boholikeu said:
In any case, I don't quite see what your point is. I would be equally disappointed if Ueda were looking for a "stupid" archetype and immediately thought the character should be male because "men are stupid". That would be pretty sexist too.
(just a forethought, if I'm coming off as a bit aggressive I apologize, I'm always open for discussion, just, you know, keep it civil, both of us)
Then you, my dear friend, are a bit too sensitive I would say. Men and women have different archetypes with it, some of them are interchangable between genders.
But all of this is pointless really, the fact that the protagonist was initially women just because it would be an
antithesis (there's that word again, never heard a developer use that...) to a
giant, fuck-mothering beast I feel is moot.
Again, this probably happened very early in the development of the game, and it's not like Fumito Ueda is intentionally
trying to be sexist, if he was.
By your logic we can't criticize Mel Gibson for being a bigot just because he had the balls to use artistic integrity while making "Passion".
(disclaimer: haven't actually seen Passion, just going off what I heard of the movie. That's why I didn't originally use this as an example).
Eh, hadn't seen "Passion" either, but as far as I know it was basically torture porn depicting the death of Christ. If it had a bunch of fat, big-nosed, Jews guffawing at Christ or something, then sure, I guess it'd be bigoted, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be regarded on other merits (coming from a Jew, if that makes any difference.
Actually, like I said in my first post, I actually thought he was being pretty progressive when I first read the article's title. "Hey, someone's actually doing something to prevent the sexualization of a character. That's pretty cool." It was only after reading the whole story and Ueda's quotes that I became a little disappointed in his reasoning. "Errr, so you originally chose a female character because you needed something weak.. aren't all children, male and female, generally thought of as weak? And if you were that concerned about panty shots, couldn't she have just worn pants/shorts? And what's up with saying that a male child makes more sense because their 'grip strength' is better?"
Again, with the pants, oy vey. I'm not going to pretend like I know the whole ICO universe (though I probably am, unintentionally), but as far as I can tell it's an ancient, native land or something, and women generally wore skirts or something and men with togas or whateverthehell the boy's wearing.
Quite frankly, the age difference between "young, female adolecent" (12? 13?) and "young, male child" (11? maybe 10?), I don't think is enough to really say one has more "grip strength" than the other. That, and most "gamers", I guess, are male, so take that how you will.
And really, as I've said, it's not about independence or anything, it's quite the opposite. Team ICO games generally have a companionship theme to them, needing someone else to go on, having a goal that is so close yet so far.
I don't think Ueda is a raging misogynist because of his comments. However, it was a little disappointing to hear him say things like that. Especially because, like you, I used to defend his apparently sexist choices. I used the same "archetype" arguments that you made to defend his characterizations of females in ICO and SotC, but honestly after hearing the above comments I think he might have some prejudices after all. I mean, just using one negative female archetype doesn't say much, but when almost all of his female characters are defined by some sort of weakness it really makes you start to wonder...
Then, quite frankly, I think you're overreacting. Despite what Yahtzee may joke about, the girls in the other ICO games are not really from "predjudice" or whater. The girl in ICO was noticeably older than the boy, and pure white, indicating purity and stuff, a common story archetype. She is your only companion, and you can't even speak to each other, and your bond grows just by holding hands. It's a classic damsel in distress, and while that concept is probably dated and sexist or whatever, it's still presented with a large amount of poignancy. The girl in SotC was the center of the whole story, again she was pure white with purity, and she was dead. Wander, the main character, and subsequently the player, goes to enormous lengths to bring her back from the dead even at the cost of his own soul. His female characters are not defined by their weakness, they're defined by their purity and connection with them. It's not about being independent or self reliant, it's about dependency and companionship.
The thing about "women and weakness" and stuff regarding this game is that
it's not intended the way you're thinking it. Regardless if the protagonist was male or female, they're still weak compared to the
giant fucking griffin. An unsexualized female will go hand in hand with independence and whatnot, but quite frankly I think everyone is taking way too much offense to an offhanded statement. I mean, whether or not Ueda is "sexist" or whatever doesn't change the overall point of the game.
Gladion said:
...Not trying to be offensive, by the way, I just don't like it when people make fun of me, especially when I feel it's not justified.
I truely do apologize, I was just getting riled up. I didn't mean to antagonize you in any negative way or anything, it's just that saying "This is just wrong" doesn't help discussion or help me understand why you think that way.
No, seriously, I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be funny or anything - as many there are of them, your words have no content whatsoever. You just state Ueda was an artist among numbnuts, then you repeat the problem you have with everyone crying about this one (very silly) topic, and that's it.
Sorry, I like the sound of my own voice as you can tell
Also, you're being so overly sarcastic (and thanks for that two words in brackets you added) while on the same level doing the exact same mistakes you're insulting me for (only far worse because you make it seem you don't while I never claimed I did anything else, and, in fact, never tried to because I didn't and still don't think it's neccessary - you're just wrong on that one, there are others, a lot of them actually - it's not neccessary to go completely arthouse to get artistic) I really lose interest in discussing anything with you, particularly the "who"s and "why"s and "whatnot"s of developers being artists.
Again, I truly do apologize if I came off as insulting your intelligence, I really didn't mean to make it come off that way. I was really trying to goad you into giving me more information (in my own special little way apparently) on what you were saying. I would love to continue this conversation, I do take back what I said before as I didn't say it in the best of light.
So, if you're still willing to debate, I would love to know why my thought was "just wrong", I really do, no sarcasm this time.