Dragonbums said:
It also explains why Garrus, the thin bird-scale reptile alien is the dream boy of Mass Effect with Kaidan getting a pretty low second place.
Then again, maybe Garrus is just that special. 90% of straight men seem to crush on him, too.
Hagi said:
Always been of the opinion that everyone's entitled to their fantasies and even having said fantasies feature in general media. I don't think the problem is ever that there's a lot of X but rather that there's not enough of alternative Y, unless we're talking about obviously illegal stuff.
Male power fantasies are cool, got plenty of those around.
Male sexual fantasies are cool, got plenty of those as well.
Female power fantasies are cool, Those are rarer and we could use more.
Female sexual fantasies are cool, do have quite a few of those but they're constrained to very specific genres from what I can tell.
I think the ubiquity signals a problem in itself. It shouldn't just be "stuff for boys" and "stuff for girls." And that's sort of the problem. The default in gaming is "stuff for boys," and then it's assumed that women should either simply deal with it or go play games for girls. When the vast majority of games are marketed to men, especially in ways that alienate or make a good portion of the female base uncomfortable, then there's an issue. And when the attitude is either "take it or leave it" or "go play your specially designated games," it becomes a problem.
I don't think the answer is inherently "more power fantasy for women" or "more sexual fantasy for women," either. I don't oppose these, mind. I'd even be amused to see the responses from guys if there was more femmeservice out there, and more truly badass women in games. How long would the "I can't identify with a GIRL (even though we ask women to be okay with it) last if the market shifted?
But still, that's not so much a solution, and might even enforce the barriers between the two.
To recap: Male power fantasies are cool. Them occupying 90%[footnote]hyperbolic number completely asspulled[/footnote] of the market is not.
And I'd argue most people aren't trying to get rid of the male power fantasy. Or even titillation in games. Most people appear to be in the more moderate "does it have to be every game and every woman" category. And still, I don't think more female power/sexual fantasy is inherrently the answer.
Especially given how the gaming industry seems to view women and sex.
Talshere said:
If its a modern combat FPS, women present on the front line is factually incorrect. Most nations still ban women on the front line.
The ones that are prominently featured either allow women in combat roles or have a de facto allowance. One of the issues about women in frontline combat in the US is that women have been allowed in frontline combat for decades, but haven't been allowed to be recognised for it (No medals, no experience, no jobs pertaining to it). And given how many shooters are US-centric, I don't think it matters what most countries do. Or, given the nature of the "ban" that was in place, whether there was a ban on record.
To argue it's factually incorrect is factually incorrect in itself. Unless we're going to see a glut of Ugandan (for example) FPS. Or unless we're going to see a lot of FPS specifically revolving around bureaucracy rather than actual combat.
Further, we see anachronistic weapons in shooters because ponies. So why would we suddenly care about historical accuracy because wimminz are on the battlefield?
As such, this sort of thing routinely seems more of an excuse to keep out what people don't want or don't like.
However, I'd argue even that is a secondary concern. When you can get shot in the face five times and brought back to full health by either hiding behind cover for a few seconds or grabbing some bandages, the facts have gone out the window. When a single soldier can take on 10,000 enemies single-handedly or with the help of only a handful of allies, the facts have gone out the window. When you can carry four or more guns that appear out of hammerspace, the facts have gone out the window.
Why is a set of breasts such a dealbreaker when the invincble Army of One Dudebro isn't?
Again, it seems like we're only interested in realism as an argument when we don't like what it would allow. If gamers want realism and historical and factual accuracy, why is Call of Duty the go-to shooter? Why is Battlefield so much less popular when it's only somewhat more realistic, and why aren't tactical shooters dominating the market?
Because, seemingly, the only time realism is an issue is when women want to be included. Or "things we don't like" as a broader genre. Being a hypermasculine bullet sponge who can slow down time or dual wield aircraft chainguns or survive a point-blank grenade? Cool. Women?
REALISM ALERT!
And whether sexism or double standards is the intent, it certainly gives off the appearance.
