terrible thing. you present examples and evidence to support a claim you havent made. What is so awful about having scantily clad women in games to appeal to heterosexual males? Games have two main purposes. The first is to entertain consumers for those that play them to have a good time. The second is to make the people who are making the game money. Sex is appealing to the magority of consumers and most of them are heterosexual males. By including scantily girls they entertain more people, people who enjoy seeing scantily clad women and will therefore enjoy the game more. Sex also helps sales. This is fairly evident by even a short look into human nature or history so I dont think I need to establish that. Lots of traits help these goals. look at Dante from DmC. His over the top acrobatics, smug self-assured swagger, and general appeals to coolness along with his appearance makes him appeal to players as a kind of badass action hero. this accomplishes the two goals just as the inclusion of scantily clad women does. So why do you appear to have a issue with scantily clad women in games?

 

[JimB]

See, I don't see individual characters within the game as being sold, the entire game is sold based on its certain style.

Sure. And character design is a component of that style.

I think to criticize one of its characters for "only being based on sex appeal" is really to be totally unfair to the game because it's not trying to set these characters up as much at all.

I'm not quite following you. What do you mean by "these characters?"

And anyway, I'm just picking on Ivy because she's the most obvious and egregious example. I can pick on one of the other ladies, if you'd rather.

I'm not saying that [men can't write women]; just that it's really incredibly difficult for them to do so. The key to bringing a character off successfully, especially in something where you're having that character attack aliens in a suit of power armor, is to have a couple of moments of emotional connection with them, "I've done that," "I've felt that way," etc. And to be a man is quite simply a fundamentally different experience. We process visual information differently, we have different biologies, our brains work a little differently, and our social pressures are different. Why would you think that's insulting when I say that as a writer is really hard to overcome?

Because I think it intentionally and deliberately misses the point in favor of reinforcing stereotypes that just incidentally excuse men from having to bother trying looking at women honestly and with a spirit of self-education in mind, because hey, what's the point? Women are different! They're not like us! Their brains don't work the way ours do!

Women are just people. That's all they are. By focusing on what makes them different, you're defining them as women first and as people second at best, if at all. That's probably the worst part of it, but honestly, I'm just pissed off that you're excusing (intentionally or otherwise, I'm not sure) people who segregate themselves according to constructed divisions. Does it stop with a male/female divide? What about racial divides? After all, black people have different biological traits than white people and different social pressures, so should that be an excuse for writing offensively dishonest black characters?

Okay, I will give you that scantily clad characters generally exist for the purpose of sex appeal. Now what's your point?

That it's exploitative.

You seem to be saying that's a bad thing, but you present no reasons why simply saying that if designers dress characters in revealing attire for the benefit of the players of the game then we should all see this as a terrible thing.

No, I'm not telling you how to feel because I don't have the qualifications for it. I think video games contribute to a culture that judges women based on appearance first (and makes sexuality the primary component of appearance), which I think does an enormous disservice to men and women alike, but I don't know enough about these things to speak with authority. At this point, I'm only willing to apply labels where it seems appropriate.

Games have two main purposes. The first is to entertain consumers for those that play them to have a good time. The second is to make the people who are making the game money. Sex is appealing to the majority of consumers, and most of them are heterosexual males.

Though the word "exploitation" is of neutral definition, its negative connotations come from the assumption that if you profit off of someone else, you are harming the person you're profiting from. If games exploit women for their sexual characteristics, then are women harmed by that? I think probably yes, but what do I know? I just know it bothers me.

Sex also helps sales. This is fairly evident by even a short look into human nature or history.

Yeah, and forcing Chinese workers to live in indentured servitude for manufacturers really helps keep iPhone (or whatever) sales by keeping them cheap. That something helps sales does not mean it is right or without moral weight.

 

[lord.jeff]

Miniskirt while context can make one worse then the other, swim suits have a purpose miniskirts are deliberately enticing, though that isn't exploitative in and of it's self.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

I'm not quite following you. What do you mean by "these characters?"

And anyway, I'm just picking on Ivy because she's the most obvious and egregious example. I can pick on one of the other ladies, if you'd rather.

I mean every single one of the people in that game, and most fighting games. Honestly, probably the biggest issue with the culture of fighting games is that people take it WAAAY too seriously. (Yes, I know there are other issues, but brutal attacks based on gender are still brutal attacks and wouldn't happen if people were a little more calm).

Because I think it intentionally and deliberately misses the point in favor of reinforcing stereotypes that just incidentally excuse men from having to bother trying looking at women honestly and with a spirit of self-education in mind, because hey, what's the point? Women are different! They're not like us! Their brains don't work the way ours do!

Women are just people. That's all they are. By focusing on what makes them different, you're defining them as women first and as people second at best, if at all. That's probably the worst part of it, but honestly, I'm just pissed off that you're excusing (intentionally or otherwise, I'm not sure) people who segregate themselves according to constructed divisions. Does it stop with a male/female divide? What about racial divides? After all, black people have different biological traits than white people and different social pressures, so should that be an excuse for writing offensively dishonest black characters?

The thing is that there is no such thing as a "person" divided separately from everything else that they are, and gender plays a big role in that. And writing a character that is incredibly sincere takes more than just looking at them honestly, it takes a degree of understanding that is very high, to such an extent that you feel you can speak for them, for their very thoughts. I, personally, am not arrogant enough to think that I can do that with ease and would be uncomfortable with someone who is.

And like it or not, men an women are different, down to some of the very basic brain chemistry. This is not speculation, this is scientific fact and is not something that can just be written off as "constructed." Also, from what I understand, the biological difference between men and women is much larger than the difference between the races, but you might be able to make an apt comparison to someone from a different culture. They experience life in a different way that is very difficult to grasp without having experienced it, and the difficulty with sexual differences is that we don't know what would be different, because we've never been put in the others position.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

See, I don't see individual characters within the game as being sold, the entire game is sold based on its certain style.

Sure. And character design is a component of that style.

I think to criticize one of its characters for "only being based on sex appeal" is really to be totally unfair to the game because it's not trying to set these characters up as much at all.

I'm not quite following you. What do you mean by "these characters?"

And anyway, I'm just picking on Ivy because she's the most obvious and egregious example. I can pick on one of the other ladies, if you'd rather.

I'm not saying that [men can't write women]; just that it's really incredibly difficult for them to do so. The key to bringing a character off successfully, especially in something where you're having that character attack aliens in a suit of power armor, is to have a couple of moments of emotional connection with them, "I've done that," "I've felt that way," etc. And to be a man is quite simply a fundamentally different experience. We process visual information differently, we have different biologies, our brains work a little differently, and our social pressures are different. Why would you think that's insulting when I say that as a writer is really hard to overcome?

Because I think it intentionally and deliberately misses the point in favor of reinforcing stereotypes that just incidentally excuse men from having to bother trying looking at women honestly and with a spirit of self-education in mind, because hey, what's the point? Women are different! They're not like us! Their brains don't work the way ours do!

Women are just people. That's all they are. By focusing on what makes them different, you're defining them as women first and as people second at best, if at all. That's probably the worst part of it, but honestly, I'm just pissed off that you're excusing (intentionally or otherwise, I'm not sure) people who segregate themselves according to constructed divisions. Does it stop with a male/female divide? What about racial divides? After all, black people have different biological traits than white people and different social pressures, so should that be an excuse for writing offensively dishonest black characters?

Okay, I will give you that scantily clad characters generally exist for the purpose of sex appeal. Now what's your point?

That it's exploitative.

You seem to be saying that's a bad thing, but you present no reasons why simply saying that if designers dress characters in revealing attire for the benefit of the players of the game then we should all see this as a terrible thing.

No, I'm not telling you how to feel because I don't have the qualifications for it. I think video games contribute to a culture that judges women based on appearance first (and makes sexuality the primary component of appearance), which I think does an enormous disservice to men and women alike, but I don't know enough about these things to speak with authority. At this point, I'm only willing to apply labels where it seems appropriate.

Games have two main purposes. The first is to entertain consumers for those that play them to have a good time. The second is to make the people who are making the game money. Sex is appealing to the majority of consumers, and most of them are heterosexual males.

Though the word "exploitation" is of neutral definition, its negative connotations come from the assumption that if you profit off of someone else, you are harming the person you're profiting from. If games exploit women for their sexual characteristics, then are women harmed by that? I think probably yes, but what do I know? I just know it bothers me.

Sex also helps sales. This is fairly evident by even a short look into human nature or history.

Yeah, and forcing Chinese workers to live in indentured servitude for manufacturers really helps keep iPhone (or whatever) sales by keeping them cheap. That something helps sales does not mean it is right or without moral weight.

1. Ok then question is using charecters like Dante to make people want to buy the game exploitive? Is having large, open, beautiful enviroments ala Crysis exploitive? If Exploitive is so incredibly neutral then we can say that every single element in a video game is exploitive. As for women being harmed by exploitation they arent even real! But lets just look at a situation with a real woman. How about booth babes? i am sure you would label this exploitation but they get paid and choose to be there. Their job? Stand there and look sexy. That seems pretty good to me. They get some money and men get to oggle sexy women in very little clothing. Everyone wins even the publishers who can profit from the advertising. So whence comes the harm? Being "exploited" seems pretty benificial to me.
2. As for it contributing to a culture where women are judged by appearance, men like to look and sexy women. This has been true since the dawn of humanity, and with capitalism and the loosening on social restrictions companies will begin to use that desire to market. It isn't contributing to a looks based culture its fufilling a primal desire.
3. The diffrences between the abuse of chineese workers and using sexy women to sell a product are plentiful. Once again No one is harmed, the women arent real, and the publishers make money the players get to stare at sexy chicks. Who loses? Also putting things in the game to appeal to gamers is the primary thing you do when designing games. You put things in the game that will fufill its dual purposes. So once again where is the issue?

 

[JimB]

The thing is that there is no such thing as a "person" divided separately from everything else that they are, and gender plays a big role in that.

Leaving aside the "big role" bit just because I don't imagine that going anywhere but us trying to measure what "big" means in this instance and that's a waste of your time and mine, I'm just annoyed at what you're choosing to emphasize. Women are more like men than dissimilar to us, and claiming that their differences make it too hard to write female characters is a cop-out.

And writing a character that is incredibly sincere takes more than just looking at them honestly, it takes a degree of understanding [snip]

I think you and I are talking about the same thing. Honesty in observation--that is, paying attention to what you see instead of what you want, expect, or are afraid to see--is how you understand things.

And like it or not, men an women are different, down to some of the very basic brain chemistry.

What chemistry?

This is not speculation; this is scientific fact and is not something that can just be written off as "constructed."

Okay, but that's not what I'm talking about. What's being artificially constructed is this segregation; this idea that we can't have a meeting of the minds unless our genitals match.

Also, from what I understand, the biological difference between men and women is much larger than the difference between the races.

Maybe. Honest to god, the only way I know black people differ from white people, biologically speaking, is that their skin continues to build scars whereas a white person's skin tends to smooth them out. But ignore biology and go to the cultures, which you did mention in your previous post. You said part of the reason you can't or won't write women is because you can't understand what it's like to have the social expectations a woman has. Do you feel the same way about black people? Or how about non-Americans?

Is using characters like Dante to make people want to buy the game exploitative?

Okay, dude, I don't mean to be all catty about this, but seriously, you've got to start using paragraph breaks. Your wall of text is an exhausting chore to wade through.

Anyway, to your point: I've never played a Devil May Cry game, so you're going to have to explain what "like Dante" means.

As for women being harmed by exploitation, they aren't even real!

I think you understand I am not talking about Ivy or Sakura or Rikku being oppressed, so please don't do that. I'm talking about games convincing people that it's okay to expect women to emphasize their sexuality at all times for the appreciation of men watching. Women in the real world are affected by the attitudes fostered by video games (and other media, but bugger that, let's deal with one front at a time).

How about booth babes? I am sure you would label this exploitation but they get paid and choose to be there.

Yup. It's their choice to make, not mine; and I wouldn't make it for them if I could. I'm not interested in playing God. That they have the right to make that choice doesn't mean I have to agree with it, though; and that they are women does not mean they are somehow incapable of contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation.

As for it contributing to a culture where women are judged by appearance, men like to look at sexy women.

And women like to be judged by the content of their character rather than the shape of their body, but tough shit for them, huh?

 

[The Funslinger]

Its not about the clothes, its about the context.
Anything can be made uncomfortably sexual.

That's very true. Anything can be.

 

[saintdane05]

I'm gonna drop a big fat depends on the answerThere is absolutely no way for me to say that without thinking of adult diapers. Buh.. Though really neither inherently.

You know what I think is a more interesting question? Bikinis vs bra & panties. Or rather, that's a good example of why context matters.

We should all where bra and panties. Even men.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

The thing is that there is no such thing as a "person" divided separately from everything else that they are, and gender plays a big role in that.

Leaving aside the "big role" bit just because I don't imagine that going anywhere but us trying to measure what "big" means in this instance and that's a waste of your time and mine, I'm just annoyed at what you're choosing to emphasize. Women are more like men than dissimilar to us, and claiming that their differences make it too hard to write female characters is a cop-out.

And writing a character that is incredibly sincere takes more than just looking at them honestly, it takes a degree of understanding [snip]

I think you and I are talking about the same thing. Honesty in observation--that is, paying attention to what you see instead of what you want, expect, or are afraid to see--is how you understand things.

And like it or not, men an women are different, down to some of the very basic brain chemistry.

What chemistry?

This is not speculation; this is scientific fact and is not something that can just be written off as "constructed."

Okay, but that's not what I'm talking about. What's being artificially constructed is this segregation; this idea that we can't have a meeting of the minds unless our genitals match.

Also, from what I understand, the biological difference between men and women is much larger than the difference between the races.

Maybe. Honest to god, the only way I know black people differ from white people, biologically speaking, is that their skin continues to build scars whereas a white person's skin tends to smooth them out. But ignore biology and go to the cultures, which you did mention in your previous post. You said part of the reason you can't or won't write women is because you can't understand what it's like to have the social expectations a woman has. Do you feel the same way about black people? Or how about non-Americans?

Is using characters like Dante to make people want to buy the game exploitative?

Okay, dude, I don't mean to be all catty about this, but seriously, you've got to start using paragraph breaks. Your wall of text is an exhausting chore to wade through.

Anyway, to your point: I've never played a Devil May Cry game, so you're going to have to explain what "like Dante" means.

As for women being harmed by exploitation, they aren't even real!

I think you understand I am not talking about Ivy or Sakura or Rikku being oppressed, so please don't do that. I'm talking about games convincing people that it's okay to expect women to emphasize their sexuality at all times for the appreciation of men watching. Women in the real world are affected by the attitudes fostered by video games (and other media, but bugger that, let's deal with one front at a time).

How about booth babes? I am sure you would label this exploitation but they get paid and choose to be there.

Yup. It's their choice to make, not mine; and I wouldn't make it for them if I could. I'm not interested in playing God. That they have the right to make that choice doesn't mean I have to agree with it, though; and that they are women does not mean they are somehow incapable of contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation.

As for it contributing to a culture where women are judged by appearance, men like to look at sexy women.

And women like to be judged by the content of their character rather than the shape of their body, but tough shit for them, huh?

1. Very well paragraphs deployed
2. To explain simply Dante is a charecter designed to appeal to gamers by being a somewhat cliche action her dispatching demons with a gigantic sword, shooting bullets with other bullets, never taking anything seriously, and reacting to everything with a sarcastic one liner. Like sexy femal charecters he is designed specifically to be appealing to gamers. Would you class this as explotation? Also it occurs to me you earlier pointed out that while a male charecter wears full plate armor a female is much more scantily dressed. If the armor doesnt actually protect him any better than bare skin why did the devlopers choose to make him wear it? The awnser is simple. It looked cool. In the same way they want sexy girls to appeal to gamers they also want a variety of hyper-manly action hero types. Also a appeal but in a diffrent way. So is this also explotation?
3. I hardly think dressing a few women in provacative clothing in a video game, especially one in a genre that is saturated with insane costumes is going to shape cultures attitude. I hardly expect women to look incredibly sexy at all times but if a developer wants to put in some revealing costumes for eye candy that sounds pretty good for everyone. It is a instinctive biological urge to seek out sexually attractive partners not somthing taught by gaming. Most people are exposed to real women alot more than video game charecters. Also I think its understood that the charecters in video games are fictional, and usually fantasies. I hardly think anyone bases their standerd of beauty off video games and expects every girl to be incredibly stunning at all times anymore than we expect someone to be able to cut a building in half with a sword.
4. I am also still a bit confused how you think video games are going to lead to people being judged solely on looks. Once again who sets any standerds based on video game charecters? Also I hardly see how seeing scantily clad women somehow leads to treating all women like objects. Once again most gamers interact with women on a regular basis. I simply dont see how appreciating female beauty, somthing we are programmed to do (intrest in sex is kinda the reason there are 7 billion of us), causes people to see women as nothing but beauty. Do you really think we as a collective are so stupid that seeing one element emphasized will make it so we see nothing but that element?

 

[Lonewolfm16]

The thing is that there is no such thing as a "person" divided separately from everything else that they are, and gender plays a big role in that.

Leaving aside the "big role" bit just because I don't imagine that going anywhere but us trying to measure what "big" means in this instance and that's a waste of your time and mine, I'm just annoyed at what you're choosing to emphasize. Women are more like men than dissimilar to us, and claiming that their differences make it too hard to write female characters is a cop-out.

And writing a character that is incredibly sincere takes more than just looking at them honestly, it takes a degree of understanding [snip]

I think you and I are talking about the same thing. Honesty in observation--that is, paying attention to what you see instead of what you want, expect, or are afraid to see--is how you understand things.

And like it or not, men an women are different, down to some of the very basic brain chemistry.

What chemistry?

This is not speculation; this is scientific fact and is not something that can just be written off as "constructed."

Okay, but that's not what I'm talking about. What's being artificially constructed is this segregation; this idea that we can't have a meeting of the minds unless our genitals match.

Also, from what I understand, the biological difference between men and women is much larger than the difference between the races.

Maybe. Honest to god, the only way I know black people differ from white people, biologically speaking, is that their skin continues to build scars whereas a white person's skin tends to smooth them out. But ignore biology and go to the cultures, which you did mention in your previous post. You said part of the reason you can't or won't write women is because you can't understand what it's like to have the social expectations a woman has. Do you feel the same way about black people? Or how about non-Americans?

Is using characters like Dante to make people want to buy the game exploitative?

Okay, dude, I don't mean to be all catty about this, but seriously, you've got to start using paragraph breaks. Your wall of text is an exhausting chore to wade through.

Anyway, to your point: I've never played a Devil May Cry game, so you're going to have to explain what "like Dante" means.

As for women being harmed by exploitation, they aren't even real!

I think you understand I am not talking about Ivy or Sakura or Rikku being oppressed, so please don't do that. I'm talking about games convincing people that it's okay to expect women to emphasize their sexuality at all times for the appreciation of men watching. Women in the real world are affected by the attitudes fostered by video games (and other media, but bugger that, let's deal with one front at a time).

How about booth babes? I am sure you would label this exploitation but they get paid and choose to be there.

Yup. It's their choice to make, not mine; and I wouldn't make it for them if I could. I'm not interested in playing God. That they have the right to make that choice doesn't mean I have to agree with it, though; and that they are women does not mean they are somehow incapable of contributing to an atmosphere of exploitation.

As for it contributing to a culture where women are judged by appearance, men like to look at sexy women.

And women like to be judged by the content of their character rather than the shape of their body, but tough shit for them, huh?

1. Very well paragraphs deployed
2. To explain simply Dante is a charecter designed to appeal to gamers by being a somewhat cliche action her dispatching demons with a gigantic sword, shooting bullets with other bullets, never taking anything seriously, and reacting to everything with a sarcastic one liner. Like sexy femal charecters he is designed specifically to be appealing to gamers. Would you class this as explotation? Also it occurs to me you earlier pointed out that while a male charecter wears full plate armor a female is much more scantily dressed. If the armor doesnt actually protect him any better than bare skin why did the devlopers choose to make him wear it? The awnser is simple. It looked cool. In the same way they want sexy girls to appeal to gamers they also want a variety of hyper-manly action hero types. Also a appeal but in a diffrent way. So is this also explotation?
3. I hardly think dressing a few women in provacative clothing in a video game, especially one in a genre that is saturated with insane costumes is going to shape cultures attitude. I hardly expect women to look incredibly sexy at all times but if a developer wants to put in some revealing costumes for eye candy that sounds pretty good for everyone. It is a instinctive biological urge to seek out sexually attractive partners not somthing taught by gaming. Most people are exposed to real women alot more than video game charecters. Also I think its understood that the charecters in video games are fictional, and usually fantasies. I hardly think anyone bases their standerd of beauty off video games and expects every girl to be incredibly stunning at all times anymore than we expect someone to be able to cut a building in half with a sword.
4. I am also still a bit confused how you think video games are going to lead to people being judged solely on looks. Once again who sets any standerds based on video game charecters? Also I hardly see how seeing scantily clad women somehow leads to treating all women like objects. Once again most gamers interact with women on a regular basis. I simply dont see how appreciating female beauty, somthing we are programmed to do (intrest in sex is kinda the reason there are 7 billion of us), causes people to see women as nothing but beauty. Do you really think we as a collective are so stupid that seeing one element emphasized will make it so we see nothing but that element?

well looks like putting five spaces didnt seem to work. Well crap...

 

[JimB]

Dante is a character designed to appeal to gamers by being a somewhat cliche action hero, dispatching demons with a gigantic sword, shooting bullets with other bullets, never taking anything seriously, and reacting to everything with a sarcastic one-liner. Like sexy female characters, he is designed specifically to be appealing to gamers. Would you class this as exploitation?

Thank you for explaining, Lonewolfm16. I was afraid this was going to get all antagonistic (which would be mostly my fault, since I've been pretty, um, aggressive), so I'm glad you took the time to help me understand. Just saying, cool on you.

As for the question you asked: No, of course not, because Dante is not being judged by his appearance. He's being judged by his personality and skills; things he works to cultivate. He gets taken seriously because of who he is, not how he looks.

Also it occurs to me you earlier pointed out that while a male character wears full plate armor, a female is much more scantily dressed. If the armor doesn't actually protect him any better than bare skin, why did the developers choose to make him wear it?

Hell if I know, but at a guess, it's to give visual clues as to the character's personality. He's a toughened veteran of war, a serious fighter who takes every possible step to protect himself, a member of the aristocracy (armor was enormously, ludicrously expensive back in the day), and not to mention massively strong and hardy to be able to support himself in all that without keeling over from exhaustion during a fight. He is, in short, someone to take seriously.

Ivy, on the other hand...

I hardly think dressing a few women in provocative clothing in a video game, especially one in a genre that is saturated with insane costumes, is going to shape culture's attitude.

I'm too lazy to go back and check my wording, but still, I'm pretty sure I didn't video games shape cultural attitudes. I said video games contribute to cultural attitudes. In the same way, Disney didn't cause racism with all their ridiculously offensive depictions back in the day of black people as red-lipped hairless monkeys who eat watermelon all day, but they sure helped to reinforce the stereotypes by participating in them and exploiting them for laughs.

I hardly expect women to look incredibly sexy at all times, but if a developer wants to put in some revealing costumes for eye candy that sounds pretty good for everyone.

I'm certainly in no position to judge how well and fairly you treat women, since I've never met you nor seen you talk to a woman, but whether you're fair to them or not, it doesn't matter in this argument. "I don't expect women to look sexy, so this isn't a problem" is a nonsense argument.

It is an instinctive biological urge to seek out sexually attractive partners, not something taught by gaming.

It's also an instinctive, biological urge to only briefly look people in the eyes because we interpret long eye contact as a sign of aggression, yet here in America we brainwash our children into ignoring this instinctive, biological urge because we want people to look us in the eye. That something is instinctive and biological does not mean it is right, necessary, or even useful in the society we've built.

I hardly think anyone bases their standard of beauty off video games and expects every girl to be incredibly stunning at all times.

So you don't think people judge beauty on a comparative standard? What about, say, beauty pageants or magazines publishing lists of beautiful people, where we rank how attractive people are compared to everyone else?

I am also still a bit confused how you think video games are going to lead to people being judged solely on looks.

Think of them as a symptom of a more pervasive disease rather than the virus itself, if that helps.

Do you really think we as a collective are so stupid that seeing one element emphasized will make it so we see nothing but that element?

Yes, I do. See the Republican/Democratic divide in America as a non-sexual example.

Looks like putting five spaces didn't seem to work. Well crap...

No, the forums edit out what they consider to be extraneous spaces. Just press Enter twice at the end of a paragraph to insert a blank line between them.

 

[Chemical Alia]

It depends on the portrayal, but I do find miniskirs pretty juvenile and retarded in the modern sense. Creepy on kids, trashy on older women. I'm not really sure who should be meant to wear them. In video games I see them as a standard go-to look to make a character sexy without having to do any fashion research.

 

[RafaelNegrus]

What chemistry?

http://cranepsych2.edublogs.org/files/2009/08/Sex_diffs_in_the_brain.pdf

Brain chemistry is obviously incredibly important, people are nothing outside of their brain, and change that and you change the fundamental being of who they are, and while we may like to act like there are no such differences between genders, on average there actually are and some quite significant differences. Here's somewhere to start, educate yourself.

you can't or won't write women

Please be less condescending. I've already said I tried and generally failed, and not due to lack of trying. It makes the story much weaker when one of the main characters isn't done right, and I just couldn't find a way to do it quite right, every time I've tried. I could have just minimized all female characters, or removed them entirely, but the story didn't seem like it would be complete without them.

You said part of the reason you can't or won't write women is because you can't understand what it's like to have the social expectations a woman has. Do you feel the same way about black people? Or how about non-Americans?

Yes. Race is an easy one to avoid, just never mention the color of people's skin. Works really well in a fantasy setting. I actually specifically go out to do that. And so therefore I write non-Americans technically, but not really. The cross-culture comparison is incredibly apt, actually. Right now I'm living in Morocco, and there are some significant differences here, and those are behavioral differences which are only relatively minor reflections of differences in thought patterns and their way of looking at the world. I could tell you about them, like how hospitality is very important in their culture and that living with a host family means you basically become one of their children. But you don't quite know the experience of getting served a massive meal every night, and told to eat more because you're too skinny, and then being chided on not carrying out the proper pre/post-dinner rituals (not religious, just hand washing and the like), by a complete stranger. And not knowing that, you would probably not learn the underlying assumption that there is a right way to do things, not that every person knows best for themselves which we assume in our culture, but that there is a singular, better way for everyone.

The nice thing is with other cultures that you can go and live in them and experience them. It's still not quite the same, but it's not incredibly far off. However, you can never experience what it is like for a different gender, and that is the ultimate root of the difficulty. That basically you are writing a character by what you hear and what you guess, which is always less convincing than a character that is written with what you know down to your very core. That is really what it takes, not just a basic level of honesty.

And besides, think about it like this. People have been asking for better female characters for more than 40 years, and every single example of something that has incredibly well done female characters that I can think of has been critically acclaimed and usually a giant success. Do you think these writers actively trying to forward stereotypes and therefore make their work worse, or do you maybe just think that it's incredibly difficult to do and when it is done everything falls right into place?

 

[JimB]

http://cranepsych2.edublogs.org/files/2009/08/Sex_diffs_in_the_brain.pdf

Thank you, sir.

Please be less condescending.

Fair enough, but no promises. It's a pretty deeply ingrained habit at this point.

And besides, think about it like this. People have been asking for better female characters for more than 40 years, and every single example of something that has incredibly well done female characters that I can think of has been critically acclaimed and usually a giant success. Do you think these writers actively trying to forward stereotypes and therefore make their work worse, or do you maybe just think that it's incredibly difficult to do and when it is done everything falls right into place?

I think they're trying to forward stereotypes. There's this blog I read once that I kind of dismissed because it pissed me off (more on that later) about a woman who claims she was trained to be a filmmaker but then left the business out of disgust because her producers and backers kept ordering her to put fewer women in her movies, because, as they claimed, studies show audiences don't like female characters. Whether audiences like female characters or not, I'm willing to believe that producers mandate fewer female characters simply because of the Bechdel test.

This blogger asserted that it's not female characters moviegoers dislike, but rather they dislike badly-written characters. The example she provided as proof of her theory is Ellen Ripley, who's female and is also a well-liked female character because she has depth, nuance, and strength; also I'm pretty sure she brought up Angelina Jolie for being as good an action hero as most male actors (I might have also mentioned Princess Leia if it had been me, but never mind). I disliked her blog and dismissed it because at the end she claimed she left film-making to fight against sexism in film from the outside, which strikes me as a remarkably stupid tactic, but I think her points about sexism contain at least a kernel of truth.

People argue that it's impossible for men to understand women well enough to write them; female characters are written to fill very specific, gender-defined roles (read: written badly); people learn from these characters that women have to fulfill specific roles; writers imitate what they've seen before rather than actual women and continue to write female characters badly. It's an endless cycle.

May I submit to you a crude test of my own devising, RafaelNegrus? It relies on the honor system here for honest results, so I'm trusting you not to click the spoiler until you've completed the test, which consists of the following:

Describe any one of your female characters, in as much or as little detail as you feel appropriate. That's it.

Have you done that yet? Okay. Now click this spoiler.

Spoiler

Did your description focus on personality or appearance? Did you describe the color of her eyes? Did you do so before or after you described how hot she is?

 

[RafaelNegrus]

http://cranepsych2.edublogs.org/files/2009/08/Sex_diffs_in_the_brain.pdf

Thank you, sir.

Please be less condescending.

Fair enough, but no promises. It's a pretty deeply ingrained habit at this point.

And besides, think about it like this. People have been asking for better female characters for more than 40 years, and every single example of something that has incredibly well done female characters that I can think of has been critically acclaimed and usually a giant success. Do you think these writers actively trying to forward stereotypes and therefore make their work worse, or do you maybe just think that it's incredibly difficult to do and when it is done everything falls right into place?

I think they're trying to forward stereotypes. There's this blog I read once that I kind of dismissed because it pissed me off (more on that later) about a woman who claims she was trained to be a filmmaker but then left the business out of disgust because her producers and backers kept ordering her to put fewer women in her movies, because, as they claimed, studies show audiences don't like female characters. Whether audiences like female characters or not, I'm willing to believe that producers mandate fewer female characters simply because of the Bechdel test.

This blogger asserted that it's not female characters moviegoers dislike, but rather they dislike badly-written characters. The example she provided as proof of her theory is Ellen Ripley, who's female and is also a well-liked female character because she has depth, nuance, and strength; also I'm pretty sure she brought up Angelina Jolie for being as good an action hero as most male actors (I might have also mentioned Princess Leia if it had been me, but never mind). I disliked her blog and dismissed it because at the end she claimed she left film-making to fight against sexism in film from the outside, which strikes me as a remarkably stupid tactic, but I think her points about sexism contain at least a kernel of truth.

People argue that it's impossible for men to understand women well enough to write them; female characters are written to fill very specific, gender-defined roles (read: written badly); people learn from these characters that women have to fulfill specific roles; writers imitate what they've seen before rather than actual women and continue to write female characters badly. It's an endless cycle.

May I submit to you a crude test of my own devising, RafaelNegrus? It relies on the honor system here for honest results, so I'm trusting you not to click the spoiler until you've completed the test, which consists of the following:

Describe any one of your female characters, in as much or as little detail as you feel appropriate. That's it.

Have you done that yet? Okay. Now click this spoiler.

Spoiler

Did your description focus on personality or appearance? Did you describe the color of her eyes? Did you do so before or after you described how hot she is?

Ah, easy. She's a captain in the army, and this being a fantasy setting she has power over ice. This is representative of her personality, as she is incredibly frigid towards people. She emphasizes precision and is never quite satisfied with anything. She keeps her emotional distance from people, because she's not too much of a people person anyways and she doesn't like to get too close to those she knows are risking their lives every day. But she has soft spot for one of my other characters, the best friend of my main protagonist. He is the rascally sort, the type that never gets cowed by anything (or at least never shows it). And he is one of the few people she doesn't intimidate. Her fighting style is very physical, she makes herself a set of armor and wades into the fray. Most of what she does at range is disabling, building walls, generally trying to protect her troops.

Yes, I wrote this after I read the spoiler, but this is what I thought. I'm honestly not sure what her appearance should be. Blue eyes, definitely. Light blonde hair maybe? Doesn't seem quite right though. That's a weakness of mine overall though, just a lack of description for things characters and settings alike. Something I should work on.

That's probably the easiest female character that I've written, but the main love interest is incredibly difficult for me to write. As soon as they're not the "just as tough as the boys" type (which is a bit of a stereotype, but it works in some situations with some characters) then it becomes very hard for me. Getting that sweet spot between girly stereotype and tomboy stereotype that makes the character realistic is very hard. You can't write them just like the boys, you have to write them just slightly differently with slightly different motivations and slightly different reactions. And it's so difficult precisely because they're slight differences, if they were big it'd be very easy to conceptualize and very easy to write.

I could see audiences not liking female characters as much, because most are really bad. Either they're completely replaceable with men, so it feels a little weird (which is why I personally don't like Angelina Jolie much) or they completely rub your face in the fact that they're a woman in rather stereotypical and irritating ways. It's much better in things like Firefly, where the female characters are definitely feminine, and couldn't really be replaced by men. But this is foundational to their character and is not played very over the top. And doing that is hard.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

It depends on the portrayal, but I do find miniskirs pretty juvenile and retarded in the modern sense. Creepy on kids, trashy on older women. I'm not really sure who should be meant to wear them. In video games I see them as a standard go-to look to make a character sexy without having to do any fashion research.

Huh. "Juvenile" and "retarded" aren't the words that crop up for me when I think of miniskirts. And when you say "creepy on kids", surely you mean prepubescent girls, right? Because on teenage girls, it can just be dismissed as them perhaps trying too hard or just warming into their sexuality. And seeing as they are going through puberty and many have the body for it...

 

[frizzlebyte]

Question: Was the miniskirt invented by men or women?

Mary Quant (a British clothing designer) is credited with inventing the miniskirt and hot pants in the '60s.

So, as far as I know, she was a woman.