Sexism in gaming, do we really give a f**k?

[Lee Oyd]

You're the one not getting something. Nobody buys girly-girl games because 1. people -- even the ones with vaginas! IMAGINE THAT -- are smart enough to see through bullshit, leading to 2. they're shit. They're poorly-made shovelware with no budget. Nobody with half a brain would buy those whether they were about hugging rainbow ponies or assault-chainsawing alien zombies.

 

[maninahat]

Or are you referring to the mainstream games that have successfully made an effort to design games to the benefit of female players? These games are seen as exceptions, not the rule.

You know why they are the exception? Because no one buys them, which means they are a terrible expenditure of money, against the expected gross return. Which is exaclty what people have been saying for ages: Yes, some women do in fact play games, but the games they play are the same games there male peers play... the Dragon Ages, Mass Effects & Fallouts of the gaming industry... Along with the mandatory arm flailers of course.

The demographic you think you are trying to defend are already suitably engamed... Which is now a word... Engamed... To have game.

You don't think people bought Portal 2? Or the new Tomb Raider? Or Bioshock: Infinite? Even with all the concerns of sexism surrounding these games, they proved to be fair towards women, inclusive for women, and highly successful. Hopefully, the success of these recent titles demonstrates a shift in the industry in which more prominent female characters are an accepted feature, rather than some kind of blight.

As for engaming women, I can't help notice that the examples you give are all RPGs with customizable characters, as opposed to various genres with lots of established characters. I take from what your saying is that we don't need a female led Battlefield or Prototype - because women get all the games they could ever want via the titles aimed at men? Or that all designers have to do is occasionally throw them a bone with an egalitarian character creator?

 

[Bug MuIdoon]

But wouldn't there be a point where it would just start to make you uncomfortable? Mainstream game after mainstream game featuring septuagenarians in banana hammocks on the front cover. After a while, you, and many others might be put off from buying many titles that clearly made at the expense of your comfort and taste. Maybe there is a demographic who loves these cheesecake grannies, but as most games are being made purely to cater to their tastes alone, there is a sizeable portion of potential gamers who feel excluded and discouraged from taking part.

Uncomfortable? no. I'd stop buying the specific ones I didn't like the look of, but I do that now anyway. I don't enjoy some things in games today, but love other things about the same games. Maybe some of these septuagenarians are actually in good games, so I'd buy those. Let me just use TES games par exemple, Their story bores me to death, I don't find dragons, wizards (unless they're Wizzards,)warriors, ancient swords of yore and magic etc. the least bit interesting. However TES games are amongst my favorite games of all time because of everything else that they do so right (for me)
Without digressing too much, my point is, if I didn't like something in a game to the point where I couldn't see myself enjoying it, then I wouldn't buy/play it.
But honestly, your whole point is superfluously hypothetical as games do cater to many demographics. These multitude of septuagenarians have very little relevance.

I am aware that the state of gaming is generally changing for the better, in spite (or because) of the complaints people are making.

It is, yes. Gaming is a medium that is very much still in its infancy. Give it a 100+ years and it will be extremely accessible to all (apart from maybe our alien visitors who are annoyed at always being the bad guy) That's just the evolution of any art medium. I think, personally, that gaming needs more female devs but that's an issue with sexism in the business sector.

Here is a quick test: Of the two, who do you expect most women to find more attractive?

An ancient Grecian mythological god, or an actual (digital) human being? I can't help but wonder if this is a trick question.
I guess women, and I myself (being bi) would find the human more attractive. Forgive me, but I don't understand your point. Are you saying that there are too many non-humanoid males in games? Or is Kratos not sexy enough for the ladies? Or is (reboot) Dante the perfect example of what women want in games?
Sorry, genuinely confused!

When it comes to male character design, there is a lot more variety. We sometimes get hideous war beasts, or sexy men based on male models, or men who fall somewhere in between. These versatile designs are rarely made sexy for the sake of women though. You won't have many games with scenes featuring handsome men posing in their briefs or making out, for instance (except for comic relief "gross out gayness"). This is in contrast to females, who are almost invariably young and sexy by default, and will often end up in a scenario in which the (male) gamer can get a good look at all her assets.

Now, I agree with you. As I stated before, indeed there are some aspects of sexism within gaming, just as there is with nearly everything. But most of it is impossible to address. There's some issues which can, and need to be addressed across the board. However a whole lot of other issues are entirely diluted in a mass of opinions. Take this forum, or even this very thread as just a very quick example. Half the people are claiming women are overly sexualised and the other half (as you are) are stating that men are under sexualised. Where is the happy medium?

 

[Insanely Asinine]

You want to change the system? Hurt their pockets. Not illegally of course. Legally, through boycotting. Not only do you prove that you are a larger demographic then expected you will also help the marketers into actually not being confused about things of what do the people want. You say you dislike the portrayal of women in the industry? Prove it by not feeding the beast that continues causing the influx of games that are not aimed at your demographic and causing said pain. It would help a shit town other then just complaining about it. It would also help your cause by doing this equally to all industries. Not the gaming market, the music, the television, and the literary arts as well. Do it to all or people will just see you're cause as a hypocritical stance, this is because people will just assume you are also into these things. Every area counts. If you are tired of this pain that is caused upon you then you would fight against it or forever being fed to the beast known as the free market.

 

[balladbird]

I agree with the people who say the best way to combat sexism is to ply one's buying power to it. Discussion is important, but the excess of it, especially on a place like this which is fairly cynical and adverse to change, will quickly become cyclical.. The dozens of discussions have proven that many care deeply about the issue, the majority are apathetic, and a minority deny the existence of a problem. Repeating the experiment of creating new discussion about it will only yield the same crop of replies, though I do hold with those who pointed out how silly it was to create a thread for the sake of discussing how much you don't need to discuss something.

Yep, same thing as the "oh thats just a male power fantasy" line of argumentation.

"Why look at that, this man in a female targetted product objectively has these features, this male character in the male focused computer game has exactly the same objective features, so how is that not the same thing"

"Um, its not the same thing, because of reasons"

"Really,? What kind of reasons?"

"Um, its am... um... male power fantasy."

"How can it be a male power fantasy, if it possess exactly the same objective characteristics as this other character in a female focused product?"

Intent is what creates the difference. I'd be willing to bet money that at no point during the development of any game's protagonists, especially not games like 'Gears of War' did the developers go "hmm... needs more sexy! We gotta make the womenfolk happy!" they were thinking "Hmm... is this the kind of guy that fat gamer dude reaching for his fifth bag of cheetos wishes he were?"

Granted, I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong. that's just how marketing works. Know who's most likely to pick up your product, and tailor the game to them. Still, if any girl finds the characters attractive, it's a nice bonus, but not really what you were going for. It's what TV tropes would call a "periphery demographic". Comparing the periphery intent of male characters to the primary intent of female characters, and then trying to assert that they're the exact same thing, is a logical fallacy. It's like claiming that a strip of prime rib is the exact same thing as a dog biscuit. after all, either one can be used as dog food.

Edit: Ah, upon re-reading your post after checking my spelling, I see that I misunderstood your comparison. You were pointing out the objectification of males in media primarily targeted at women. I won't erase my first paragraph, since there have been people making similar arguments, but it no longer really applies to your post.

regarding your post, though, the difference is that unlike romance novels, video games try to avoid explicitly stating they're made for one gender. No one who works in, say, the romance novel business, will deny that women are the only market they care about. If men happen to read them, great, but they're not the target, nor are they who the advertising is for. Video Games are primarily purchased by men, but as an industry they refuse to come out and say "this isn't for girls", in the same way. If you're going to claim that both genders are important to you to avoid narrowing your market, then your characters come under scrutiny accordingly. If the VG industry ever decided to become the male equivalent of romance novels, then the people complaining of sexism would lose their grounds, since as long as men were happy with the portrayal of women, there'd be no problem.

As a gay man I can tell you that most "over the top" men portrayed in video games are not there for female/gay eye candy. They are there to appeal to heterosexual men in terms of their presumed power, dominance, and other forms of hypermasculinity. You would be hard pressed to find a woman or gay male that would find ANY of the men in the OP Gears of War poster attractive.

The i direct your attention to the coverart of every single romance novel ever written: I'm calling shenanigans mate.

just like Runic Knight said: If there is no market for it, the product would have vanished, or been changed. Since it hasn't there would appear to be a large enough market of women & gay men purchasing romance novels, that the products for that market keep on being created & sold.[/quote]

Forgive me, I don't mean to scrutinize you twice, since while I disagree with your outlook, I respect the experience behind it, still I have to point out that if you honestly look at the characters of "gears of war" and see no difference between them and the men on the covers of romance novels, then I fear you see them through funhouse mirrors. Male models tend to have very defined muscles, it's true, but they never look like olympic body builders who abuse steroids on weekends. the majority of women find average, solid builds to be ideal. The "muscles upon muscles upon muscles" look has its fans among women, but for the most part is entirely there for the benefit of a male audience. You may not believe in the male power fantasy, and with some characters the line separating the two is fairly disputable, but Mr. Jarimir's example really isn't one of these times.

A good example of this distinction would be the Resident Evil franchise, which has an established female fanbase. The character of Chris Redfield has a very GOW inspired build. His frame looks like someone set a cantaloupe on top of a refrigerator. Is he popular with girls? I'm sure he has a few, but any fanbase he has is a microcosm compared to the number the much-more-average looking, but very solid character of Leon S. Kennedy has.

 

[runic knight]

You don't think people bought Portal 2? Or the new Tomb Raider? Or Bioshock: Infinite? Even with all the concerns of sexism surrounding these games, they proved to be fair towards women, inclusive for women, and highly successful. Hopefully, the success of these recent titles demonstrates a shift in the industry in which more prominent female characters are an accepted feature, rather than some kind of blight.

As for engaming women, I can't help notice that the examples you give are all RPGs with customizable characters, as opposed to various genres with lots of established characters. I take from what your saying is that we don't need a female led Battlefield or Prototype - because women get all the games they could ever want via the titles aimed at men? Or that all designers have to do is occasionally throw them a bone with an egalitarian character creator?

I don't think anyone views prominent female characters as a blight, rather larger companies have often used market research that simply shows they had a greater chance at return income with a male one, or they were copying a more popular game. You can't assume the intent starts as against women, else you will be blind to anything else. You know one of the reasons companies don't chose female protagonists as much though? Because any time there is a prominent female character, there is a media backlash. Simply put, they can't always chose a female because it will cause drama and controversy in situations where a male character wouldn't. See the tomb raider assault scene that people called rape. It is unfair to on one hand demand developers to make more female characters prominent and yet on the other dissect and tear apart any attempts to do so by overly analyzing them or making drama over what the character looks like or is doing that isn't living up to expectations. It is going from requesting more female characters to demanding they make the game and characters you want and I can understand why people avoid that trap as often as they do now. Unfortunately, it helps lead to female characters being rarer which only makes it even more drama shitfest when some try to.

Curious why you mention portal series though, Chell doesn't have any character and is nothing more then a female looking cut-out with less personality then any self-made rpg character. I'd like to see a female led battle field or prototype, but for some, that would mean the character has to be violent or brutalized and killed (because of the nature of those games), and they will cause a shitstorm over that. Plus, their market in those AAA games are more males then females in percentages so add that into wanting to avoid unneeded bad publicity and shitstorms and kinda easy to see why we have what we have today so often. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but at least if they don't their core audience is still there.

regarding your post, though, the difference is that unlike romance novels, video games try to avoid explicitly stating they're made for one gender. No one who works in, say, the romance novel business, will deny that women are the only market they care about. If men happen to read them, great, but they're not the target, nor are they who the advertising is for. Video Games are primarily purchased by men, but as an industry they refuse to come out and say "this isn't for girls", in the same way. If you're going to claim that both genders are important to you to avoid narrowing your market, then your characters come under scrutiny accordingly. If the VG industry ever decided to become the male equivalent of romance novels, then the people complaining of sexism would lose their grounds, since as long as men were happy with the portrayal of women, there'd be no problem.

Games are a broad category, so little wonder they don't market themselves as limited by genders. The comparison would be better set as games and books rather then games and a subcategory of popular books. Though, I suppose one could use AAA game titles and Popular romance novels of today as a fair comparison too. Neither directly say they are meant for one gender, though advertising, presentation and product design are all set with a gender ideal specific audience.

Beyond that, very few products will ever come out and say it is meant for one gender alone, even if it is designed with one gender in mind. And with how much shit games get from feminist as it is, you really think anyone would be so nuts as to try it now? One could argue that porn is a male specifically targeted product, yet that sure gets a hell of a lot of scrutiny because of that.

 

[runic knight]

Intent is what creates the difference.

No it doesn't & thats been the point. The only thing that changes is the presumption of intent, based on the idea of the gender looking at an image.

Actually, I think intent is sort of important to determine if something is sexist, parody of sexism or just misunderstood. But this requires the creator's input rather then assumption based on perceived motivation of the creator. Just a nit pick there, but I always found that intent mattered in part.

Yep, we were discussing this a couple of pages ago, where it was pointed out that the current trend of people running this movement have successfully posioned developers against using female protagonists... After all, why bother when you know that whatever you create will essentially be destroyed prior to its release, by people looking to be offended.

So we've suddenly got to this weird situation where Group A has announced that games need more female protagonists. Group A then announces industry wide systematic sexism is the cause. Group A then goes to great lengths to prove industry wide systematic sexism exists, by themselves destroying the industries ability to put out games with female protagonists. Industry decides to significantly slow putting out games with female protagonists. Group A has announced that games need more female protagonists. Group A then announces industry wide systematic sexism is the cause. Group A then goes to great lengths to prove industry wide systematic sexism exists, by themselves destroying the industries ability to put out games with female protagonists. Industry decides to significantly slow putting out games with female protagonists.... rinse & repeat, ad infintum.

I recall Jim's Cull of Females vid in relation to this particular topic. I wish he would have touched more on part of the motivations as to why they choose to not use female characters in relation to backlash and over scrutiny though, seemed it would have fit in just fine. He made good points in it about a chicken and egg aspect about why fewer games have female protagonists, though a little more touch on how drama and controversy is stirred up about it would have been nice.

Yep. Same thing would happen if you made the bad guys all women for a change. Suddenly the game is about "killing women" & is a sign of systemic sexism, blah blah blah, insert shitstorm here.

I know, you wouldn't be able to market it at all without some shitstorm. Just look at GTA. I recall there was a dust up about being able to kill hookers. I never understood it, as you could kill anyone on the street, male or female. It seemed an overly selective look at the game.

Romance novels are to DOA Becah Volleyball, what Books are to Video/Computer Games.

Sounds close. Maybe the sort of game DOA volleyball is rather then it as a single entity. There are more then one novel, same as there is more then one blatant fan service game after all.

Not suprising though is it, when you consider why: AAA games are all games with the highest budget. Games with the highest budget are games meant to attract the largest market share & the largest market share, overwhelmingly are men. Its the same reason why there are no AAA trout fishing games... An no AAA versions of Tetris.

I would say there is more to it then that. After all, even if most are men, we are not all uniform in our thoughts or likes. I say this could tie back into developers wanting to minimize negativity and play the safest options based on past models. Same story tropes get repeated, same visuals, same gameplay and same character designs, though with the last one it might also be an explaination as to why there is more variety in male character types then female. Games want to distinguish themselves in some way, but in a safe way, one that doesn't break the proven formula too much. Thus, protagonists usually have some gimic or distinguishing trait that sets them apart, while the rest of the characters could be interchangeable with many other games. Assassin's Creed's hoods, for instance. Tell me something unique about any other character's design in those games outside of the assassin's garb.

---------------------------------------

The way I see it (the point I am trying to make), the way other people see it, is that IT IS SEXIST that so many games appeal ONLY to the desires of heterosexual males. And like Justin Bieber, Twighlight, Gangam Style, zombies, and that song "Somebody I used to know". Some of us are tired of seeing it, tired of hearing about it, tired of it being overdone.

But is lack of creativity sexism? That seems to be what you are suggesting there. I mean, don't get me wrong, I am tired of a lot of shit repeating itself to death in games, from character designs, to tropes to the god damn brown pallet and bloom bullshit. But I can't say just because something is done a lot makes it sexist in its own right. it either is or isn't, you can't look to an overall theme, identify a disparity, call that disparity sexist then go backwards to use that to justify calling the game that is merely one point of data in the disparity as sexist.

Find me a woman that thinks that picture is a female power fantasy, and maybe I will believe you. LOL @ pasties = power.

Could be for someone who is sexually repressed and sees a character that flaunts it as free-ing or empowering in that regard. No more unconvincing then someone saying a hulking, slow ugly mountain of a man with a chainsaw gun is my idea of a power fantasy. Different people see different things through different lights. Shouldn't scoff at it.

Even if a woman plays that character, drew her. That is one person. I would hope you are willing to see that what 1 person thinks is rather insignificant next to a consensus or a majority.

Actually, that is a terrible, terrible thing to think when it comes to entertainment. By saying that, you just made Transformers one of the best movies around since the amount of money it generated. Or, ironically, if you pay attention to the idea that games that portray females in sexy poses and skimpy outfits are the majority, you sort of invalidate your criticism there.
An appeal to the majority is not good argument. You have no right to tell anyone they are wrong for playing a character like that and enjoying it any more then someone has the right to call your taste in music shit. People can enjoy what they want, and shouldn't have to defend it from a "moral" majority if what they are enjoying doesn't hurt or affect anyone else. I find the tone and idea here very disturbing...

 

[runic knight]

Even if a woman plays that character, drew her. That is one person. I would hope you are willing to see that what 1 person thinks is rather insignificant next to a consensus or a majority.

Actually, that is a terrible, terrible thing to think when it comes to entertainment. By saying that, you just made Transformers one of the best movies around since the amount of money it generated. Or, ironically, if you pay attention to the idea that games that portray females in sexy poses and skimpy outfits are the majority, you sort of invalidate your criticism there.
An appeal to the majority is not good argument. You have no right to tell anyone they are wrong for playing a character like that and enjoying it any more then someone has the right to call your taste in music shit. People can enjoy what they want, and shouldn't have to defend it from a "moral" majority if what they are enjoying doesn't hurt or affect anyone else. I find the tone and idea here very disturbing...

Be disturbed then. I am disturbed by all the sexualized portrayals of women. I am disturbed by all of the hypermasculine meat-sticks that pass for male characters.

The point I was trying to make is that many women find the portrayals in question to be sexist. Many men, myself included, find it sexist as well. This all adds momentum to the idea that it is sexist.

You are also glossing over all of the advances made in science and society thanks to consensus and majority. Sure it can be abused and has been, but the case of "Transformers" being popular hardly proves that all consensuses and majorities are wrong.

I am not disturbed by the character designs. Bored, yes, but disturbed suggests their design somehow offends me at a core level. They don't, it is just a look of character or game, free to be a different opinion then my own, I am under no obligation to buy the games after all.
You though, you disturb me if you think this "everyone says it is so, thus I am right" bullshit is right, as I have to share this pale blue dot with you and others like you and that sort of attitude is mob mentality.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but a lot of people saying "This is sexist" doesn't make anything more sexist then if you had a lot of people saying "This is orange". Doesn't work that way. And in reply to someone asking about objectivity, it is inane. Something objectively sexist would be regardless if everyone agreed it was or not. To put it another way, something having the property of sexism would have it regardless if a lot of people agreed it was there or not. You just argued that it doesn't matter if something is or isn't really sexist, so long as you get enough people to support your opinion. That, quiet frankly, is disgustingly self centered. If it is sexist, you should be able to explain why it is. If you instead say "Because majority is on my side", congratulations, you just lost the argument. What you have done is committed a logical fallacy, argument ad populum, appeal to majority. If you'd like more details as to why this is wrong in a discussion, feel free to wiki it, it is good read.

I am not glossing over anything, I am outright saying that majority opinion doesn't fucking matter on if one thing is OBJECTIVELY something (such as sexist) or not.. You do understand what the hell you are implying, right? Get out of the western world and watch that sort of madness screw people over outright. Why don't we head to Saudi Arabia and see what the majority thinks there. Or is it that you only take the majority you agree with?

My example was a quick reference to something that is popular to show that popularity doesn't equal truth. People's opinions change over time and location. But something being sexist or not, that remains constant. A society that legally thinks of women as less then male citizens would be sexist, yet for centuries the entire world did. Does that make it not sexist til it got to that 51%?

 

[runic knight]

I didn't really post to this thread to engage in or win an objective argument. I came here express my opinion and to point out that there is a difference between hypermasculine characters and sexualized and objectified characters, and I have done so.

fair enough there. Not that last part, as you haven't demonstrated anything, but fair enough that what you said was your intent, regardless how poorly you pulled it off.

I am not even sure if sexism can be examined in a purely objective context since so much of the issue is dependent on the subjective point of view of the person that feels marginalized by a gender specific bias.

Humans are not robots or computers. Yes, we are capable of logical and rational thought, but we also have feelings, emotional responses to situations that may or may not have a rational backing. I don't think it is correct to deny the emotional aspect of humanity just because it is convenient to an argument any more than it is to deny that humans have 2 arms just because it would be convenient to do so in order to win an argument.

One can look at the definition of what sexist actually is and objectively apply that definition to something to see if it fits. There would be a subjective aspect to this as well, as people will have different opinions on if something can be interpreted as meeting the definition, and this can play into the emotional responses people have for it. But you still have to show how the objective traits of a label (such as sexism requiring a bias or discrimination by definition) are being met in the first place.

to put it another way
Definition of the word = Objective. Doesn't change.
Characteristics that are called sexist = Subjective. These are interpreted and applied to the original definition. Thus, even if is opinion, the opinion still has to apply back to the definition itself. This is why a woman who is sexualize is not sexist by itself, because the word is not defined by merely sexualizing something. There needs to be more to it.

It was YOU that decided to try to engage me, apparently in the guise of an objective argument that you are suspiciously setting the terms for. It is also suspect that you only respond to parts and not all of my statements and only to the parts you find weakest or most easily argued against. I merely tried to point out that my opinion does not exist in a vacuum. Others DO share it. The fact that you think me saying that is an excuse to throw the "Logical Fallacy" book at me means very little to me.

By try to engage, I am sure you mean quote and reply in public thread. Just call it what it is, you sound a little high strung here.
As for what I replied to, yes I replied to what was wrong. Why wouldn't I? You were presenting an idea that is ridiculous. Majority opinion being brought up as a counter argument is a failure of logic and as such, it undermines both your argument and your intellectual integrity, which is why I pointed it out like I did. I am sorry you take comfort in that other people share your opinion, I never denied that others don't, merely explained, as I will once again, that the amount of people who share your opinion does not make it more right or wrong then the alternative.

You so desperately want a debate you can win, fine you have it. But you don't get anything for your victory because I am not willing to give you anything for a contest I did not agree to enter.

I want a discussion. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it no matter how hard I try to drag it kicking and screaming out of people who are only "posting their opinions" in a forum made for actual discussion. And it isn't because I want to win, it is because I want to learn and be engaged and have my ideas challenged and force me to rethink them and reapply them and look at them from every opposing view point I can.
Don't know what the hell you are rambling about a contest and the like. You posted your thoughts on a public forum in a free exchange of ideas with everyone else here. Congrats, by doing it, you threw your hat into the ring for criticism, rebuttal and retort. This isn't a church, you don't have a right to proselytize without reply, and the strange idea you have about how my reply was an attempt to pull you into a contest is confusing to say the least.

I was expressing an opinion, I was not telling anyone that they should or shouldn't be upset by something. I was not telling anyone what or how to think. Where do you get off telling me what I am thinking or how I should think?

Well, first of all, when you throw out an appeal to majority in support of your stance, I will just point out the worthlessness of it as a support out of pure principle there. That is objectively wrong. As for the rest, I never said you can't be upset, please don't put words into my mouth. I never said people can't dislike whatever. But you trying to call something sexist, well, that is a different matter. Now you are applying a label. Labels have requirements and definitions. If you said "I dislike this", that is merely what it is, your opinion. when you say "This is sexist" you are now making a claim instead of an opinion. As a claim, it is now an argument stance, completely restricted to the rules and requirements of any argument, and that includes not being built on logical fallacies. Does this help explain why I went after it to start with by any chance?

You want a logical fallacy? How about this, "Sexism is worse in other parts of the world, therefore, it does not exist here". That is the essence of what you told me.

No, you got it wrong. I was saying "Appeal to majority is wrong about sexism because it is worse in other parts of the world, therefore what is sexist would be based on different popular opinion based in different regions of the world." See, what I was doing there was showing the flaw in your stance as I understood it there, not making it my own stance. Sort of how I do things, try to explain why something is wrong rather then worthlessly beating my chest and repeating that it merely is over and over.

What exactly are you so afraid of, that you have to aggressively stomp down these opposing points of view whenever you see them? I can only speak for myself, but I was not suggesting legislation to stifle free speech nor the subjugation of the male gender or point of view.

First, get off the soap box, put the victim card away, you are not under attack for daring to, well, follow the majority?
Secondly, you are aware that a label like "sexist" actually has reprocussions, right? I mean I can call so guy at work a racist and you know what happens? He can be investigated and fired because the company doesn't want that associated with them. Calling games sexist undermines their value as art, as commercial products and as media itself. Thus why it has to be done when it actually fits. If only we had some clear definition of the word, some way to objectively apply traits of each individual game to see if it legitimately fit instead of merely relying on emotional response..

If you continue to engage me in this manner you can expect me to do the same thing you should have done if you didn't like what I had to say. I will ignore you, I will not be baited further.

Again with the stance on the hill crap...

Listen, cutting it down for simplicity sake here. You came off as someone trying to justify a stance I already see as rocky with what I can only read as a faulty reason. I don't begrudge you your opinion on the games. I don't think you can't dislike them or even do so based on your opinions of what good media should be in relation to using female characters. I really don't care about any of that. What I do care is when people use faulty logic to justify a stance or opinion, and when people try to call something what it isn't. Those two are objective in nature, easy to point out and can be explained exactly why they are wrong. Even if I agreed with you on the opinion of character designs being crap (and if you double check my last posts, you will see I think a lot of trends in games are), I still have to call you out for getting to the answer the wrong way. When you tried to justify your opinion with anything, you made it a stance to be argued. When you did it with a failing of logic, that is why I jumped on it.