Dshrike wrote:One of the major things that stuck out to me about the NWN2 graphics were the animations. They felt very stiff. While the NWN1 animations were also stiff (and a bit slide-y) the graphic fidelity wasn't so great so it didn't distract too much.
I also found that the characters looked ... plastic, somehow? They had that really weird sheen on their skin, so much so that it looked like a material, similar to the clothing or armour they'd wear.
Amusingly, I liked NWN2 more than NWN1 myself, but graphics haven't always been that big of an issue for me. Customization choices, gameplay choices, and characterization choices all matter to me a little bit more, I think.
Chongara wrote:Anything that a user generates with a set of tools as narrowly defined as a character generator, owes a non-trivial portion of the credit to the designers. Everything the player creates is possible because a designer gave thought to it being available. Trying to claim oneself above, beyond and superior to the creators by virtue of how you've assembled their assets is hyperbolic self-aggrandizing.
You're mixing something up. I'm not claiming myself above the people who created these tools I work with.
I'm claiming myself above those creators who have ultimate influence on a game (in that they can have tools made according to their specs), yet still fail to come up with something that looks as varied as my characters, created within a much more limited framework.
Yes, because all developers only have to worry about their own tastes, instead of the tastes of every person whose ever going to play the game.
If I want to give my character a "Troll Nose" that's all fine and dandy, but when a developer wants to give a generic character a troll nose he has to worry about everyone picking up the box art wanting to pick up the game.
Which is why customization is better, because it allows a developer to have to worry less about demographics as long as the player can choose options that each demographic can be happy with.
Melissia wrote: Amusingly, I liked NWN2 more than NWN1 myself, but graphics haven't always been that big of an issue for me. Customization choices, gameplay choices, and characterization choices all matter to me a little bit more, I think.
I actually did like those aspects more in NWN2 than I did in NWN1. What ended up being the deciding factor for me though, was how clunky the multiplayer for NWN2 ended up being. Anytime a player in the party decided to chat to someone, the game would pause everyone's game, center over the conversation in question, and watch it play out. Imagine having a 4 person party, two people trying to shop, another wanting to check in with locals, and the last one trying to check out his/her equipment. One person would have to talk to the merchant... pause. Then another wants to talk to the same merchant... pause. It was very distruptive, and me and my group couldn't even get to the act 2 without this gameplay mechanic ruining the experience. We're it not for this single gameplay mechanic, NWN2 would be the bee's knees for my group.
NWN1 allowed players to freely talk to to npc's without the game pausing to focus on what's going on in the conversation. It also displayed the conversation in everyone's chat window, and even as text bubbles above the character avatars. No conversation paused the game unless it was a plot related conversation.
The BG series and the IWD series also suffered from conversation pause mechanic that NWN2 incorporated. It feels like a step back for me when I transition from NWN1 to NWN2.
Single-player is great. But, I never cared much for the NWN2 NPC party members... or for NWN1's for that matter.
But anyway, women representation in games. What I'd like to see is a GTA style game with a female protagonist.
Melissia wrote: Which is why customization is better, because it allows a developer to have to worry less about demographics as long as the player can choose options that each demographic can be happy with.
Melissia wrote: Which is why customization is better, because it allows a developer to have to worry less about demographics as long as the player can choose options that each demographic can be happy with.
Melissia wrote: Which is why customization is better, because it allows a developer to have to worry less about demographics as long as the player can choose options that each demographic can be happy with.
No it's not, and no it doesn't.
That doesn't make any sense. For a game where the appearance of the character doesn't really matter (like, say, Mass Effect or Dragon's Age or any MMO, or an Elder Scrolls game, or any FPS), giving the player the option to go nuts with customization is a better choice that forcing them into playing Whitey McWhitedude (which is the default. Always.). So what if the player can make the dude ugly as homemade sin, all the dev has to do is make Studly O'Studmuffin in the engine, screenshot that onto the box art, and ship it that way. Shoot, the customization options could even be a selling point.
And for those games where the player is taking on the role of a pre-determined character, like Drake or Dante or Laura Croft or Geralt of Rivia, then the option there might need to be restricted entirely, or limited to things like outfits and hairstyles, because the character is not fully "owned" by the player. The player is simply stepping into the shoes of a pre-defined character in a story that the player is going to go through, but not create by him or herself.
Slarg232 wrote:Yes, because all developers only have to worry about their own tastes, instead of the tastes of every person whose ever going to play the game.
Dshrike wrote:What I'd like to see is a GTA style game with a female protagonist.
Mhm. I kept being disappointed that Rockstar doesn't bother. In the latest one they even have three distinctly different main characters.
And yet they're still all dudes.
Gotta give them credit for at least featuring a wide range of different dudes in their games, though, instead of going for the White stereotype.
Psienesis wrote:And for those games where the player is taking on the role of a pre-determined character, like Drake or Dante or Laura Croft or Geralt of Rivia, then the option there might need to be restricted entirely, or limited to things like outfits and hairstyles, because the character is not fully "owned" by the player. The player is simply stepping into the shoes of a pre-defined character in a story that the player is going to go through, but not create by him or herself.
What exactly does a pre-determined character bring to the table, by the way? I don't think I can remember a single game where I would have expected notable differences depending on one's gender or skin colour - excepting games where this would somehow invalidate your role, obviously, such as a Black officer in the US Army before 1917.
In the case of someone like Geralt of Rivia, his white hair and yellow eyes represents a *lot* to the people of the world of The Witcher. If you allowed the player to change this to, I dunno, black hair and green eyes?
Well, Geralt is now no longer the "White Wolf" and, also, looks normal. Witchers don't look normal. They *aren't* normal. This would then require re-scripting sections of the game where references to his appearance ("yellow eyes, vertical pupils... can I study you? For science?") and also breaks away from his fairly iconic look.
This besides the fact that the Witcher video game series is based on a series of novels, so the character pre-dates the video games and has a pre-established appearance.
Also, making Geralt female in the world of the Witcher would put him, as a non-sorceress, at a distinct disadvantage. It's not a pretty fantasy world, it's more like SoIaF, where the world is brutal, ugly and dangerous.
Personally, I'd rather treat the effects of hair colour and gender with appropriate dialogues. It increases the production cost, but I also believe it'd add value to the game and increase the consumer base. There's the question if the investment would actually pay off, but then again I've seen a lot of money put into sillier things.
Besides, isn't the world "brutal, ugly and dangerous" to the PC anyways, on behalf of him not looking normal?
The only thing I'd enforce in this example is the "not looking normal" part, by adding a permanent overlay to the customisation. Like with Dark Side characters in KotOR and SWTOR.
Or rather, the only thing I would enforce if this game were not part of a franchise where the protagonist is already fairly established. Obviously, this would be a no-go for character customisation .. but then again, you could just as well make a game about a new character in the same world, like how DA2 was not just another adventure of the Warden Commander from DA1.
I suppose this is a matter of personal preferences, too, though - I generally rather play my "own" characters as opposed to someone elses.
Besides, isn't the world "brutal, ugly and dangerous" to the PC anyways, on behalf of him not looking normal?
Nope, it's brutal to everyone. Non-Humans tend to get it worse, but it's still pretty gakky for humans, due to the existence of monsters and corrupt kings. See: Loc Muinne
It is still a much better world that the Dark Souls world though. That place is just dire.
Lynata wrote: Personally, I'd rather treat the effects of hair colour and gender with appropriate dialogues. It increases the production cost, but I also believe it'd add value to the game and increase the consumer base.
The problem is that this argument is brought up a LOT and people simply do not fully go through with it. When a genre / game is largely dominated by a certain demographic and another potential demographic is neglible, then the entire effort is uneconomical and should be scrapped. Including another gender is a TON of work. New VA. Tons of texts have to be redesigned. Dialogues have to be changed. Sometimes, even the story has to be changed. Unless there is a high chance that a potential demographic that also is large enough to cover up the additional expenses, will be drawn to the game, doing so would be stupid from a business point of view.
LordofHats wrote: The utter popularity of FemShep would seem to suggest your theory does not stand up when applied to reality
Again: not thought through. First of all, Shepherd was male in most games. FemShep had, iirc 18% which means that 82% chose Shepherd instead. You seem to think that this means that 18% of ME players were female - which would be a mistake.
I assume no such thing. Merely pointing out that FemShep was extremely well received. 18% is not tiny, and including her wasn't hard. Even though MaleShep was more common, he never received the praise or admiration of FemShep, which has been noted numerous times (though I don't really get why XD)
ME already has female character models and face generation. no extra resources needed to be spent. The thing that needed to be changed was voice overs and only the switching of pronouns really which isn't that hard to do anymore as you can record 'he' and 'she' separately and insert them into the middle of a voice over rather seamlessly these days (a technology in existence even before ME1).
18% isn't "extremely well", to be fair. It's less than 1/5 of the entire player base. Furthermore, there is no reason given for why people prefer her - if people, understandably, prefer the VA, then it's not about gender, but about VA quality.
...because, let's face it, Shepherd's voice is terrible and sounds a bit robotic.
18% is significant as a matter of statistics (as in, not negligible). She was popular enough to even get an alternate cover art for ME3. Even Revan didn't get that popular, and FemRev was popular.
The other part of my argument is simply that it's not as much a struggle to include a female version of the MC as it might seem. If a game already has female models it takes little to model the MC as a woman. Advances in technology have also made it possible to cut voice work into segments, allowing you to insert lines or even single words and phrases into a sentence on command. It's not like the entire conversation has to be rerecorded every time.
I never got on the Jennifer Hale love train XD They had both of Shepard's voice actors return to voice the Trooper class in SWTOR and frankly, it was dreadful, though probably not their fault. The writing for the trooper was just awful... So awful... *shivers*
But then I played the Imperial Agent, and those sexy accents made it all better
Regardless, ME3 did kind of bother me for a different reason-- basically, they depicted every matriarchal or woman-only race to be politically incompetent when the chips are down, while the male-only ones were ready and willing to fight.
Salarians (matriarchal) were total dicks, and Asari were basically denialists whose government was unwilling to fight, even if individual Salarians (the STG) and Asari (Aethyta and Aria) were different-- compare that to Krogan or Turian, patriarchal societies where they were willing to cooperate early on given reasonable favors.
Hell, even the egalitarian race of Quarians was depicted as just trying to take advantage of the situation without really caring for the greater whole, with the women leaders being depicted as either amoral donkey-caves or generally moral but having no real pull on their government-- which is generally how women leaders are depicted in any media really.
It... was some very unfortunate implications that I doubt the writers really thought very carefully about. Can't we get some more variety in how women leaders are depicted rather than just either virgin/noble/good or whore/greedy/evil? At least Aria was reasonable, mind you... but she wasn't really much of a leader to begin with.
what I find interesting is that people, feminists especially, are quick to notice any form of sexualisation of female characters and yet not males.
E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
cyphersbootlick wrote: what I find interesting is that people, feminists especially, are quick to notice any form of sexualisation of female characters and yet not males.
E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
cyphersbootlick wrote: what I find interesting is that people, feminists especially, are quick to notice any form of sexualisation of female characters and yet not males.
E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
I didn't necessarily mean that they are all made for women although I can see why you thought that. my apologies for not explaining myself what I meant is that they are made this way as a male "power fantasy" and yet this tends to be ignored in favour of the fantasies female sexualisation stems from. Again sorry for not explaining thia
cyphersbootlick wrote: now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
I'm thinking stuff like this:
Spoiler:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/mDKVi.jpg
[/img]
Certainly not the muscle-bound manly-men of gaming and comics. Like not at all:
Spoiler:
This:
or this
or this
or this
as I already said I didn't necessarily mean it was sexualised for women im saying that these fantasies are overlooked by those who see only the sexualisation of women. note also I said stereotype, I.e. it is not a valid example and is instead drawn upon by experiences from the media
cyphersbootlick wrote: my apologies for not explaining myself what I meant is that they are made this way as a male "power fantasy" and yet this tends to be ignored in favour of the fantasies female sexualisation stems from.
Well, you clearly spoke about sexualization. Power fantasy is not sexualization. Male characters are usually not sexualized.
Also, you kind of explicitly wrote “now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.”…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cyphersbootlick wrote: im saying that these fantasies are overlooked by those who see only the sexualisation of women.
Because why would feminists say that power fantasy are bad or hurtful, really? Most of them are actually calling for female characters to also become power fantasies rather than sexualized cheesecake.
18% out of the $200 million gross profit is $36 million bucks.
Obviously, not all of the 18% would not have purchased ME3 if they did not have the option to play a FemShep, but even if just every tenth customer of those that rolled a female Shepard would have said "nah" that would have still been $3.6 million less.
So yeah, I have a feeling that the investment did pay off. It's kind of evident in how BioWare began marketing FemShep with posters and figures.
Sigvatr wrote:When a genre / game is largely dominated by a certain demographic and another potential demographic is neglible, then the entire effort is uneconomical and should be scrapped.
Or perhaps you could try to increase the demographic by making games more inclusive.
Really, it's like years ago people being like "lol, comics are for children". Suddenly, manga.
Melissia wrote:Regardless, ME3 did kind of bother me for a different reason-- basically, they depicted every matriarchal or woman-only race to be politically incompetent when the chips are down, while the male-only ones were ready and willing to fight.
I didn't get that vibe at all. Asari in particular I would consider extremely skilled in negotiations, based on how it was them who organised the entire Citadel Council and the treaty region. Some individuals who allow their actions to be guided by bias/thirst for power/whatever for the sake of a currently ongoing narration do not negate the history of an entire species.
What male-only race was there, anyways, apart from (effectively) the krogan? And they are certainly not what I'd consider "politically competent"...
cyphersbootlick wrote:E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
The purpose of all of those designs are to appeal to a male demographic. Women are made pretty and attractive to appeal to the base urges of a male consumer, whilst the men are made strong and powerful to appeal to the power fantasies of a male consumer, and underline his role (or that of his gender) as a "mover and shaker" in the setting.
The Turians are an openly patriarchal society (their leader is even called the Patriarch) and I don't think its until ME3's DLC that a female Turian is even seen.
I do get what she means about the Asari though. They basically had something that should have provided them foreknowledge of the Reapers, among other things, and not only did they not warn anyone, they didn't even prepare themselves. When the Reapers come, the Asari basically do little, if anything, to fight them other than retreat to Thessia. The Turians and the Krogans both pledge troops to fight the Reapers on Earth (the Krogans even gamble their entire species in exchange).
cyphersbootlick wrote: my apologies for not explaining myself what I meant is that they are made this way as a male "power fantasy" and yet this tends to be ignored in favour of the fantasies female sexualisation stems from.
Well, you clearly spoke about sexualization. Power fantasy is not sexualization. Male characters are usually not sexualized.
Also, you kind of explicitly wrote “now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.”…
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cyphersbootlick wrote: im saying that these fantasies are overlooked by those who see only the sexualisation of women.
Because why would feminists say that power fantasy are bad or hurtful, really? Most of them are actually calling for female characters to also become power fantasies rather than sexualized cheesecake.
Again i apologise, if i have caused any offense then doubly so. I dont always communicate so well i must admit i blended the two together somewhat. I also meant from a male perspective when i said stereotypical and i meant it in all meanings of the word including its voracious lack of validity and reliability.
Lynata wrote: Really, it's like years ago people being like "lol, comics are for children". Suddenly, manga.
Well, we are Europeans, and I am pretty sure it was different in the U.S.A.
But certainly here in France, comics are almost non-existent, most people only knows the superheroes thanks to movies, and manga are extremely popular, notably among girls as well as boys.
One of the ironies of manga in the west is that most of the Manga we read, despite being considered more mature, is children's series'. Most adult oriented manga never makes out of Japan.
I am not sure what you mean. By adult-oriented, are you speaking about manga's like A distant neighborhood? Or adult-oriented as in pornographic, even though those are I guess most of the time not exactly what I would call mature?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not sure what you mean. Are you speaking about manga's like A distant neighborhood?
I mean Sailor Moon, Dragon Ball, and Naruto etc. These series if made in the US would be PG-13 at the least (some aspects of Sailor Moon would get the series an R rating) but despite that they're openly sold as children series here and in Japan. They contain levels of violence no western children's series would ever feature. Sometimes they surpass American comics in this respect. Sailor Moon, especially later on, contains generous amounts of "as you can tell in this scene they just finished making love."
Some Seinen series make it here; Black Lagoon, Hellsing, Sekirei for example, but these series tend to only be popular with enthusiasts, and don't make it to the mainstream like Bleach, which includes;
Spoiler:
Good luck finding anything on that level in a children's series in the US (granted, I've seen Wakfu, and I know your French types don't shy away from rather gratuitous fan service ). But while Bleach is a series directed at children 8-12 in Japan, it only airs at min-night in the US on Adult Swim.
cyphersbootlick wrote: what I find interesting is that people, feminists especially, are quick to notice any form of sexualisation of female characters and yet not males.
E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
The hyper macho style of Gears of War is a thing, It's not really done for the women though. It's done for the men.
LordofHats wrote:The Turians and the Krogans both pledge troops to fight the Reapers on Earth (the Krogans even gamble their entire species in exchange).
As for the prothean beacon, it's important to consider that it is a "dirty secret" that must not be revealed even to fellow asari, and much less to anyone else, as it affects their galactic reputation and even their very religion. So the species as a whole is innocent to begin with - it's a small caste of confidants that have passed this knowledge on from generation to long-living generation, most likely carefully picked by their predecessors and sworn never to reveal this in order to maintain the status quo. I don't consider this unique to that species, and it's certainly a popular scheme for human governments in a lot of fiction, too. MJ12, anyone?
So it must have actually been a pretty big step for the asari Councilor to give up knowledge of this relic - if she actually was privy to this knowledge all the time, instead of revealing it as soon as it was brought to her attention.
Yeah everyone gives assets, but in cut scenes the Asari and Salarians both say they can't help (even though they give assets anyway). The Turians and the Krogan on the other hand fully commit to helping fighting the Reapers at Earth once you do some favors for them. If I remember right, the only assistance the Asari councilor commits to is giving access to the beacon.
cyphersbootlick wrote: what I find interesting is that people, feminists especially, are quick to notice any form of sexualisation of female characters and yet not males.
E.g. The gears from gears of war. I mean come on, extremely large muscled men being all masculine and grouchy with gravel for vocal chords. now think about the stereotypical man you think women find attractive.
Even better, just look at every space marine ever or what about all the male super heroes in Western comics? women aren't the only ones sexualised
Melissia wrote: I got on it,but I've kind of always liked Hale.
Regardless, ME3 did kind of bother me for a different reason-- basically, they depicted every matriarchal or woman-only race to be politically incompetent when the chips are down, while the male-only ones were ready and willing to fight.
Salarians (matriarchal) were total dicks, and Asari were basically denialists whose government was unwilling to fight, even if individual Salarians (the STG) and Asari (Aethyta and Aria) were different-- compare that to Krogan or Turian, patriarchal societies where they were willing to cooperate early on given reasonable favors.
Hell, even the egalitarian race of Quarians was depicted as just trying to take advantage of the situation without really caring for the greater whole, with the women leaders being depicted as either amoral donkey-caves or generally moral but having no real pull on their government-- which is generally how women leaders are depicted in any media really.
It... was some very unfortunate implications that I doubt the writers really thought very carefully about. Can't we get some more variety in how women leaders are depicted rather than just either virgin/noble/good or whore/greedy/evil? At least Aria was reasonable, mind you... but she wasn't really much of a leader to begin with.
I think part of this is that the female lead races are less military oriented then the male lead ones. (Ya that can be an issue all in itself.) Masseffect has always kind of had a undertone of aggressive militarily is good. It leaks out of the setting, gameplay, and main character.
LordofHats wrote:Yeah everyone gives assets, but in cut scenes the Asari and Salarians both say they can't help (even though they give assets anyway). The Turians and the Krogan on the other hand fully commit to helping fighting the Reapers at Earth once you do some favors for them. If I remember right, the only assistance the Asari councilor commits to is giving access to the beacon.
Isn't that more because of both the asari and the salarians having rather small and very specialised militaries in general, and thus finding it hard to spare anyone when their own world get overrun?
It's been quite some time since I played it, though, so I cannot remember all the dialogues. I only remember that I did have asari troops on the ground during the final fight, so someone must have provided them. Maybe they changed their minds?
nomotog wrote:I think part of this is that the female lead races are less military oriented then the male lead ones
For the salarians that may be true, but Asari Commandos are held in respect even by the turians - that's gotta say something. Plus, it seems to be a popular profession for asari in their maiden stage to play merc for a hundred years or so (apparently the others become dancers ).
Unless you are implying that it's just the leadership that favours a less aggressive approach, and that the Huntresses are more like a separate society, akin to the Justicars - meaning that the politicians prevent them from deploying, even if they feel they should. Hmmh.
Lynata wrote: Isn't that more because of both the asari and the salarians having rather small and very specialised militaries in general, and thus finding it hard to spare anyone when their own world get overrun?
Yeah, but Mel was talking about the unfortunate implications, which exist regardless of how sensible the in universe justifications are.
Maybe they changed their minds?
Liara, Samara, and some other Asari both help you acquire help from the Asari throughout the game, and some stuff just happens regardless of what was said in the cut scenes.
LordofHats wrote: They contain levels of violence no western children's series would ever feature.
Let me introduce you to “Chainsaws, bazookas and characters dressed up as nazis” Kaeloo. Certainly in a more light-hearted fashion than Dragon Ball Z, but you will still get zombies mass amputation via chainsaw in that show. I should mention we had Hokuto No Ken as a child series over here, while it was considered for teenagers in Japan, so this was the opposite of what you described . But back then, things were… special.
LordofHats wrote: Some Seinen series make it here; Black Lagoon, Hellsing, Sekirei for example
Are those adults, or more late teenagers?
LordofHats wrote: (granted, I've seen Wakfu, and I know your French types don't shy away from rather gratuitous fan service )
LordofHats wrote: Some Seinen series make it here; Black Lagoon, Hellsing, Sekirei for example
Are those adults, or more late teenagers?
Seinen, and its female equivalent Josei, are marketed to the 18-35 age demographic and are basically R rated (though the publishers in Japan generally view demographics more dynamically than we do, and they know adults read the children's series the publish and children probably the adult ones as well).
Cannot watch now, no sound, care to provide a summary?
Ya lets not simply ost videos or links as a replacement for writing out your own response. Again this thread is about what you think, not what youtube videos think.
I can watch it now.
I went through 1:30, and then decided having a video with a voice reading something I can read, what, 5 time faster was clearly an elaborated way of trolling me by making me loose me time .
Text is great, use it.
Okay, I listened to the section of the video relevant to the strip I had posted. I can sum it up in three words. Strawmaning, strawmaning, strawmaning. Nothing about the comics is in any way addressed, or even alluded too. I mean, that guy goes on about shaving armpits and beard, how dumb must you be to think this is answering the comic in any way? Does this show that Batman, or any other superhero, was designed to be attractive to women? Nope. Does this show that if they were designed to be attractive to women, they would look like that? No. Does this shows that female characters in comics are not designed to be attractive to men? No. Does is address any of the point in the strip? No. Was this video a total waste of time? Sure yes.
Just want to say anyone who reads my previous reply could you also look at the people who quoted me, i kinda wrote it poorly and came across as trying to say that they were made that way to appease women whereas i was trying to say that that kind of character tends to be overlooked in comparison to those of women.
Not sure it does. Like people have mentioned, Gears of War characters are usually male power fantasies. A lot of game protagonists have been. They can be macho (Marcus), Powerful (Kratos), Witty (Nathan Drake), or many other types. There has been a lot of talk about that.
Women characters have the unfortunate tendency to be written/created for titillation of a heterosexual male. Which by its self is alright, but becomes annoying when you see it everywhere.
An example of a male character created for heterosexual women may be Vaan from FF, but since I did not play it, I might be totally wrong. I do know there was a lot of hate directed towards his design, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Oh course this may apply to FF XV as well. )
An example of a male character created for heterosexual women may be Vaan from FF, but since I did not play it, I might be totally wrong. I do know there was a lot of hate directed towards his design, though.
I had to look up Vaan. Other than the bare chest, the character seems pretty feminine as far as physical features.
An example of a male character created for heterosexual women may be Vaan from FF, but since I did not play it, I might be totally wrong. I do know there was a lot of hate directed towards his design, though.
I had to look up Vaan. Other than the bare chest, the character seems pretty feminine as far as physical features.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Japanese Women are, apparently.
Hence Bishounens.
Also see Malus' post on page 51.
daedalus wrote:I'm not writing Japanese culture off, but I'd like to call attention to Exhibit A:
Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Lynata wrote: ]Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Well, now I want to see a vending machine that dispenses handguns.
Lynata wrote: ]Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Well, now I want to see a vending machine that dispenses handguns.
It did happen in Bioshock Infinite, after all That little tid bit was a good bit of satire, imo. I wish they did more with it. Like if the PC started acting up or if the alarm went off, every NPC in the area runs to the nearest vending machine and starts buying shotguns.
I'd argue the language barrier in some ways makes Japan seem stranger than it really is and that to Japanese society places like America would seem odd to them.
An example of a male character created for heterosexual women may be Vaan from FF, but since I did not play it, I might be totally wrong. I do know there was a lot of hate directed towards his design, though.
I had to look up Vaan. Other than the bare chest, the character seems pretty feminine as far as physical features.
...women are into that?
Japanese Women are, apparently.
Hence Bishounens.
Technically both Japanese men and women are. Androgyny (from a western culture stand point) is the in thing in Japan it seems. So a feminine looking male character in Japan is probably roughly analogous to Marcus Phenix in Gears of War to American men and some women.
Lynata wrote: Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Because there is a higher focus on violence in western society than in Japan now?
I missed the memo .
Lynata wrote: Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Because there is a higher focus on violence in western society than in Japan now?
I missed the memo .
Or a smaller focus on sex in the west now?
Because I don't know if people know this be at least in the U.S. pornography isn't censored.
An example of a male character created for heterosexual women may be Vaan from FF, but since I did not play it, I might be totally wrong. I do know there was a lot of hate directed towards his design, though.
I had to look up Vaan. Other than the bare chest, the character seems pretty feminine as far as physical features.
...women are into that?
Japanese Women are, apparently. Hence Bishounens.
Technically both Japanese men and women are. Androgyny (from a western culture stand point) is the in thing in Japan it seems. So a feminine looking male character in Japan is probably roughly analogous to Marcus Phenix in Gears of War to American men and some women.
Ah yeh, that's true. Weren't there two versions of Nier that was released? One with a older, more grizzled hero for Western audiences, and one with a bishounen type hero for Japanese audiences? Apparently the Japanese version sold very well.
Lynata wrote: Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Because there is a higher focus on violence in western society than in Japan now?
I missed the memo .
Ehm, yeah.... notice that most of our basic-cable TV shows are incredibly violent, as are the most-popular shows on paid cable. Considerable sections of the population watch fairly-violent sports. We allow more violence in movies for children/younger people than we allow even non-sexual nudity. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to claim that America practically venerates violence.
BrotherGecko wrote: Because I don't know if people know this be at least in the U.S. pornography isn't censored.
That censorship is a bit hypocrite, given the very disturbing things that can be shot and sold in Japan. I mean like really sick, perturbed, deranged, obscene and immoral crap. Notice that this is also quite related to violence too.
Psienesis wrote: Ehm, yeah.... notice that most of our basic-cable TV shows are incredibly violent, as are the most-popular shows on paid cable.
Unlike stuff like Hokuto No Ken, or Battle Royal?
Psienesis wrote: Considerable sections of the population watch fairly-violent sports.
More violent than Sumo fighting?
Psienesis wrote: We allow more violence in movies for children/younger people than we allow even non-sexual nudity. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to claim that America practically venerates violence.
Is it about the U.S.A., or is it about western countries? Because this movie was made in France by some Frenchmen. Yes, they did not include any full frontal nudity of any adult, but seriously, why would they? What would be the reason for it?
Amusingly, Hokuto no Ken was remarkable in and of itself because of its protagonist being so musclebound, which broke a lot of norms for male protagonists at the time.
In France, it was remarkable for the most awesome dubbing ever. The whole anime was butchered with a huge censorship axe, to be played on kids TV, and the dubbers hated to show so much that they agreed to dub it only as long as they were given total artistic freedom in the dubbing. Therefore they have the worse play on word and terrible nonsensical dialog ever!
And the voices…
Lynata wrote: Of course, it's also debatable whether a cultural focus on sex is really that much worse than the cultural focus on violence that seems common in western society these days...
Because there is a higher focus on violence in western society than in Japan now?
I missed the memo .
Ehm, yeah.... notice that most of our basic-cable TV shows are incredibly violent, as are the most-popular shows on paid cable. Considerable sections of the population watch fairly-violent sports. We allow more violence in movies for children/younger people than we allow even non-sexual nudity. I mean, it's not much of a stretch to claim that America practically venerates violence.
I think it would be an enormous stretch to make that claim. First of all Americans are absolutely terrified of actual violence. When ever America gets glimpses of the wars that they hate so much but refuse to do anything to stop they are horrified. Not because the military as a whole is doing anything inherently wrong by American morals but because what actual real violence looks like. Violence isn't something that is easy to stomach. Americans like soft core diluted concepts of heroics. Heroics that require decisive actions for important ideals. Violence is usually how it is solve but it isn't the violence itself that they are craving. COD players like feeling like the BAMF that they will never attempt to put the effort into being.
Look at the percent of Americans that serve in the military or even what percent of Americans are even eligible to serve and you get a pretty good picture of our love for violence.
On the topic of sports you might note that most Americans do not watch sports for the violence. If they did then they would pay more attention to the Canadian sport of hockey that is dominated by Europeans and Canadians but played in America. But they don't (except me though....lovvvvvve me some hockey). Football fans you will notice talk very little about the violence and a lot about statistics, strategies, and the big plays (sounds a lot like 40k players).Hell if you watch it on tv you will notice that the most violent aspects of football get the least amount of camera time. Basketball and Baseball couldn't be further from violence. And the only people that watch NASCAR for the crashes are people that don't watch NASCAR.
The American violent T.V. is also liked by good portions of the planet. Which is why I could buy Game of Thrones or any HBO show off Afghans with subtitles from around the world without difficulty. Same goes for movies where outside of India, Hollywood dominates. Or that while growing up I went to Japanese cartoons for the cool violent stuff. Unless you think Street Sharks is more violent then Pokemon?
A Town Called Malus wrote: I think it's telling when the abridged parody of Fist of the North Star has better voice work than a proper official dub
What “better voice”? Those voice are awesome. In their own special way, they are awesome. And I love them dearly and deeply.
Also a bit of nostalgia going on .
Ashiraya wrote: I can only hope for Mortal Kombat X, but honestly.
Until I get my proper female MK character, every single SJW on this world is rightous and justified.
I will have my proper female MK character.
Who do I have to kill to get one? WHO?
I wish the games I liked where more popular. Then I too could have the games I want one day.
Until then im stuck with indie games and mods most of the time. Even then.
I mean, games cant include everyone. Its why im starting to end my video gaming as very few seem to be made to appeal to me. Its just some people who are left out get more attention than others really.
Hmm, part of my message is gone. The main gist at the beginning was its going to happen. Just like gays being married and so on. Its the trend thats gonna happen. No stopping it. Just like Women being included in games etc. It must feel good to have that prospect.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Unlike stuff like Hokuto No Ken, or Battle Royal?
That seems to be more of an exception rather than the rule, though. Of course you can find everything everywhere, because a certain demand will always exist - see "guro". But from what I can see, this is similar to pornography in the western countries. It exists, but you don't get bombarded with it on the streets. I don't want to go as far as claiming that the western and Japanese cultures are direct opposites when it comes to a distribution of erotica vs violence, but I do perceive notably different trends in what receives the most attention and advertisement. It would be better to hear from one or ideally more actually Japanese dakkanaut, though, as perceptions can be deceiving.
But really, look at what kind of games/shows are most popular "here", and what kind of games/shows are most popular "there".
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Is it about the U.S.A., or is it about western countries?
I'd say all the western countries, though maybe not to the same extent as the US - yet. But if you look at the development of the media, I think you'll see that nudity has become a lot more taboo than it used to be ~10 years or so ago, whilst likewise violence has become more mainstream. I'm not sure if this is just "lag" and the other western countries are just picking up an ongoing evolution from the US, or if they were different originally but were changed by the cultural exchange. The US do have a pretty dominant role when it comes to video games and movies/series, after all, and it doesn't take much to assume how they'd influence the following generations.
We are very big on teasing, and having your boobs covered by nothing but a ~2cm strip of thin cloth will get you high praise and jealous looks. But as soon as you show a nipple, it's fire and brimstones from everyone and you're going straight to hell.
LordofHats wrote:High heel boots!
Your avatar expertly expresses my inner self's reaction every time I see a cool concept ruined by this cliché.
On a sidenote, Swastakowey's sig is pretty damn hypnotising.
I can see you now, looking up at the sky, your fists shaking and screaming "High heels in places they don't belong!" Then you call up your best friend, insult him, his wife, and demand he pick you up and take you to Warner Bros. so you can set the building on fire
The high heels thing actually doesn't bother me that much. If anything in her design bothers me, it's that silly top. WTF is that? Is it a bullet proof vest (missing what would seem to be the most important part of the vest)? A normal vest? If she's wearing a vest, why isn't there anything under it? Not even a sports bra?
Either way who the feth actually dresses like this? At least Christie looked sexy and like someone you might, maybe, find at a beach somewhere;
Spoiler:
You know. A beach rave or something. Some place with a mosh pit
Lynata wrote: That seems to be more of an exception rather than the rule, though.
Well, no. Most manga/anime I have heard about included violence. Japanese movies are often quite violent. At least those I hear about anyway. On par with other movies, on average. With the occasional very very violent movie.
Lynata wrote: But from what I can see, this is similar to pornography in the western countries. It exists, but you don't get bombarded with it on the streets.
I do not get bombarded with violence on the streets. Actually, there are much, much more big ads posters banking on sex to sell than on violence.
Lynata wrote: I don't want to go as far as claiming that the western and Japanese cultures are direct opposites when it comes to a distribution of erotica vs violence, but I do perceive notably different trends in what receives the most attention and advertisement.
I have never been to Japan, but from the cultural exports I have been exposed too, there may be more sex, but there definitely is not less violence.
Lynata wrote: But really, look at what kind of games/shows are most popular "here", and what kind of games/shows are most popular "there".
Games about killing people. In both case. They do have some visual novel stuff, but we do have all the sport games.
Amerika, Amerika. We are all living in Amerika, Amerika is wunderbar!
Lynata wrote: But if you look at the development of the media, I think you'll see that nudity has become a lot more taboo than it used to be ~10 years or so ago, whilst likewise violence has become more mainstream.
The latest Kirikou movie is from 2012. Western MOBA have been sprouting hyper-sexualized characters like there is no tomorrow. I grew up with Hokuto No Ken and Dragon Ball Z on TV. Remember the arc with the cyborgs, the future from which Sangohan came? I am not seeing it, sorry.
Lynata wrote: But as soon as you show a nipple, it's fire and brimstones from everyone and you're going straight to hell.
Has this happened to Game of Throne yet? Because they sure like showing nipples. And they certainly are not the only TV show doing that. As for movies, had Machete and its sequel both naked nipples, for instance? I know Teeth had. And those are U.S. movies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Either way who the feth actually dresses like this? At least Christie looked sexy and like someone you might, maybe, find at a beach somewhere;
Spoiler:
You know. A beach rave or something. Some place with a mosh pit
Yeah, doing capoeira in that outfit without having your breast bounce out of it and go wild, good luck with that .
Pretty much. I mean, I'm the last person to adhere to "your character must be dressed practically or she's BAD!" I think that's silly. This is fiction, 'practical' is a fluid concept, and cool looking means more to me than practical, but some outfits are just ludicrous and I can not take them seriously.
At least design your sexy fan service characters in a way that we could actually believe someone will dress like that (fantasy stories not withstanding). Chun Li might look silly from a practical stand point, but she has a cool look, and it's unique and stands out. it's a nice design. Christie's outfit might be absurd for what she's doing, but at least it looks like it might actually be worn by someone some where.
LordofHats wrote: Pretty much. I mean, I'm the last person to adhere to "your character must be dressed practically or she's BAD!" I think that's silly. This is fiction, 'practical' is a fluid concept, and cool looking means more to me than practical, but some outfits are just ludicrous and I can not take them seriously.
At least design your sexy fan service characters in a way that we could actually believe someone will dress like that (fantasy stories not withstanding).
I clicked on the link in your signature, well played sir, well played *slow clap*
However yes, you can have characters in "sexy" outfits if it actually makes sense for them to be in that outfit.
Example of how not to do it: Quiet in the upcoming MGS5: The Phantom Pain.
There is no reason an assassin would ever dress as she does. It is impractical in pretty much every way. She's in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
Bear in mind most promo material has her using a Sniper Rifle (so no possibility of boob distraction) and that the game is set in Afghanistan. She'll burn to a frisp in the day before freezing to death at night.
Frankly a bit disappointing considering how well designed The Boss was in MGS3. Before her you had Sniper Wolf in MGS1 who admittedly had her jumpsuit partially unzipped but at least she had a jumpsuit to unzip. Then there was Olga in MGS2 who...well, nothing wrong with her outfit at all actually.
Spoiler:
Olga didn't even have a sexualised cyber-ninja suit
I clicked on the link in your signature, well played sir, well played *slow clap*
And thus the bait is taken
However yes, you can have characters in "sexy" outfits if it actually makes sense for them to be in that outfit.
Yeah I mean, I've said before I don't draw much issue with skimpy out fits or fan service. Dare I say, I enjoy both these things. My issue is that more often than not, a female character is subjected to serving little purpose beyond skimpy outfits and fan service. If I want to get excited from women I don't know there's porn (or you know, I can go out on a date or something).
Wasting my time with triviality is annoying. I dare to say I'm a connoisseur of story telling. I have seen this crap so many times, and so many opportunities for good characters wasted, it grew old many years ago.
There is no reason an assassin would ever dress as she does. It is impractical in pretty much every way. She's in the spoiler:
And yeah, this is kind of what I'm talking about. She's basically wearing a bra, a thong, and some pantyhose. Ignore for a moment that she's an assassin. Who the feth wears a bra, thong, and pantyhose, and nothing else? I
And yes, Boss was a great character with a great visual design.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, no. Most manga/anime I have heard about included violence.
Include? Yes. But it's not celebrated to quite the same degree as it is here. That is my personal observation - maybe you've just been exposed to different stuff.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I do not get bombarded with violence on the streets. Actually, there are much, much more big ads posters banking on sex to sell than on violence.
As I said, "we" are very big on teasing, whilst at the same time being very hypocritical when it comes to "actual" nudity. I have never seen a panties-dispenser here, though, or the same level of cartoon nudity that seems to be considered perfectly acceptable over there. What I have seen are numerous posters for games and movies that focus on portraying violence far more casually than Japanese media do - although there's certainly lots of stuff that uses it for "artistic shock value", it doesn't quite delve into the "popcorn cinema" violence I am used to from western media.
It's an interesting dichotomy, come to think of it. Almost as if violence over there is used more sparingly, but in greater extremes, whereas here it is firmly embedded in entertainment culture but spread out more evenly.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Games about killing people. In both case.
Though "about killing people" by itself would not have been a very good qualifier, anyways. I'd say there is a notable difference between a virtual person just falling down, or you blowing their head up in a rather graphic manner. When the latter is done with the intention to appeal to the target demographic, and said demographic considers it "cool" and "awesome", then that says something about those people.
And as for the gun argument, obviously it's difficult to find similar things in Europe due to stricter regulation and a more sensible approach to prevention, yet I know for a fact that the amount of knife-carriers at my old high school rose dramatically over the past decade. Needless to say, media exposure is not the only factor to blame - but I would say said a culture's media at the very least serve as an indicator, if not an amplifier of those tendencies. I'm not sure how much you follow international news, but maybe you've heard about how the German states are currently debating to send bills to soccer game organisers because they've had to send more and more troops to keep order because the associated riots have been getting progressively worse? And this escalation is happening across the country. Nowadays there's an actual "violence tourism" where certain types of people travel to demonstrations with the specific intent to start a fight with the cops and "have some fun". This is something that has been discussed in the interior ministry of the EU. I've never really heard of anything remotely similar from Japan.
Lynata wrote: But it's not celebrated to quite the same degree as it is here.
Well, shonen are usually all about the main character beating the gak out of anything that stands between him and his goal. Seinen are seinen because they are too violent, dark and edgy to be shonen.
Lynata wrote: As I said, "we" are very big on teasing, whilst at the same time being very hypocritical when it comes to "actual" nudity.
And I mentioned both non-sexual nudity in children's movie, and very sexual nudity on one of the most successful TV-show. What kind of nudity would satisfy you, again? Close-ups on genitals? We do not have panties-dispenser here, but we do have sex shops, you know. They sell stuff for sex.
Lynata wrote: What I have seen are numerous posters for games and movies that focus on portraying violence far more casually than Japanese media do - although there's certainly lots of stuff that uses it for "artistic shock value", it doesn't quite delve into the "popcorn cinema" violence I am used to from western media.
It's an interesting dichotomy, come to think of it. Almost as if violence over there is used more sparingly, but in greater extremes, whereas here it is firmly embedded in entertainment culture but spread out more evenly.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Games about killing people. In both case.
Pokemon, and apparently the first game, is all about forcing captive, tamed animals to fight for the enjoyment of their owners. How casual is this violence, to you?
Lynata wrote: And as for the gun argument, obviously it's difficult to find similar things in Europe due to stricter regulation and a more sensible approach to prevention, yet I know for a fact that the amount of knife-carriers at my old high school rose dramatically over the past decade.
I do not think I would have been even allowed to come with a knife in my high school. Actually, I think if a cop mistook my switchcomb for a switchblade, that could get me in trouble, I think. My swiss army knife is okay, but it would make a terrible weapon, because it was not designed for that. It was design to include a bottle opener and a screwdriver.
Lynata wrote: I'm not sure how much you follow international news, but maybe you've heard about how the German states are currently debating to send bills to soccer game organisers because they've had to send more and more troops to keep order because the associated riots have been getting progressively worse?
Hooligans is nothing new, but really, I am sure Japan has some equivalent.
I was playing some Mortal Kombat 9 earlier, and I thought.
Why are there no decently nice-looking female characters?
I mean, I really like Scorpion, Raiden and especially Sub-Zero (Sub-Zero <3) but a few women would be nice for variation.
Thing is, all women in that game either have huge breasts, fight in a bikini (sometimes less) or wear high heels in combat, sometimes all of them.
While it's fair if some prefer that, I would prefer something different. Something akin to a female Cyber Sub-Zero.
Why doesn't this exist?
Compare so you see what I mean.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
To be fair, Mortal Kombat is basically a B-style Asiaploitation fight game, and outfits in fighting games are generally not that sensible. For the spectacle and all that nonsense. That said...what is with Sonya's top? I just don't get it
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To be fair, Mortal Kombat is basically a B-style Asiaploitation fight game, and outfits in fighting games are generally not that sensible. For the spectacle and all that nonsense.
Well, there trading sensible for kick-ass, and there is trading sensible for sexy. I mean, if Raiden was designed the same way, he would look like this (a bit NSFW, I guess, just like the other pics):
CthuluIsSpy wrote: To be fair, Mortal Kombat is basically a B-style Asiaploitation fight game, and outfits in fighting games are generally not that sensible. For the spectacle and all that nonsense.
Well, there trading sensible for kick-ass, and there is trading sensible for sexy. I mean, if Raiden was designed the same way, he would look like this (a bit NSFW, I guess, just like the other pics):
Spoiler:
Except he wouldn't, because it doesn't follow any internal logic nor context (and yes, B-material still follows it's own sort of logic. Try replacing the deadites with clowns in Evil Dead. It just wouldn't work.) The ninja girls are clearly designed after pop-culture's view of kunoichi. Them being sexy is reasonable within the context of the source material, that is, B-style exploitation. Raiden is meant to be a pseudo-asian thunder god. He is not a sex god. You cannot just go "but X would look silly if they did Y!" It doesn't work like that. You might as well paint an elephant pink and claim how silly it looks, and how therefore how silly roses are because they are pink.
My problem with Sonya is that her top does appear to follow any internal logic nor context. I mean, what is it even meant to be. It does not compute.
Also, are you implying that kick-ass cannot be sexy? I do believe that one could trade in sensible for kick-ass AND sexy.
Sigvatr wrote: MK is a bad example. It blatantly caters to men in each and every regard because female MK players are more of a myth than the Holy Grail.
There's that too. Hence the B-style internal logic, gratuitous physics-defying violence and character design, and an setting that would give a super computer a hernia just by thinking about it.
Game of Thrones gets some of its attention here because of its nudity and "sexposition" (story exposition during sex scenes) and is not truly representative of most American media. Heck, it's on a premium cable network. Sexual scenes are very censored on our basic television, while we allow a lot more violence. We are much more excepting of fantasy violence than sex here.
Football is very violent. We love the game and a good part of it is about the massive hits. People run full speed to put someone down and hurt them. We eat it up. Right now we have a major lawsuit going on about the possibility of permanent brain damage from playing.
But back on topic, the last few MK games have getting weirder with their women fighter designs. They were looking more and more like clones with ridiculous implants. MK X is looking better, but they had no where to go but up. Street fighter has done a much better with creating a variety of female body types.
I always wondered if the excessive fan service of DOA affected it being considered a "respectable" fighting game. It has been awhile since it was a major part of EVO, right? I played DOA 2, and the system was fun. But man, it could be embarrassing.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Raiden is meant to be a pseudo-asian thunder god. He is not a sex god.
While almost every goddess ever is going to be sexy, goddess of sex or not goddess of sex. This is the annoying double-standard. Whether or not it comes from another genre's double standard does not change the fact it is an annoying double standard. And even in B-movies, you can find action girls that are not nearly as sexualized as those examples from MK that were posted. Like this. And this is a goddamn movie about women in prison, with about every named character being a woman. I mean, even the female ninja from Alien versus Ninja looks extremely tame compared to those pictures . Actually, remove the high heels, and I think she is basically what Asiraya was looking for…
Sigvatr wrote: MK is a bad example. It blatantly caters to men in each and every regard because female MK players are more of a myth than the Holy Grail.
How can you say there are a myth when you figuratively have one just in front of you? That… does not make any sense!
I specified Evil Dead. Not just any B-Movie. But since you want to go that rout, let's try replacing the Killer Clowns with kittens.
Are those action girls you speak of kunoichi? Or more specifically, the typical pop-culture perception of a kunoichi? Look them up on google. They tend to be quite...extravagant.
AdeptSister wrote: Game of Thrones gets some of its attention here because of its nudity and "sexposition" (story exposition during sex scenes) and is not truly representative of most American media.
Okay, let me put it another way. What are all those Japanese movies or series with ton of nudity that are on basic television and are representative of most Japanese media?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Are those action girls you speak of kunoichi? Or more specifically, the typical pop-culture perception of a kunoichi?
I wrote “I mean, even the female ninja from Alien versus Ninja looks extremely tame compared to those pictures . Actually, remove the high heels, and I think she is basically what Asiraya was looking for…” … I guess that means yes, some of them are kunoichi, because as far as I can tell, kunoichi is just a more esoteric way to say female ninja.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Are those action girls you speak of kunoichi? Or more specifically, the typical pop-culture perception of a kunoichi?
I wrote “I mean, even the female ninja from Alien versus Ninja looks extremely tame compared to those pictures . Actually, remove the high heels, and I think she is basically what Asiraya was looking for…” … I guess that means yes, some of them are kunoichi, because as far as I can tell, kunoichi is just a more esoteric way to say female ninja.
True. However, when you type kunoichi into google, you do not get tame. You get quite the opposite. In fact, some of the girls in DoA are meant to be kunoichi.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: But since you want to go that rout, let's try replacing the Killer Clowns with kittens.
I think you are looking for this. Stop fighting. Anything goes for B-movies. Anything. It is like Rule 34, only with B-movies .
But then it wouldn't be Killer Clowns from Outer Space, wouldn't it? Yes, everything goes in a B-movie. That's what makes it fun. But even they have their own sort of logic to follow. Otherwise it stops being fun and just goes into what-the-feth-is-this-gak territory.
Okay. Then I guess I see it now. MK cannot have female character that dress like this ninja from Alien versus Ninja because its own internal logic is that every female character ever should be showing as much skin as possible. Change the internal logic, then.
Lynata wrote: Include? Yes. But it's not celebrated to quite the same degree as it is here. That is my personal observation - maybe you've just been exposed to different stuff.
The distinction that needs to be drawn is less about the presence of violence and more about how the violence comes about.
In a lot of US productions, it goes like this; Hero meets bad guy -> Hero decides bad guy is a douche -> Hero beats up bad guy to save the day
In Anime/Manga this does happen, but more often it goes like this; Hero meets friend -> Bad guy attacks hero and friend -> Hero tries to reason with bad guy -> Bad guy is a douche about it -> Hero and friend beat up bad guy
In US media, battles and violence are often forgone conclusions from the get go, with the characters largely being perfectly okay with violence. In Manga though you often have characters who attempt to reason, don't like fighting (but are really good at it anyway), or who like fighting but don't generally fight if they can avoid it. The big point is that Japanese fiction contains lots of underlying pontifications about the value of violence. (Bolded because it is really important )
Take Naruto as an example. The series started off as a general action series very much like one you might find in the US (hence why it has consistently been the #1 manga/anime in America since it's release), but over time the series evolved to spend rather copious amounts of time focusing on the negative effects of violence, how it only leads to more violence, and the struggle of key characters as they search for an answer to find peace and it's not necessarily about killing the bad guy (many of Naruto's villains are not killed directly by the heroes). EDIT: American media tends to present violence as a physical confrontation, while many Japanese series' treat it as a spiritual/emotional confrontation.
I.E. Yes. Manga/Anime often contains lots of violence, more than you'd find in many Western series, but Manga/Anime rarely trivialize or celebrate that violence in the same way American media does.
And really, while you find lots of sexual content in their media, I'm not even sure it's what I'd call 'sex obsessed.' Often sex content is treated in one of two ways; very seriously (Suzuka, which was very serious and mature about its sexual content and the consequences of teen sex) or in a mocking fashion (Ichigo 100% and most Harem mangas/animes). At times, it can feel extremely perverted, and at others it feels almost like they don't even think much about sex, at least not like we do. Our culture almost forces us to treat sex very seriously as very serious business, but at times I get the sense that at least the idea of sex isn't as big a deal in Japan as it is for us. The act I'm sure is still very serious to them, but the idea seems one they're far more comfortable with or grounded in.
That said...what is with Sonya's top? I just don't get it
I know right? I mean yeah it draws your eyes to the luscious melons, but only because you're trying to figure out wtf she's wearing XD
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay. Then I guess I see it now. MK cannot have female character that dress like this ninja from Alien versus Ninja because its own internal logic is that every female character ever should be showing as much skin as possible. Change the internal logic, then.
The problem there is that it's an established series with an established theme. The Ott nature and character designs is what makes MK MK. I suppose it is possible to revert to some of the earlier character designs though. No breach of internal logic and consistency there.
Well lets be clear here. The characters MK is known for, and the ones who have defined the franchise, are all men. Luke Cage, Raiden, Sub Zero, Scorpion. I don't play MK and these names I know.
The women? I know Sonya, but only because her name was brought up in this thread. Their entire characters could be completely redesigned, and so what? They aren't the characters the franchise is known for. Ultimately, any whining about a change in how they are presented would just be spilled milk.
Now, DOA is the series that would have the real problem as DOA is the opposite. Kasumi, Ayane, Tina. The women are the characters everyone knows from DOA and a major par of DOA for better or worse is the jiggly bits of those women. That's the franchise with the real image problem
CthuluIsSpy wrote: The problem there is that it's an established series with an established theme.
The new Sonya top shows clearly that they are moving toward more stupid-sexy, not less. They could introduce new characters or evolve the present characters in a different way, they choose not to.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:And I mentioned both non-sexual nudity in children's movie, and very sexual nudity on one of the most successful TV-show.
An old children's movie. The GDR had no problem with non-sexual nudity in art as well (there was a rather popular live-action children's movie that included what would nowadays be called paedophilia just because the actors were 16 years old), but times have changed - as I said I suspect due to influence from the US entertainment industry, which you cannot easily dismiss. Nowadays, who would dare to do some of the stuff that Monty Python did decades ago? Hell, they had full frontal nudity in Life of Brian. If you do that today it automatically gets an R-rating, and commonly uses it for shock value, whereas with violence it's the opposite development (they used to ban games like Wolfenstein, nowadays you'd get laughed out of the rating agency if you proposed that).
That is a change in culture. And whereas we arguably became more focused on violence, I'd say Japan becomes/became more focused on sex.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Pokemon, and apparently the first game, is all about forcing captive, tamed animals to fight for the enjoyment of their owners. How casual is this violence, to you?
I thought we were talking about the casual representation of extreme violence.
You know, blood splatter, blowing people's heads off.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I do not think I would have been even allowed to come with a knife in my high school.
It used to be the same in Germany. Used to.
I think it's still against the rules, but rules =/= reality, and we live in an age where the teachers are afraid of their own students - in part because gakky parents will raise a fuss if the teachers actually try to enforce something, leading to a climate of "live and let live" where even troublesome kids are left alone on the basis of them not wanting to get educated, and it being too problematic to try and get to them. It's cumulative effects like these that change the fabric of future society.
LordofHats wrote:That's the franchise with the real image problem
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Are those action girls you speak of kunoichi? Or more specifically, the typical pop-culture perception of a kunoichi?
I wrote
“I mean, even the female ninja from Alien versus Ninja looks extremely tame compared to those pictures . Actually, remove the high heels, and I think she is basically what Asiraya was looking for…”
…
I guess that means yes, some of them are kunoichi, because as far as I can tell, kunoichi is just a more esoteric way to say female ninja.
True. However, when you type kunoichi into google, you do not get tame. You get quite the opposite.
In fact, some of the girls in DoA are meant to be kunoichi.
I went ahead and typed it into Google. It's not like you said. Sure you get some designs that are more sexual they the should be, but you also get a fair number of designs that are practically practical. You don't get anything as bad as MK. In fact you don't see MK. Are you sure they are meant to be a kunoichi?
Look under video games, do a search for Mortal Kombat. Kitana, Mileena and Jade are on the list. They are definitely kunoichi (or female ninja). Or at least ninja inspired.
I really think DOA image is really affecting people taking it seriously. The later Soul Calibers had this issue as well. This happens a lot with fighting games. Remember Orchid's finisher from the original KI? *sigh* It stinks when it feel likes you have to apologize for games aesthetics to outsiders.
Its not in all fighting games as well though. I mentioned before, Street Fighter has a variety of female body types and personalities and the sexualization is not as rampant.
Look under video games, do a search for Mortal Kombat.
Kitana, Mileena and Jade are on the list. They are definitely kunoichi (or female ninja).
Or at least ninja inspired.
Not according to that link either.
Technically, only Scorpion is a ninja. Sub-Zero, Noob Saibot, Cyrax, Sektor, Smoke, and Frost all belong to the Lin Kuei. Jade is Kitana's bodyguard, who is a princess, and Mileena is a clone, both of whom would likely be trained in some form of self defense. Rain, also royalty, is also likely trained in self defense and Reptile is another bodyguard. Ermac might count just from the sheer amount of souls he is made with, probability might dictate one of them was a ninja in life. Chameleon may too, I don't know his backstory well, but Khameleon is just a warrior as well. Most of them are made fairly moot anyways, as only Scorpion and the Lin Kuei are from Earthrealm anyways.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Kitana appears to be pretty well integrated into the franchise as well.
Yeah, and Sagat appeared in the first Street Fighter and every subsequent one, and is frequent in cross media productions, but is no where near as identifiable in the franchise as Chun Li (who didn't appear until Street Fighter 2), or even Zangief. Hell I've seen more references to E Honda than I have to Sagat. Characters who define a franchise define it not just because they're popular in that franchise but because they become popular in a larger culture (hence, the regular Hadoken references in thing not about Street Fighter).
The characters Mortal Kombat is best known for are far and away Scorpion, Sub-Zero, and Raiden. Just because Kitana appears in other stuff concerning the franchise and every game doesn't make her as iconic as the characters the series is actually known for.
Look under video games, do a search for Mortal Kombat. Kitana, Mileena and Jade are on the list. They are definitely kunoichi (or female ninja). Or at least ninja inspired.
Not according to that link either.
Technically, only Scorpion is a ninja. Sub-Zero, Noob Saibot, Cyrax, Sektor, Smoke, and Frost all belong to the Lin Kuei. Jade is Kitana's bodyguard, who is a princess, and Mileena is a clone, both of whom would likely be trained in some form of self defense. Rain, also royalty, is also likely trained in self defense and Reptile is another bodyguard. Ermac might count just from the sheer amount of souls he is made with, probability might dictate one of them was a ninja in life. Chameleon may too, I don't know his backstory well, but Khameleon is just a warrior as well. Most of them are made fairly moot anyways, as only Scorpion and the Lin Kuei are from Earthrealm anyways.
Ninja inspired was the key phrase. Note that they had to go into technicalities.
Look under video games, do a search for Mortal Kombat.
Kitana, Mileena and Jade are on the list. They are definitely kunoichi (or female ninja).
Or at least ninja inspired.
Not according to that link either.
Technically, only Scorpion is a ninja. Sub-Zero, Noob Saibot, Cyrax, Sektor, Smoke, and Frost all belong to the Lin Kuei. Jade is Kitana's bodyguard, who is a princess, and Mileena is a clone, both of whom would likely be trained in some form of self defense. Rain, also royalty, is also likely trained in self defense and Reptile is another bodyguard. Ermac might count just from the sheer amount of souls he is made with, probability might dictate one of them was a ninja in life. Chameleon may too, I don't know his backstory well, but Khameleon is just a warrior as well. Most of them are made fairly moot anyways, as only Scorpion and the Lin Kuei are from Earthrealm anyways.
Ninja inspired was the key phrase.
Note that they had to go into technicalities.
You know, still no. Nothing about Kitana, Mileena or Jade looks ninja inspired. If anything I think they are more inspired by harem and slave girl costumes. At least the way they are designed now that is. Looking at some of the concept art shows they could have been done a lot differently.
If anything I'd say Mortal Combat as a general problem with creating memorable characters, both visually and otherwise. I'm looking through the character list now and I'm just like "who did the design work for this series? They need to be fired."
More than other games, fighting games rely heavily on visceral and fluid visual design, because how the characters look and move is a big deal in a game where that's almost everything you see.
Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, and Dead or Alive are filled with characters with cool designs and memorable styles with a littering of variety between the characters. Hell we haven't seen a Dark Stalkers game since 1997 and people still know who Morrigan and Felicia are. I look through these Mortal Kombat characters and I can't help but feel that they just keep cloning the same four or five over and over again creating a largely homogenous bunch of weirdos
Last one was released in 2012. How is movie released in 2012 old? What happened in those two years that it is not relevant anymore?
The change on violent video games are just about how video games a perceived as a medium. There was such a change for movies, but it happened way before. Just what happens when a new medium develop.
Lynata wrote: I thought we were talking about the casual representation of extreme violence.
You know, blood splatter, blowing people's heads off.
Well, I may have mistook you when you said you were not speaking about extreme examples but about more casual violence. I have plenty of examples of extreme violence from Japan.
I am pretty sure it is still the case in my middle and high school. Of course, some neighborhood are different, but this has pretty much always be the case, no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: Its not in all fighting games as well though. I mentioned before, Street Fighter has a variety of female body types and personalities and the sexualization is not as rampant.
The first Soul Calibur too. Remember that awesome alternate outfit for Ivy? Should have been the default, instead of never showing up again.
LordofHats wrote: Hell we haven't seen a Dark Stalkers game since 1997 and people still know who Morrigan and Felicia are.
I have no idea what this game is or what those characters are .
I have no idea what this game is or what those characters are .
We forgive you your trespasses
Morrigan;
Spoiler:
Is the more famous of the two (She has appeared in pretty much every Capcom cross over fighting game). Heavily featured in the initial Capcom vs Marvel 3 trailer where she fought Iron Man.
Not to mention being a massive debate over objectification/empowerment in her own right.
I have no idea what this game is or what those characters are .
We forgive you your trespasses
Morrigan;
Spoiler:
Is the more famous of the two (She has appeared in pretty much every Capcom cross over fighting game). Heavily featured in the initial Capcom vs Marvel 3 trailer where she fought Iron Man.
Not to mention being a massive debate over objectification/empowerment in her own right.
Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
I mean she is a demon a succubus by the looks of it.
I Would assume she is like that on purpose.
Also team ninja is abosolutely notorious for the breast physics. And its really funny I think they have female coworkers, and they still don't understand how breasts work XD.
According to the Darkstalkers wiki, there's a fun fact about succubi:
Their blood and saliva has a powerful lustful effect. A human would instantly die the moment they come in contact with it. Their body odor causes their blood vessels to dilate and causes a large amount of perspiration. If a man is confronted by a succubus, unless they have a very strong mind, they would instantly be under her spell.
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She looks very much vampire to me, with all the bat stuff. Sexy vampire are so original . And no, it does not, not until we get lots of incubus/sexy male demons…
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She's some kind of succubus vampire thing. The debate is grounded in the larger sex war in feminism (sex positive feminism vs sex negative feminism). Depending on where you fall, Morrigan can be seen as an early predecessor to Bayonetta, a character wearing her sexuality on her sleeve and who is more intimidating/powerful, not less so, because of it. Alternatively we all know why her designers dressed her in that leotard
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She looks very much vampire to me, with all the bat stuff. Sexy vampire are so original . And no, it does not, not until we get lots of incubus/sexy male demons…
And thus in lays another problem. While other members of Morrigan's species are in the lore of Dark Stalkers, namely her father, none of them appear as playable characters until Lilith, and Lilith is just 1/3 of Morrigan's natural born power separated into another person that fuses back into her sister at the end of the story And Lilith is just as skimpy as Morrigan.
It doesn't help that Dark Stalkers was alive with greatly designed characters but only two women appear in the first game of the series. Morrigan and Felicia;
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She's some kind of succubus vampire thing. The debate is grounded in the larger sex war in feminism (sex positive feminism vs sex negative feminism). Depending on where you fall, Morrigan can be seen as an early predecessor to Bayonetta, a character wearing her sexuality on her sleeve and who is more intimidating/powerful, not less so, because of it. Alternatively we all know why her designers dressed her in that leotard
You could also find problems with the idea that in order to be sexy you have to be evil. You know a literal demonizing of sexy women. Though demon doesn't really seem to hold the old position of everything bad and evil. Now I find demons are played as more complex charters. You don't find as many objectively evil demons these days.
LordofHats wrote: The debate is grounded in the larger sex war in feminism (sex positive feminism vs sex negative feminism).
Problem ain't about sex, problem is about double standard.
How would you classify the many people that call for less sexualized female characters and more sexualized male character with your duality?
LordofHats wrote: And thus in lays another problem. While other members of Morrigan's species are in the lore of Dark Stalkers, namely her father, none of them appear as playable characters until Lilith, and Lilith is just 1/3 of Morrigan's natural born power separated into another person that fuses back into her sister at the end of the story And Lilith is just as skimpy as Morrigan.
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She's some kind of succubus vampire thing. The debate is grounded in the larger sex war in feminism (sex positive feminism vs sex negative feminism). Depending on where you fall, Morrigan can be seen as an early predecessor to Bayonetta, a character wearing her sexuality on her sleeve and who is more intimidating/powerful, not less so, because of it. Alternatively we all know why her designers dressed her in that leotard
You could also find problems with the idea that in order to be sexy you have to be evil. You know a literal demonizing of sexy women. Though demon doesn't really seem to hold the old position of everything bad and evil. Now I find demons are played as more complex charters. You don't find as many objectively evil demons these days.
Actually, Morrigan isn't evil. She's portrayed as being quite pleasant, really, in an anti-hero demon sort of way. Well, barring the whole deadly bodily fluids thing.
nomotog wrote: You could also find problems with the idea that in order to be sexy you have to be evil.
But that's one of the things that helped Morrigan stand out early on. She wasn't evil (despite being a 'demon'). She was rather good natured, playful, and a bit of a prankster but not evil. Her story kicks off because she's a rebellious princess who is 300 years old and bored out of her mind in her father's stingy castle XD Hell she's opposite of evil demon woman and the typical video game princess at the same time.
Now the 'demon women are sexy' is a common stereotype in line with Evil is Sexy, but Morrigan kind of turns that idea on its head. Though she now defines Dark Stalkers, only the profile of her face is featured on the original box art when the first game released (Felicia was more featured than Morrigan in early promotional material). Morrigan broke out as hugely popular, to the point that she is the sole member of her franchise to appear in every crossover fighting game (Felicia was not in Capcom vs SNK 2).
And Cthulu beat me to it.
Problem ain't about sex, problem is about double standard.
I'm not saying it is. This is a debate in feminism itself about sex and the female form and what direction women should go in with respect to achieving equality. A sex positive feminist would say there's nothing wrong with displaying the female form vicariously, and would likely have a much stricter idea of objectification. In this way characters like Morrigan and Bayonetta, who are openly sexual and portrayed in a positive manner, aren't negative depictions of women.
LordofHats wrote: This is a debate in feminism itself about sex and the female form and what direction women should go in with respect to achieving equality.
You only get equality when you treat men and women the same. If one is always sexualized and the other is never, it is not equality. As for whether the aim should be everything sexualized forever and nothing sexualized ever, I am pretty sure the right way is in between those examples. Anyway, thinking the problem in terms of one or two character taken in a vacuum does not work. The problem is in the bigger picture.
You only get equality when you treat men and women the same. If one is always sexualized and the other is never, it is not equality
It's easy to say that, but what does equality look like? We still have huge debates over how society is biased. We can't just shout 'equality' and bam, see exactly what equality will be like. We first have to define the nature of inequality, and then there's the issue of how to even reach equality at all.
Equality isn't as simple as treating everyone equally on a personal level. You have to see it as a societal struggle, and it's just not that easy.
The problem is in the bigger picture.
I am talking about the bigger picture. Morrigan and Bayonetta stand out in it for several reasons, as do characters like Samus, Cortanna, Zelda, Peach, and others. There's a reason these characters are continually brought up, and its because they can be taken as representations of a whole picture.
Asherian Command wrote: Isn't she a demon though? Doesn't that sort of... Defeat the objectification debate?
She's some kind of succubus vampire thing. The debate is grounded in the larger sex war in feminism (sex positive feminism vs sex negative feminism). Depending on where you fall, Morrigan can be seen as an early predecessor to Bayonetta, a character wearing her sexuality on her sleeve and who is more intimidating/powerful, not less so, because of it. Alternatively we all know why her designers dressed her in that leotard
You could also find problems with the idea that in order to be sexy you have to be evil. You know a literal demonizing of sexy women. Though demon doesn't really seem to hold the old position of everything bad and evil. Now I find demons are played as more complex charters. You don't find as many objectively evil demons these days.
Actually, Morrigan isn't evil. She's portrayed as being quite pleasant, really, in an anti-hero demon sort of way.
Well, barring the whole deadly bodily fluids thing.
nomotog wrote: You could also find problems with the idea that in order to be sexy you have to be evil.
But that's one of the things that helped Morrigan stand out early on. She wasn't evil (despite being a 'demon'). She was rather good natured, playful, and a bit of a prankster but not evil. Her story kicks off because she's a rebellious princess who is 300 years old and bored out of her mind in her father's stingy castle XD Hell she's opposite of evil demon woman and the typical video game princess at the same time.
Now the 'demon women are sexy' is a common stereotype in line with Evil is Sexy, but Morrigan kind of turns that idea on its head. Though she now defines Dark Stalkers, only the profile of her face is featured on the original box art when the first game released (Felicia was more featured than Morrigan in early promotional material). Morrigan broke out as hugely popular, to the point that she is the sole member of her franchise to appear in every crossover fighting game (Felicia was not in Capcom vs SNK 2).
And Cthulu beat me to it.
Problem ain't about sex, problem is about double standard.
I'm not saying it is. This is a debate in feminism itself about sex and the female form and what direction women should go in with respect to achieving equality. A sex positive feminist would say there's nothing wrong with displaying the female form vicariously, and would likely have a much stricter idea of objectification. In this way characters like Morrigan and Bayonetta, who are openly sexual and portrayed in a positive manner, aren't negative depictions of women.
Is it still demonetization when you make it into a good demon? (I did mention in my post how demons are rarely evil these days.) The fluids thing is maybe a little problematic depending on how you look at it, but I have even played with that idea a little. Overall I'd say the character sounds neat. I am actually rather fond of the good demon character trope. (I could be bias because of how much I like it.) It's fun to play with expectations.
Is it still demonetization when you make it into a good demon?
I think the problem is one of confusing context. We are preconceived towards seeing 'demon' as evil/bad/wrong (this is not a disposition the Japanese share per se mind you. 'Demons' to them are more akin to amoral than immoral). Remove that preconception, and the issue kind of vanishes and all you have is a skimpy woman with wings who loves flirting, seeing the world, and having fun. It's like if Paris Hilton traded in her horrible personhood for super powers. It forges as interesting dilemma especially for this kind of discussion.
I am actually rather fond of the good demon character trope
I enjoyed the half-demons in Kelly Armstrong's novels, and they're probably my second favorite kind of supernatural person after Werewolves
Is it still demonetization when you make it into a good demon?
I think the problem is one of confusing context. We are preconceived towards seeing 'demon' as evil/bad/wrong (this is not a disposition the Japanese share per se mind you. 'Demons' to them are more akin to amoral than immoral). Remove that preconception, and the issue kind of vanishes and all you have is a skimpy woman with wings who loves flirting, seeing the world, and having fun. It's like if Paris Hilton traded in her horrible personhood for super powers. It forges as interesting dilemma especially for this kind of discussion.
I am actually rather fond of the good demon character trope
I enjoyed the half-demons in Kelly Armstrong's novels, and they're probably my second favorite kind of supernatural person after Werewolves
I'm saying it is less egregious in a different context.
The sexy demon lady hero rose up as part of the larger "lets make the good guys darker and edgier" craze from the 70's and 80's. As a result however the context of demon itself is changing, even in western society. Like you said, you like expectations being messed with (so do we all) and as a result those who follow us end up with different expectations. It's kind of the underpinning of this entire issue XD
You know, still no. Nothing about Kitana, Mileena or Jade looks ninja inspired. If anything I think they are more inspired by harem and slave girl costumes. At least the way they are designed now that is. Looking at some of the concept art shows they could have been done a lot differently.
Yeah if I think "female ninja" then I think of something similar to Ayame from Tenchu. Black, soft, quiet loose clothing which doesn't hinder movement.
Sigvatr wrote: MK is a bad example. It blatantly caters to men in each and every regard because female MK players are more of a myth than the Holy Grail.
I can now add 'myth' to my titles.
Also, MK might be OTT, but OTT does not inherently mean =< Bikini for women.
Sigvatr wrote: MK is a bad example. It blatantly caters to men in each and every regard because female MK players are more of a myth than the Holy Grail.
I can now add 'myth' to my titles.
Also, MK might be OTT, but OTT does not inherently mean =< Bikini for women.
As opposed to bikinis for men? Though now that I think of it...
Sigvatr wrote: MK is a bad example. It blatantly caters to men in each and every regard because female MK players are more of a myth than the Holy Grail.
I can now add 'myth' to my titles.
Also, MK might be OTT, but OTT does not inherently mean =< Bikini for women.
Well, that puts you at one or two ranks below Godlike, so there's that.
I feel like this video could be used as some kind of Litmus test for how nerdy someone is XD
Also, wtf there's only two Tiffa's? Rizzle? Could have sworn that name was more common (at least more common than Sona XD)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, gonna have to call BS on Pan. Yeah but Pan exists, but what about all the other women in Dragon Ball?
Bulma -> Is relevant for the first story arc of the series and then fades into varying degrees of obscurity and uselessness until it's time to make a time machine/make a baby.
Launch -> Akira Toriyama forgot she existed. Seriously. He just plum forgot she existed.
Chi Chi -> Starts off as a wee little adventurer love interest, becomes a woman scored fighter, then gives up fighting to get married and cater to her layabout husband who has spent more time dead or in fist fights than he has with her.
Videl -> Starts off as a fighter love interest, gets beat up, and decides she'll just give up fighting and settle down.
#18 -> The only woman in this entire series who maintains her bad ass level, but still settles down and has a kid and mostly gives up fighting except when money is involved.
So yeah. Congrats Dragon Ball. It took you all the way to that disgrace that is GT, but you finally put a girl in the main cast of your storyline and didn't have her decay at all or give up fighting to settle down. Took you 12 years and two dozen story arcs to do it
Is it just me, or is this 90% JRPG? And 99% Japanese games in general .
I knew Jill Valentine, Miss Pacman, the two girls from Metal Slug, Lara Croft, Samus, Chun Li, Jade from BG&E, Bayonneta and those female champions from LoL. Why is there Pan from GT there? Why is the character from Portal missing? And what is the point of this video, exactly? Does it address the fact that Ashiraya cannot find a female character that is not hyper-sexualized in MK? No? But certainly there are tons of games where you cannot find a male character that is not hyper sexualized, right? Like, for instance… well, all those games, you know!
LordofHats wrote: I feel like this video could be used as some kind of Litmus test for how nerdy someone is XD
Also, wtf there's only two Tiffa's? Rizzle? Could have sworn that name was more common (at least more common than Sona XD)
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, gonna have to call BS on Pan. Yeah but Pan exists, but what about all the other women in Dragon Ball?
Bulma -> Is relevant for the first story arc of the series and then fades into varying degrees of obscurity and uselessness until it's time to make a time machine/make a baby.
Launch -> Akira Toriyama forgot she existed. Seriously. He just plum forgot she existed.
Chi Chi -> Starts off as a wee little adventurer love interest, becomes a woman scored fighter, then gives up fighting to get married and cater to her layabout husband who has spent more time dead or in fist fights than he has with her.
Videl -> Starts off as a fighter love interest, gets beat up, and decides she'll just give up fighting and settle down.
#18 -> The only woman in this entire series who maintains her bad ass level, but still settles down and has a kid and mostly gives up fighting except when money is involved.
So yeah. Congrats Dragon Ball. It took you all the way to that disgrace that is GT, but you finally put a girl in the main cast of your storyline and didn't have her decay at all or give up fighting to settle down. Took you 12 years and two dozen story arcs to do it
God damn it, now I have to repress that memory all over again.
Thanks Malus. Thanks
But yeah, DBZ is not the gold standard here About as far from it as we can get actually (though in Akira's defense, I think we all forgot about Launch... Cause we just didn't care...) Pretty sure having a woman on screen != role model Collette from Tales of Symphonia being another poster child. She's there, but she ends up in distress more than once and her character much amounts to "plot device + cute love interest"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Last one was released in 2012. How is movie released in 2012 old? What happened in those two years that it is not relevant anymore?
I can only go by the examples you posted, and the video you linked didn't look like animation from 2012. Do you have an example of that same nudity from the most recent one?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, I may have mistook you when you said you were not speaking about extreme examples but about more casual violence. I have plenty of examples of extreme violence from Japan.
I didn't say that; I think you're getting two different points I talked about mixed into a single one.
To recap, my opinion is that western culture has a habit of presenting graphic violence in a rather casual manner, by which I do not mean dialling said violence down but rather making it appear perfectly accepted rather than something to be horrified at. Someone recently talked about a game called Spec Ops The Line, and the very reason it attracted so much attention from the press was because this was a game that stood out by not following this trend, because even though it had a lot of violence, the game actually tried to make you feel bad about it. In the same post I mention how, at least in my opinion, Japanese media tend to utilise violence not just for the sake of violence either, but to help deliver the emotional component.
I find it difficult to find the right words to convey my perception, which is perhaps why we keep talking past each other here, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I perceive the use of violence there as "more artistic", less self-gratifying.
And as I mentioned here, of course there are examples of extreme violence from Japanese games, but the guro stuff is about as publicly accepted as hardcore pornography in the West, which I feel really only adds to my perception of a mirrored focus. And as I've shown with the link here, violent games are quite simply not as popular as they are in the western countries.
Your attempt at making Pokemon sound like a killer simulation is something I am not sure whether it was supposed to be meant serious or not.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I am pretty sure it is still the case in my middle and high school. Of course, some neighborhood are different, but this has pretty much always be the case, no?
Well, at least not in the case of my town.
Of course, part of it is also the economic situation that has been going down the drain ever since Reunification (so-called investors from West Germany using government subsidies to privatise once state-owned industry, then selling its assets piecemeal and making a quick buck), leaving a disillusioned youth with little perspective about their future. When it comes to violence in gaming, the question really just turns into "chicken or the egg" kind of situation. Everything is interlinked and influences one another.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The first Soul Calibur too. Remember that awesome alternate outfit for Ivy? Should have been the default, instead of never showing up again.
I remember having played some installation of Soul Calibur during a Ultima Online server meeting ... I think it was the second game? I remember I really liked Sophitia - but I've recently seen how that character was changed over the course of the sequels. It's sad, really. The original character was already somewhat sexualised, if only for her animations, but her clothing and figure still made perfect sense. Then they had to go and ruin it by giving her melon boobs and cutting her cloth down to a glorified apron.
LordofHats wrote:
Spoiler:
I wanted to link to another comic, but it seems the escapist is currently down due to GamerGaters DDoSing the site. -_-
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Is it just me, or is this 90% JRPG? And 99% Japanese games in general .
I knew Jill Valentine, Miss Pacman, the two girls from Metal Slug, Lara Croft, Samus, Chun Li, Jade from BG&E, Bayonneta and those female champions from LoL. Why is there Pan from GT there? Why is the character from Portal missing? And what is the point of this video, exactly? Does it address the fact that Ashiraya cannot find a female character that is not hyper-sexualized in MK? No? But certainly there are tons of games where you cannot find a male character that is not hyper sexualized, right? Like, for instance… well, all those games, you know!
Japan is actually better in this sense. They simply have more female characters. They tend to be less dressed, but the sheer number means your going to find a lot of neat ones just by odds.
Like I said earlier, while Japan often gets characterized as 'sex obsessed' or perverted, I'm not really sure it's valid to project our social issues with sex and gender onto them. I'm not saying Japan is a beacon of sexual equality, they most certainly are not, but the issues they face seemed take a different tone than ours.
In any given series, you can almost be assured that there will be some strong female characters in it. Ones with their own stories to tell, and who don't completely revolve around the male hero, and this is just series' directed at boys. Revolutionary Girl Utena alone provides massive amounts of debate fodder for its depiction of the female leads (it never hit in the US, but it's on par with NGE as a major cultural influence in Japan). More recently there was Kill la Kill which was... well it was Kill la Kill...
Lynata wrote: I can only go by the examples you posted, and the video you linked didn't look like animation from 2012. Do you have an example of that same nudity from the most recent one?
Bad quality rip from a movie from 1998. Because I wanted something in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-uPKpC4yMw Less boobs in this trailer, but definitely there are some. I have not seen the movie, but I guess it does not have the super-quick cut of the trailer.
Lynata wrote: Your attempt at making Pokemon sound like a killer simulation is something I am not sure whether it was supposed to be meant serious or not.
PETA, I choose you!
*Launch pokeball*
PETA use Pokemon Black and Blue.
It is super effective!
Lynata wrote: I remember having played some installation of Soul Calibur during a Ultima Online server meeting ... I think it was the second game? I remember I really liked Sophitia - but I've recently seen how that character was changed over the course of the sequels. It's sad, really. The original character was already somewhat sexualised, if only for her animations, but her clothing and figure still made perfect sense.
The original character from Soul Calibur 1 on Dreamcast share the huge majority of her moves with my main, Lizardman. So, not so sexualized, actually. Maybe for the pre and post-match animations, I do not remember.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-uPKpC4yMw
Less boobs in this trailer, but definitely there are some. I have not seen the movie, but I guess it does not have the super-quick cut of the trailer.
Thanks, I was able to watch this with a French proxy. And I have to say I'm impressed - I've (sadly) not seen anything like it in Germany or Ireland over the past decade. That being said: Would you really say that this movie series is an example of standard French kids' TV/cinema when it comes to nudity, or is it rather an exception, driven by Ocelot's personal (and laudable) convictions regarding authenticity? According to the internets, the movie faced quite a bit of controversy and criticism, and the director had to fight with his producers over this topic as well, which seems to support my perception of cultural affinities and aversions.
I know very little of French cinema except for Louis de Funès (<3), Asterix, The Fifth Element, Brotherhood of the Wolf and a bit of Wakfu, however, so only you could say for sure.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is super effective!
It would have been more effective as an example if that was actually a game from Japan. An innocent kids' game receiving additional gore and blood in the west kind of supports my theory, even.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The original character from Soul Calibur 1 on Dreamcast share the huge majority of her moves with my main, Lizardman. So, not so sexualized, actually. Maybe for the pre and post-match animations, I do not remember.
Like I said, I think I played the 2nd game - and in one of her attacks she basically jumped into people's faces, the shortness of her skirt making sure that her opponent would be smothered with panties. That qualifies as a fetish!
Lynata wrote: That being said: Would you really say that this movie series is an example of standard French kids' TV/cinema when it comes to nudity, or is it rather an exception, driven by Ocelot's personal (and laudable) convictions regarding authenticity? According to the internets, the movie faced quite a bit of controversy and criticism, and the director had to fight with his producers over this topic as well, which seems to support my perception of cultural affinities and aversions.
It is certainly not standard French kids TV to have nudity. But how is this surprising? Most of it happens in an environment where nudity would not make sense.
Lynata wrote: I know very little of French cinema except for Louis de Funès (<3), Asterix, The Fifth Element, Brotherhood of the Wolf and a bit of Wakfu, however, so only you could say for sure.
The Fifth Element is French? I thought it was from the U.S. Anyhow, look for Dobermann (if you do not mind violence) and Rubber, Wrong and Wrong Cops from Quentin Dupieux. And possibly Martyr too.
Lynata wrote: It would have been more effective as an example if that was actually a game from Japan. An innocent kids' game receiving additional gore and blood in the west kind of supports my theory, even.
Have you just looked at the graphics, or have you looked at the text too ?
Lynata wrote: Like I said, I think I played the 2nd game - and in one of her attacks she basically jumped into people's faces, the shortness of her skirt making sure that her opponent would be smothered with panties. That qualifies as a fetish!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:It is certainly not standard French kids TV to have nudity. But how is this surprising? Most of it happens in an environment where nudity would not make sense.
Oh, I dunno - I suppose mainly dressing rooms, possibly swimming ... stuff like that.
All the places we get to see non-sexual / casual nudity in Japanese anime.
Lynata wrote:The Fifth Element is French? I thought it was from the U.S.
I had to re-check to make sure, but ... yup, at least according to wikipedia and the IMDB.
It certainly looks hollywood'esque, which really speaks a lot for the quality French cinema can reach when it wants to. German cinema seems to have a much harder time with this, though every once in a while something worthwhile like Lexx gets produced anyways. Very rare, tho, and often just in collaboration with other countries.
Thanks for those recommendations, I'll take a look at what they're about and may check them out if the themes are interesting.
Oh! Just recalled two other French movies I liked. Wasabi (Jean Renault ftw) and Taxi Taxi.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Have you just looked at the graphics, or have you looked at the text too ?
I've seen where it's hosted - the context of the game did not elude me, I'm just not sure why you posted it.
Sort of - it's the same kind of jump, but I'm 99% sure it was not a finisher as I recall my opponent complaining I'd use it too often (it really was the easiest move to win with) ... It's been more than a decade, though, and I cannot entirely dismiss the possibility of my memory just mixing things up.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Also THAT IVY COSTUME!
Lynata wrote: Oh, I dunno - I suppose mainly dressing rooms, possibly swimming ... stuff like that.
I do not watch enough kids movie to know what happens when they show a dressing room or a swimming pool, sorry.
Lynata wrote: It certainly looks hollywood'esque, which really speaks a lot for the quality French cinema can reach when it wants to.
Hollywood is quality ? Not sure I agree.
Anyhow, I thought of another movie that you certainly might want to take a look at: Chicken with Plums. Very poetic, and you will get to see a portrayal of Iran very different from what you will see anywhere else, including if going to Iran since the country really changed a lot since that time .
Lynata wrote: I've seen where it's hosted - the context of the game did not elude me, I'm just not sure why you posted it.
I think it makes a great work at showing how any real-life equivalent of pokemon would be a blood sport and would be banned as it would be considered cruelty toward animals. I mean, you are forcing them to fight until all the pokemon from one trainer faint. For fun and profit. Fun and profit of the trainer only. Once you think about it, even if there is no graphical violence, the core idea is pretty disturbing.
Lynata wrote: Sort of - it's the same kind of jump, but I'm 99% sure it was not a finisher as I recall my opponent complaining I'd use it too often (it really was the easiest move to win with) ...
There are no finisher in Soul Calibur. There is one move where Astaroth literally sink his giant axe so deep into your character's head that when he lift the axe, your character comes with it, and he use that to throw you away. And then you character can just stand up and fight again, it does not even remove that much life!
(It is a very rare move because it is a hold that works only on a lying character, but it is the move that really cries “Nobody should be able to survive that” the most.)
Are you thinking of the somersault/back somersault attack? That one is shared with Lizardman, and used much more often.
I definitely remember the Sophitia face jump from SC1. While not as bad as some, SC1 ( My favorite fighting game of all time) did have little things like that. And Taki seemed to be always cold...
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Hollywood is quality ? Not sure I agree.
At least in terms of fancy visuals, yeah, I think it still is. Hollywood's issue nowadays is more of a problem with bad story/narration and cliché characters, but this is something that any country should be able to resolve and a matter of the people involved, so not that special. To actually make something look good, however, you need tons of cash!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:I think it makes a great work at showing how any real-life equivalent of pokemon would be a blood sport and would be banned as it would be considered cruelty toward animals. I mean, you are forcing them to fight until all the pokemon from one trainer faint. For fun and profit. Fun and profit of the trainer only. Once you think about it, even if there is no graphical violence, the core idea is pretty disturbing.
You can apply that kind of disturbing context to just about anything, though. Maybe the children's story of Red Riding Hood is actually an erotic gore novel about bestiality, cannibalism, and dependence on the male gender.
The actual representation should not be discarded. Hidden meanings may exist in any product, but needless to say, one can take it too far.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:There are no finisher in Soul Calibur.
Oh, on the video you posted it looked like it, but I suppose it was just coincidence as the opponent's health bar was already so low.
I guess that is the move, then.
Lynata wrote: At least in terms of fancy visuals, yeah, I think it still is.
Oh, on that front, it is quite possible. But Hollywood is getting way too formulaic (is this the right English word?) for my tastes. It lacks a touch of crazy, or at least originality.
Korean movies also have enough cash to make movie with fancy visuals, even those that require tons of special effects, like that one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKZ55OiHl9w And damn those Korean can do nice movies. Usually pretty hard, but nice nonetheless.
Lynata wrote: You can apply that kind of disturbing context to just about anything, though. Maybe the children's story of Red Riding Hood is actually an erotic gore novel about bestiality, cannibalism, and dependence on the male gender.
You would have to change the story of RRH to include sex. Or reference to the gender of the wolf, for that matter. For pokemon, it is not about changing anything to the setting. It is just about considering the disturbing aspect that are not evoked in the slightest in the game, but that we could not avoid to consider if it was a real world rather than fiction.
Lynata wrote: The actual representation should not be discarded. Hidden meanings may exist in any product, but needless to say, one can take it too far.
The actual representation of pokemon have pokemon fighting each other because their trainer told them to. The actual representation has them fight until they faint or you win the match. There is nothing hidden. It is right there in the game.
The *actual* representation involves young children and adults using trained beasts that breathe fire and shoot lethal electric bolts in order to make their opponent faint and, consequently, rob his pocket money.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Oh, on that front, it is quite possible. But Hollywood is getting way too formulaic (is this the right English word?) for my tastes. It lacks a touch of crazy, or at least originality.
Absolutely.
There is still good "popcorn cinema" such as the various superhero movies that get churned out bi-yearly now, but I can't recall the last time I've really seen something thought-provoking or sociocritical, at least in regards to mainstream. There are still exceptions from this rule, however. Plus, nowadays we have easier access to foreign cinema, even just when using Netflix.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:And damn those Korean can do nice movies. Usually pretty hard, but nice nonetheless.
Agreed.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:You would have to change the story of RRH to include sex. Or reference to the gender of the wolf, for that matter.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:The actual representation of pokemon have pokemon fighting each other because their trainer told them to. The actual representation has them fight until they faint or you win the match. There is nothing hidden. It is right there in the game.
Said representation also includes an absence of blood, death and lasting injury (which your link obviously disregarded), as well as a symbiotic relationship between an intelligent pet and their trainer that made it obvious that the pokemon is not actually forced to do anything.
Compare that to the contents of the Grimm's tales. Or better yet, the story of Max and Moritz!
Anyways, what are we argueing about here, really? Do you honestly want to put Pokemon on the same pedestal as Doom and Postal? I'm still not sure what you are trying to prove in this regard.
Even in this version it is only very strongly implied.
Lynata wrote: as well as a symbiotic relationship between an intelligent pet and their trainer that made it obvious that the pokemon is not actually forced to do anything.
On the anime, maybe. On the game, you just capture them by imprisoning them in a ball and then they obey you.
Lynata wrote: Compare that to the contents of the Grimm's tales.
Grimm's tales are grim, of course . They never were examples of nice non-violent stories.
Lynata wrote: Do you honestly want to put Pokemon on the same pedestal as Doom and Postal?
No, actually in Doom you are fighting demons, that are bad by definition, and likely cannot even die in the usual sense of the therm, so that game is okay. I have not played Postal, but in Postal², it is possible to win the game without killing anyone. It is impossible to win pokemon without giving the opponents pokemon a beating until they faint.
Then they are not demons. They are Asian stuff that were translated into demons because their concept was somehow close. And I do not recall any mention of demons in Greek mythology.
The word Demon comes from Greek myth, but the Daemons were typically benevolent spirits. At worst morally neutral. Demon as we use it today in English, is sinister spirits specifically out to get us. It's a wholly Christian concept.
There are a lot of things in Japanese lore that could be translated as 'demon' but many of them are morally neutral, benevolent, and malevolent, so really when something from Japan gets translated as 'demon' you kind of have to wait and see what happens. This is the reason lots of fan subs and dubs typically keep the Japanese term (Oni, Yokai, etc) to avoid this culture confusion.
LordofHats wrote: The word Demon comes from Greek myth, but the Daemons were typically benevolent spirits. At worst morally neutral. Demon as we use it today in English, is sinister spirits specifically out to get us. It's a wholly Christian concept.
^
This. I suspect the change from good to evil was part of some attempt to make the pagans look bad.
Like giving satan goat legs as a reference to Pan.
LordofHats wrote: The word Demon comes from Greek myth, but the Daemons were typically benevolent spirits. At worst morally neutral. Demon as we use it today in English, is sinister spirits specifically out to get us. It's a wholly Christian concept.
^
This. I suspect the change from good to evil was part of some attempt to make the pagans look bad.
Like giving satan goat legs as a reference to Pan.
No.
Again, the effects of translation. Remember the OT and NT were first brought to the gentiles in Greek. When translating the Hebrew words 'shedim', 'mazziḳim', and 'ruḥin' (this one literally means evil spirits) the translators ended up translating them as 'daemon' as it was the most direct word in Greek for the concept. Ancient Hebrew demons were also more morally varied than they are in our culture (some even worked for God), but the NT with a little help from the Muslims revamped the entire concept of a 'demon' into a purely evil spirit by the 13th century, which is now the dominant perception in Western culture.
^ And this is why context matters And why yes, people do in fact change how they think based on what they read/see.
Like giving satan goat legs as a reference to Pan.
That's just another myth from the 'Christians are evil and always have been' parade.
The Shedim, which I mentioned above, were Hebrew spirits often portrayed malevolently and where also goat men, so the concept already existed in the roots of Christianity before it moved out of Israel. Christians themselves largely ignored this concept for a long time because they themselves didn't have much reference for the idea of a satyr being evil.
That you can thank the Muslims for, as they also had in their culturally background the idea of a Shedim, an evil goat man, and when Christians and Muslims began directly mixing during the Crusading era, this was one of the ideas that got transferred over into Western Europe. Add in that during this same time, Europe was kind shoving a stick up its own butt about sex and the Satyrs were notorious poon hounds and hedonists, and you get to the point where goat men in general just start being look down on as evil.
Which is also kind of sensible cause off the seven deadly sins, Satyrs embraced at least 5 them XD
That is daemons, not demons . They are not really all that popular in mythology, though, are they? There is no example listed, and I cannot think of any mythological story involving a daemon.
The difference between daemon and demon is usually put forward when speaking of computer daemons (program always running in the background). Beastie looks like a traditional demon, but is actually a daemon. I guess this was decided and put forward when some Christian went all crazy about satanic developers or something.
LordofHats wrote: Which is also kind of sensible cause off the seven deadly sins, Satyrs embraced at least 5 them XD
It is true they were not renown as great builders or craftsmen, so I guess sloth make sense. And yeah, you got to be proud to the point of stupidity to think you can rape Hercules' wife and get away with it .
That is daemons, not demons . They are not really all that popular in mythology, though, are they? There is no example listed, and I cannot think of any mythological story involving a daemon.
The difference between daemon and demon is usually put forward when speaking of computer daemons (program always running in the background). Beastie looks like a traditional demon, but is actually a daemon. I guess this was decided and put forward when some Christian went all crazy about satanic developers or something.
LordofHats wrote: Which is also kind of sensible cause off the seven deadly sins, Satyrs embraced at least 5 them XD
Anger, gluttony, lust, and which others?
Sexism, bigotry , profligacy and multiquote arguments I believe.
That “Ms. Splosion Man”. WTF? The Ms Male Character is a thing, Anita Sarkeesian spoke about it, but “Ms. Splosion Man” rather than “Splosion Woman”? Really?
Do not be fooled by Long live the Queen's artwork. This is basically a Games of Throne simulator . If you thought been a princess was an easy role for naive young girls, think again: it is about leading a country while taking care of the rivalries and schemes of the nobility, while defending your borders and your interests from foreign nations, without loosing support from the people.
Too bad only 3 of those works on Linux, and I already bought one of them :(.
That “Ms. Splosion Man”. WTF? The Ms Male Character is a thing, Anita Sarkeesian spoke about it, but “Ms. Splosion Man” rather than “Splosion Woman”? Really?
Do not be fooled by Long live the Queen's artwork. This is basically a Games of Throne simulator . If you thought been a princess was an easy role for naive young girls, think again: it is about leading a country while taking care of the rivalries and schemes of the nobility, while defending your borders and your interests from foreign nations, without loosing support from the people.
Too bad only 3 of those works on Linux, and I already bought one of them :(.
Ms Splosion man is meant to be like a reference or parody of ms packman. Then again how do you tell a parody from just doing the thing?
Valdis Story: Abyssal City looks neat, but I have no money :(
I'm having trouble figuring out why this bundle is called "Leading Ladies". Is it because some of the characters are female, or because some of the developers are? Either way, it sounds like a weird, misleading title.
The Yawhg looks intriguing, though... And Long Live the Queen is indeed fun if you like that kind of game (decide X things per day, see what the results are).
The website speaks of 4 characters, two male and two female.
And it does not mention this warrior and rogue thing. Are you sure you are not mixing this game with another?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: The website speaks of 4 characters, two male and two female.
And it does not mention this warrior and rogue thing. Are you sure you are not mixing this game with another?
MWHistorian wrote: My Commander Shepard was female as was my Orc Dragonborn from Skyrim.
Almost every one I talk to has had a female commander Shepard. It's like nine times out of ten, but the offical numbers are the complete inverse. It's like 18% femshep 82% maleshep. I wonder what is the reason for this disconnect.
daedalus wrote: How did they collect the nubmers? If it was online, then I should mention that my xbox isn't connected to the internet.
Not saying that would explain what happened in every case, but might have resulted in me not being part of the statistic.
They never tell us how, but I would assume it has to be from people connecting online. (Though they could do like a form thing?) Drawing data only from people who have their Xbox online could skew the results. Though asking random people that you know is about as skewed as you can get too.
Assuming that their sample wasn't like, 100 people, how they got the data is probably not too important. It's likely from a poll or from data collected from people connecting online and checking what the data on their saves. The thing that probably gets overlooked is that the data never seemed to discriminate between people with more than 1 save. I'd be willing to bet nearly everyone who played ME, played it at least once as FemShep (even if they never finished the game), even if their other 50 saves were all ManShep.
LordofHats wrote: Assuming that their sample wasn't like, 100 people, how they got the data is probably not too important. It's likely from a poll or from data collected from people connecting online and checking what the data on their saves. The thing that probably gets overlooked is that the data never seemed to discriminate between people with more than 1 save. I'd be willing to bet nearly everyone who played ME, played it at least once as FemShep (even if they never finished the game), even if their other 50 saves were all ManShep.
How they get the data is very important to ho accurate it is. Like if you went to a hospital to collect data on how many people are injured, you would get data skewed towards injured because you had a bias selection. If you only get data from players who play online, then your introducing a bias. Though you don't know if it is a big bias or if it affects anything.
Fact is that "what about people not online" is kind of a pointless question. Tens of millions of people play Mass Effect and in this day and age, most of them are probably online via XBox Live, PSN, or PC (there's no offline option on PC, not really). As long as the sample is large enough, it can be considered an accurate representation of the player base. There's no real reason to assume offline players would at all expose any bias in this respect.
LordofHats wrote: Fact is that "what about people not online" is kind of a pointless question. Tens of millions of people play Mass Effect and in this day and age, most of them are probably online via XBox Live, PSN, or PC (there's no offline option on PC, not really). As long as the sample is large enough, it can be considered an accurate representation of the player base. There's no real reason to assume offline players would at all expose any bias in this respect.
It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.
The main issue I see is that the first option given is male, and so a lot of people just stuck with default, rather than making a conscious choice, so that biased the statistics a little bit.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Are you sure you are not mixing this game with another?
Yup. Look at the website I linked.
I dunno if the focus ("assume the role of Wyatt") is a leftover from an earlier design stage where there was supposed to be just one character, but it's still on the page and the game's ads. *shrug*
And the guy has a greatsword, which I guess makes him a warrior. I had assumed the girl to be a rogue, but I admittedly based that just on her clothes and lack of a big weapon. A monk is at least something different for a change.
No idea about the two bonus characters, though - neither that game's website nor the wikis say much about them.
nomotog wrote:It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.
I have a hard time believing that people who play a game offline would have notably different preferences regarding their choice of character than the ones who play online. I consider it an independent topic.
A more interesting question, however, would be how the numbers would look like if the male Shepard would not have been the default player character from ME1 onward - both in terms of advertisement, as well as in the character selection screen.
It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.
Yeah, but we what possible difference could there be in that regard? It' be like if I said "75% of Americans like America" (based on data collected via phone calls) and someone said "well what about people with no phone?" At this point internet is so prevalent and internet connections so common, there's absolutely no reason to believe we'd get a significant difference in the outcome by including non-internet using players so long as the original sample size was sufficiently large.
It's not about size it's about what the sample is of and if there is a difference between players who hook their game up to the internet and players who don't.
Yeah, but we what possible difference could there be in that regard? It' be like if I said "75% of Americans like America" (based on data collected via phone calls) and someone said "well what about people with no phone?" At this point internet is so prevalent and internet connections so common, there's absolutely no reason to believe we'd get a significant difference in the outcome by including non-internet using players so long as the original sample size was sufficiently large.
See that is like the thing. The internet is not as prevalent as people think. We only have something like 80 penetration and it is far less when you count high speed internet needed to play online games. Their are places that don't really have internet. The last numbers I looked at showed like only 1/3 of players had connected their Xbox online.
I guess it dose make more sense that I am wrong though.
nomotog wrote: The last numbers I looked at showed like only 1/3 of players had connected their Xbox online.
That number is literally from 2006 (seriously, it's from 2006). That was back in the age when everyone thought XBox Live was a terrible idea bound to fail.
For every 2 XBoxes sold, there is 1 XBox live member. (and let us all laugh at the Kinect again hahahahahaha).
And that's just XBL. Like I said before, the PC virtually forces you to play ME with an internet connection. High speed internet is indeed not as common as people might think, but a lot of these connections don't require high speed. Basic dial up cuts it and I doubt there are many people in the western world with 0 internet connectivity.
There's really just no reason to question the numbers on that front unless we consider there to be some massive behavioral difference between people who connect their XBox online and those who don't, which is kind of a far fetched grasping at strays assumption to be making. EDIT: Especially when there are far more apparent bias' in the data, namely that it is based on save games, not players, and ManShep being the default at character creation.
Lynata wrote: No idea about the two bonus characters, though - neither that game's website nor the wikis say much about them.
Where did you get that those were bonus characters? The website says exactly as much about them as they do about the other two. The only different here is the order in which they are listed, and the fact they are not on the header.
In Valdis Story there are four different characters to choose from: Wyatt, a warrior who strongly opposes both sides of the Goddess War, Reina, a gifted fighter raised in an Alagathian monastery, Gilda, the trickster demon or Vladyn, a gunman whose body was used as a prison for souls. […]
The development of Valdis Story originally started out in 2007 as a test project and a base for learning game programming. Since then the original game was never completed but you can still play the old game [link that does not work at all]here.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Where did you get that those were bonus characters?
The game's development history. The other two characters were DLC and not included with the first release, which is why only Wyatt and Reina are on the homepage's header (as I assume the homepage was around before Gilda and Vladyn). And again, Wyatt stands out as being the only character mentioned on the website's main page.
So I saw this in a different thread, but I thought this would be a better thread to kind of poke the issue.
MWHistorian wrote: What I don't want is an enviroment where a creator has to go through a politically correct checklist of races, genders and sexual preferences just to write a story.
There's a difference between trying to put more emphasis on minorities and such and forcing/shaming people that write about non-minorities.
I'm a writer and the same debate is going on in the literary world. Writers tend to write what they know and often when they try to write from a different perspective, it comes out inaccurate or unconvincing.
They want more women in games? Get more women making games.
I refuse to be told what to write though. If my character's a white male protestant, I'm not going to apologize.
(Says the guy that wrote a history book about powerful women.)
Would a checklist or quota system be a big problem? Is it different then how things really work now? Do people actually think people are asking for something like this?
While some people have asked for it, I don't think the issue has ever really been "does your piece of fiction pass the X test for being a non-prejudiced person." Those tests are useful, but really only when examining a whole culture, not faults in a specific piece. One of the things that has continually confused the debate is the need to point out examples of bias in culture, and people assuming that the example being pointed out is itself a specific attack on a specific work.
Example: In and off itself, there's nothing wrong with a piece failing the Bechdel Test. Even works that portray women positively can fail the Bechdel Test. But it does raise questions about underlying assumptions in society when 90-95% of everything fails the Bechdel Test.
I think someone saying "here's a checklist of things you have to do or your a racist" is intolerant in itself (indeed, I'd say it's just as bad as racism). These debates often come off this way and it confuses people (and it doesn't help that there are idiots who actually make that demand), but at it's core I don't think that's really what advocates want.
EDIT: Now some things are quite egregious. Twilight has been rightly pointed out as terrible when it comes to the portrayal of men and women, and it really is, so much so that specific attacks can be leveled against it justifiably. But I think taking Mario and calling Shigeru Miyamoto a sexist pig for constantly putting Princess Peach in distress is going too far.
Well said. A writer shouldn't be forced to write something they don't want, as I feel it would affect the quality of the piece. Plus it'd be less fun for them, and even though it's their job it is my idealistic belief that profession and enthusiasm should be combined whenever possible, especially where creative processes are concerned.
On the other hand, it must be okay to question certain persistent patterns from individual creators or entities. In most cases the result of such an analysis would probably be quite harmless and perhaps even lead to a bit of self-reflection on part of the author ("why do you always write X?" - "it's the first thing that came to mind, maybe I should mix it up a bit in the future"), but as various critical comments from game developers have shown, there are cases where the aforementioned checklists do exist in the industry. It's just that they do not favour other genders or ethnicities, but the white heterosexual male.
Personally, I'm split on the subject of quotas. On one hand, I dislike the concept on the basis of undermining free spirit, but on the other I am beginning to believe that it'd be the only way to actually cause the industry to evolve - because said quotas would affect the social perception of coming generations, to a point where these quotas might some day no longer be necessary because everyone has come to accept relative equality.
We only got to this situation because someone installed a checklist for social roles many centuries ago in the first place, so it may well require artificial guidance to break out of this vicious cycle.
The 'soft' quota type thing seems to do quite well in industry, as far as I'm aware. Like the 'must interview at least one woman for a high ranking job' requirement. - They aren't required to hire her but from what I remember reading, the act of having an interview gives a massive bump to the numbers of women that are eventually given the job.
As for the Mass Effect 3 statistic, I imagine it came from consoles not having unticked the 'sent anonymous usage data to Electronic Arts' setting in the Options menu.
For what it's worth, this is where the statistic came from:
Spoiler:
"Of players that finished ME3." - Admittedly, that leaves questions about how many did it multiple times, which ones counted, etc.
Psienesis wrote: Considerable sections of the population watch fairly-violent sports.
More violent than Sumo fighting?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Lynata wrote: That seems to be more of an exception rather than the rule, though.
Well, no. Most manga/anime I have heard about included violence. Japanese movies are often quite violent. At least those I hear about anyway. On par with other movies, on average. With the occasional very very violent movie.
Haven't checked this thread in a while so many pages to go through, but i have to address this.
Sumo is not a violent sport, boxing is more violent and mma is even more violent, you may not use fists in sumo, the injuries are mostly because of the fall of the dojo and because sumo wrestlers are heavy as twisted leg becomes a huge injury because a lot weight is put on them when they fall.
This is generalizing to such agree, so French movies are all porn because of all the nudity? Yes Japan has some violent movies, but most of them are not.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Sumo is not a violent sport, boxing is more violent and mma is even more violent
I was not comparing Sumo to boxing or MMA. I was comparing it to the supposedly violent soccer, football, basketball, baseball…
I am not sure MMA is more popular in western countries than in Japan.
Jehan-reznor wrote: This is generalizing to such agree, so French movies are all porn because of all the nudity? Yes Japan has some violent movies, but most of them are not.
Have you missed the “on par”? Also, not sure why you think there is much nudity in French movies. Is it because I keep posting that Kirikou trailer?
My point is not that Japan is especially violent. It is that Japan is on par with European countries in term of violence.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:My point is not that Japan is especially violent. It is that Japan is on par with European countries in term of violence.
In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe? Because those are pretty much dominating the market, as opposed to "native" productions. At least in Germany, Ireland and the UK.
Lynata wrote: In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe?
Can go either way, would not change much. Beside, the U.S. are basically European: most of them descend from European settlers and they were never in their history cut of from constant cultural exchange with Europe, so as far as I can tell they are Europeans living abroad . Only sizable population with non-European roots are the “Afro-American”, but slavers broke their culture away, and they have basically built a new one now. Latinos, as the name imply, are also descendant of European settlers .
Lynata wrote: In regards to movies, games etc made in Europe, or including American products featured/sold in Europe?
Can go either way, would not change much. Beside, the U.S. are basically European: most of them descend from European settlers and they were never in their history cut of from constant cultural exchange with Europe, so as far as I can tell they are Europeans living abroad . Only sizable population with non-European roots are the “Afro-American”, but slavers broke their culture away, and they have basically built a new one now. Latinos, as the name imply, are also descendant of European settlers .
That is too much of a stretch. American culture is not basically European. Since its inception, it has diverted enough due to the mixtures of cultures. Americans are considered Western, but act sufficiently different than Europe with different sensibilities (The importance of the gun, Individualism, the belief that "anyone can succeed with hard work"). Also non-European descendants have had a serious influence of America culture.
I'm still struggling with the fact that you believe that American football is not a violent sport. It really is. It thrives on violence.
Back on topic, from the Gamer gate threads, people seem to concerned that asking for a greater representation of women in gaming will lead to "censorship" (which I believe that the term is being used incorrectly) . I don't understand that argument because we already accept companies limiting game development in different ways. Most AAA games limit your ability to kill children (mostly by ensuring you can't run into them). Why is that acceptable than giving more female representation.?
Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.
Back on topic, from the Gamer gate threads, people seem to concerned that asking for a greater representation of women in gaming will lead to "censorship" (which I believe that the term is being used incorrectly) . I don't understand that argument because we already accept companies limiting game development in different ways. Most AAA games limit your ability to kill children (mostly by ensuring you can't run into them). Why is that acceptable than giving more female representation.?
Perosnally I think it is not really censorship, more on the lines of ignorance.
People often forget that there are many sides to this debate.
I say let the game designers choose, as more and more girls get interested in game design the more female characters we will begin to see.
AS currently there are not many women in head positions.
The more women that come into the industry the more change that will happen.
But I think those who see games like Skull Girls as sexists because of what the characters wear is just dumb. AS simple research will tell you that the artist who made them was a female.
These types of ideas that sprout out saying censorship! When someone uses a gender or race that you think is over represented.
It is necessarily a bad thing but it will change with time.
And it slowly has been.
Ignoring the progress of games in general is just stupid.
I mean one of my favorite games stars a criminal and a child.
And it has the best relationship we could ever have. A relationship between a father and his adopted daughter. Who is trying to protect her from horrors of the world.
This isn't disempowerment for women has Antia puts it. But this is empowerment as the girl learns from her adoptive father and takes those challenges on. Alone.
And might I add these characters are african americans?
Does it really matter what gender or what race they are in the end?
No. Because they left an impact on me.
And those characters are not designed by the player. You may choose what path they take but they will always get some result for either better or for worse.
Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.
I think gamers are fine with criticism. Its just as long as that criticism can be criticized and editted to become better.
Antia has great points but then she loses her sight half way through her argument.
She needs to remember there is good. And you can't just snap your fingers and have it happen.
Gradual change is the best way to do this.
If you ignore the larger porition of games that have strong central females, and just ignore it and classify it as damsel in distress you are taking away from the character.
Because characters are tools, they are tools of the writer to garner viewership and entertainment.
If we do not have someone be captured it gets quite boring.
It is the moment of weakness that add to the character.
Why does James Bond get captured in every movie he is in?
Because he needs to be shown that he is human that he does make mistakes. (especially in the latest film series)
I also think it's kind of silly to say "more women in the industry" will fix this. Designers do not have the authority to make whatever design decision they want, something people just don't seem to get about collective projects like video games. Most games are not made by one person who can do as they please. Look at Last of Us and Remember Me. Would the companies that tried to block Ellie and (whoever Remember Me woman was I forget her name) behave differently if a woman had been the head designer of those games?
That's kind of silly. How many women are in the industry is irrelevant, as this isn't an issue with specific people involved, but an issue with industry wide practices. Even women often commit the errors that feminists like to point out in mass media. Go read a romance novel by a woman, let me know how many times the female lead needs to be saved by her dashing hero. Chances are at least once, maybe even twice.
Saying "more women in the industry" will fix this isn't just wrong on its face, it's a complete cop out.
So fething what if I can't choose things about myself in real life? This isn't real life, this is a game, therefor that objection is irrelvant. Simply by choosing to buy and play one game over a different one, I'm choosing what I want to play. And I sure as hell don't want to play a game where the writers have your attitude.
The argument isn't terrible. If it doesn't matter like you keep saying, then I suggest you (collectively, the game development industry) stop always forcing male characters, and let us (the players) pick, because clearly we're more creative than you are.
LordofHats wrote: I also think it's kind of silly to say "more women in the industry" will fix this. Designers do not have the authority to make whatever design decision they want, something people just don't seem to get about collective projects like video games. Most games are not made by one person who can do as they please. Look at Last of Us and Remember Me. Would the companies that tried to block Ellie and (whoever Remember Me woman was I forget her name) behave differently if a woman had been the head designer of those games?
That's kind of silly. How many women are in the industry is irrelevant, as this isn't an issue with specific people involved, but an issue with industry wide practices. Even women often commit the errors that feminists like to point out in mass media. Go read a romance novel by a woman, let me know how many times the female lead needs to be saved by her dashing hero. Chances are at least once, maybe even twice.
Saying "more women in the industry" will fix this isn't just wrong on its face, it's a complete cop out.
Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.
The more equality spread into the industry the better the industry will become.
So fething what if I can't choose things about myself in real life? This isn't real life, this is a game, therefor that objection is irrelvant. Simply by choosing to buy and play one game over a different one, I'm choosing what I want to play. And I sure as hell don't want to play a game where the writers have your attitude.
The argument isn't terrible. If it doesn't matter like you keep saying, then I suggest you (collectively, the game development industry) stop always forcing male characters, and let us (the players) pick, because clearly we're more creative than you are.
I am saying they should give you a choose in the following way. 1. They make games with females, or they make games with a male protoganist.
I think the hero fantasy of building up the player is pathetic, I think it is overdone.
it is a cliche.
I want us to move away from that, but not get rid of it entirely.
We should seek balance. Not more of one thing over another.
Because that will bring up more problems in the long run.
This is not a sexist argument in that if you bring something up there will always be a consequence what that is. I don't know. But it will happen. There is no such thing as a decision without risk.
And choosing to have only games where you can only choose between both genders will stifle the market. It will make the market worse.
Advancements would stop and story telling would be hindered by this.
It's also "more women in the industry" means that you are putting the onus on those women to solve those issues, which is not fair. That they have to not only make a great game, but also have to solve societies ills. That is a lot of pressure. Why don't other designers work on going out of their comfort zone? Sure, failures can happen, but hopefully one learns from the experience. If they are open to criticism.
Zack Snyder made the flawed movie "Sucker Punch" (Basically "I went to my happy place: the movie") a few years ago. While it had a lot of issues (Google Scott Mendelson and his defense of movie, it basically covers my feelings on the film), he tried something different and make a statement. Which the majority of critics missed.
Asherian Command wrote: Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.
And the basis for this is?
America has a fairly even split for men and women. Making up about half the population doesn't seem to have had that profound of an effect in the struggle for equality (if anything it probably makes the struggle harder because it's much easier for the problems to be ignored than in a smaller minority). Maybe it makes it a little better, but assuming that adding a few more innies to the party will just make these problems go away is wishful thinking founded on assumptions based in wishful thinking.
Asherian Command wrote: Women who are informed about gaming and are in major publishing groups will probably change this.
And the basis for this is?
America has a fairly even split for men and women. Making up about half the population doesn't seem to have had that profound of an effect in the struggle for equality (if anything it probably makes the struggle harder because it's much easier for the problems to be ignored than in a smaller minority). Maybe it makes it a little better, but assuming that adding a few more innies to the party will just make these problems go away is wishful thinking founded on assumptions based in wishful thinking.
It's not that simple.
It would if they were in positions of power
the more women in higher seats of authority. The better off the games industry will be. (As long as they are educated about games and not trying to actively destroy gaming)
Yes I hear having black guys in police stations and paper pushing jobs and the White House has just solved all of the equality problems blacks face in the US. Good thing they got those positions of power so they could just snap their fingers and make all the problems go away eh?
Melissia wrote: Regarding gamergate: What they're really asking for is that feminists ourselves get censored, really. Basically drawing lines in the sand on what it's "okay" to criticize games and gaming for-- and anyone who crosses that line deserves to get harassed and "doxxed" and threatened.
It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.
I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.
Combined all this with the weird and ever-present SJW angle (different than feminists because feminists can be rational) who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry and freak out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.
I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.
AdeptSister wrote: It's also "more women in the industry" means that you are putting the onus on those women to solve those issues, which is not fair. That they have to not only make a great game, but have to solve societies ills is a lot of pressure. Why don't other designers work on going out of their comfort zone? Sure, failures can happen, but hopefully one learns from the experience. If they are open to criticism.
I could point you to several
Tell Tale Games (made the walking dead video game series)
Naughty Dog (Last of Us)
Uri (Who made several horror games)
Yager Development (Made Specs Ops: The Line, approached very dark subject matter)
Ubisoft (With the tomb raider series)
I mean it is changing and it gradually will, but this is because of balanced staffing and less reliance on the publishers. The companies slowly start to become bigger and better.
Much in a similar vein to how pixar slowly became what it is today, or even dreamworks.
They slowly started to add different opinions and viewpoints in and that changed how they made their games.
The more opinions and more points of view on a game. The better the game will be.
And I will bring up Spec Ops: The Line AGAIN.
Because it was multinational. Taking its staff from around the globe. Some americans, middle eastern peeps, europeans, asians, africans, australians. The team was created to make a new view point. And see the world from a universal point of view.
This is the power of multiple points of view. As they constantly begin to grown and become something better.
With the addition of many different view points we will see change in the industry.
If you haven't seen the rapid maturation of games from now and a few years ago. You can see a lot of changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes I hear having black guys in police stations and paper pushing jobs and the White House has just solved all of the equality problems blacks face in the US. Good thing they got those positions of power so they could just snap their fingers and make all the problems go away eh?
I didn't say they would magically make it better,
But it would be a gradual effect.
It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.
I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.
Combined all this with the weird and ever-present SJW angle (different than feminists because feminists can be rational) who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry and freak out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.
I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.
I agree. Completely. Both sides of the debate are quite jaded and hit each other with stones.
THE SJWs have slowly started to become a bigger issue as they think their opinion matters more and that they see more issue with a certain part of a game and judge it because of that.
I mean the last time that happened that was to mass effect 1 where they called it a porn simulator because of 1 2 minute sex scene.
If you judge a game soley on that scene you deserved to be mocked.
But if it is the entire game...... Then thats a different matter.
*cough* propaganda games *cough* Call of Juarez *cough*
50 years and not seeing much progress (if any actually).
Still not that simple.
And I haven't even gotten to the issue that "add more women" is basically a cop out for addressing the prejudices of everyone else already in the industry, as if they shouldn't have to work on their own issues but just ignore them and rely on someone else to fix it for them.
50 years and not seeing much progress (if any actually).
Still not that simple.
And I haven't even gotten to the issue that "add more women" is basically a cop out for addressing the prejudices of everyone else already in the industry, as if they shouldn't have to work on their own issues but just ignore them and rely on someone else to fix it for them.
Any time someone tries to argue for a gradual change, I think of MLK: "Justice delayed is justice denied." While the issue here is not a "major" as back then, the same logic still applies. It shouldn't be the job of an undeprrivileged minority to adapt to the needs of the overprivileged majority. That, quite frankly, is just plain bullgak.
Melissia wrote: Any time someone tries to argue for a gradual change, I think of MLK: "Justice delayed is justice denied." While the issue here is not a "major" as back then, the same logic still applies. It shouldn't be the job of an undeprrivileged minority to adapt to the needs of the overprivileged majority. That, quite frankly, is just plain bullgak.
I think both work.
But I think ignoring the progress is quite a big issue.
Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth and nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful...
And to say nothing else of the dozens of other examples I've seen, like the stink about how producers exclude women from focus groups from last year...
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....
Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' onbox art.
AdeptSister wrote: Can we please drop the use of SJW and MRA? At least for this thread. I don't see how using such terms actually helps discussion.
The problem is that they denote something for which I don't readily have another term for. The things I'm thinking of are really not the things you want to lump in with feminism.
What progress has there been? I can think of something. When BLTPS was rumored, I didn't believe it because the rumor called for two female player characters, one male and clap trap.. I though no way that is true. AAA gaming would eat it's shoes before allowing the number of female PCs to outnumber the male PCs. It was true though and I'm happy about that.
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....
Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' onbox art.
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....
Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' onbox art.
What game are you talking about?
The Last of Us.
There was a big stink leading to it's release about how Take 2 didn't want Ellie on the game's Box Art.
LordofHats wrote: Progress would be more convincing without stories like how Rockstar had to fight tooth an nail to get a ten year old girl (who is the center of the story) on the box art. The box art, of all things.
And this was freaking Rockstar. Smaller studios would probably be even less successful....
Plus Rockstar happens to invest a fair amount into their own publishing work. Basically, they couldn't get partners to go 'halfsies' onbox art.
What game are you talking about?
The Last of Us.
There was a big stink leading to it's release about how Take 2 didn't want Ellie on the game's Box Art.
Naughty dog not rock star. Rockstar doesn't really do female characters in their games.
Doesn't "troll" cover both for the behavior you are talking about? I don't know. The terms seem so toxic that there usage seems to cans problems themselves. Right now they are basically used as a slur to attack a group that thinks differently. Both represent minorities, but the terms are used to color a broad stripe of people. Which can shut down dialog.
That causes some levels of near tautology, but lets try it:
Myself wrote:
It's a painful thing to watch, but it doesn't look like it's just the gamergate side. BOTH sides appear to be screaming about things in sweeping generalizations and absolutes while stamping huge "YOU'RE WRONG AND A BAD PERSON" stamps on each other the moment there is any dissent. They (the feminist/industry/whatever label you want to use for them) even ate their own RE: that one feminist who actually did say that it wasn't a big deal.
I mean, I stopped listening in to the whole thing when it became TMZ for gamers, so I'm not sure I'm currently well informed, but there was rampant silencing of people even tangentially talking about gamergate on a user basis on major social media sites.
Combine all this with the weird and ever-present uh... sexual abuse advocates who want to be the Mary Whitehouse/Tipper Gore of the gaming industry like the one who freaked out about a vampire sucking the blood of a woman in a video game because she decides that's too much like real life assault, and calls for the company to self-censor the scene.
I've been dwelling on a line of thought that's been slowly forming in my head though. It's generally been regarded that the free exchange of ideas is a good thing, and that people have been progressively getting more tolerant of each other. I'm not sure either of these things are true.
I mean, when you say it like that, it just seems like it's sort of a "Person who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about X sees X everywhere. News at 11." kind of thing. That's not inherently bad, I suppose, but I don't know if she IS a advocate against sexual abuse, at least beyond the theme of the article.
Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant. I mean, "I refuse to notice grass, otherwise I'll be seeing grass everywhere!" is pretty damn silly.
Well, thinking about it, the reason why we seem to consolidate ideas and definitions into terms we use during conversation is to prevent needing to preamble a simple thought with a lengthy description of the thing we are trying to actually talk about when the emphasis of what we really want to talk about isn't the inherent nature of the the thing itself, but the behavior of it.
I mean, get rid of "feminist". Now every time you talk about a feminist, you need to talk about "a living sapient being who is for the promotion of the social issues and awareness of the hardships of living sapient beings who are physically of the female reproductive gender and identify as such".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault? Because, like, I never said anything about refusing to see anything, and stuff. I just don't see it. I mean, of all the various things the many versions of vampires are classically reputed to do to members of the opposite sex, killing them via exsanguination is probably the last one that shows up in my mind as sexual assault.
I think the issue could be that so much of that sort of debate is based on nuance with individual peoples thoughts being on some multidimensional spectrum matrix thing that can't even be easily pinned down...
Except at the extremes at the ends (with there not even just being 2 ends...)
However, discussing the nuances is just so incredibly difficult, especially when they can be so subtle going down to the personal level that it's far more achievable to point at the extremities and discuss them.
Personally, for example, I'd be happy with a Lost Girl style situation in games. Have the cheesecake - and beefcake - heck, even have it define the character if you want. Just not every character, or most characters and let there be more to them too, pretty please.
Tangent Warning:
Spoiler:
Interestingly, and veering slightly off topic (Sorry!), I seem to have been present in more discussions during my life about women discussing the various physicalities Channing Tatum, Jack Bauer, Richard Armitage and Daniel Craig in my life than any female equivalents with my mates.
Even a slightly surreal conversation at a New Years meal last year where my mother was basically talking with her friends about how much more attractive Patrick Stewart was in Star Trek: First Contact than Shatner was in the earlier films... Due to me having watched the films when I was visiting.
AdeptSister wrote: That is too much of a stretch. American culture is not basically European. Since its inception, it has diverted enough due to the mixtures of cultures. Americans are considered Western, but act sufficiently different than Europe with different sensibilities (The importance of the gun, Individualism, the belief that "anyone can succeed with hard work").
Do you believe that every European country has the same culture? Yes, there are particularities in the U.S., but there are in every European countries.
AdeptSister wrote: Also non-European descendants have had a serious influence of America culture.
Which ones?
Asherian Command wrote: But I think those who see games like Skull Girls as sexists because of what the characters wear is just dumb. AS simple research will tell you that the artist who made them was a female.
Wikipedia says: Alex Ahad Mariel Kinuko Cartwright Richard Suh I wonder which one is Zone .
I thought we were speaking about video games, that are definitely NOT real life.
Asherian Command wrote: (As long as they are educated about games and not trying to actively destroy gaming)
Very few people are actively trying to destroy gaming. I mean, apart from that guy the GG movement love to quote that actually believe games turn people into killers, I have no idea who would .
AdeptSister wrote: Can we please drop the use of SJW and MRA? At least for this thread. I don't see how using such terms actually helps discussion.
I would gladly drop the use of MRA, but I have not seen anyone using it on the whole thread. Might be wrong, but certainly it is nowhere near the copious amount of SJW we get.
Melissia wrote: Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault? Because, like, I never said anything about refusing to see anything, and stuff. I just don't see it. I mean, of all the various things the many versions of vampires are classically reputed to do to members of the opposite sex, killing them via exsanguination is probably the last one that shows up in my mind as sexual assault.
Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.
Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.
Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and it's in a game where you want to move it to the next screen to hurt the other characters in there, so that you can move the screen again to do it all over for 7 hours.
If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do? The person in question wasn't having an issue with it because vampires are "a metaphor for sexual assault", she had a problem with it because Dracula attacked a family to drink blood to sustain itself, which, if you're going to dissect the elements of a vampire, is like one of least assaulty things it does.
daedalus wrote: If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment
Because it's edgy.
Do you dispute that the essence of Alien was a story about male rape? Sure, symbols are malleable, and they don't mean just 1 thing, but there's a reason vampires are so sexualized. Ever since Dracula, there's always been an undercurrent of sexuality in vampires. There's not much ease to find in the relationship between the Count and Mina Harker. Jonathan Harker's imprisonment at the hands of the Brides is itself overtly about sexual assault.
There's other things there too, like the uncertainty of people in the present about the future when faced with the past, and human selfishness, but metaphorical rape is a major theme for vampires in the same way that baser human desires/liberation from civilization are a major theme for werewolves.
we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do?
Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.
Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying. Sometimes a spade is just a spade, and it's in a game where you want to move it to the next screen to hurt the other characters in there, so that you can move the screen again to do it all over for 7 hours.
If vampires are just a metaphor for sexual assault, why do we glamorize them and plaster them in media everywhere and then the moment we put one in a game someone flips out because it's doing the things that vampires do? The person in question wasn't having an issue with it because vampires are "a metaphor for sexual assault", she had a problem with it because Dracula attacked a family to drink blood to sustain itself, which, if you're going to dissect the elements of a vampire, is like one of least assaulty things it does.
Because life would be far too easy if everything was clear and concise. Vampires are very closely related to sex. Some times it's the sexual assult angle, sometimes it's related to the dangers of sex like aids or sexually transmuted disease. In the past, they were even used as a symbol for homosexuality with some rather poor implications attached. Some times they just sexy.
Though I think the example you are referencing is CASTLEVANIA: LORDS OF SHADOW 2. I never played that game myself and I believe the controversy was based off a preview that ended up changing. I don't recall exactly though.
I suppose there's also flanderisation and/or adaption decay to account for some of the modern representations too, such as a certain book series/film series.
For what it's worth, I thought it was seen as quite a common thing too.
I think that's the original. I'm just guessing based on not being able to read the articles while at work.
I'm just thinking that it's odd that there's something that we're so accepting of showing up in media, yet when it actually behaves like itself, people are uncool with it.
And? It's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. Someone would need to be pretty desensitized/a real d-bag to not be a little disturbed by that moment. The devs should be patting their backs. Mission accomplished.
Because life would be far too easy if everything was clear and concise. Vampires are very closely related to sex. Some times it's the sexual assult angle, sometimes it's related to the dangers of sex like aids or sexually transmuted disease. In the past, they were even used as a symbol for homosexuality with some rather poor implications attached. Some times they just sexy.
I had a response to this, but it might have come out offensive. Not to anyone specific, just matters of sensibility. I'll think about it and see if I can reword to not do so.
Though I think the example you are referencing is CASTLEVANIA: LORDS OF SHADOW 2. I never played that game myself and I believe the controversy was based off a preview that ended up changing. I don't recall exactly though.
Yeah, that's the one. I didn't expect a secondary tangent to develop into a full conversation, but I have a link to the clip and what I think was the article above.
I think it made it into the game from what I understand, which I applaud them for, personally.
Melissia wrote: Refusing to see things because you're afraid you'll start seeing it everywhere is the same as putting blinders on and willfully being ignorant.
I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault? Because, like, I never said anything about refusing to see anything, and stuff. I just don't see it. I mean, of all the various things the many versions of vampires are classically reputed to do to members of the opposite sex, killing them via exsanguination is probably the last one that shows up in my mind as sexual assault.
Your saying that vampires aren't a metaphor sexual assault? I thought this was kind of a well known thing.
Hahahaha
Yeah. People always forget that bit don't they?
When did this happen?
No idea people keep mentioning it.
Can someone source it?
Wikipedia says: Alex Ahad Mariel Kinuko Cartwright Richard Suh I wonder which one is Zone .
WHo? Is zone? Also...
Alex Ahad - Male Mariel Kinuko Cartwright <----- Female name Richard Suh - Male
According to the description- Mariel Kinuko Cartwright is the Lead animator on Skullgirls, likes drawing pictures. Los Angeles.
Hmmm Lets see who has the power here, and who says what goes in and what doesn't?
There has been a lot of buzz about Skullgirls floating around the net recently, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. A recent interview with Eurogamer has been quoted time and time again in debates on whether or not the game’s characters and art style are sexist. This has been the hot topic of the day rather than the game’s newest revealed character Valentine, Mike Z’s recent revelation of how the infinite prevention system works, or even the most recent gameplay demonstration.
Well to finally put this discussion to rest, Alex Ahad, the creator of the Skullgirls world and characters, has decided to chime in on the debate on his DeviantArt page. He very maturely described his point of view on the characters he has created.
It’s also important to point out the difference between something being sexy and being sexist. I think the role of a character plays more of a defining element than what they look like. People complain about hour-glass figured female characters, but rarely do they complain about muscular/ perfectly fit male characters. Both of these are completely fine and acceptable in my opinion. The real issue comes from what their role and actions are. If a character is a sideline character and their sole purpose is to be a sex object, then it is sexist. If the character is a competent contributor to the story, then it is not sexist, even if they look sexy. Looking at a screenshot by itself, or judging by the artwork alone is extremely short-sighted. People who make knee-jerk reactionary judgments should have never been acknowledged.
He said that he understands his art style is not for everyone, and he does not expect it to be. However, he primarily drew things that were appealing to him.
Ultimately, the things you see in Skullgirls are there because it just happens to be stuff that I wanted to do. There are elements in the world that are just here because it’s cool and was fun to make. I enjoy drawing girls and monsters. I particularly enjoy drawing monster-girls. There is something more exciting about a design that is both twisted and cute at the same time. It’s more interesting than just an overly aggressive monster, or something totally saccharine. I also must admit that I have a preference to play female protagonists in a game. Whether the character is sexy or not, I think there is just something more fun and intriguing about a competent female lead character.
Finally he wanted to shed a bit of light on the “our lead animator is a woman” comment that has been quoted from the Eurogamer interview so many times.
Our quote was taken out of context and shouldn’t have been taken as an actual, serious argument against sexism. It’s rather disrespectful to both Kinuko and her work, as well as the company as a whole. If you read the whole article, you will see that there is an anecdote that demonstrates the absurdity of this female-animator argument. I wish it was made more clear that we don’t support the female-animator argument as a valid point against sexism at all. It has an incredibly misleading tone since the very first quote is “our lead animator is a woman.” It’s also in poor taste to call out another game/character by name as an example… I feel like these quotes all came from a conversation, rather than an actual interview.
The entire post is very well thought out, and reveals a lot about his motivations in creating Skullgirls and choosing the artistic style that he did. It’s a great read and it reveals way more than just Ahad’s opinions on the recent sexism complaints. If you are a fan of Skullgirls or even just interested in the grander debate of sexism in videogames, you should give it a read.
1Shinta8 months ago "Yes, Lords of Shadow 2 Made Me Feel Uncomfortable: The Case For Censorship"
I think it's really sad to specifically hear Cox talking about how they feel more confident as a team, and how that confidence is letting them go for their creative vision for the game without compromise. And then right after that, someone asks them to cut it.
"When Cox talks about wanting to take risks and arguments with the marketing team, it's clear that the scene was constructed with the intention of evoking sexual assault."
Why is it clear? I'm at a disadvantage here, not having played through that scene yet. But it sounds like murder to me, not rape. And as you said, all vampire movies since Interview with the Vampire basically blur the lines between eroticism and violence, and that's a series from a female author. If you want to categorize every single vampire attack in Interview with the Vampire as rape, you probably could if you wanted to twist it into that. Hell, in that movie they turn a child into a vampire, and then eventually Louis has a romantic relationship with her.
I don't remember any professional film critics writing to the director, pleading with them to delete content from the movie; and that movie came out 20 years ago, in 1994. I know that as an internet blogger, it's very easy to dismiss any critical commenters. But seriously, think about it. How sad would it be if professional film critics wrote articles appealing for censorship?
"Second, you're not meant to sympathize with the victim -- a young woman who doesn't even rate a name or a personality. You are meant to sympathize with Dracula."
It sounds like the same theme as the first game, where Gabriel murdered his wife and Claudia (I think that's her name) and then his guilt tormented him and twisted him. The game is about him, this isn't a secret. And that scene shows that he's gone down the same road as the first game, but is infinitely worse. I don't think we're meant to know who she is in Lords of Shadow 2, because he feeds on so many people over the years that you could never really detail all the victims. They are his food. Humans don't get into the backstory of all the animals they eat, and name them (yes, I'm a vegetarian).
You have every right to be bothered by a scene, and to have your opinion about it. You have every right to tell others about it, because if people find they agree with you about most games, maybe they'll feel the same way. But I think its sad for a professional game blogger with a voice and early access to advocate for censorship before your audience even gets to see the game. I want to see Mercury Steam's vision for Dracula, not yours. No offense, but it is the truth.
Yes because all comments are filled with vile :/
Shesh I've read that one before.
This comment I say is awesome and I agree with every counter point within it.
And? It's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. Someone would need to be pretty desensitized/a real d-bag to not be a little disturbed by that moment. The devs should be patting their backs. Mission accomplished.
Agreed.
The scene is suppose to be like that.
Those scenes are suppose to make you flinch and garner a reaction.
If your feelings are hurt well too bad. (This is not aimed at anyone) If you cried at the ending of where the red fern grows and you demand the ending to be scrapped and replaced with happy filters.
Or old yellar to not have the super sad ending and to replace it with Old Yellar surviving because it hurt your feelings. Get the out.
You are clearly at the disposition of not being an adult.
Another comment that explains vampires sexual interaction with the mind apparently O.o
Well, there's been a link between vampires and sexual imagery since Bram Stoker's Dracula - that's the classic symbolism of it. Castlevania hasn't really explored that angle before, choosing instead to just use Vampires as window dressing in their weird faux-gothic castles.
So Lords of Shadow taking Dracula and having him drink the blood of some beautiful young woman may not be franchise tradition, but it is certainly Vampire tradition. There are absolutely countless adaptations of the vampire lore that depict blood drinking as a sexual experience (at times VERY explicitly).
I mean, look at this website! Look at the cover image NBC is advertising their current TV drama version with! http://www.nbc.com/dracula/
Does the author find NBC's Dracula equally objectionable? Other Vampire works that work the vampirism = sex symbolism? Does the author abject to the original book, in which Dracula not only snuck into a woman's room to drain her fluids night after night, but kept himself a personal vampire harem too?
If the author objects to all of the above then I question why she was previewing a game starring Dracula, but at least that's consistent. If the author objects to only this particular manifestation of the imagery, then there are some hard questions that follow. What makes this variation of the symbolism so different from all the others? That it's in a game? That it's depicted from a first person perspective? That it's interactive?
No, I reject all of those. Games should and must be permitted to explore creative territory like any other medium, and here in particular the imagery in question is adapted from classic literature. This isn't even doing something new and offensive, this is doing something that can be seen on NBC every Friday night. Except in a game.
Would the author also object to a video game adaptation of The Hunchback of Notre Dam? Because that's another work of classic literature in which the protagonist gets up to some objectionable sexual acts. Specifically, Quasimodo locks Esmerelda in his tower because he wants to keep the pretty girl. Is such an idea something that video games should just never depict or interface with? What else should go on the list of "classic literature that games shouldn't even play in the same creative ballpark as"? 20,000 leagues under the sea? Nah, that's just murder. We're cool with that. Beloved? Eh.. I can see some people getting upset about that. Lolita? RED FLAG RED ALERT STAY AWAY!!
Okay, I think I've made my point that other mediums employ/explore this sort of imagery all the time, and that even many works of classic literature if adapted to video game form would be at LEAST as objectionable as Dracula drinking a woman's blood, if not far more so.
Given this information, I really object to the author calling for the scene to get cut from this game. It is entirely possible that this is a shock value moment that exists only for shock value and will come off as cheap and ill advised in the final product. It is ALSO possible that the scene will be instrumental in characterizing the inherent desperation and wickedness of this character that the game will then spend the next 18 hours or so exploring. Do we know whether the rest of the work leverages the scene effectively? No. Should the game get a chance? A chance to leverage the same symbolism that vampire fiction in every other medium has been using for the last three centuries?
Absolutely. The author should take this article down - in our current climate there's a real chance that a complaint like this WILL cause content changes in the game, and that's not fair to the medium, to the game, or to the thousands of players invested in this Lords of Shadow narrative looking forward to seeing it through to resolution.
LordofHats wrote: And? It's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. Someone would need to be pretty desensitized/a real d-bag to not be a little disturbed by that moment. The devs should be patting their backs. Mission accomplished.
That was kind of what I thought. I just didn't understand the sexual assault part of that scene in particular, particularly to the thing she likened it to.
LordofHats wrote: And? It's supposed to make you feel uncomfortable. Someone would need to be pretty desensitized/a real d-bag to not be a little disturbed by that moment. The devs should be patting their backs. Mission accomplished.
That was kind of what I thought. I just didn't understand the sexual assault part of that scene in particular, particularly to the thing she likened it to.
Well if we had her way we would censoring it with kittens and that scene would lose all its power.
These types of scenes are needed. Hence why we needed the scene where Sergeant Johnson dies. If gives us a reason to fight at the end.
Though I think the example you are referencing is CASTLEVANIA: LORDS OF SHADOW 2. I never played that game myself and I believe the controversy was based off a preview that ended up changing. I don't recall exactly though.
Yeah, that's the one. I didn't expect a secondary tangent to develop into a full conversation, but I have a link to the clip and what I think was the article above.
I think it made it into the game from what I understand, which I applaud them for, personally.
Forcing the player to kill and eat a family is a thing. I'm not going to say you can't do that. More just that you need to be responsible when you do do it.
daedalus wrote: Well, thinking about it, the reason why we seem to consolidate ideas and definitions into terms we use during conversation is to prevent needing to preamble a simple thought with a lengthy description of the thing we are trying to actually talk about when the emphasis of what we really want to talk about isn't the inherent nature of the the thing itself, but the behavior of it.
You haven't answered my question. I never asked why you needed terms to begin with, but why you felt the need for that specific term, There's nothing in that term that has any value to this discussion.
daedalus wrote: I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault?
I could write doctorate-level thesis on that topic alone.
Forcing the player to kill and eat a family is a thing. I'm not going to say you can't do that. More just that you need to be responsible when you do do it.
I'm genuinely not certain what you mean by that, or how you would do it.
I think Nomo is pointing out that games have a unique position in that they put the player in the role of the actor. This gives things that happen in games a different spin than what happens in TV or books. It makes a lack of tact when it comes to certain subject matter all the more egregious.
LordofHats wrote: I think Nomo is pointing out that games have a unique position in that they put the player in the role of the actor. This gives things that happen in games a different spin than what happens in TV or books. It makes a lack of tact when it comes to certain subject matter all the more egregious.
Also, taking that agency away from the player for a cutscene becomes that much more infuriating.
LordofHats wrote: I think Nomo is pointing out that games have a unique position in that they put the player in the role of the actor. This gives things that happen in games a different spin than what happens in TV or books. It makes a lack of tact when it comes to certain subject matter all the more egregious.
Also, taking that agency away from the player for a cutscene becomes that much more infuriating.
Sometimes.
If you can interact and use your controls during the cutscene my god it would be awesome.
Thats why there are fewer cutscenes in games.
But I find it intriguing, sometimes it wakes the player up and says. "Remember this is a game."
And it breaks the immersion so it is not immersive.
daedalus wrote: Well, thinking about it, the reason why we seem to consolidate ideas and definitions into terms we use during conversation is to prevent needing to preamble a simple thought with a lengthy description of the thing we are trying to actually talk about when the emphasis of what we really want to talk about isn't the inherent nature of the the thing itself, but the behavior of it.
You haven't answered my question.
I think I did. Defining terms for things makes it easier to talk about them, because people have a idea of what you're referring to without needing to explain the topic in full length every time.
"You know the round red things (with the black things in them that grow into the big brown things that come out of the ground) that grow off the big brown things that come up out of the flat thing with all the green on it. I hear they keep the well learned sapient being who other sapient beings go to whenever they're in danger of permanently no longer becoming sapient away."
"Oh, you mean an apple?"
"Yeah. Pass me one of those."
daedalus wrote: I'm confused. Are you saying that you see violently and parasitically draining something of blood for your own sustenance as a strong allusion to sexual assault?
I could write doctorate-level thesis on that topic alone.
I also took the connection between vampires and sexual assault to be common knowledge. It has been well documented and written about.
And the killing of Sgt. Johnson in Halo felt like an easy way to give the story "heat." Especially so cheaply and not earned. "Oh someone I liked died, now its serous!" YMMV. They did a much better job with Cortana.
Agreed about Johnson. I was surprised, but only because it seemed so cheap and silly. Now Shock and Awe from Modern Warfare. That's how you shock someone with character death... Not that whatshisface was much of a character, but hey at least it was shocking
LordofHats wrote: I think Nomo is pointing out that games have a unique position in that they put the player in the role of the actor. This gives things that happen in games a different spin than what happens in TV or books. It makes a lack of tact when it comes to certain subject matter all the more egregious.
That actually explains the situation well enough and in a way that shows me why I can't personally understand it.
I could suggest something along the lines "well, it's it's bloodlust and he can't help but be driven to it, and it'd dilute the impact of the scene if you allowed someone to walk away from it," but I don't honestly know. I haven't played the game yet. It's on the list though.
LordofHats wrote: Do you dispute that the essence of Alien was a story about male rape?
Uh, what the hell?
Alien. It's totally about men being raped by the monstrous feminine
Critics have also analyzed Alien's sexual overtones. Following Barbara Creed's analysis of the Alien creature as a representation of the "monstrous-feminine as archaic mother,"[102] Ximena Gallardo C. and C. Jason Smith compare the facehugger's attack on Kane to a male rape and the chestburster scene to a form of violent birth, noting that the Alien's phallic head and method of killing the crew members add to the sexual imagery.[103][104] Dan O'Bannon has argued that the scene is a metaphor for the male fear of penetration, and that the "oral invasion" of Kane by the facehugger functions as "payback" for the many horror films in which sexually vulnerable women are attacked by male monsters.[105] McIntee claims that "Alien is a rape movie as much as Straw Dogs (1971) or I Spit on Your Grave (1978), or The Accused (1988). On one level it's about an intriguing alien threat. On one level it's about parasitism and disease. And on the level that was most important to the writers and director, it's about sex, and reproduction by non-consensual means. And it's about this happening to a man."[106] He notes how the film plays on men's fear and misunderstanding of pregnancy and childbirth, while also giving women a glimpse into these fears.[107] Film analyst Lina Badley has written that the Alien's design, with strong Freudian sexual undertones, multiple phallic symbols, and overall feminine figure, provides an androgynous image conforming to archetypal mappings and imageries in horror films that often redraw gender lines.[108] O'Bannon himself later described the sexual imagery in Alien as overt and intentional: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"[109]
Ridley Scott and others who worked on the film have even told how they tried not to talk about it with Fox, afraid that if executives caught wind of what they were doing they'd be forced to stop.
People complain about hour-glass figured female characters, but rarely do they complain about muscular/ perfectly fit male characters. Both of these are completely fine and acceptable in my opinion.
That is missing the whole thing that super muscled men are not sexy men, and the fact the problem comes not from existence but from prevalence. Anyway.
People complain about hour-glass figured female characters, but rarely do they complain about muscular/ perfectly fit male characters. Both of these are completely fine and acceptable in my opinion.
That is missing the whole thing that super muscled men are not sexy men, and the fact the problem comes not from existence but from prevalence. Anyway.
That is your definition of what you find attractive different people are attracted to different things.
Let them choose what they want to add to the game.
O'Bannon himself later described the sexual imagery in Alien as overt and intentional: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"
So much failed at this on me…
(On the other hand, I was, what, 12 or 14 when I saw it, so I guess it is a good thing.)
It is still going to be a story of insect-like killer extraterrestrial organisms to me .
O'Bannon himself later described the sexual imagery in Alien as overt and intentional: "One thing that people are all disturbed about is sex... I said 'That's how I'm going to attack the audience; I'm going to attack them sexually. And I'm not going to go after the women in the audience, I'm going to attack the men. I am going to put in every image I can think of to make the men in the audience cross their legs. Homosexual oral rape, birth. The thing lays its eggs down your throat, the whole number.'"
So much failed at this on me…
(On the other hand, I was, what, 12 or 14 when I saw it, so I guess it is a good thing.)
It is still going to be a story of insect-like killer extraterrestrial organisms to me .
I have no idea what you mean. Lean muscle and dexterous body are more attractive/sexy than hulking muscle. See also how the nipples and ass are emphasized or not, and the poses of the character, and everything…
*Sigh* it's been noted time and time again between male empowerment fantasies and sexuality female images (from a hetero male point of view). We will go in circles about this.
And once again not all guys want "sexy" to be the default for female characters. It can be used well, but there is a bad habit in game industry to use the poorly.
Once again designers can make whatever they want. But people will call them out on it when they push the same annoying messages.
AdeptSister wrote: *Sigh* it's been noted time and time again between male empowerment fantasies and sexuality female images (from a hetero male point of view). We will go in circles about this.
And once again not all guys want "sexy" to be the default for female characters. It can be used well, but there is a bad habit in game industry to use the poorly.
Once again designers can make whatever they want. But people will call them out on it when they push the same annoying messages.
(Now that its burned I'll probably reinstate the bunny 
out.