Should Feminism and Gaming Mix?

[carnex]

I really don't have anything to say about the other parts of your post, but this right here...

First of all I have not read many of your posts. I vaguely recognize your name as someone who has posted on this topic before. I just didn't commit what I read to memory.

If you are going to talk to me, then you talk TO ME. Don't expect me to have listened in on and memorized what you said to other people.

Calm down man. I never referenced that you should have read all my posts. There are walls of text behind us. Reading it all would prove beneficial but also demand quite some time so I never expect that person posting has read it all. Therefore I said everything I wanted in as closed form as I could.

Secondly, I would like you to point out exactly where I advocated "removing of certain storyline, mechanics and roles" or other forms of censorship. I will even help you.

"Hey could we get some more games that don't have gratuitous heterosexual male sex appeal and/or use women as a quest item?" clearly advocates for their removal in my opinion. Being exclusive will make things even worse, not better. Being inclusive is the answer. More games with appealing content, not less with unappealing one.

"More games" and more variety does not mean less games or a restriction on the content of games. Speaking out against "exclusive consideration" does not preclude any consideration at all.

But less games with such and such means removing that content from them.

Since I suspect that an inevitable remark about marketing and the "main demographic" is incoming. I give you "Pay Day 2" as a prime example of how a game with limited marketing can appeal to a niche audience and still make a lot of money, neigh PROFIT for a developer.

We are talking about different levels of scope. A whole different league of production (in production values and production cost). Game with small budget can cover it's cost from smaller audience. That's exactly why I advocated that people who want to demand games with niche appear do not go after big developers and publishers but rather indie teams. (Not implying you should have known that, just pointing out that we actually agree there).

You know who likes to perpetuate the idea that big marketing and advertising budgets are necessary in the business world? People with marketing careers. You know who likes to perpetuate how vital pro-sports is and how necessary HUGE salaries are for professional sport players? Professional athletes and the people that want to be one. And, yet, here in America we have this peculiar phenomena where sports teams can no longer generate enough revenue to cover the inflated salaries of their players. They've sold the stadiums to Doritos and Verizon, they've packed as many people as they can into them, they've raised the prices of tickets and concessions to absurd proportions, and yet it's not the fault of the industry it's somehow the fault of the fans for not giving enough support to the industry. Getting tangential here...

I agree that economy model we are using (rather abusing) in last several decades is well overdue to get majorly overhauled, and I believe that it's too late for that and wee need to wait until it collapses in on itself to be able to change it. Companies and investors control countries instead of it being other way around.

On the other hand, big companies still produce over-bloated products, huge games costing tens of millions of dollars that target tens of millions of gamers. As long as there is market to sell to, they will produce the product. And as long as they need to sell that many copies they will target biggest spending demographics in every way possible.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not the fault of the consumer if developers mismanage their money to the point that they can no longer afford to risk making the product that consumers are demanding to be made.

Hmm, while I agree with statement I don't understand what you wanted to say with it in this context.

Damn it, I really must want to be here. Like a moth to a flame I just cant not pull myself away from this conversation/topic.

It's topic of the moment these days. And one people have strong feelings about. What I'm asking is that we look beyond feelings at facts. Feelings will never be fully satisfied no matter what.

 

[carnex]

I didn't make a direct enough of a connection so I don't blame you for not seeing it. What I attempted to lay out was the method by which even AAA companies (not just indie devs) could make games that appeal to women and gay men without having to sacrifice their precious profits while STILL making the games they are already making. They have literally painted themselves into a corner by insisting that all the games they make absorb these huge budgets for marketing and that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy when they (or apologists) insist that all they can afford to spend too much marketing money on is the largest demographic. All a AAA company has to do to make a niche game is to do so. If labeling is a problem, all they have to do is invent an seemingly separate indie label. I am pointing out that such a thing is possible for all those that say it isn't.

They could make smaller games even now. But, there is market for games with highest production values available. In low budget market they would have to compete with smaller studios which they don't want since they can avoid it. There are around 10 big time publishers who can produce such games which makes competition in that market much lower. Also, with higher stakes at play, and higher risks involved potential profit margins are enormous. For all those reasons big publishers are reluctant to step down the ladder.

However, just as each big movie production houses own one or several small productions that make smaller budget and b movies, big publishers in gaming are buying smaller publishers and/or smaller developers giving them limited freedom to produce variable content. As long as they don't propel small developers upwards by force, they will give those publishers more and more freedom to experiment. In past years we saw Sony doing this the right way. Reaching out to smaller developers they saw as promising and either absorbing them or signing long time contract while letting them keep their creative freedom and independence. I can only hope others will follow suit. (Although I'm partially opposed to this. I'm child of home computers in eighties where independent creator was king and queen of the market)

There would literally be MORE games being made with MORE variety while removing or censoring NOTHING. How you can translate that into "less"? You keep saying that it is as if the assertion itself is enough to stand on it's own.

1 + 1 = 2 and 2 > 1

I have to question your motives in your inability to see that. Unless somehow the association of that second 1 devalues the first 1. You know, as if women, gays, and/or minorities should just not try to mix in with things heterosexual white men have enjoyed traditionally, because all we can do is take things away, we have nothing valuable to add.

When, within a limited supply of something you spend more of it on one thing there is less of another.

Now, I'm advocating adding to the pool with new ideas and new creators. Presence of those ideas will cause sympathetic reaction and other developers with similar mindset will lean towards them which is natural process and something I see as positive development. However, I'm strictly opposed to forcing developers and/or artists by any means to change their vision to fit someones idea of perfections. Even if the means are shaming and social pressure that's still censorship and therefore it will generate negative reaction and I'm categorically opposed to it. It's small but fundamental difference between freedom and program.[/quote]

Facts can be twisted and fabricated. People walk around with distorted perceptions of reality because they lack the courage and/or conviction to express and/or justify their feelings, so they just twist their reality to match their feelings. Then they don't have to argue the merits of their feelings, because you cant argue against "reality".

While facts can be distorted (actually I would say misinterpreted) feelings are inherently subjective and exclusive to that person. While you can use selective facts to come to preferred conclusion, you can never come to objective truth by following feelings except by accident. And because of that I will always do my best to analyze everything before I come to my conclusions.

 

[Olikar]

Because most straight men I know find the nude or semi-nude male body to be disgusting and disturbing to view.

Ahh so that's why straight men have a chronic aversion to mirrors and reflections! oh wait no, that's complete bullshit.

 

[Vegosiux]

Blah blah blah, this is why I am rooting for men to experience REAL oppression and sexism that lasts for decades, centuries, even a millennium. You just wont get it until you experience it. And for you to deny that to someone who has and then turn around and accuse them of being "just as"...

No single person has experienced "centuries" of sexism, because we don't live that long. So either you're going for some serious hyperbole here, or you're just being unclear. Also, I'd rather not reset the world back to the beginning of the dark ages just because "Men should suffer. SUFFER!!! Like we did!" and to see if the the world looks the same in a few millennia, just gender-reversed.

Well, Karma is waiting for you and she is carrying a big stick.

Wait, so now it's about revenge?

Better yet after you emerge from your 1000 years of oppression... We'll just tell you that bringing up the issue- which we will deny- only inflames the issue somehow even though it doesn't exist.

I really need to get to work on that immortality recipe, that'd be a worthy sight either way, whether you're right or wrong, it'd be an interesting scene.

Continue to be antagonistic and unsympathetic, and I will happily be antagonistic and unsympathetic to any real or imagined oppression and sexism towards straight men.

You're not seriously trying to justify being a dickhead with "well, other people are dickheads too!", are you?

People treating men like mentally stunted, disposable meat sticks, good. Fathers cant have custody of their children, good. Men cant be raped, good. T&A is censored from games, good. Your games and your porn are taken away from you, good.

So, again, revenge, basically. Right, yes, I cannot subscribe to a mindset that's built on revenge.

If you don't think men will care about rampant sexualization maybe they will care about things taken to the next level.

Why would things be taken to the next level simply because the "other" doesn't care about the same thing the same way you do? I mean, if you subject "the brodudes" to the same level of objectification and sexualization and they end up just not caring too much about it, why would you take it "to the next level"? Spite is the only reason I can think of.

Edit: BTW it doesn't sound like a reasonable person asking for games with more variety. It does sound like a SINGLE INDIVIDUAL standing on a soapbox ranting, which is and should be SEPERATE from people ACTUALLY making reasonable requests for more variety.

Kind of like pretty much everyone who isn't interested in a discussion as an exchange of viewpoints, but more in the way of "argument to win", yeah. There's a lot of people like that, and it doesn't matter which side they stand on.

I wonder how likely it is that I got Poe'd, by the way. I think it might be a distinct possibility.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

And what you?d find out soon when that happened is that most men don?t really care that much. Most will simply ignore said products as they?ve done in the past with the likes of romantic comedies, boy bands, daily soaps, Twilight or visual novel style games for girls.

They won?t construct an entire movement around how having these things would be bad for society and is demeaning to their entire gender, trying to shame everyone that likes these things in the name of equality, they would shrug and move on to other stuff that they do enjoy, not giving what they don?t like financial support. That?s what reasonable people should usually be able to do.

Holy shitballs, that is an EPIC generalization.

Some of the criticized franchises like Mario or Zelda are even some of the best-selling gaming franchises in history even among female fans with them still selling today and millions of people enjoying them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Everybody should be allowed to follow their vision without being met with incessant and sustained hostility short of being called heartless monsters because they decided to use an art style some people don?t like.

If you create art and place it in a public space, it will be open to public scrutiny, and is free game for any and all forms of criticism.

Who the hell are these often referred to people calmly stating that they want to have ?more games with more variety?? To me if anything this seems like some sort of straw man...

That's not what a straw man is. A straw man is a distortion of an opponent's argument, not a misrepresentation of one's own.

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 has position X.

Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.

Quoting an opponent's words out of context?i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments?thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

"Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:

"Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience not noticing this.

...to distract from all the angry people with their pitchforks and torches ready to burn down the barn

THIS is closer to being a straw man, although we both know you're just engaging in casual hyperbole (which is piss poor argumentative form in and of itself, but we're all guilty of it).

I must be overlooking all these calm reasoned people over articles about ?sexism and misogyny in video game X and the industry? because someone dared to sexualize a character in a video game.

Now that is definitely a straw man.

...how Anita Sarkeesian is the best thing to ever happen to gaming, her stated opinions are facts and don?t allow for further discussion (because that makes you a sexist/misogynist, and probably someone that sends death threats if some people are to be believed).

And this a hilarious straw man. You can even see his little straw feet and little straw hands poking out from beneath his straw clothing.

If you defend and hold up these people as some sort of luminaries in every other thread, you better believe that others will assume you share their opinions and goals.

Straw man.

I hope these many examples help you in the future identification and correct labeling of straw men for the purpose of fallacy-free arguments on the internet.

 

[generals3]

Also, here's the difference between the average portrayal of men and women in games. When a developer is designing a male character, he is not designing that character to be sexually appealing to women. Sometimes that character might incidentally be attractive to women, but that isn't a requirement of any male video game characters.

Which is wrong, why? Target audience wants X, Developers provide X.

On the flipside, you can't argue that the vast majority of female characters aren't designing primarily to be attractive to men. There may be other facets to their designs, but the priority when designing female characters is to show off their tits and ass.

No. That's the priority for cheap games with crappy writing. Being good looking may be a quasi requirement but being attractive isn't the primary design goal.

The Sorceress wasn't designed to look like a powerful magic fighter, she was designed to be sexually appealing to men. Yes, the Knight is equally distorted, but not in a way intended to to be appealing to women. "But," you might be arguing, "I don't think the Sorceress is attractive!" Great, but whether or not her design is successfully attractive is irrelevant. The issue is that women characters are required to be designed so that they are sexually appealing to the opposite sex, while male characters are not. Is that really so hard to understand?

Actually her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature. Big tits is a common symbolism for "life" and "nurture". The sorceress was an original approach towards the whole necromancy concept. Instead of having a dude command the dead to rise up you have a woman giving life to the dead.

 

[carnex]

Also, here's the difference between the average portrayal of men and women in games. When a developer is designing a male character, he is not designing that character to be sexually appealing to women. Sometimes that character might incidentally be attractive to women, but that isn't a requirement of any male video game characters.

On the flipside, you can't argue that the vast majority of female characters aren't designing primarily to be attractive to men. There may be other facets to their designs, but the priority when designing female characters is to show off their tits and ass.

The Sorceress wasn't designed to look like a powerful magic fighter, she was designed to be sexually appealing to men. Yes, the Knight is equally distorted, but not in a way intended to to be appealing to women. "But," you might be arguing, "I don't think the Sorceress is attractive!" Great, but whether or not her design is successfully attractive is irrelevant. The issue is that women characters are required to be designed so that they are sexually appealing to the opposite sex, while male characters are not. Is that really so hard to understand?

I would only correct you in generalization. It's like that ina most of big budget titles since they target demographics that spends most money which are male teens, young adults and adults up to mid thirties. In that I would agree that in more cases female characters are physically designed to be attractive and desirable that that is the case for male characters.

But designing male characters to female liking is far for absent. You can't say with a straight face that Nathan Drake and Victor Sullivan weren?t designed to appeal to women for example.

In the end, I don't see as bad thing. As long as it doesn't break immersion of makes absolutely no sense (I'm looking at you Tera with your dance club outfits for female characters) I have absolutely no problem with it, just like I have no problem when they use male character in that way.

The way I see it, it's not malicious, degrading od demeaning. And, for most players, male or female, it?s nothing more than pleasant background noise while you play and something you really don't even think about it.

Sometimes I'm gratefull game characters don't dress like real girls in summer. Thare would be too much T&A on screen.

@generals3
Now you are really stretching the truth like defense lawyers stretch the definition of "justified self defense"

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Actually her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature. Big tits is a common symbolism for "life" and "nurture". The sorceress was an original approach towards the whole necromancy concept. Instead of having a dude command the dead to rise up you have a woman giving life to the dead.

If that was the case, why not give her a broad, earth mother frame, as is traditional with "nurturing" figures? It would fit just as easily into his exaggerated art style, whilst being less biologically absurd. It's fine if he doesn't want to, that just smacks like half an explanation, with the other unspoken half being "Mad titties, yo".

 

[Olikar]

Also, here's the difference between the average portrayal of men and women in games. When a developer is designing a male character, he is not designing that character to be sexually appealing to women. Sometimes that character might incidentally be attractive to women, but that isn't a requirement of any male video game characters.

On the flipside, you can't argue that the vast majority of female characters aren't designing primarily to be attractive to men. There may be other facets to their designs, but the priority when designing female characters is to show off their tits and ass.

The Sorceress wasn't designed to look like a powerful magic fighter, she was designed to be sexually appealing to men. Yes, the Knight is equally distorted, but not in a way intended to to be appealing to women. "But," you might be arguing, "I don't think the Sorceress is attractive!" Great, but whether or not her design is successfully attractive is irrelevant. The issue is that women characters are required to be designed so that they are sexually appealing to the opposite sex, while male characters are not. Is that really so hard to understand?

You make several tenuous assumptions about a devs mindset which no ordinary person would be able to substantiate to any reasonable degree but clearly due to your psychic gift you are able to delve directly into their minds, why are you wasting your time on an internet forums you could making millions with that gift!

 

[carnex]

Actually her design was to symbolize her life-giving nature. Big tits is a common symbolism for "life" and "nurture". The sorceress was an original approach towards the whole necromancy concept. Instead of having a dude command the dead to rise up you have a woman giving life to the dead.

If that was the case, why not give her a broad, earth mother frame, as is traditional with "nurturing" figures? It would fit just as easily into his exaggerated art style, whilst being less biologically absurd. It's fine if he doesn't want to, that just smacks like half an explanation, with the other unspoken half being "Mad titties, yo".

Maybe the motherly shape was too much for one girl so hips went to Amazon and breasts went to sorceress?

Just joking ofcourse. But had to say it never the less.

But his idea made me think of some very interesing and funny but not all that plesant ways her "nurturing" fetures could be used to raise the "dead"