The final proof...

[Filiecs]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.

Here's a crazy idea: How about we let people make the games they want to make?

1. A game does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of its designer(s).
2. When you are creating a game you are creating a brand new world! Any break from realism is only a problem if you claim your game is realistic.
3. Unless a game is supporting the generalization of women by saying/having ALL/most the women in their game look/act a certain way as well as claiming that their game is based on reality, it's not discriminatory. This is the same for men, too. The job of a game is to be fun and interesting, not necessarily realistic.
Example: A game where all the males of a tribe are fat and have have giant muscles and all the women are stupid and have big boobs is not sexist because its not claiming to be realistic.
4. A "sexist" game cannot cause adults in the real world to be sexist.
5. If you're embarrassed to play videogames just because a group of videogames has their women big breasted to try and increase sales, then you probably have some insecurity issues.

This extends to pretty much all other art forms as well. Unless the work is trying to make a statement about our world or claims to be realistic in how it presents males and females AND still generalizes, it can't be sexist.

For all we know, those characters shown could look the way they do just because that is the way the world they live in works. One thing is for sure, their designs are certainly interesting.

If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

 

[Scott Rothman]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.
If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

I agree wholeheartedly. The issue is that when people try to point out criticisms they have with the game, people LOSE THEIR SHIT. Just look at this thread and how quickly it devolves into personal attacks because someone suggested they found contant distasteful.

 

[Scott Rothman]

And I don't know about you guys, but I love Kotaku. I didn't realize there was so much animosity towards it. Any particular reason why?

 

[go-10]

Personally, I think this entire argument over sexism in games is just plain ridiculous.

Here's a crazy idea: How about we let people make the games they want to make?

1. A game does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of its designer(s).
2. When you are creating a game you are creating a brand new world! Any break from realism is only a problem if you claim your game is realistic.
3. Unless a game is supporting the generalization of women by saying/having ALL/most the women in their game look/act a certain way as well as claiming that their game is based on reality, it's not discriminatory. This is the same for men, too. The job of a game is to be fun and interesting, not necessarily realistic.
Example: A game where all the males of a tribe are fat and have have giant muscles and all the women are stupid and have big boobs is not sexist because its not claiming to be realistic.
4. A "sexist" game cannot cause adults in the real world to be sexist.
5. If you're embarrassed to play videogames just because a group of videogames has their women big breasted to try and increase sales, then you probably have some insecurity issues.

This extends to pretty much all other art forms as well. Unless the work is trying to make a statement about our world or claims to be realistic in how it presents males and females AND still generalizes, it can't be sexist.

For all we know, those characters shown could look the way they do just because that is the way the world they live in works. One thing is for sure, their designs are certainly interesting.

If you don't like a feature or aspect of a game then either speak with your wallet, tell the DESIGNERS your OPINION, or make a game yourself. This constant bickering is generally not valuable discussion and doesn't do a thing to help rid the world of sexism or help the industry make less "sexist" games.

There is a clear line between fiction and reality. If we want to get rid of sexism I believe we need to target sexist people/policies in the real world, not wasting our time on attempting to censor art.

You sir have won the internet today, the thread can now be closed and all arguments are now invalid. Hope you don't mind but I'm gonna copy paste your message every time I see a "sexism blah blah" discussion comes up on the internet

 

[Fishes]

The comparison to how males are sexualized in games and media is ridiculous, precisely because heterosexual men and heterosexual women don't find the same things sexually exciting. I don't think some of the men making this argument quite realize that these guys with their muscles and powerful stances are being put into the game for their own benefit, to help the power-fantasy along.

First off: Emotional reactions to visual stimuli are not governed by logic. Second: If you are going to drop the false equivalency line in an emotional debate, you might wish to look up special pleading.

As example of special pleading:

When femininity is being objectified, it is sexist regardless of the intent of the one doing the objectification. When someone points out the ways in which men are also objectified, suddenly intent is crucial when deciding if something is or is not sexist.


Logically there is no difference between putting a topless men in a game, and putting topless women into a game. I think you yourself state as much. (not in those words, so sorry if it is projection) Is there a major distinction emotionally? Yes there is of course a huge difference. American society expects men to view physical objectification as a positive. On the other hand American society expects women to view it as a negative. That is huge, it just isn't logical.

For the record, I am not questioning your position on sexism, or sexualization, or objectification. I am pointing out that logical fallacies don't have a place in emotional arguments. The moment you bring such a standard, you invalidate both sides. Feminism included.

Once someone says: "The existence of fictional content harms no one that does not actively make an effort to to interact with it. As game developers do not force people to interact with their content, all interactions are consensual and thus acceptable." the logical debate is over, and everyone starts talking about how they feel, and how their individual biases and preferences should be prioritize over the biases and preferences of others. Assuming of course no one is forced to interact with the fictional content.

Standards of logic have no place in that debate, because everyone on both sides waited for logic to leave the building before they started the conversation. If you wish to criticize the entire debate by calling it illogical that is fair. Insensitive but fair. Criticizing just one side however is just special pleading, AKA inherently fallacious.

 

[shadow skill]

http://kotaku.com/heres-an-interesting-post-from-the-hokutoandy-from-th-478227930
Scroll past the article and start reading the comment from RPG fan. I find the art to be quite ugly really. But the Kotaku guy trying to connect lolicon to this should probably just disconnect his internet and never post anything ever again on it. Large breasts simply are not a defining feature of that sort of thing. I just can't comprehend why he would even bring that up unless he just wanted to bait ignorant people into connecting Dragon's Crown to the pedophilia fetish and cause a nuclear chain reaction that would cause EPCAT to send legions to Kamitani's offices.

 

[Fishes]

First off: Emotional reactions to visual stimuli are not governed by logic. Second: If you are going to drop the false equivalency line in an emotional debate, you might wish to look up special pleading.

I think you're quoting the wrong person here.

These:

The comparison to how males are sexualized in games and media is ridiculous, precisely because heterosexual men and heterosexual women don't find the same things sexually exciting. I don't think some of the men making this argument quite realize that these guys with their muscles and powerful stances are being put into the game for their own benefit, to help the power-fantasy along.

Were not your words?

The above is an example of bringing a logical standard to an emotional debate, and doing so selectively. It does not address the logic of all parties, and instead focuses on one despite the fact that the standard would invalidate the basic premise of the other. Heck, at the end of the day the above statement claims knowledge of a group of people's true motivation, when that motivation is neither knowable or universal. It fails to provide any sort of evidence (Even a stated motivation of the individual who made the game in question, much less one that applies to the industry as a whole) and instead relies upon the acceptance of an unsupported truism.

If someone else made all these missteps in logic and I am not able to parse the comment system I am sorry, but if they are your words it applies to your argument. It is literally nothing more then an unsupported emotional reaction that challenges the emotional reactions of others by claiming they are not examining the situation objectively.

Again the point is not that you, or whoever, are right or wrong on the subject of objectification, sexualization, or sexism. It is about the appropriateness a logical standard in an emotional debate (zero) and the fact that the standard was applied with prejudice. A logical standard exists to remove bias and emotion from the conversation. Selective application in an emotional debate is it's antithesis.

 

[Risingblade]

Poor sorceress everyone is judging you based on your appearance, you're worth less because you have a big chest. Don't worry I'll use you, I'm not gonna judge you based on your looks. =[

 

[LetalisK]

I don't know anything about this controversy or this guy, but this part made me laugh:

"I haven't read this entire thread, but the accusations I've seen - that I'm only doing this for pageviews; that I don't actually care about the things I'm saying; that my criticism is contributing to the mistreatment of women - are inappropriate, out of line, and rather disgusting. I won't address those."

But...he just did.

I love when people pull this, it's their way of getting a stab in at those that criticized them while walling off any attempt at rebuttal or discussion. I'm willing to bet it failed and he got right into the scrap, though.

 

[viking97]

Umm, linking us too soft core porn isn't really helping me be convinced that women are as respected as they ought to be in gaming culture.

Honestly I'm undecided on the issue so far, but yeah I do see the sorceress as kind of sexist. Is sexism always always bad? maybe, maybe not.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Snip

Two points:

One: I didn't say men couldn't be sexualized. However it has a much lesser impact and simply isn't worth it. On top of that male characters are actually sexually appealing through non-sexualized traits, that's something much harder to achieve with female characters. Let's not ultimately forget that sexualization comes at a cost, it makes quite some consumers not take the game seriously anymore, so it has to be done with a clear objective. Obviously emphasizing on a woman's ass is gonna be much more beneficial than doing so on a man's ass. Not only because there are more male gamers but because such things have a bigger impact on males.

Two: "You can say that, but then that just further reinforces the idea that gaming is a boys club and that effort should be made to ensure that it remains one. Something I don't buy into at all, if you're clearly marketing your products to a single gender, you shouldn't be surprised when the other gender gives less attention to it"

Efforts shouldn't be made to ensure it remains one. Efforts should be made for the gaming industry to make money and if males are more prominent consumers obviously targeting them is more profitable. And i don't buy the vicious circle theory because if there was a way to make a shit ton of money by making women-centric games it would have probably already been done.

I strongly dislike this rationalization for decisions in games. When outside of gender is it ever supported? EA changes Overstrike to Fuse in an attempt to make it more marketable to the CoD audience? XCOM planning on being turned into a first person shooter so they can sell it to the bigger FPS market? Deadspace putting in microtransactions? DRM? I don't see very little support for any of these practices and they're all decisions made for the sake of making more money. Why is such an emphasis on designing games for males the only case where it's okay? Probably in the same regard that the gamer who only plays FPS's would have no issue with XCOM being turned into one.

I think the vicious circle argument entirely holds weight. Have you noticed the issue that most game publishers have with stepping out of their comfort zones? There's a reason why there has been such a large trend of brown-grey military shooters, because everyone knows that people will buy those games. Hell, if you've watched the Jimquisition episode on pasta he makes a pretty good case for this not even being ideal from a profit standpoint. The problem with marketing games for women is that someone needs to bite the bullet and release games that don't fit there reliable formula

 

[Lunar Templar]

if I said that

1) don't care about this 'controversy'

and

2) wrote off everything this guys said as 'the words of an imbecile' after the lolicon comment

would that make me part of the problem or no?

 

[Requia]

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.

Of course they're power fantasies, they just aren't muscle men. This is why the whole muscular guys are power fantasies thing makes no fucking sense, power fantasy has nothing to do with wearing skimpy clothes and completely changing your lifestyle in order to look good.

 

[Fishes]

There's no such thing as an emotional debate.

There most certainly are emotional debates. That is what happens when you support arguments with feelings rather then facts. It is actually the norm outside of an academic setting. Besides, if subjective emotional reaction to external stimuli was governed by logical, you could logic most people out of depression, suicide, ect.

It's flimsy but not unsupported, statistics confirm that most gamers are men and most women tend to be play so-called "casual" games.

I am not saying no evidence exists to back up your conclusion. I am saying you did not support it in your post, which is a major flaw in the kind of a debate where someone makes a point by naming a logical fallacy. I am not saying you are 'wrong' for not supporting your argument. I am just pointing out how this is not the sort of discussion this standard was designed for. Even the guy quoting the logical fallacies in this debate isn't policing their own arguments.

I mean come on, how many people in the world claim that statistics exist that totally support their world view, despite the fact that correlation is so obviously not causation. I think at the very least, it is everyone making political arguments. /joke

It's not an emotional reaction, this might seem insane to you but I deduced that my position is a reasonably good stab in the dark based on the available information. I stick by it as well; I do not believe that the characters of this game were designed the way they were for the benefit of female gaze.

You are entitled to to your belief in your stabs in the dark based upon what limited information you have chosen to gather. People will however chuckle if you claim it is founded in fact and logic. People who want to answer such questions study the problem, figure out a way to collect such data, then come to conclusions perhaps years down the line. People who come to conclusions absent data want to talk about how they feel about things, not answer questions.

Here's the problem, I know you probably aren't familiar with my posting here but I've stated in another thread that objectifying what are, essentially, two-dimensional representations of a person isn't a problem. So it's not that I've adopted an uneven attitude where objectifying women in media is bad but objectifying men doesn't matter, it's I don't think it matters in either case.

This right here is why I have been so careful about distinguishing between your arguments, and your tactics. Or at least half the reason. I did not wish to imply that you were wholly alined with one side.

That said, the point I was making is that you introduced a logical standard and only applied it to individuals who were on the receiving end of your counter point. It is my position that it was not applied to feminists (who argue all the time that sexism is in the eye of the beholder, at least until the power fantasy line comes up.) or your own argument.

A selective application of a logical standard in an emotional debate is, well rather silly. It is a bit like criticizing one football team for not jumping into a pool before running home.

Keep in mind I am ever so specifically not questioning your arguments, or asking you to defend your position. I am simply pointing out how wildly inconstant it is to quote logical fallacies in discussions where a "high standard of evidence" is a shot in the dark with an unsupported thesis. No post in this thread would last a second under the critical eye of an academic.

Which is of course okay. This is an internet message board. It has one of the most informal standards out there.

*edit to say* Please feel free to say your peace, and I will absolutely read it, but I think I am crossing the line into thread jacking territory. Perhaps if you wish to continue the discussion after saying your peace, we can create another topic and leave this one be?

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

if I said that

1) don't care about this 'controversy'

and

2) wrote off everything this guys said as 'the words of an imbecile' after the lolicon comment

would that make me part of the problem or no?

I think that you would be part of the solution. Look up terms before you use them. It is common sense.

 

[Fishes]

[snip]

Your criticisms are fair, in the future I'll preface arguments I make on the escapist with a citation or two.

That was kind of the exact opposite of my point, but if I had to pick my very favorite way to fail at being persuasive, it would be to have people walk away saying they will make an effort to contribute more data to any conversation they join.

Good times to you!