Sexualized characters that were done right.

[Crazycat690]

Eva from MGS3, Chloe from Uncharted 2 and James Bond from 007 games.

All of them uses charm in order to help their mission.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Probably. To be clear my interpretation of the word is as follows:

sexualize (ˈsɛksjʊəˌlaɪz) or sexualise
vb
1. to render sexual; endow with sexual characteristics.
2. to give or acquire sexual associations

An obvious example of 'Sexualisation' would be in the marketing of clothes to young girls. I think it's very safe to say sexualisation's main cultural currency/value is visual (obviously not saying it's exclusively visual - else you couldn't have poorly written and objectified female characters in literature). I'm trying to think of a female game character who is known, and criticised, for being sexualised, based wholly on their character - and I can't think of one (not saying they don't exist. but sexualised female characters with objectified or incongruous designs have been, and still largely are, an endemic problem).

So as for Alyx and the cited definition:

1. Alyx is not rendered with sexual characteristics.
2. She has no sexual associations. (other than those the player projects)

For the most part yes, however she's a little too perfect. What flaws does she have? That's what leads me to the sexualisation observation.

Alyx is idealised, which isn't the same thing at all. She's designed to be likable, attractive in a non-threatening, non-sexual way (presumably to both genders), and helpful. She personalises our interactions with the story and world, and gives the player something to care about on a personal level.

(she's obviously also Valve's sometimes rather painfully obvious Tutorial-Bot/Player Goal Vending Machine)

So, Alyx is not sexualised. She is not objectified. She is idealised. That could absolutely be perceived as a weakness of character design, but given the era she was created, she was an immense breath of fresh air, which is why she'll always be regarded so highly.

It's good women are finally earning money, but asking for 50/50 equality in media (especially videogames) comes across as a bit ridiculous considering extremely few women are interesting in actually MAKING games. They are asking purely to be catered to.
In that regard they are sitting idly by and asking for change to happen, not actually driving it.

What we have is a gendered status quo that's being challenged. You have a culture of sexism from the industry to the playerbase. When females wander into these male environments, they're often not welcomed or treated equally. And you're asking why women aren't just "driving" change? It's nothing more than a boy's club whining about having to let girl's into it: a traditionally male dominated culture is now being forced to 'share' - and its response is hostile, to say the least (from the voice chat harassment aimed at them in MP FPS's, to death and rape threats aimed at various female commentators and/or those in the industry).

Females are now 'allowed' to play games and consume various forms of pop culture. But that doesn't mean they are represented by a given medium or reflected by it. It'll likely take decades to begin to assert representative parity within the games industry. Women are trying to change things - but it's being met with resistance from an entrenched, conservative male culture.

 

[Gankytim]

Here's the thing. Art/Modelling and Marketing teams are different from the Writing teams. So if the writer pours heart and soul into a character then someone decides she should be in tight clothing what does it matter?

I mean, are you really gonna look at my face and tell me that one persons brilliant writing is immediately negated because someone decided tight clothes would sell more copies? No, marketing is full of people who only want to move units. Art teams want to create shit that's good to look at, make interesting designs. The writer shouldn't have to be told his work is meaningless because of someone elses decision.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

So if the writer pours heart and soul into a character then someone decides she should be in tight clothing what does it matter?

It absolutely matters if it objectifies a character incongruously. As has been said elsewhere, it doesn't really matter if a crappy fighter sexualises its busty female roster for the benefit of young hormonal males - it owns its [tedious, festishistic] sexism, and owns up to it. Put Alyx Vance, for instance, in a skimpy outfit and suddenly how she's valued, how she's perceived, changes. As it is, she is relatable to both sexes. If she were objectified, she'd be there primarily for male pleasure and therefore exclude female (or gay male) gamers (or, as often happens, those gamers would simply have to tolerate the exclusive objectification).

The writer shouldn't have to be told his work is meaningless because of someone elses decision.

If videogames want to be accepted as art then there needs to be more cohesion of creative vision. Usually the visual design and script compliment each other, as should cut-scene direction and so on. I think Miranda Lawson's a generally well written character, but the outfit is ridiculous, and some of the dialogue scene direction is [infamously] exploitative.

So yeah, a cohesion of character realisation should matter.

 

[TristanBelmont]

I have to say Miranda from Mass Effect. Everybody complains how sexist her ass is or whatever,

You know, I've heard people criticize her character as just being fanservice, but I have never heard someone refer to it as "a sexist ass". I like it.

 

[Gankytim]

If videogames want to be accepted as art

Well, you've just shot your own argument in the foot. If video games are an art form, then they're free to sexualize all they fucking want because art is by definition free expression. Yes, sexualization falls under free expression and is therefore art, no matter how gratuitous and unnecesary. Now it might not be art in the sense that it's making an artistic statement, but because it's an artistic medium it shouldn't be held to standards that label it as not art because that's damaging to the actual art.

I've said it before and I will say it again untill someone gets the point. You can NOT call video games art in one breath then demand that they be changed to suit your taste in the next because that's hypocricy. That is all in the hands of the artist. But the wonderful thing about art is, while some people may put out art you may not like, you're totally free to learn the trade and put out your own product to get your own idea out there because that's what art is.


COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC HERE BUT: I think Miranda Lawson is not well written, I think Bioware really shoehorned in the romance but Mass Effect 2 only pandered to the audience that just wanted to have sex with everything that moved. I'll even admit I was part of that audience, the very second I heard you could romance garrus as a FemShep, guess what the first thing I did was. (I made a FemShep.) Purely because that was ME2's big selling point, romance. Even if they didn't state it outright they were writing undoubtedly with the romance audience in mind.

 

[Gankytim]

Just to add.

young hormonal males - it owns its [tedious, festishistic] sexism, and owns up to it

That's overly harsh and dramatic language for the sake of shock value or some very, very skewed view you have on sexuality.

I like my sexualized characters, I like the ass n' titties, I like the lewd displays bordering on pornography. I do not appreciate having my tastes and preferences berated as being "tedious and fetishistic sexism". I'm not here to argue on how appropriate it is and I'm not going to bang the "FEMINISM INVADING GAMES HURR, FEMALE HYPOAGENCY" drum. I just simply believe that if you're that offended by bare flesh then maybe you're coming at this argument from an unbelievably hateful angle.

I mean, I was a young hormonal male not too long ago and me five years ago would have been deeply offended by you calling something he likes "fetishistic sexism". It's such a bitter and hateful way to go about talking about something you simply don't like.

Now, I don't believe women have the best representation in video games. But it's nowhere near "tedious, fetishistic sexism" that's fucking undeniable, and if you refuse to see it from any other angle then you're just plain fucking closed minded.

By the way, what the fuck is wrong with fetishes? Seriously? I like getting bitten, scratched and slapped in bed, my partner knows this and has her own particular likes, (dirty talk, orgasm control, spanking) am I now a sexist because I have a particular fetish and comply with my partners?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Here's the thing. Art/Modelling and Marketing teams are different from the Writing teams. So if the writer pours heart and soul into a character then someone decides she should be in tight clothing what does it matter?

I mean, are you really gonna look at my face and tell me that one persons brilliant writing is immediately negated because someone decided tight clothes would sell more copies?

Absolutely. If the writers, artists, level designers, game balancers and what not create the most wonderful game imaginable, but the game crashes to desktop every five minutes because the coders were shitty and the quality testers non-existent, then that absolutely negates the marvellous work of the former. Why should this case be different?

Art teams want to create shit that's good to look at, make interesting designs.

Artists who sex up their female characters usually don't create interesting designs though. Big boobs, chainmail bikinis, boob cups, cleavage windows, spray-on catsuits, battle heels and all that shit that poor female characters have to put up with regularly, that is not interesting, that is not sophisticated, that is not artful. It's cheap, lazy porn aesthetic, largely devoid of any finesse or imagination.

If videogames want to be accepted as art

Well, you've just shot your own argument in the foot. If video games are an art form, then they're free to sexualize all they fucking want because art is by definition free expression. Yes, sexualization falls under free expression and is therefore art, no matter how gratuitous and unnecesary. Now it might not be art in the sense that it's making an artistic statement, but because it's an artistic medium it shouldn't be held to standards that label it as not art because that's damaging to the actual art.

No, he/she didn't. Darth Rosenberg didn't attempt to define art, he talked about video games being accepted (as art). And if video games want to be accepted in this way, then they need to offer something of artistic value, something thematically resonant, something that provokes thought, something that teaches you something about the human condition - something beyond merely satisfying indulgence. The latter is something games are really good at. But so is porn.

Surely games like The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite or Mass Effect give us more to think about, touch us deeper than Fantasy Boobfest #5, no?

 

[Gankytim]

Surely games like The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite or Mass Effect give us more to think about, touch us deeper than Fantasy Boobfest #5, no?

Sure, absoloutely but maybe I didn't get my point across properly. If you consider games art, all things in that medium should be considered objects of human expression. Meaning Fantasy Boobfest #5 has just as much right to display whatever they want as The Last of Us.

No special treatment, in my book. I think all games should be able to have whatever they want to put in. That you should be able to make a games where you play as the most vile despicable beings (rapists, murderers) to the most idolized and heroic. From the sexualized to the conservative.

And why not have a fucking mix up? Mix our silly with our serious because sometimes doing something wierd and experimental yields great fucking results have a fighter where we pit a bloke in a nice sweater reading a decent book up against a hypersexualized mega-woman with her tits flopping all over the screen. Have an RPG with profound commentaries on the human condition that also has swords the size of six beefy dudes.

Are we suddenly forgetting that Morrowind, a game that openly flaunts its deep and serious mythological connection to buddhism with some of the most complex metaphysics ever seen in a game, had a character that turned his penis into a spear? There was no deeper meaning, he simply did it. It was a gag dick. Does that negate the high thinking that came into play with the metaphysics?

Art doesn't have to be serious to be art and having a character dance around in skin tight lycra doesn't suddenly change that. If you're going to start saying games are art, then why can't all games display whatever the fuck they want?

 

[CloudAtlas]

Art doesn't have to be serious to be art and having a character dance around in skin tight lycra doesn't suddenly change that. If you're going to start saying games are art, then why can't all games display whatever the fuck they want?

Uhm yea games are free to display whatever the fuck they want.

And I am free to criticize them for what they do.

That's how it works. Freedom of expression is not freedom from response. That's what people who so fervently defend cheap sexualization (and many others) don't understand.

Also, let's not forget that defending sexualization is often equal to defending inconsistent character design. Or in other words, bad storytelling. Which is a rather strange thing to do in my book.

 

[Gankytim]

Art doesn't have to be serious to be art and having a character dance around in skin tight lycra doesn't suddenly change that. If you're going to start saying games are art, then why can't all games display whatever the fuck they want?

Uhm yea games are free to display whatever the fuck they want.

And I am free to criticize them for what they do.

That's how it works. Freedom of expression is not freedom from response. That's what people who so fervently defend cheap sexualization (and many others) don't understand.

Also, let's not forget that defending sexualization is often equal to defending inconsistent character design. Or in other words, bad storytelling. Which is a rather strange thing to do in my book.

Well, way to present yourself as a blatantly rude person.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Art doesn't have to be serious to be art and having a character dance around in skin tight lycra doesn't suddenly change that. If you're going to start saying games are art, then why can't all games display whatever the fuck they want?

Uhm yea games are free to display whatever the fuck they want.

And I am free to criticize them for what they do.

That's how it works. Freedom of expression is not freedom from response. That's what people who so fervently defend cheap sexualization (and many others) don't understand.

Also, let's not forget that defending sexualization is often equal to defending inconsistent character design. Or in other words, bad storytelling. Which is a rather strange thing to do in my book.

Well, way to present yourself as a blatantly rude person.

You do realize that I'm using your exact same "rude" words?

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Most consumers seem to consider a good story as the icing on the cake, not the core of the cake. That's what consumer patterns have shown so far anyway. (...)

More of a case of strong female characters simply not being NECCESSARY because when people play a game, the character they are playing as can often be a blank cardboard "default" character (...)

For many games, story and characters are very important though; at times even their main selling points. Those are the games that absolutely need good characters. And those are exactly the kind of games that most of the debate about the portrayal and quality of characters beyond a superficial level is revolving around.

Not really, usually it's the games that have a story for the sake of having a story (i.e. not trying).

 

[Kotaro]

My personally favorite sexualized character is probably gonna have to be Bayonetta. Yeah I know, it's reaching for the low fruit, but she really is a shining paragon at how sexualization can be done right, and even be empowering. The fact that she constantly strips naked doesn't detract from how much of a badass she is (In fact it enhances it considering when she does this she tends to summon massive jaws of black void from her body that would make Alucard from Hellsing blush) and it fits with the overall goofy tone of the game. Seriously, she has a sidekick that said "Fuhgeddaboudit" with a (relatively) straight face, a game that does that is one that is willing to be goofy as all hell.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. Ninja'd by the OP...
Bayonetta comes across (to me, anyway) as a woman who flaunts her sexiness not to impress men, but just because she wants to.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

If video games are an art form, then they're free to sexualize all they fucking want because art is by definition free expression. Yes, sexualization falls under free expression and is therefore art, no matter how gratuitous and unnecesary. Now it might not be art in the sense that it's making an artistic statement, but because it's an artistic medium it shouldn't be held to standards that label it as not art because that's damaging to the actual art.

Erm, I agree? Please quote where I defined art and what should be excluded or included. Art is contextual and environmental, and yes, it's there to express the totality of human expression - from the good to the bad, from the 'tasteful' to the crass (I'm a film lover who loves Kurosawa/Malick and [the first and some of the third] Transformers films - it's all 'valid').

And yet, one thing that goes along with art is criticism and appraisal. The artist is free to create - and their community as well as society is free to appraise and deconstruct.

Purely because that was ME2's big selling point, romance. Even if they didn't state it outright they were writing undoubtedly with the romance audience in mind.

Not sure how you're getting that. A developer emphasising something the fans responded to isn't exactly writing with that "in mind". The romance arcs in the game are still very minor aspects, as well as entirely optional.

That's overly harsh and dramatic language for the sake of shock value or some very, very skewed view you have on sexuality.

Saying something like Dead Or Alive is tediously fetishistic is shocking? I don't think the creators can complain at such an appraisal when they literally fetishize ridiculous physics and put such elements front and centre in the marketing.

As I said, I don't particularly have a problem with exploitation when it's contextually appropriate. DoA doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is, and that's fine for what it is. It doesn't stop it representing tedious trends in male dominated pop culture or the fact that it is fetishistic.

I do not appreciate having my tastes and preferences berated as being "tedious and fetishistic sexism".

Considering you've never stated your kinks (or even what media you like), how on earth could I be berating you, personally? You're projecting, emotionally.

I just simply believe that if you're that offended by bare flesh then maybe you're coming at this argument from an unbelievably hateful angle.

Again with the emotional overreaction. It's "hateful" to be bothered by a perpetuation of inequality? And please quote where I said I was offended by bare flesh. I personally enjoy a wide range of kinks and think Sasha Grey's a kickass feminist - so I'm really not the right person to waving the prude flag at.

By the way, what the fuck is wrong with fetishes? Seriously?

Um, nothing? Please quote where I somehow said I thought anything of the sort. PM me, if you want, because this is wildly off topic.

 

[TheRookie8]

Ada Wong, Resident Evil 4
Eva, Metal Gear Solid 3
Moxxi, Borderlands 1 & 2
Lilith, Borderlands 2
Isabella, Dragon Age 2
Miranda, Mass Effect 2
Morinth, Mass Effect 2

 

[wulf3n]

So as for Alyx and the cited definition:

1. Alyx is not rendered with sexual characteristics.
2. She has no sexual associations. (other than those the player projects)

I would argue that having feelings for the player is a sexual characteristic.

Alyx is idealised, which isn't the same thing at all. She's designed to be likable, attractive in a non-threatening, non-sexual way (presumably to both genders), and helpful. She personalises our interactions with the story and world, and gives the player something to care about on a personal level.

And she has strong feelings for the player. Or are you calling that projection as well.

Do I need to bust out the montage?

Now of course idealisation and sexualisation aren't the same thing, however they can often inform one another. Which is what I believe to be the case here.

(she's obviously also Valve's sometimes rather painfully obvious Tutorial-Bot/Player Goal Vending Machine)

That too.

So, Alyx is not sexualised. She is not objectified. She is idealised. That could absolutely be perceived as a weakness of character design, but given the era she was created, she was an immense breath of fresh air, which is why she'll always be regarded so highly.

I never said she was objectified, just sexualised.

The problem here is we're not having the right argument. We keep going back and forth saying "she's sexualised", "she's not sexualised" when the only point of contention is whether or not a personality can be sexualised and what that consists of.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I would argue that having feelings for the player is a sexual characteristic.

It's been a good few years since I last played any H-L, but I only ever recall hints at romantic, not sexual, interest. In certain moments she seems to have a crush on the mute PC, but nothing more.

And she has strong feelings for the player. Or are you calling that projection as well. Do I need to bust out the montage?

I've no idea what montage you're referring to, so yeah, evidently. I played through H-L2 a whole boatload of times, ditto the lesser (in my view) episodes, and Alyx's interest in Gordon was so minimal as to be irrelevant. It certainly wasn't a major factor in why she became such a flag bearer for improved depictions of female characters.

The problem here is we're not having the right argument. We keep going back and forth saying "she's sexualised", "she's not sexualised" when the only point of contention is whether or not a personality can be sexualised and what that consists of.

When a character is designed - visually, and through writing and performance - to buck industry conventions of white, heteronormative masculinist tropes, I think it's safe to say she's not sexualised in the slightest.

But as we've established, you seem to have a unique definition of the term itself, so it's a tricky dialogue and this is stuck in Semanticland.

 

[Easton Dark]

The problem here is we're not having the right argument. We keep going back and forth saying "she's sexualised", "she's not sexualised" when the only point of contention is whether or not a personality can be sexualised and what that consists of.

You remember that porn mag that advertised its nerd girls?

Yes personalities can be sexualized. Some people have fetishes for them.

For instance, I like women who can get really angry and vindictive; turns me RIGHT the fuck on. Some men like the "petite flower" type of girl. A lot of women probably like James Bond for being suave as fuck. Other women like the Duke boys.

I'm not sure what makes certain personalities sexual to people, but I'm also not sure what makes certain body types sexual either.

 

[Chris Tian]

I have to say Miranda from Mass Effect. Everybody complains how sexist her ass is or whatever,

You know, I've heard people criticize her character as just being fanservice, but I have never heard someone refer to it as "a sexist ass". I like it.

Haha, glad I could amuse you. I actually read something like "her ass is just so sexist blahblahbla..." in one of those pointless internet-sexism-discussions, and all I could think was: "Just having a hot ass is sexist now? Calm down people."