I would like to add my two cents to this conversation.
I am sure there is some sexism in the media and industry. There's sexism everywhere, to some degree. However, I would like to say that the issue is being exaggerated or understated by both sides. We often see characters like the Sorceress who has ignited the latest round of the debate (though not as exaggerated and blatantly impossible as she is.) However, despite their sexual connotation, breasts and the derriere are not actual sexual organs. A recent Penny Arcade comic made the point that men might consider the debate different if there were a character who had a massive, pendulous penis that dragged on the ground in what looked like a potato-sack loincloth. Ironic, and raising a good point, but the penis is an actual reproductive organ. Breasts, however inflated they may be in artwork, have no actual purpose in the further continuation of the human race. That's why we have flat chested women; all the important, mechanical parts are still there, but her body's not lying to you to trick your male-mammal instincts into thinking that she can nurse more offspring.
On that note, I would posit that all of these "sexist" female characters are actually just overly idealized human beings. Look at the male side of the coin. Who are we men represented as in videogames? There's two basic types: The Refridgerator Marine, like Marcus Phoenix or the Master Chief. Second type is the Pretty Boy, like 99% of JRPG heroes or american types like Nathan Drake. But I don't care. Even though I personally have much more in common with Ronnie from the "WHOMP!" comics than either of these types. To me, what a person IS is determined by what a person DOES. DO these characters put it on the line to save the day, get it done, protect the whatever? Yes. Their idealized male depiction no longer matters. I'm not telling women not to be offended when a videogame heroine is a rail thin, buxom abomination who could never function in reality, but I am kindly asking them to judge the character by their deeds, not merely their depictions. If that creature is a mewling, stupid, promiscuous husk who can't do anything except be saved and then bedded by the main man in the game, then okay, THAT'S sexist as all hell. But if she has something real to contribute to the story and to the struggle contained within, take a moment to really examine things. There may well be some gender politics or something in play, but "Sexism" is a very definite thing that says "Your gender is inferior." I daresay that one character in one setting is not sufficient to determine what a medium says about 50% of the population of its reality.
Much argument is caused when one group makes assumptions about the mentality of the opposing group. This is true of political parties, genders, "races" (though I would like to point out that there's ONE race, HUMAN,) religions, ad nauseam. Even this thread has had much "Men think this" from women, and "Women think this" from men. Men do not know what, how, or why women think. This much, women can tell you. Women, you too do not know what, how, or why we men think. I'm very fortunate to be a man who can predict and understand the mentalities of most other men, but you ladies are a friggin' mystery to me. We are LITERALLY wired differently. Please don't assume that because there is some absurd over-femalization of a character's physical aspects that those who designed that are sexists. Men have a tendency toward "getting more." Either we were designed that way by a Creator or it arose through the trial and error of nature for a very, very long time. But it's there, in our psyche. If Food is good, MORE food is better. If land is good, MORE land is better. And yes, if breasts are good, MORE breasts is A-OK too. Even if overly-sexualised female characters really ARE the fantasy of their creators and the game's male audience, that doesn't necessarily make anyone involved sexists. Men can like pretty women and also value them as people at the same time.
I am sure there is some sexism in the media and industry. There's sexism everywhere, to some degree. However, I would like to say that the issue is being exaggerated or understated by both sides. We often see characters like the Sorceress who has ignited the latest round of the debate (though not as exaggerated and blatantly impossible as she is.) However, despite their sexual connotation, breasts and the derriere are not actual sexual organs. A recent Penny Arcade comic made the point that men might consider the debate different if there were a character who had a massive, pendulous penis that dragged on the ground in what looked like a potato-sack loincloth. Ironic, and raising a good point, but the penis is an actual reproductive organ. Breasts, however inflated they may be in artwork, have no actual purpose in the further continuation of the human race. That's why we have flat chested women; all the important, mechanical parts are still there, but her body's not lying to you to trick your male-mammal instincts into thinking that she can nurse more offspring.
On that note, I would posit that all of these "sexist" female characters are actually just overly idealized human beings. Look at the male side of the coin. Who are we men represented as in videogames? There's two basic types: The Refridgerator Marine, like Marcus Phoenix or the Master Chief. Second type is the Pretty Boy, like 99% of JRPG heroes or american types like Nathan Drake. But I don't care. Even though I personally have much more in common with Ronnie from the "WHOMP!" comics than either of these types. To me, what a person IS is determined by what a person DOES. DO these characters put it on the line to save the day, get it done, protect the whatever? Yes. Their idealized male depiction no longer matters. I'm not telling women not to be offended when a videogame heroine is a rail thin, buxom abomination who could never function in reality, but I am kindly asking them to judge the character by their deeds, not merely their depictions. If that creature is a mewling, stupid, promiscuous husk who can't do anything except be saved and then bedded by the main man in the game, then okay, THAT'S sexist as all hell. But if she has something real to contribute to the story and to the struggle contained within, take a moment to really examine things. There may well be some gender politics or something in play, but "Sexism" is a very definite thing that says "Your gender is inferior." I daresay that one character in one setting is not sufficient to determine what a medium says about 50% of the population of its reality.
Much argument is caused when one group makes assumptions about the mentality of the opposing group. This is true of political parties, genders, "races" (though I would like to point out that there's ONE race, HUMAN,) religions, ad nauseam. Even this thread has had much "Men think this" from women, and "Women think this" from men. Men do not know what, how, or why women think. This much, women can tell you. Women, you too do not know what, how, or why we men think. I'm very fortunate to be a man who can predict and understand the mentalities of most other men, but you ladies are a friggin' mystery to me. We are LITERALLY wired differently. Please don't assume that because there is some absurd over-femalization of a character's physical aspects that those who designed that are sexists. Men have a tendency toward "getting more." Either we were designed that way by a Creator or it arose through the trial and error of nature for a very, very long time. But it's there, in our psyche. If Food is good, MORE food is better. If land is good, MORE land is better. And yes, if breasts are good, MORE breasts is A-OK too. Even if overly-sexualised female characters really ARE the fantasy of their creators and the game's male audience, that doesn't necessarily make anyone involved sexists. Men can like pretty women and also value them as people at the same time.
