I'm just gonna say about topless male characters that most often, due to how much more likely it is for a game to be targeted at a male audience than female, they are not scarcely-clothed for the same reasons that female characters are. They're not designed that way because it's sexually appealing to the people they're trying to sell it to, whereas female characters are. You could say that often it's to emphasize how badass they are, because wow they can go into combat unarmored and put up a hell of a fight. You could say that female characters might be viewed similarly with the whole badass thing, but then regardless you still get stuff like tops that can barely be considered tops and would actually just be incredibly uncomfortable to wear in real life, especially with the breast size often crammed into these outfits.

As I read your post more, Goemar, there's a lot of stuff I want to touch on, but this is what stuck out to me first:

(03-02-2014, 06:30 AM)Goemar Wrote: I don't know why Tomb Raider gets so much flack. Lara was a good character (regardless of her sex). Yet the Mario games are basically 'Useless woman, Awesome men' and no one bats an eyelid. Yes they are kids games but when do you think people are most likely to learn?

I would even venture to say that the Mario Brothers aren't so much characters as they are avatars. (moreso Mario, Luigi actually does get some characterization and reacts to things in a more believable way.)

Peach basically embodies the 'princess' archetype and is hardly, if ever, fleshed out as a character. for all intents and purposes, Peach is simply the end goal in the "story" that is the Mario games. I think Rosalina has had more "development" in one game (Super Mario Galaxy) than Peach ever has throughout the 25+ years the franchise has been running. (at least in titles developed by Nintendo, the Mario RPGs are a little different, but there's still a lot of characterization that is lacking.)

At its core, the story and characters take a back seat to the core gameplay. Sure, the skin in which the gameplay takes place is generally appealing, but as it pertains to characterization as a whole, the Mario Franchise (and a lot of Nintendo franchises, in my opinion) there isn't much there.

Mario and Peach are essentially icons, and are handled as such; Nintendo has essentially minimized any commitment to specific character personalities so that they can fill whatever role they need to in the scenario of each game.

In regards to the avatars of manliness Devicho mentioned: These characters are also thinly developed because in a sense, I feel that they want the player to "be" the character. They usually take on the role of being a fulfillment fantasy for the player. These "characters" are also reliant on portraying the common trope of the "epic hero" basically stemming from examples such as: Hercules, Beowulf, and Basically every stereotypical Viking ever. I feel it's very common for dudes to want to be "macho" and these games depend on that in order to sell games by saying "hey, you can feel manly if you play this game"
It's a different problem entirely because it's such an easy marketing ploy since the idea of being "manly" is so strongly ingrained in western culture, and part of that supposed "manliness" also entails the acquisition of culturally attractive females. (I say culturally because different cultures have different values on what determines attractiveness, though it's common for large breasts and wide-set hips to be considered desirable)

Unfortunately, with that sort of "badassery" in female characters, it's almost like some of it is badass because of the notion "Oh, she can kick these mens asses, it's badass because she's a girl" it's still measured by how a woman can stack up against men. And this encounters a problem because it often comes packaged with (in dialogue or even simply the player's values) the fact that the men she defeated are "less manly" or "wimps" because they "lost to a girl." It diminishes the badassery of a character because it treats gender/sex as a handicap. In addition to this, it adds more insult to injury by establishing another precedent that "all female badasses have to be physically attractive and show off as much cleavage and sexual characteristics as possible to make our straight male audience more inclined to buy the game"


Personally, I'm not a huge fan of giant flesh-colored waterballoons that flop around in the wind, and I think functional wardrobes are far superior than flashy ones (metal bikinis are dumb, and people who try to justify them are dumb) If I can't relate to or feel like I have a personal connection or understanding with a gal, there's very little attraction. I can think that a particular gal is pretty or cute, but if I don't get to know them, I don't fawn over them. Unfortunately, a lot of these lazily designed (and I say lazily because they just rely on base sexuality for attention) avatars gain a lot of popularity and rabid fandumb because they're empty slates: you can totally fantasize them in whatever way you want them to be because they're not really handled like a person.

I'm not surprised that these sort of depictions exist, though, unfortunately: many people who buy into these characters because of sexualization often approach games as an escape from the reality of their shortcomings. I'm not saying that it's inherently bad for someone to want to escape, but the fact that this demographic is so large (and I feel that it's also expanding) is I think a huge failure of society. The world is a confusing and troubling place and people are less inclined to confront their problems because they don't have to: So much focus has been placed on the avoidance of issues and ignoring them. "Oh no, I got rejected by all the girls I've asked out, at least I still have this busty character to spend time with" no problem has been solved, it's only been avoided, it's easier to avoid issues by turning to these sorts of distractions so people do it, it makes their lives more manageable.

I apparently have a lot to say about this subject. Hopefully I'm not coming across as judgemental or rude. I could go on about this stuff at great length, but I don't want to overwhelm everybody with what I've got to say, so I'll try to keep my responses a little shorter next time.

Also, It's worth noting that playing as Peach is kickass because you can float, it allows me to indulge in my need to overcorrect my jumps in platformers.

[[RANT MODE: ENGAGED]]

To add to this topic, all these questions converge towards this: what is appropriate or politically correct? Too much appropriateness or correctness leads to the censorship of one thought over another - rather ironically it would be the attempt to suppress the thought (or part of it) of the majority, in (supposedly) the favour of the minority.
If you think about it, this is no better than positive discrimination. I reject this kind of policing or enforcement, because it implies social control, and more importantly controlling what you think through words, semantics.

I'm against political correctness, because I'm against discrimination, not because I'm for discrimination. I'm not for an equality because I don't believe it exists, but I'm for a compromise in the interest of all parties. We can't live in an environment in which we don't communicate, for fear of offending others: it doesn't foster dialogue, only fear and ignorance, and more importantly a social division, which can be instrumentalised against us politically.

I noticed that several people talked about realism and practicality when it came to the design of Sophitia or Ivy's costumes ; simulation is an interesting development in the virtual space of videogames : it allows us to do things we couldn't necessarily do in real life - or more precisely, the image of what we can't do in real life, and in some cases what we mustn't do, like murder or rape. It also allows us to take control, to a certain extent.
Videogames aren't objective or neutral, like people once thought about cinematography - it's politically charged, especially now that it's an attention-garnering, blockbuster-producing industry, not unlike Hollywood. And like cinema, the essence of videogames doesn't rely on a classic narrative form, or realism.

Why not put simulation aside, along with all the notions it brings with it, like realism or practicality? I can't deny that design is a fundamental aspect of a videogame, but I'm questioning its nature which leans on simulation yet again (character design, environment design, level design, etc.).

Like gender, videogames are comprised of many genres and sub-genres. In both cases, I think the labelling has reached a point where it is fetishistic: sure, in the case of the videogames, they're to guide the consumer into buying what he/she wants, and sure, in the case of gender, it's to guide a consumer into finding another consumer he/she wants.

Why do these matter? Why do we do things because we want them? Why don't we do things we haven't thought of wanting? What can we learn from things outside of profitability, efficiency and want? Is it that important?

[[RANT MODE: DISENGAGED]]

I agree, just because I disagree with the way a character is portrayed and how people choose to depict things in games, doesn't mean that I think that they should be removed altogether; if I don't like what I see in a game, I just won't play it.

Everyone is always going to filter media that they absorb through a different array of values, beliefs, and preconceptions. In the end, there's always going to be something that offends one but entertains the other: the one who is entertained by that media is part of the target audience, the former is not. I think part of what's difficult about this discussion is the fact that, even though we generally don't like how things are depicted in games, there are a large enough number of people who do enjoy them.

It's wrong to assume that all media should conform to a one-size-fits all set of standards, because such a thing doesn't exist: it's in essence impossible. it's wrong to assume that one particular method of expression is correct because it can be proven either right or wrong depending on differing sets of values. Political correctness is also something that in itself is a paradox: you'll find that it's decided by a single party what's acceptable language, behavior, etc. if free-speech is in effect, why do semantics matter when expressing one's personal opinion?

In the end, the only thing that we are able to control is how we react and interact with what we are given. I get caught up in the details at times and lose track of the fact that just because I think something is dumb, other people might not think the same way, maybe they think something that I like is dumb. Just because we think something is dumb about the other's interests doesn't mean we can't agree on other things. My preferences are my own, and my freedom to express them is at my discretion.

Instead of censoring works that don't agree with your particular value system, either find ones that do, or make something that you feel is worth playing. Vilifying a particular work because you disagree only divides the community and makes it harder to interact.

(I'm in that sort of tired, rambly mode right now. it's like 7AM and I haven't gone to sleep yet, woops!)

I'm just gonna run. I'm not quite in the mood to read everyone's individual essays. Its nice to see that its been kept pretty civil though.

Can we keep comments like that to a minimum (preferably none), please?

Posting about... not actually reading the thread... is kind of counterproductive.

i'm gonna second C2B's post cause there's a very important idea here

why do we have to think of what's offensive/shocking to audiences when making a game ?
to ensure good sales, fine
but isn't that limiting our creative possibilities ?

wouldn't it be better to allow any type of content within a work of art, no matter how immoral or disgusting, as long as it serves purpose in the telling of the story ?

the issue with that question is more than just "if he doesn't like it he shouldn't buy it" because games, like any other type of art can be indoctrinating
i think that's our real problem here: the fact that people can lack critical distance when confronted with a game/art, and can take the values within seriously, when said values can justify/glorify causing harm to others
and on the contrary, if everyone was untouched and indifferent to all type of culture-related works, there wouldn't be much diversity among humans and we wouldn't be able to really react to anything, which is much of the fun in life imo

so i dont really know what to make of this
should we rather take in account the morality of what we make by fear of it being the source of hate or harm hence limiting our possibilities in the realm of art ?
or should we just say what we want, tell the story in its entirety regardless of reactions by the public ?

I think most will agree that as long as something fits in with the game it's fine.

For instance: In the Last of Us there's a point where you're basically trying not to be raped and killed. It's pretty dark stuff. But it didn't glorify rape or take it lightly - like holy crap I felt awful because I wanted her to live. However I can't remember a single news site having any beef with The Last of Us because it handled it well.

The same goes for The Shawshank Redemption. Here we have a character thats is repeatedly overpowered, beaten, and raped. But it's part of the story. If you took it out Andy would be so much less of a character.

My point is, it's all about the context. This also means games like Senran Kagura Burst and Cho Aniki are 'technically' fine and dandy because there context is meant to be stupid.


Would really like Nintendo give the female gamer a better option than Peach though, but I think that's a personal gripe.

I agree with you guys and over indulgence and pushing boundaries is all cool and everything, but critically, when the creators intentions are as clear as they typically are with random fan service characters it can be really distracting when trying to appreciate a work that is otherwise serious
we are seeing a lot of cases were the nature of these unrealistic depictions just aren't compelling and out of place for the games they are in
people are allowed to like bad story telling too and I like some pretty dumb things, but that shouldn't be the standard, ya know? (I say that it's the current standard but I can't think of very many examples oops)

I think there could be a good scantily clad character in a completely real world story if the author is up to the task of integrating them in a logical way
a situation like that would push a lot more boundaries than another ivy justified by "this is how I express my creativity"

as much as chris and lexou's point should be realized by everyone that creativity should be promoted even if it steps on peoples toes, the very reason that this topic is an issue to me is because these lame fan service characters aren't very creative (or at least not properly developed)
I don't know if anyone was ever saying that censorship was a good solution here
I think the general consensus is that we should promote more diversity of ideas with female depictions, that could even just mean creating more in general to balance out or overshadow the existing lack luster ones

also I just want to say that creativity does not equate to being unrealistic
exaggeration and emphasis can be used to create a interesting character, but essentially it should be bound to reality in some way to really be meaningful, at least in my opinion as an artist

(03-02-2014, 01:33 PM)Goemar Wrote: Would really like Nintendo give the female gamer a better option than Peach though, but I think that's a personal gripe.

um




...Samus?`

By the way, just my 2 cents, but most of the time people "creatively" try to be shocking/offensive it's just for cheap entertainement or notoriety, without an actual reason, which is very very shallow and I think would be very bad to reinforce. I also try to view games as we can view jokes. There are, for example, racist jokes and jokes about racism. I suggest looking for some examples of this in Louis CK work (if you hadn't already).

(03-02-2014, 07:01 PM)Kosheh Wrote:

(03-02-2014, 01:33 PM)Goemar Wrote: Would really like Nintendo give the female gamer a better option than Peach though, but I think that's a personal gripe.

um

...Samus?`

THE BABY THE BABY THE BABY THE BABY

also re:"We shouldn't censor creators"

I agree that the right to free creativity is important, but at the same time people have the right to bring up how problematic some of these "creative" things can be. I mean, there's only so far the "I'M JUST EXPRESSING MY CREATIVITY" excuse can go. You wouldn't let a game with racist caricatures in it that are meant to degrade another race just go along its merry way because "CREATIVITY," you'd get onto the creator for propagating racism. Same thing with excessive objectification.

I think that some people here an conflating "why is this allowed?" and "why is this acceptable or mainstream?". It's not so much wanting to say "hey you can't do this with female characters" but rather encouraging criticism of these objectified portrayals when you feel that they're exploitative or doing more harm than good. It's asking ourselves why this kind of objectification is so mainstream that nobody bats an eye when it happens, and puts up opposition when it's questioned. Gaming culture as well as similar topics (such as technology and comics) have many flaws that make them more inhospitable to female audiences than male ones, and we should, as consumers of this media, be willing to listen to the "little guy" when they speak up about something that both bothers and somewhat targets them.

I think the difference is more between what is tolerated and what is taken for granted, or at least considered normal. Tolerance doesn't imply condoning a point of view, whereas acceptance does.
Personally, I think the questions we should ask are: "why is x depicted like y? is this is a fair representation? if not, how can we make it fair?" I think we should get out of this idea of being allowed or forbidden, or even acceptable, because it's a form of judgement, and if push came to shove, censorship: if we want more social justice, I think each social force has to push their strengths forward, and together compensate for their weaknesses to reach a synergy. This can't be done if each force isn't represented fairly and objectively for what they are.

From this, we can ask ourselves how can we change these unfair views; one possibility is to change our relationship with the products and the images we consume - we absorb media in abundance more or less passively. The consequence is that we are given this information that we won't necessarily have a critical view on, as more information is coming in straight afterwards, and as such we won't give ourselves the time to think. To be critical is to put a distance between yourself and the object of your criticism, to be able to assess what is at stake.
The reason I insist on this is that whatever you're consuming is politically charged. You could consume bigoted shit like you could consume some nasty microwave shit: you're choosing what you're exposing yourself to, therefore responsible of what you're consuming and its consequences on you. As I said, media aren't benign, nor are they objective, nor neutral.
Your responsability then extends to situating yourself politically in regards to these: you are now critical of what you consume, because you can see what is at stake and how you position yourself in relation to them.

I think it's pretty clear to know why women tend to be objectified in videogames: science, computer science and then videogames at its beginnings, tended to attract a majority of men, and unless I'm mistaken, both areas are still male dominated to this day. That's when the concept of the male gaze comes in, but this isn't exclusive to videogames, of course: I'm sure you've seen some vintage adverts of cars, cigarettes or household objects portraying women in a reductive way - but also in books and films, too. We still haven't got out of this world of men pandering to men.

We can blame those producing media for encouraging disparities, but once again, I think it's up to how we receive them; after all, they are supposedly appealing to the masses, the majority. So if anything, it's a vicious circle in which the consumer feeds the producer, who feeds the consumer. I don't think it's up to them to give us a moral lesson on what is right or what is wrong, or how things should be done or what thing should be like: it's up to us to respond to these media and to engage in a discussion to hopefully bring a fair compromise. From there will the media follow.

(03-02-2014, 07:01 PM)Kosheh Wrote:

(03-02-2014, 01:33 PM)Goemar Wrote: Would really like Nintendo give the female gamer a better option than Peach though, but I think that's a personal gripe.

um...Samus?`

I mean in a Mario game.

Rayman Legends has... whats her face (hey it's late, sue me) with a helmet. There's like no none-"Girly Girly" (yes -" is fine grammar) playable Mario character. And with how popular whatshername (which is apparently a word, not needing to be corrected - wait, fdsfdf - yes my spell check is on) is in 'Wreck-it-Ralph' (the most pornographic sounding of Disney's films, no Beauty and the Beast doesn't count you sick mofo) and Princess... Brave... from Pixar's Brave there's obviously a 'market' or a gap or a longing for young females to have none super stereotypical female characters.

You play Mario Kart as a young girl, you want to be a female character because, I don't know - whatever the science is behind that (before guy posts saying "I normally play as a female character in some-game" - yeah that's nice, I don't care - you know what I mean) and all you get is princesses who are very girly (Peach apologising for overtaking people and generally sounding useless) or Birdo who is actually a man and well, isn't human (sorry Birdo).

It's one thing to represent women as walking eye candy, which I think most people know isn't realistic. Now I'm not saying that isn't an issue but surely it's quite dangerous to represent women as useless. Yes Ivy may have anti-gravity tits of aweso- erm- awfulness but at least she doesn't apologise for kicking people.

I don't know, it's late (hell I'm interrupting my own post with inner-external-dialogue) but I just kind of think that maybe if people grow up with games where the male/female characters are more balanced then we wouldn't get to the point of Dragon's Crown's Witch being a bouncy spectacle or stupidity because it wouldn't be what's expected or just "a video game thing" parents shrug there shoulders at when they see it.

Or I'm talking shit - who knows.