Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[UberPubert]

female warframes are designed around a theme, just like the male warframes, their gender just happens to be female without being a major part in their concept. the female warframe kinda show even more different bodytypes than the male ones do. some of those bodytypes are then discussed on the forums, but naturally noone ever complains about the lack of ass on some of the male warframes, its allways about the female ones not having enough boobage etc...
the newest warframe caused a bit of an outcry from a part of the playerbase, because female spaceninjas in bioengineered suits who have superpowers cant be frontline fighters because of being female, obviously!
DE doesnt give much about that, their game is about ninjas in space.

Fellow Tenno here, would just like to say I'm glad you brought Warframe up. Besides having some of my most favorite character designs in a long time I also feel they do pretty well in presenting a consistent theme for "male" and "female" Warframes, in that some of them definitely look like they're wearing skin-tight body gloves (Excalibur on one side, Mag on the other) while others just look like they're wearing clothes (Frost wears a coat, Nova looks like she's rocking a pant-suit). Though I'm sorry to hear about the Forums, I'm sure the DE team has their head in right place and I think they do a fine job of (minor) sexuality done well.

 

[likalaruku]

Japanese & Korean games pander to what I consider an attractive male (especially the male elves in TERA), but western games pretty much put a check into everything I physically dislike in men. Unfortunately for me, I prefer western games.

 

[Fireaxe]

While I don't particularly mind vulnerability, compare how Krato's own "prequel" handled similar circumstances. While Lara falls helplessly down nearly every slope, he handles it like a boss. I mean, imagine a God of War game where Kratos is falling down hills and sobbing.

Lara is a rich kid who grew up in normal western society and went to university and ends up on an Island full of savage cultists trying to murder the hell out of basically everyone..

Jason Brody is a much closer comparison to Lara than Kratos (what with the whole Spartan training thing), and he still comes with a good athletic background. He falls down a ton of shit.

 

[King Zeal]

Jason still doesn't spend as much time sobbing and falling as Lara does, though.

The first part of your argument, however, is Watsonian (based on story conditions) while the points I'm making are Doylist (based on author intent, as they said their goal was to make the player feel "protective" of Lara).

 

[Kevin7557]

Well Personally I agree with OP, I'm not a fan of overly large breasts and they frankly detract from the experience. I'm not saying I always want small boobs, just that there's a cutoff limit to when they're just annoyingly obscene.

As for the topic on hand I'm for sexuality in some games. Which is to say that I believe it should be allowed to be sold like every other game and buyer beware. The notion that games shouldn't have sex because games are for children is a notion that I think collectively we should already be past and those that aren't can continue to keep their heads up their... Since let's be honest, adults have sex. It's how 95 percent of us using this board got here (I assume a decent portion of you are genetic engineered, androids, or bots) so I think it's about time that we allow adult rated games to sell.

That is not to say I want hot coffee in every game or that I want every video game to do what Hollywood does and put annoying romantic plots into each game just so they can justify that pg13 sex scene. What I want from this is that if a game chooses to have say a bit more adult content then let it. If the market doesn't like it they won't buy it.

With the inclusion of A games I think this is a good thing since video games can take things a bit further than with M for Mature games and we cane actually improve the ratings so that horrible parents have zero excuse for their neglectful behavior. More bloody and gory games can be moved toward the now acceptable A rating and lower content games can be put in the M rating class. Let's be honest, GTAV should have been A for adult, the game on several occasions went above just Mature (the torture scene in particular) and even Rockstar says it's games are for Adults.

Anyway to wrap this up as a society and collective it's time that we demonstrate that the medium is serious. Comics can have sex scenes, movies can have sex scenes, tv can have sex scenes, so why shouldn't the option be open for video games? This is ether a serious medium or it isn't and I say it is!

 

[runic knight]

Jason still doesn't spend as much time sobbing and falling as Lara does, though.

The first part of your argument, however, is Watsonian (based on story conditions) while the points I'm making are Doylist (based on author intent, as they said their goal was to make the player feel "protective" of Lara).

If I remember the game right, he was suppose to represent a sort of daredevil American college guy. Knowing that, one only has to look at the overall culture he would have grown up in, his experiences and family life to get a feel for how he might have reacted in the situation. he was thrown in.

Well, culturally, guys are taught to never cry so there is that. His brother was also in the military, so I imagine that probably played a part in what he expected or at least experienced both growing up and later in life (since some people decide earlier to go into the military, it may have lead to the younger brother experiencing things as he tried to see as well). Beyond that, what an average male sees and is interested in in our culture is a bit different then the average female, and be it cultural pressures that shape that or some underlying reaction to biological drives, I don't know, it is still a factor if the game wanted to try to capture that aspect of real life. Judging from the grittier nature of the games, and the "dropped right in" feel of the games, I have to assume they just stuck to current western cultural norms to avoid having to explain the characters too deeply pre-game.

I would say that the reason Lara cries and falls more story wise is because it is more culturally expected and accepted that your average rich white girl would break down and cry under those circumstances, where as an adrenaline junkie college age male with a brother in the military would be less likely to, even before going into the whole spiritual powers mumbojumbo he had. A closer proximity then say a spartan warrior, to be sure, but still differences enough to acknowledge.

 

[sumanoskae]

There exists a phrase in a Chinese language that is used to respond to a yes or no question, it roughly translates to "The question is wrong"

"What is your opinion on sexuality in gaming" suggests a much broader topic than you seem to be inquiring about. Your post suggests your question is closer to "What do you find sexy in video games?"; I take no real issue with this question, despite the fact that I believe you are asking it in an unclear way. I do have an issue with the phrase "Tasteless teenage pandering", not necessarily because I disagree with any particular example, nor do I think the comment itself is somehow invalid, but what you expressed was a preference, the fact that you qualified the pictures you approved of by referring to them as "Sexy" proves that.

By extrapolation, the issue that you take with the character models is not that you find them offensive in some way, but rather that you don't find them sexy.

And the fact that you don't find something sexy is not grounds to refer to it as "Tasteless teenage pandering". The fact that you have a particular standard for attraction that some would say differs from the norm does not somehow elevate your desire to stare at hot chicks (Which is in no way objectionable) above anybody else's.

If your only reason for preferring one type of character over the other is one floats your boat and one doesn't, you value the models to your liking for the exact same reason people value the "Tasteless teenage pandering". If you consider the act of titillating an audience to be somehow offensive, you should apply that same judgement to any form titillation, including the ones you happen to enjoy.

Now it may be that you only meant to inquire regarding the preference of others, in which case you may disregard my other comments, and I suggest you alter your title, because my opinion on sexuality in the arts is a matter that extends far beyond my bias towards D cups. Sexuality has many uses beyond titillation, it is after all a primal, and sometimes deeply psychological, form of human contact.

If you were in fact seeking to criticize the portrayal of sexuality in video games, I would remind you that being aroused by this or that fictional character doesn't make you immature, nor is it somehow inherently offensive design a character solely for the purpose of titillation.

TL;DR: To answer the question in the most basic manner I am able, I think Ivy is hotter than Rin. I'm a T&A kind of guy, don't see the problem with that.

 

[lacktheknack]

I usually end up questioning why.

I understand its use in a game like, say, Catherine. But really, did they HAVE to make Cammy's leotard in Street Fighter so minimalist? No, they didn't. You can freaking tell that she's had a Brazilian wax, for crying out loud. Usually, gratuitous sexuality will turn me off, because it's often indicative that the devs traded quality for nothing.

 

[Icehearted]

The tasteless and tacky, the mature approach, all spectrum, I say embrace it. For the medium to grow up and shed it's still largely juvenile and puerile image it needs some actual maturity, which I don't necessarily mean just sex and nudity, which are factually not exclusively mature issues (ie: child sex play and sexual role-play as part of child psychological and sexual development).

Cinema had it's infancy, but it grew up, and even grew pretentious. Gaming as an industry is much too content with where it is mostly because the dollars are there, but things are evolving... slowly. I'm old enough to remember when Nintendo refused to allow pixelated blood, or before there was an ESRB.

I think this attitude about sex and nudity is ridiculous and reflective of society's lack of comfort in dealing with sex, and too many irresponsible parents out there allowing their children to play games that are not age appropriate. I welcome it, i hope they experiment with it, I would love deeper more intimate ideas, I think there's room enough in the medium to allow it in games where the developers see fit and the fans demand it. As it is now I wish things were better, but when I discover nudity or sex in a game I'm more surprised than anything, and if it's done in a way that suits what I'm playing all the better. Likewise I revile any chickenshit that backs down because of pressure by retailers like Walmart to keep AO rated games off shelves, deciding to "tone down" content because they won't see the right shelves.

Once upon a time the American film industry literally had a rule that forbade an uninterrupted kiss to last longer than a predetermined set of seconds on screen. Movies have come a long way since. Games can do the same, but only when developers decide; not the publisher, not retailers, not the fans, but people that make video games and choose to take a stand. CD Projekt and it's stand against DRM is an example of what I mean.

 

[Zakarath]

Sexuality fine as long as it's tasteful, for example in some of Bioware's entries (Though Morrigan's outfit in Dragon Age was pretty silly).
Pandering fan-service (I am tempted to include OP's top photo in this category, form-fitting red leather shirt+short skirt is trying a little too hard, IMO) is generally less welcome, though a little is okay in some circumstances, particularly if it suits the game's overall aesthetic (such as Saint's Row 3)

 

[runic knight]

That's still not an equivalent. Citizen Kane didn't "need" its cinematography or memorable ending in the same way that Michaelangelo's David didn't need anatomical correctness. The two are culturally significant, however, because it possesses those elements.

That's not the same thing as asking if Ivy needs big tits.

You'll have to excuse the slow reply, when you didn't quote my name, never got the message I was quoted.

What a game "needs" is a poor point of argument to begin with. You bring up examples where the traits you compare are what the work is remembered for or noteworthy of. That is an even more unfit comparison then worthless gimmicks in gameplay being compared to worthless gimmicks in art direction. What you think a game needs doesn't matter, and while you are quite right they don't need it, there is a lot that doesn't define a game from gimmicks to gameplay, that they do not need either. Games have what they have for a variety of factors, but need isn't it for a lot of it.
So, you seemed to miss my point entirely. Arguing that a game doesn't need something doesn't matter when "need" was never the reason for it being included in the first place. My car doesn't need to be the color it is painted, yet it is painted because that color is more likely to appeal then, say, a neon green with yellow highlights. Arguing need in this manner is just a waste of effort I'm afraid. Need was never the reason they choose that ascetic in the first place, so what does it matter if it is not needed?

Largely, people make arguments about what is oversaturated and what is not. I personally think we need more characters like Poison from Street Fighter. (A transgender person that is portrayed as just as sexy and attractive as a cisgender person.) This doesn't mean that something should or should not be used, but merely an observation that something is oversaturated to the point of redundancy.

Over-saturated, I'll agree there. Though, that does that mean it has to change in and of itself? Obviously there is an audience there, a demand strong enough to warrant the continued use of the ascetic to the people actually paying to make the games. So, while I would agree it would be nice if they did offer more variety, do they have to? Just because there is a lot of something (I could argue that it isn't but that is a waste of effort on my part tiring to play devil's advocate on that too) does that alone mean things should change, especially when it is profitable? After all, movies markets eventually bust on their own when oversaturated, game genre do as well. Ascetic designs should be no exception. If they are over-saturating the market to the point it is hazardous to the market itself, the trend will bust, with it changing to a niche thing while another ascetic reins for a while. As the general flow of market patterns would dictate.

Personal taste is fine, but there is also the matter of content producers assuming something about the audience. For example, Naughty Dog needing to FIGHT LIKE HELL to get Ellie included on the cover of The Last Of Us.

There's a difference between personal taste and just plain old pandering.

First of all, a game developer fighting with a publisher over details such as how a game is advertised is not unexpected. Given that the publishers still work on "use what has worked before" logic, there is bound to be clashes with people who are a little closer to the pulse of gaming.

Though I am curious what you bring that up for, in regards to this discussion and pandering and the like. Also, yes, there is a difference between personal taste and pandering, but what is your point about that here too.

I get the feeling you are trying to confuse the issue of developers butting heads with publishers with design decisions of certain ascetics as some tied together thing to combat.

This argument doesn't work because we're not talking about being excluded from a genre of game, or even a specific game. We're talking about the ENTIRE AAA INDUSTRY being predisposed to exclude certain groups of people. Using your restaurant analogy, this would be like if every restaurant in your city sold Chitterlings and Soul Food. Sure, if you don't want it, don't eat there. But, if you need to drive 200 miles to get something different, you have a right to complain.

Never said you didn't have a right to complain, and have actively said before anyone can. What I am arguing here is no one is excluded. I see, since you have no rebuttal to that point, that you agree, no one is excluded, and we can move on to the next point here. Not only is no one excluded, but the games you want, the food you want, has been offered, is being offered and will be offered again in order to feel out the people demanding it. And more then likely it will fail the same as it always does because the people demanding it don't actually buy it. Games from Beyond Good and Evil to Remember Me are commercial flops. You complain that all there is to buy is Soul Food, yet the only reason it is so predominant (not all there is mind you, if you actually looked a little) is because people steadily bought that stuff and companies continued to sell what sold. At the end of the day, no matter what you complain about, it boils down to those two facts. No one is excluded from buying a product and guiding the direction the product is going, No one bought the products they released to test the waters before bigger releases.
Complaining about having to drive farther when you didn't support what they tried to offer, and still try to offer because it too isn't perfect is just entitled. Your right to complain about it sure, just don't expect that to lead to any changes.

Not true. Speaking as someone who's worked in marketing, the ultimate goal of a company is to tell you that you like the product they made, not to make a product that you like.

Marketing is to tell you to like the product, developing is to make one that they will like. Game industry is part both. Though what does that have to do with my point that games don't exclude anyone I don't know.

That argument STILL doesn't work. That's what's called a "market bubble", meaning those are customers you are guaranteed to have already. A market bubble, however, shrinks over time. Meanwhile, the people who DON'T buy your product and WANT TO have all this good money you're not paying attention to.

Again, not saying it is wise, merely describing what they are doing. Comic book industry of the 90's did the same... and DC seems to be doing it again. Hell, I have regularly argued that Nintendo is probably the only one of the big three with any sense as they aren't nearly as obsessed with the 15-30 male demographic as the other two seem to be and instead make games more evenly to all paying demographics.
But feel free to try to tell the companies getting fat and lazy as they milk their reliable cash cow that they are doing it wrong. I'm sure they have never heard that before every time they agree to make a Remember Me.

Blackface lasted for over 100 years, actually. And is often blamed for delaying the abolition of slavery. Why? Because Northerners who had never met black people before used Minstrel Shows as a measurement for what they were like.

And profitability really had nothing to do with what ended it so much as media producers stopped using it in order to not scare off the growing African-American consumer. Which, honestly, is exactly my point. By making it more inclusive to Blacks, and heeding their complaints about it, the stereotype eventually fell out of use.

-Which is exactly how profitability was affected, as the growing African-American consumer spending their money elsewhere was the fear of lost potential profits. That in relation to gaming requires the people making the product feeling there is a consumer out there their behavior is scaring off, which has not been shown well when games made to order of the demands for more female protagonists or better defined characters have traditionally failed. Even great games have failed, and while you may argue it was because they weren't supported enough, there are so many examples out there of indie titles not supported at all selling huge that the people selling the games will probably go "well, obviously if game that looks like crap and is simple as dirt like minecraft makes boatloads out of demand and word of mouth alone, if the current Remember Me can't sell enough to cover its cost, it must mean there is not enough demand. Meanwhile we do have reliable demand for skimpy bikini babes, and it doesn't drive away enough people to make not using it a hazard to profit, so why stop?"

You can keep arguing that making it more inclusive is good, and I will keep nodding my head and going "yeah, I agree, I know, most people know, but the people making the games and the people publishing the games don't fucking care what we think is good in the long haul, as their actions have shown countless times". Thus arguing that point over and over is pointless. Instead, understand why arguing those points is a waste of time, understand what their motivations actually are and go after those if you want change.

No one cares your thoughts on the morality of using skimpy clothing. No one cares your thoughts on being inclusive by not using skimpy dressed characters as much. Hell, most people have shown little care one way or another about it in the first place, if the dominance of the use of skin in media from literature to movies have shown us anything. What people care about are here either solutions that will actually work (as opposed moralizing about the situation), or some reason why games should be forced into the change in behavior, depending what side of that fence you sit.

And again, that doesn't work because of the marketing bubble phenomenon I mentioned earlier.

Which means nothing if the companies in question shows no inclination to believe or follow that policy of business, as they have shown since they flooded the market with platformers in the 90's, music games in the early 00's, and brown dirty chest high wall shooters.
Rationally, they should want to increase their market and maintain the pool of customers by increasing that pool by at least the amount lost. But I don't know if you haven't notice, but they don't care that much. For some reason, their pool has grown and grown in spite of their actions, so argue all you like about the bubble phenomenon, in their eyes I can't see them questioning their business decisions until it bites them in the ass. Don't look at what they should be doing, look at what they are when trying to figure this stuff out. Has really any of their behavior suggested they care too much about being inclusive rather then cashing in on what currently sells?

So what are you saying then? We should not like and buy? Because that's exactly what most of us here are doing.

No, you should not like and buy from the triple A part of gaming, then get out of that relatively small portion of gaming, explore the indie and kickstarter side of things, maybe drive down to a part of town you ignore and find a nice vegetarian resturant that has been there the whole time, struggling because instead of people supporting that little guy, they instead rail about how the big guys aren't giving them what they want.
The games you want are out there, either in form or at least in the creative will of people willing to make them. Find them, support them. That is the only way you will get what you want. You wont change the current Triple A industry from the beast is has become by complaining at it. And you shouldn't hope to either. They all started small and grew because they provided something that people wanted to buy and did it well enough. The games we have now in those big companies are the successors of that legacy. And while they may eventually change to what you wish it could be, that will be on their own choice, in their own time, regardless how much you complain about it now. Better to show them there actually IS an audience willing to pay for the product. Better to give them some data contrary to the massive pile they keep looking at every time there is an argument about putting a female character on the cover, because like it or not, they make those stupid decisions based on practicality. And justify it how you want, at the end of the day, when the data says "female protagonists don't sell as well as males", that affects decisions. Prove that shit wrong, show the demand is there, show the profit is there waiting to be had, and watch them chase it like they chased mario, rockband and CoD.

Yes, which is exactly WHY consumers should speak up when something bothers them. It doesn't matter if they're a minority or not.

Except, as said before, it is hard to tell someone who is succeeding that they are doing it wrong and expect to be taken seriously. especially when what you are telling them has a bad track record. It doesn't matter if you are right in the end, when the data now shows that to be wrong, and their current path is working.
You are not a paying customer, your opinion is already less then those that are, trying to use what little ear they give you to try to tell them that the sky is really red is not going to work. You are arguing that they need to be inclusive and support the market and have more variety, and damn if I don't agree with that sentiment, I really do, but they don't care because it is the best time in the world to be doing what they do the way they do it. They are making money hand over fist, the games are guaranteed sellers before they are even made, DLC means even more profits and you can run your company like a ship full of chimps and still make bank. You come off like you are trying to nag and shame them into fixing things when from their perspective, it works better then they ever saw in their life and that is on top of the question of why would the listen to someone who doesn't buy their products anyways? And then there is the shareholder aspect, where any care about quality goes out the window in pursuit of profit to them, and they have a tight hold of the reins at times. It is like watching someone bashing their head against a mountain in hopes the person living at the top will come down and help you take it down rock by rock and move it out of your way.

Hell, you want an example of something I did earlier to help things? I heard about a lovely game called Pixel Piracy or something close where the creators themselves are giving a torrent link so people can pirate it for free because they would rather people not get viruses. They hate DRM and trust gamers enough that they think gamers will still support them even if they don't have to. And you know what? They are damned right. This gamer will buy their game just because of that action. I hate DRM and the way the industry has grown to embrace it so fully, so a company making a stand against it is something I want to support. I may not like the game at all, yet I am fine with that. I didn't like a lot of games I bought for the NES as a kid, so losing out on a title here and there isn't something I am not used to. And it supports the direction I want to see gaming go, away from DRM and the like. And I know I am not the only one who will help support that too. I know many will pirate it too, what happens when you offer something free after all, but even still I think the company earned my money for their stance and their product and I hope other people as well. And I plan to use word of mouth to advertise for them as well, to help increase the odds that it is seen as something good. What have you done to help support gaming to go in the direction you wish it to go? Have you funded projects you might not have fully liked or believed would succeed? It is wishful thinking, I know, but if no one gets off their ass and risks a little, the current beast sure as hell wont.

 

[AusGamer44]

I think the issue here is objectivication,not sexuality.
I have no great problem with a character being presented as sexy,if it's part of her character,and done subtly.As long as she is still a human being,with an inner life and feelings you can empathize with. Where I'm sick of it is a character who is simply boobs on a stick,without any other purpose. The opening scenes of Sin Episodes:Emergence simply exist to titillate the MALE player in a way that says,"Female players,you are not welcome here."

Spoiler

{http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2006/05/sin_episodes_emergence_review/01.jpg}

Spoiler

{http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2006/05/sin_episodes_emergence_review/02.jpg}

Spoiler

{http://ve3dmedia.ign.com/ve3d/image/article/703/703381/sin-episodes-screenshots-20060426005340325.jpg}

When it's this overt,it reminds me of those weak porno plots where the plumber shows up to a house where the homeowner just happens to have FF breasts,is weating latex and is 'lonely'. 30 years of video games and this is STILL considered commercially and artistically acceptable? Seriously,if games are EVER going to be acknowledged as art by the Roger Eberts of the world,it needs to lose the adolescent boy view and present a depiction of adult sexuality that is more mature,caters to both genders and varient sexualities and doesn't reduce female characters to mere body parts.

 

[King Zeal]

You'll have to excuse the slow reply, when you didn't quote my name, never got the message I was quoted.

What a game "needs" is a poor point of argument to begin with. You bring up examples where the traits you compare are what the work is remembered for or noteworthy of. That is an even more unfit comparison then worthless gimmicks in gameplay being compared to worthless gimmicks in art direction. What you think a game needs doesn't matter, and while you are quite right they don't need it, there is a lot that doesn't define a game from gimmicks to gameplay, that they do not need either. Games have what they have for a variety of factors, but need isn't it for a lot of it.
So, you seemed to miss my point entirely. Arguing that a game doesn't need something doesn't matter when "need" was never the reason for it being included in the first place. My car doesn't need to be the color it is painted, yet it is painted because that color is more likely to appeal then, say, a neon green with yellow highlights. Arguing need in this manner is just a waste of effort I'm afraid. Need was never the reason they choose that ascetic in the first place, so what does it matter if it is not needed?

What are you arguing against, exactly? We're not asking about what the color on Ivy's thong is. We're talking about the thong itself.

Over-saturated, I'll agree there. Though, that does that mean it has to change in and of itself? Obviously there is an audience there, a demand strong enough to warrant the continued use of the ascetic to the people actually paying to make the games. So, while I would agree it would be nice if they did offer more variety, do they have to? Just because there is a lot of something (I could argue that it isn't but that is a waste of effort on my part tiring to play devil's advocate on that too) does that alone mean things should change, especially when it is profitable? After all, movies markets eventually bust on their own when oversaturated, game genre do as well. Ascetic designs should be no exception. If they are over-saturating the market to the point it is hazardous to the market itself, the trend will bust, with it changing to a niche thing while another ascetic reins for a while. As the general flow of market patterns would dictate.

The purpose of criticism isn't to wait until a market bursts on its own. The purpose is to give an opinion on what one would like to see, or what may or may not improve the art form. It's fine to not agree, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the opinion should be expressed.

I get the feeling you are trying to confuse the issue of developers butting heads with publishers with design decisions of certain ascetics as some tied together thing to combat.

Because it is? Publishers and marketing tell developers what to put in the game before the game ever gets made. Marketing has as much influence on game content as the developer's creative decision. Marketing, however, is not always interested in making a "better" product. See the current microtransactions problem.

In this case, though, I wasn't even talking about the content of the game itself. I was talking about the self-perpetuating sexism of the industry as a whole.

Never said you didn't have a right to complain, and have actively said before anyone can. What I am arguing here is no one is excluded. I see, since you have no rebuttal to that point, that you agree, no one is excluded, and we can move on to the next point here. Not only is no one excluded, but the games you want, the food you want, has been offered, is being offered and will be offered again in order to feel out the people demanding it.

Then you have a different idea of what "exclusion" means than I do. Don't know what definition you're using. I'm using the social justice definition which, summarized, basically means any action, system, or institution which makes it difficult for a group of people to enjoy the same things as another group of people. A person who wishes to be a consumer, but feels that the product is ignoring their wishes is very much excluded, insofar as their wishes are not being met while someone else's are. Exclusion does not mean complete lack of choice, and can mean an unbalanced choice.

For example, microtransactions are a good example of exclusion that doesn't completely remove choice. You can choose not to pay extra for more content, but you will not have access to the same game that someone who is willing to pay does.

And more then likely it will fail the same as it always does because the people demanding it don't actually buy it. Games from Beyond Good and Evil to Remember Me are commercial flops. You complain that all there is to buy is Soul Food, yet the only reason it is so predominant (not all there is mind you, if you actually looked a little) is because people steadily bought that stuff and companies continued to sell what sold. At the end of the day, no matter what you complain about, it boils down to those two facts. No one is excluded from buying a product and guiding the direction the product is going, No one bought the products they released to test the waters before bigger releases.

Complaining about having to drive farther when you didn't support what they tried to offer, and still try to offer because it too isn't perfect is just entitled. Your right to complain about it sure, just don't expect that to lead to any changes.

And that is false. One of the very signs of "exclusion" is when something doesn't work and the producer assumes that it "gave the consumers what it wanted" and that it was the consumer's fault for its failure. There are lots of factors that determine commercial success, and not the least of which is timing. BGaE was released at a very bad time. What you're arguing is like opening a new restaurant that doesn't sell Soul Food, advertising it very poorly, and then claiming it failed because people didn't want it. Similarly, poor marketing is cited as one of the reasons BGaE didn't sell well.

Marketing is to tell you to like the product, developing is to make one that they will like. Game industry is part both. Though what does that have to do with my point that games don't exclude anyone I don't know.

As I said, marketing in a AAA industry TELLS developers what game to make. It's less about making the game people want and more about telling them what game they want. In an older episode, Jim Sterling has given a good example in how focus groups are often used only to bias confirm what the marketing group already wanted to assume.

Again, not saying it is wise, merely describing what they are doing. Comic book industry of the 90's did the same... and DC seems to be doing it again. Hell, I have regularly argued that Nintendo is probably the only one of the big three with any sense as they aren't nearly as obsessed with the 15-30 male demographic as the other two seem to be and instead make games more evenly to all paying demographics.

But feel free to try to tell the companies getting fat and lazy as they milk their reliable cash cow that they are doing it wrong. I'm sure they have never heard that before every time they agree to make a Remember Me.

Glad we seem to agree here, then.

-Which is exactly how profitability was affected, as the growing African-American consumer spending their money elsewhere was the fear of lost potential profits. That in relation to gaming requires the people making the product feeling there is a consumer out there their behavior is scaring off, which has not been shown well when games made to order of the demands for more female protagonists or better defined characters have traditionally failed. Even great games have failed, and while you may argue it was because they weren't supported enough, there are so many examples out there of indie titles not supported at all selling huge that the people selling the games will probably go "well, obviously if game that looks like crap and is simple as dirt like minecraft makes boatloads out of demand and word of mouth alone, if the current Remember Me can't sell enough to cover its cost, it must mean there is not enough demand. Meanwhile we do have reliable demand for skimpy bikini babes, and it doesn't drive away enough people to make not using it a hazard to profit, so why stop?"

You can keep arguing that making it more inclusive is good, and I will keep nodding my head and going "yeah, I agree, I know, most people know, but the people making the games and the people publishing the games don't fucking care what we think is good in the long haul, as their actions have shown countless times". Thus arguing that point over and over is pointless. Instead, understand why arguing those points is a waste of time, understand what their motivations actually are and go after those if you want change.

I'm not sure what you're even disagreeing with, here. We are going after their motivations--by talking to other consumers about it. This topic isn't complaining to the publisher itself, it's talking to other players about a problem and opening discussion about it. We, and game journalists like MovieBob, Jim Sterling, and the Extra Credits guys, are trying to get consumers to make wiser and more informed decisions.

And part of that means not buying a game just because it has a female protagonist in it. Remember Me had its own problems despite the gender choice of the protagonist which contributed to its dismal performance. Consumers aren't obligated to play a bad game despite it having one good thing they like. Using your restaurant analogy from before, that would be like eating at a new restaurant even if the food (different though it may be) tastes terrible and the kitchen is unsanitary.

Likewise, I personally don't like QTE games like Beyond: Two Souls. I'm still willing to buy a game that has female protagonists, but not just because it has one over all other factors. The fact that I have to choose between a game I want (GTA, for example) INSTEAD OF a game with a female protagonist is part of what I'm talking about. If we had more variety of games with female protagonists (like, say, if one of the three GTA V protagonists were female), this wouldn't be a problem.

Which means nothing if the companies in question shows no inclination to believe or follow that policy of business, as they have shown since they flooded the market with platformers in the 90's, music games in the early 00's, and brown dirty chest high wall shooters.

Rationally, they should want to increase their market and maintain the pool of customers by increasing that pool by at least the amount lost. But I don't know if you haven't notice, but they don't care that much. For some reason, their pool has grown and grown in spite of their actions, so argue all you like about the bubble phenomenon, in their eyes I can't see them questioning their business decisions until it bites them in the ass. Don't look at what they should be doing, look at what they are when trying to figure this stuff out. Has really any of their behavior suggested they care too much about being inclusive rather then cashing in on what currently sells?

Yes, again, I'm glad we agree. The only point that has been made is that this is a problem, which you acknowledge. Again, I don't see your point here otherwise.

No, you should not like and buy from the triple A part of gaming, then get out of that relatively small portion of gaming, explore the indie and kickstarter side of things, maybe drive down to a part of town you ignore and find a nice vegetarian resturant that has been there the whole time, struggling because instead of people supporting that little guy, they instead rail about how the big guys aren't giving them what they want.

Or we can do both. There's nothing stopping people from railing at the big guys and buying alternative titles.

The games you want are out there, either in form or at least in the creative will of people willing to make them. Find them, support them. That is the only way you will get what you want. You wont change the current Triple A industry from the beast is has become by complaining at it. And you shouldn't hope to either. They all started small and grew because they provided something that people wanted to buy and did it well enough. The games we have now in those big companies are the successors of that legacy. And while they may eventually change to what you wish it could be, that will be on their own choice, in their own time, regardless how much you complain about it now. Better to show them there actually IS an audience willing to pay for the product. Better to give them some data contrary to the massive pile they keep looking at every time there is an argument about putting a female character on the cover, because like it or not, they make those stupid decisions based on practicality. And justify it how you want, at the end of the day, when the data says "female protagonists don't sell as well as males", that affects decisions. Prove that shit wrong, show the demand is there, show the profit is there waiting to be had, and watch them chase it like they chased mario, rockband and CoD.

Yes, that is what's being done. But, when it IS done, it's dismissed as not "real" gaming or whatever such nonsense. It becomes a classic exercise in Moving the Goalposts thinking.

Except, as said before, it is hard to tell someone who is succeeding that they are doing it wrong and expect to be taken seriously. especially when what you are telling them has a bad track record. It doesn't matter if you are right in the end, when the data now shows that to be wrong, and their current path is working.

You are not a paying customer, your opinion is already less then those that are, trying to use what little ear they give you to try to tell them that the sky is really red is not going to work. You are arguing that they need to be inclusive and support the market and have more variety, and damn if I don't agree with that sentiment, I really do, but they don't care because it is the best time in the world to be doing what they do the way they do it. They are making money hand over fist, the games are guaranteed sellers before they are even made, DLC means even more profits and you can run your company like a ship full of chimps and still make bank. You come off like you are trying to nag and shame them into fixing things when from their perspective, it works better then they ever saw in their life and that is on top of the question of why would the listen to someone who doesn't buy their products anyways? And then there is the shareholder aspect, where any care about quality goes out the window in pursuit of profit to them, and they have a tight hold of the reins at times. It is like watching someone bashing their head against a mountain in hopes the person living at the top will come down and help you take it down rock by rock and move it out of your way.

That is the very definition of a "bubble", which you don't seem to disagree with. So again, where is the argument here?

Furthermore, according to what you're saying, being a paying customer actually doesn't help.

Hell, you want an example of something I did earlier to help things? I heard about a lovely game called Pixel Piracy or something close where the creators themselves are giving a torrent link so people can pirate it for free because they would rather people not get viruses. They hate DRM and trust gamers enough that they think gamers will still support them even if they don't have to. And you know what? They are damned right. This gamer will buy their game just because of that action. I hate DRM and the way the industry has grown to embrace it so fully, so a company making a stand against it is something I want to support. I may not like the game at all, yet I am fine with that. I didn't like a lot of games I bought for the NES as a kid, so losing out on a title here and there isn't something I am not used to. And it supports the direction I want to see gaming go, away from DRM and the like. And I know I am not the only one who will help support that too. I know many will pirate it too, what happens when you offer something free after all, but even still I think the company earned my money for their stance and their product and I hope other people as well. And I plan to use word of mouth to advertise for them as well, to help increase the odds that it is seen as something good. What have you done to help support gaming to go in the direction you wish it to go? Have you funded projects you might not have fully liked or believed would succeed? It is wishful thinking, I know, but if no one gets off their ass and risks a little, the current beast sure as hell wont.

Again, this has nothing to do with this topic. There is no reason that people can't do both. And in fact, topics like this are exactly WHY this sort of thing should be talked about, in order to point out WHY people should support games outside of the industry.

You aren't making a case against discussing this problem in a forum. If your argument is that discussion is not enough, I agree. But if your argument is that people should do that INSTEAD of discussing, I think you're missing the point.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

The tasteless and tacky, the mature approach, all spectrum, I say embrace it. For the medium to grow up and shed it's still largely juvenile and puerile image it needs some actual maturity, which I don't necessarily mean just sex and nudity, which are factually not exclusively mature issues (ie: child sex play and sexual role-play as part of child psychological and sexual development).

Cinema had it's infancy, but it grew up, and even grew pretentious. Gaming as an industry is much too content with where it is mostly because the dollars are there, but things are evolving... slowly. I'm old enough to remember when Nintendo refused to allow pixelated blood, or before there was an ESRB.

I think this attitude about sex and nudity is ridiculous and reflective of society's lack of comfort in dealing with sex, and too many irresponsible parents out there allowing their children to play games that are not age appropriate. I welcome it, i hope they experiment with it, I would love deeper more intimate ideas, I think there's room enough in the medium to allow it in games where the developers see fit and the fans demand it. As it is now I wish things were better, but when I discover nudity or sex in a game I'm more surprised than anything, and if it's done in a way that suits what I'm playing all the better. Likewise I revile any chickenshit that backs down because of pressure by retailers like Walmart to keep AO rated games off shelves, deciding to "tone down" content because they won't see the right shelves.

Once upon a time the American film industry literally had a rule that forbade an uninterrupted kiss to last longer than a predetermined set of seconds on screen. Movies have come a long way since. Games can do the same, but only when developers decide; not the publisher, not retailers, not the fans, but people that make video games and choose to take a stand. CD Projekt and it's stand against DRM is an example of what I mean.

I do agree that American society has an issue with dealing with sex (analysis of Japan yields a somewhat more complicated result but since your text refers to America more, i will keep my reference there) due to it's puritanical roots. My view on nudity is "it's the human body, it can be art or it can be porn depending on context" and the view on sex is "it is never the end of a relationship, it is the start or the solidifier". The gaming industry will basically have to mature from the 12 year old view of T&A and cheap titilation and move to more comprehensive work.

I have a feeling that will take a while though

 

[lapan]

To ask about individual games is to miss the point. There is nothing wrong with a big-breasted woman turning up in a game. It is when it happens again and again and again-- nearly inescapably, depending on the genre-- that it becomes a problem. Think macro.

And yet people complain about Dragon's Crown when there's a choice of a female character who isn't sexualized, and characters with normal body proportions are an abnormality no matter the sex. The message goes from "Give us some verity" to "Stop using this body type"

Except that she's a minority even in that very game. So the game still adds to the complaint more than it subverts it.

And yet people complain about Dragon's Crown when there's a choice of a female character who isn't sexualized, and characters with normal body proportions are an abnormality no matter the sex. The message goes from "Give us some verity" to "Stop using this body type"

That's true, but people wouldn't complain about Dragon's Crown (or any other example) so much if A) They were isolated examples, and B) the games provided some sort of balance (doing the same to the males, and hypermasculinity doesn't count).

If those two criteria were satisfied, then the complaints would drop in number dramatically.

We have one female that looks more or less normal, one extremely muscular half-naked girl and one with over exaggerated tits and ass.
We have one dude that looks almost normal, one extremely muscular half-naked dude and one armored bishonen type guy with gigantic shoulders.

I'd say it's almost equaled out.

 

[conmag9]

With OP's original photo's, I'd say that Queen's Blade is deliberately trying too hard. The completely ridiculous, over the top nature is part of what it's all about.

Anyway, I don't mind sexuality in games as long as it doesn't interfere with everything else. It almost always does, of course. Romance in gaming usually drives me into an eye roll or six because they're so poorly executed they're painful to watch. Use it as a tool for storytelling, not a tacked on addition.

 

[King Zeal]

We have one female that looks more or less normal, one extremely muscular half-naked girl and one with over exaggerated tits and ass.

We have one dude that looks almost normal, one extremely muscular half-naked dude and one armored bishonen type guy with gigantic shoulders.

I'd say it's almost equaled out.

But the only point I was making is that the amount of sexualized women is still two out of three. And that's not including the other NPC examples, including the ones you can grope.

Also, as has been mentioned before, the men aren't really sexualized. They're idealized, which is its own problem, but not this problem. I can elaborate later if you wish.

 

[lapan]

We have one female that looks more or less normal, one extremely muscular half-naked girl and one with over exaggerated tits and ass.

We have one dude that looks almost normal, one extremely muscular half-naked dude and one armored bishonen type guy with gigantic shoulders.

I'd say it's almost equaled out.

But the only point I was making is that the amount of sexualized women is still two out of three. And that's not including the other NPC examples, including the ones you can grope.

Also, as has been mentioned before, the men aren't really sexualized. They're idealized, which is its own problem, but not this problem. I can elaborate later if you wish.

I wouldn't call the amazon sexualized either. You will find very few men are into that muscular women. Besides, if all the body proportions are off, it seems much more likely that the point was hilariously wrong proportions and not sexualizing anyone.

I can only remember one npc girl you could grope.

 

[Terminal Blue]

From a female perspective, the least offensive pic in the OP probably is the bottom character (Ivy), as she is the only one that looks somewhat real. As a woman, I find the Anime eyes and the view we are "talking dolls" MORE offensive than the focus on our breasts.

That's a very good point.

Although I'm not so sure that the boob thing isn't also perpetuating a view of women which is quite belittling or patronizing. I mean, I've encountered enough people who seem perfectly willing to make the logical leap from "you have breasts" to "ergo, you exist for my enjoyment" irrespective of actual situation or context.

But I agree that much of the appeal of the "teeny anime girl" type in my observation seems to be that it implies a submissive, doll-like or "feminine" persona, as opposed to the subtextual aggression and "excessiveness" of the ridiculous boobs style (I mean, the whole slap-you-in-the-face-obvious subtext with Ivy is that she's a domme, even her weapon is basically a whip).

But, like I said, maybe it was just so insignificant that I just glossed right over it.

It was pretty insignificant to anyone who wasn't ridiculously over-sensitive.

Honestly, I think people didn't understand the friendship/rivalry meter. To be fair the game itself didn't help in that matter, but it's actually a very clever system. [footnote]A friend of mine actually pointed out that they made a huge mistake making the friendship/rivalry meter red and blue because red and blue have so often been used as code for positive and negative outcomes.[/footnote] We have so many threads complaining about how stupid all the characters and their actions were, and yet noone seems to have realized that this is specifically designed to make rivalry rewarding. Getting rivalry points isn't bad. It doesn't mean you've failed at anything or the game is punishing you. It's just kind of how the game works. Anders in particular is a character whose actions make no sense unless you rival him.

This is generally followed up by said offended person claiming that Anders friendship bonus makes him a better healer and that they need him as a healer. Which is actually just wrong. The metagame of those bonuses is actually quite clever, since it assumes a non mage Hawke (who is more likely to need healing) is also more likely to rival Anders by not being nice to mages. Therefore rival-anders gets a self-healing bonus which is more suitable if you're using him as a straight-up healer.

There's a lot of cognitive dissonance around that controversy.

Wow! Is this sarcasm?

Yes.

Also, "friend zoning" doesn't exist (not sarcasm.) It's just a way of saying "rejection" in a way which somehow portions blame to the person who commits the terrible crime of not being attracted to someone who is a bit into them.

 

[Silvanus]

We have one female that looks more or less normal, one extremely muscular half-naked girl and one with over exaggerated tits and ass.
We have one dude that looks almost normal, one extremely muscular half-naked dude and one armored bishonen type guy with gigantic shoulders.

I'd say it's almost equaled out.

The Fighter isn't really "bishonen". His entire face and head is almost always covered, so he's in no way sexualised in-game. As for the Dwarf, as I said above, hypermasculinity is not the same as sexualisation.

The fact is, the only truly sexualised character (to a ludicrous degree) is female. That's not even counting the Amazon, whose natural stance has her shaking her nearly-bare ass at the camera, and whose bonus artwork looks like this [http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130508225147/dragons-crown/images/thumb/0/00/Tokuten_p4_0510.png/269px-Tokuten_p4_0510.png]. It's not equalled out at all.