I have never met a single female person who said that they thought that a person with big boobs was a power fantasy. Heck, I asked my mother what she thought would be a power fantasy for a woman, and she pointed to Zoey from Firefly.knight steel said:
The final proof...
- Thread starter Piecewise
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While I can argue your second point, what the article said suggested more of the former, that it doesn't matter the character of the women if she looks sexy, she is still sexist. As for How often they are shown, I would prefer a more numerical comparison of classically attractive male characters v female ones against non-classically attractive alternates, but that seems unlikely. While I would agree even without numbers but solely from personal experience that women probably are portrayed as attractive more often, the idea it is as part of power fantasies seems a stretch. Well, that is to say, the idea it is solely because of power fantasies is a stretch. There is a market that responds to attractive female characters, though trying to appeal to the motive behind that market is assumptions and projection a lot of the time. But that topic is far deeper then the one here.Phasmal said:
I do find the remarks disagreeable when they are presented as a reflection of the community as a whole. With a group as large as us gamers, I am not so silly as to assume we don't have some, but the way it was said suggested almost an ownership to that, and that I called out as a bit wrong.
I've met women who say that being looked at and lusted over because of their looks makes them feel powerful and that they purposefully dress so this happens-a game that does the same for it character's should have the same effect----->sexy female character------>lusted after--------->women playing puts herself in characters shoes-------->feels powerful.erttheking said:
Umm, as a male, I'd also say the sorceress bothers me. I went into it above. I think the only thing I can compliment her for is that she doesn't have high heels. And I like the hat.Moonlight Butterfly said:
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the other characters?
It's really astounding how little I care at this point.
There's so much fucking nonsense and bile on BOTH sides of this thing that I just cannot be arsed to support one of them.
If that makes me part of the "problem" by "supporting the established order" then fuck it, I'm a terrible horrible oppressive misogynist bastard. It just doesn't fucking matter to me anymore.
[sub/]2500 posts! Woo! And all that in only 3 short years![/sub]
There's so much fucking nonsense and bile on BOTH sides of this thing that I just cannot be arsed to support one of them.
If that makes me part of the "problem" by "supporting the established order" then fuck it, I'm a terrible horrible oppressive misogynist bastard. It just doesn't fucking matter to me anymore.
[sub/]2500 posts! Woo! And all that in only 3 short years![/sub]
Finally! A kindred spirit. I also rank it as my top PS2 game.Candidus said:
PS2 got quite a few great games as it was on its way out the door.
Actually, "it's the style I was going for" does absolutely nothing to contradict the notion of sexism.GZGoten said:
Well, duh. Obviously society-wide implications are changed because a handful of token indicators say so.Moonlight Butterfly said:
More to the point, they're designed to appeal to men. And not specifically to gay men, either.The Lunatic said:
I know a lot of women who aren't attracted to Jin. And for the sake of relevance, I'm not counting lesbians. This is why anecdotes make for poor evidence, my friend.
Not an ownership perhaps, but a prevalence we can't ignore.runic knight said:
There are some days when I spend quite a long time away from gamers and then I come and read some god-awful comment on Kotaku or something and have to mentally recalibrate for expecting that kind of crap.
I'm not going to argue these points though, I'm worried it's getting a little too depressing for me. So, I can agree to disagree.
It is funny how the discussion has never gone anywhere.Sir Thomas Sean Connery said:
But you don't need to see it as supporting a side. Just see it as being a rational human being.
My personal stance.
Is there sexism in the industry? Yes, as sexism exists nearly everywhere.
Is there sexism in cases like this? I don't really think so, "sexism" has become synonymous with "things feminists don't like."
Should we deal with sexism in the industry? Yes.
Potential unintended pun aside, that is EXACTLY correct. These are the EXACT dudes that gay guys go for, which is why you see them splashed all over gay media as poster boys.DoPo said:
...But seriously, gays are like any other group, being diverse in both interest and desire. That being said, I doubt many gays go for the Abobo look.
This art is less sexism and more so over the top stylized that those chars look less like humans and more like caricaturs.
And thats exactly what they are.
Fantasy Char tropes ramped up to the absolute maximum.
So that kotaku guy is getting his panties in a twist about a game that pictures its characters as caricatures of real fantasy tropes like burly babarians, scantly clad amazons, trickster female archers and top heavy knights.. and ofcourse the other "top" heavy char the sorceres and the myterious stranger sorceror.
This isnt sexism.. this is comedy and exasperation.
Also people should get their facts right-
Sexism =/= "sexy" females
Sexism = discrimination of the gender.
In this case it would be sexism if ALL the female chars where written as dumb bimbos that only know how to cook for the males and be slutty in bed and also cant get anything done without the help of a male. But since none of the chars has any character more or less (its a beat em up) there is little room for sexism.
Princes peach is more sexist then this.
Again, intentionally exasperated character art does not make sexism.
There are other way more obvious choices if you want to rant about sexism in the industry.
And thats exactly what they are.
Fantasy Char tropes ramped up to the absolute maximum.
So that kotaku guy is getting his panties in a twist about a game that pictures its characters as caricatures of real fantasy tropes like burly babarians, scantly clad amazons, trickster female archers and top heavy knights.. and ofcourse the other "top" heavy char the sorceres and the myterious stranger sorceror.
This isnt sexism.. this is comedy and exasperation.
Also people should get their facts right-
Sexism =/= "sexy" females
Sexism = discrimination of the gender.
In this case it would be sexism if ALL the female chars where written as dumb bimbos that only know how to cook for the males and be slutty in bed and also cant get anything done without the help of a male. But since none of the chars has any character more or less (its a beat em up) there is little room for sexism.
Princes peach is more sexist then this.
Again, intentionally exasperated character art does not make sexism.
There are other way more obvious choices if you want to rant about sexism in the industry.
Yeah, its launch (ZoE, The Bouncer) and its death (Odin Sphere, ZoE 2nd Runner) were the real bright spots of the console. A lot of rubbish and all the crap Final Fantasy games in between.Lovely Mixture said:
As much as I'm looking forward to Dragon's Crown though (and being entertained by its mild controversies, such as in here) I don't think I'm going to find another Gwendolyn or Ingway to love, looking at its playable characters and npc cast. The world's aesthetic is just too different.
No matter! What it loses in `moe uguu` it appears to have gained in Golden Axe'esque co-op mechanics. I'll make that trade, just this once. Because it's Atlus/VW.
Maybe it's because I don't go to gyms that often, but I've never met a man who wants to become incredibly muscly body builders with 90% of their blood consisting of steroids, sure men want to have muscles and a six-pack but barely any men want to be like Marcus Fenix, and barely any of them see it as a power fantasy to have muscles, just a way to attract women. It's a massive generalization to make when feminists love saying "But we aren't like that!". I'm pretty sure a lot of women don't want breasts that big too, because it just gets in the fucking way and many men are fine with medium-sized breasts in real life.
I think if you asked male gamers what character they would swap lives with from a video-game they would answer with things like Solid Snake or Link, both being characters that aren't power fantasies at all. Hell, Link's latest incarnations have become more and more effeminate to pander to the massive female demographic who loves Zelda, but since it's not obvious it's not seen as a problem. Men and Women are attracted to very different things, and female attraction is more subtle than male attraction so only one side of the "issue" is seen as a problem.
I think if you asked male gamers what character they would swap lives with from a video-game they would answer with things like Solid Snake or Link, both being characters that aren't power fantasies at all. Hell, Link's latest incarnations have become more and more effeminate to pander to the massive female demographic who loves Zelda, but since it's not obvious it's not seen as a problem. Men and Women are attracted to very different things, and female attraction is more subtle than male attraction so only one side of the "issue" is seen as a problem.
I think it funny (and shrug) how they keep overlooking the Dragon's Crown suppose to look exaggerated and I'm not talking about the Sorceress and Amazon (her huge thigh and legs) only. I mean look at the Dwarf manliness and the Fighter top heavy body size.
Even then it seen no one notice how normal looking the Elf and Wizard look like thus making one normal looking out of the other two odd body sizes.
Even then it seen no one notice how normal looking the Elf and Wizard look like thus making one normal looking out of the other two odd body sizes.
Bingo. This was intentional. I mean, have you people seen the fighter? How does he even manage to walk?Karadalis said:
I have a question no one in this debate seem to be asking.
How do we show that saving Peach is worth the time?
Most Mario games have two general elements. Peach gets kidnapped, and if you want the world to stop being a hellhole, you must save her.
Most people tune out after the first three words. Mario has a storyline the way I have claws. Yes, there are some things at the end of my fingers, and they could be considered sharp but...
Few care about Mario's story. Few care about Bowser or Peach's story. It is theoretically there, but not in a way that matters. When I as a kid, no one ever said "I saved Peach!" or "I killed Bowser" or "Mario saved the day." They said things like I beat Mario 3 today. No one ever talked about the story.
But, it seems now people are, and that is fantastic. Not because I care even a little if any women feels empowered or dis-empowered by Peach. Very few games speak to my power fantasies, most run counter to them (I don't like killing people. Even virtual people. Killing your enemies is for infantile leaders. Awesome folks exploit their enemies, the way the First Grand Negus intended.) So why do I think it is fantastic that people are talking about how lame Peach is?
Because Mario is lame. Link is lame. Every silent protagonist and weak impotent figure head is lame. The heroes tend to be lame. The supporting cast tends to be lame. The enemy red shirts are lame. The big bad guy is lame. Even the exception, the video game stories that are held up and lauded tend to be at the level of cliched pulp fiction. Never once has a video game's story come close to Kate Daniels bringing an entire army of demons to their knees with a literal word.
Not because games can not display Michael Bay style special effects, but because Kate as an individual is all that awesome. Thus when she does something awesome, it is awesome squared.
So anyway (Buy Magic Bites!) now we have a camp of people who are rabble rousing about how lame female characters are. Do they have a political agenda that really doesn't have much to do with games? Oh yeah, but I don't care. At least someone is doing it in numbers.
The problem is because they have a political agenda that doesn't have much to do with games, the right question never gets asked, much less answered. When people bring up the lame characterization in games, people turn it into contests to see who is the most oppressed party, which also has very little to do with games.
So how about instead of playing the "Life in a first world country is hell, just look at meeeee!" game, lets play the lets make games better game.
I will start with Peach.
There is zero drama to Peach being kidnapped, or Mario saving her, but we might be able to fix that by showing why she is worth saving. After all, stories of sacrifice or endurance are always better when you understand why someone is sacrificing themselves for their leader, or enduring captivity without surrendering for the sake of their people.
How can a Mario game do this?
Well, lets take that Wii U controller I think is useless and crappy. Lets kill Mario's older brother, and replace player two with Peach. Peach, unlike that green looser, doesn't wait for Mario to fall in a pit to get off her tail. She is the Freaking Mushroom Princes. Her land, and much worse her people, are in danger. Beyond that, the only person who is doing anything about it is a lame pluber who is half her height, barely the height of a turtle. He is fat and dumb, but luckily he can employ the Mushroom Kingdom's Magical Arsenal to great purpose.
So, in the New Mario, level 1-1 is rather short, and there are no power ups. Mario runs and jumps through the tutorial course on the core controller. Peach uses her super awesome Magical Mushroom powers to astrally project herself from within her prison, and enjoys a little stealth video game mechanic to solve problems and rescue the toad guys in the background.
At the end of 1-1, Mario runs off screen, and the Toads ask their ethereal ruler what they can do in order to aid the cause. Peach puts them to work making magical mushrooms, stars, flowers, leaves, ect.
World 1-2 gets a bit harder, but luckily Mario will have some power ups to work with, assuming Peach's player didn't fail. Things get harder for Peach to. Not only does she have to save folks, she has to place the power ups Mario will find, and mark their location in a way only he will notice.
The better Peach does, the more overpowered Mario is. In this way I see it as a great game for a generation gap. The less experienced gamer can play Mario, and the more can play Peach. That way even if Mario's player doesn't like platforms, player two can help them out in a way other then screaming "No the B button. Hit the B button. No the B button! Noooo! Not that B button!"
Now, Mario and Bowser or Peers. Peach is neither of their peers, she is a step above. They are pawns. So if Peach is moving the Mushroom Kingdom's peaces, who is moving Bowsers?
I don't know, but while Mario is trying to get Bowser to stupid himself to death in the last fight, maybe Peach can take them on in a desperate psychic battle.
You can even run with that in all kinds of interesting ways. You see, Peach must be powerful in some way, but she is also a doof. She smiles and looks pretty and assures everyone she is happy and everything is wonderful. She does little else when not being kidnapped. Why? Well, she is a doof is one answer, answer two is that she is constantly fighting that desperate psychic battle behind her eyes, and doesn't have much attention to spare beyond telling folks everything is okay.
You know, the way leaders sometimes have to when wars are going on, and they are losing.
Bam, not only is Peach not only no longer 'sexist' but we have the possibility of wringing new fun , gameplay, and quality time with friends and family members that might not have looked at our hobby of choice too seriously. Maybe you can even have sliding difficulty bars for both aspects of the game, in case the more experienced player wishes to play Mario, or the less experienced player wishes to play Peach.
Is there any way in which the "gamer" does not win in such a scenario?
One does not need to ask "How can I stop the evil misogynistic masses that make up the game developer community and it's fan base from continually oppressing me?" to see a huge flaw in how one dimensional many of our longest standing characters really are. One does not need to bring the baggage of their entire life, throw it on the table, and demand it be honored and accommodated in order to need this flaw to die off if they are going to continue this super awesome hobby for another twenty years.
They can just want the "Why am I killing these two thousand people again?" question to have an answer better then "Because it is a video game." You don't even need dialogue or voice acting to answer the question better then that.
So instead of letting each side troll the other until one gets tired (which will never, ever happen. This is the internet.) why not we try to look at neat ways we can make games better for ourselves. After all, we are all gamers. By making games better for ourselves, we make them better for the person on the couch next to us, or across the Ethernet cord.
My idea may or may not suck. I personally have a logistics fetish. I like managing the supply lines of armies, not seeing them fight, thus I approached the task of improving Peach by turning her into my version of a hero. Perhaps you can do better?
This post was inspired by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek
While I profoundly disagree with most of her points on characterization, she certainly knows how to get people to listen to her arguments and the awesome video contained a plea to try to change the narrative from a negative to a positive.
So here we are. Credit where credit is due... but if you got a problem with this post, please don't take it to the blogger. We don't think alike, just share some values. Remember, she thinks Peach is neat. I think she is a doof.
In closing: Shouldn't you be searching Ilona Andrews on amazon? Magic Bites isn't going to read it's self.
How do we show that saving Peach is worth the time?
Most Mario games have two general elements. Peach gets kidnapped, and if you want the world to stop being a hellhole, you must save her.
Most people tune out after the first three words. Mario has a storyline the way I have claws. Yes, there are some things at the end of my fingers, and they could be considered sharp but...
Few care about Mario's story. Few care about Bowser or Peach's story. It is theoretically there, but not in a way that matters. When I as a kid, no one ever said "I saved Peach!" or "I killed Bowser" or "Mario saved the day." They said things like I beat Mario 3 today. No one ever talked about the story.
But, it seems now people are, and that is fantastic. Not because I care even a little if any women feels empowered or dis-empowered by Peach. Very few games speak to my power fantasies, most run counter to them (I don't like killing people. Even virtual people. Killing your enemies is for infantile leaders. Awesome folks exploit their enemies, the way the First Grand Negus intended.) So why do I think it is fantastic that people are talking about how lame Peach is?
Because Mario is lame. Link is lame. Every silent protagonist and weak impotent figure head is lame. The heroes tend to be lame. The supporting cast tends to be lame. The enemy red shirts are lame. The big bad guy is lame. Even the exception, the video game stories that are held up and lauded tend to be at the level of cliched pulp fiction. Never once has a video game's story come close to Kate Daniels bringing an entire army of demons to their knees with a literal word.
Not because games can not display Michael Bay style special effects, but because Kate as an individual is all that awesome. Thus when she does something awesome, it is awesome squared.
So anyway (Buy Magic Bites!) now we have a camp of people who are rabble rousing about how lame female characters are. Do they have a political agenda that really doesn't have much to do with games? Oh yeah, but I don't care. At least someone is doing it in numbers.
The problem is because they have a political agenda that doesn't have much to do with games, the right question never gets asked, much less answered. When people bring up the lame characterization in games, people turn it into contests to see who is the most oppressed party, which also has very little to do with games.
So how about instead of playing the "Life in a first world country is hell, just look at meeeee!" game, lets play the lets make games better game.
I will start with Peach.
There is zero drama to Peach being kidnapped, or Mario saving her, but we might be able to fix that by showing why she is worth saving. After all, stories of sacrifice or endurance are always better when you understand why someone is sacrificing themselves for their leader, or enduring captivity without surrendering for the sake of their people.
How can a Mario game do this?
Well, lets take that Wii U controller I think is useless and crappy. Lets kill Mario's older brother, and replace player two with Peach. Peach, unlike that green looser, doesn't wait for Mario to fall in a pit to get off her tail. She is the Freaking Mushroom Princes. Her land, and much worse her people, are in danger. Beyond that, the only person who is doing anything about it is a lame pluber who is half her height, barely the height of a turtle. He is fat and dumb, but luckily he can employ the Mushroom Kingdom's Magical Arsenal to great purpose.
So, in the New Mario, level 1-1 is rather short, and there are no power ups. Mario runs and jumps through the tutorial course on the core controller. Peach uses her super awesome Magical Mushroom powers to astrally project herself from within her prison, and enjoys a little stealth video game mechanic to solve problems and rescue the toad guys in the background.
At the end of 1-1, Mario runs off screen, and the Toads ask their ethereal ruler what they can do in order to aid the cause. Peach puts them to work making magical mushrooms, stars, flowers, leaves, ect.
World 1-2 gets a bit harder, but luckily Mario will have some power ups to work with, assuming Peach's player didn't fail. Things get harder for Peach to. Not only does she have to save folks, she has to place the power ups Mario will find, and mark their location in a way only he will notice.
The better Peach does, the more overpowered Mario is. In this way I see it as a great game for a generation gap. The less experienced gamer can play Mario, and the more can play Peach. That way even if Mario's player doesn't like platforms, player two can help them out in a way other then screaming "No the B button. Hit the B button. No the B button! Noooo! Not that B button!"
Now, Mario and Bowser or Peers. Peach is neither of their peers, she is a step above. They are pawns. So if Peach is moving the Mushroom Kingdom's peaces, who is moving Bowsers?
I don't know, but while Mario is trying to get Bowser to stupid himself to death in the last fight, maybe Peach can take them on in a desperate psychic battle.
You can even run with that in all kinds of interesting ways. You see, Peach must be powerful in some way, but she is also a doof. She smiles and looks pretty and assures everyone she is happy and everything is wonderful. She does little else when not being kidnapped. Why? Well, she is a doof is one answer, answer two is that she is constantly fighting that desperate psychic battle behind her eyes, and doesn't have much attention to spare beyond telling folks everything is okay.
You know, the way leaders sometimes have to when wars are going on, and they are losing.
Bam, not only is Peach not only no longer 'sexist' but we have the possibility of wringing new fun , gameplay, and quality time with friends and family members that might not have looked at our hobby of choice too seriously. Maybe you can even have sliding difficulty bars for both aspects of the game, in case the more experienced player wishes to play Mario, or the less experienced player wishes to play Peach.
Is there any way in which the "gamer" does not win in such a scenario?
One does not need to ask "How can I stop the evil misogynistic masses that make up the game developer community and it's fan base from continually oppressing me?" to see a huge flaw in how one dimensional many of our longest standing characters really are. One does not need to bring the baggage of their entire life, throw it on the table, and demand it be honored and accommodated in order to need this flaw to die off if they are going to continue this super awesome hobby for another twenty years.
They can just want the "Why am I killing these two thousand people again?" question to have an answer better then "Because it is a video game." You don't even need dialogue or voice acting to answer the question better then that.
So instead of letting each side troll the other until one gets tired (which will never, ever happen. This is the internet.) why not we try to look at neat ways we can make games better for ourselves. After all, we are all gamers. By making games better for ourselves, we make them better for the person on the couch next to us, or across the Ethernet cord.
My idea may or may not suck. I personally have a logistics fetish. I like managing the supply lines of armies, not seeing them fight, thus I approached the task of improving Peach by turning her into my version of a hero. Perhaps you can do better?
This post was inspired by: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek
While I profoundly disagree with most of her points on characterization, she certainly knows how to get people to listen to her arguments and the awesome video contained a plea to try to change the narrative from a negative to a positive.
So here we are. Credit where credit is due... but if you got a problem with this post, please don't take it to the blogger. We don't think alike, just share some values. Remember, she thinks Peach is neat. I think she is a doof.
In closing: Shouldn't you be searching Ilona Andrews on amazon? Magic Bites isn't going to read it's self.
I wish we could have more realistic art styles. All of those characters look grotesquely inproportionate to me.
That aside to the guys argument. I disagree on many levels about some of the things he says but I think its ok to criticize them. Were not going to move forward if people dont talk about this kind of stuff.
That said, I think its ok to have sexy characters if the characters personality and aesthetic preferences support her wanting to look sexy. I recall Jade empire which had characters with little and revealing clothing but having few clothes was a part of that games cultural identity, Im ok with that.
IMO the issue is when a character looks sexy for the sake of having sexy characters and more so when people feel uncomfortable with how much skin is revealed when they play the characters. Sexy and revealing suits of armor for the sake of having them is fine if theres also something that looks more practical and is just as good.
That aside to the guys argument. I disagree on many levels about some of the things he says but I think its ok to criticize them. Were not going to move forward if people dont talk about this kind of stuff.
That said, I think its ok to have sexy characters if the characters personality and aesthetic preferences support her wanting to look sexy. I recall Jade empire which had characters with little and revealing clothing but having few clothes was a part of that games cultural identity, Im ok with that.
IMO the issue is when a character looks sexy for the sake of having sexy characters and more so when people feel uncomfortable with how much skin is revealed when they play the characters. Sexy and revealing suits of armor for the sake of having them is fine if theres also something that looks more practical and is just as good.
Wow... the sorceress is even worse in that one. Is everybody noticing the placement of the staff there? I can't believe people are trying to turn this into a power fantasy or draw a false equivalence to guys. Or maybe there's some vast reservoir of male characters in games grinding their ass and groin against objects that I've completely missed out on.Kopikatsu said:All of the Dragon's Crown characters are...pretty out there, I gotta say.
I do like how the Barbarian classes pretty much have the same amount of cloth.
Do people even realize what it means to equate this and muscular game characters under power fantasies? Apparently a guy's power fantasy is to be strong and powerful, while a girl's is to be something that a guy would lust after.
So basically both men and women want to be something their potential mates lust after? Or are we gonna blame people for the fact we're more interested in traits which suggest fertility while women are more interested in genetic awesomeness (intelligence, strength, health, etc.).The Almighty Aardvark said:
I don't know about yours, but I don't have my power fantasies (being strong, crafty, intelligent or whatever it may be) because they may be attractive to women, I have them because of their of their own merits. Which I imagine is the case with most women as well. What positive quality do large breasts give except to be attractive to men? From what I've heard it's generally considered less or desirable. You can get back problems, you can't sleep on your stomach and they're terribly unwieldy. I'm not saying that every character should be a power fantasy and female characters shouldn't have large breasts, but the idea that it's desirable in more senses than looking attractive really doesn't seem to be the case.generals3 said:
Actually you know what characters tend to be very popular among women now that I think about it? Sensitive and vulnerable pretty boys. Not exactly the top of the list of male power fantasy