808 réponses à ce sujet

[Massadonious1]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Samus isn't the best example, considering what she looks like outside of her "faceless power armor"

Yeah, but the only game in which she takes her power armor for more than 5 seconds tanked commercially and was disowned by the fanbase for sexism.

Super Smash Bros flopped? News to me.

Btw, the thing she wears under the armor is arguably not as bad as what Miranda wears around the office.

Really?



This is the "official" version. I can show you fanboy versions if you would like.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

If people made more money stuffing women in featureless power armor instead of form-fitting attire, you can bet your ass they'd do that instead regardless of whether they think women are toys or not. But they don't, so they won't.

They kind of do.

Go figure.

I'm pretty confident there are other factors in those games' successes than how they portray women in gender-neutral armor.

Yeah, they also have good gameplay. But the point is that "sex sells" doesn't appear to correspond to reality, because the big top-selling sci-fi shooter franchises are totally fine putting women in armor.

[Ryzaki]

...Supersmash brothers gave close up shots of Snake's ass.  Following that logic man butt leads to a successful game. 

There was plenty of fanservice in that game for *both* genders. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:11 .

[DaringMoosejaw]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

If people made more money stuffing women in featureless power armor instead of form-fitting attire, you can bet your ass they'd do that instead regardless of whether they think women are toys or not. But they don't, so they won't.

They kind of do.

Go figure.

I'm pretty confident there are other factors in those games' successes than how they portray women in gender-neutral armor.

Yeah, they also have good gameplay. But the point is that "sex sells" doesn't appear to correspond to reality, because the big top-selling sci-fi shooter franchises are totally fine putting women in armor.

Sex certainly does sell, it wouldn't be so prevelant in media if it didn't. The question then becomes, does gender-neutrality sell more as a factor than titilation? Or is it merely irrelevent or negligable with regard to profits?

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:13 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Massadonious1 wrote...

snip

Other M is the game you're looking for. Also, I think you're straying from the topic a bit. The central point is that you can absolutely have a sci-fi game that has women in power armor and sells excellently.

[HighMoon]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Btw, the thing she wears under the armor is arguably not as bad as what Miranda wears around the office.

You're right, it's worse.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Supersmash brothers gave close up shots of Snake's ass.  Following that logic man butt leads to a successful game. 

There was plenty of fanservice in that game for *both* genders. 

Super Smash Brothers' target audience is children, dude. I doubt they were like "LOL T&A YEAH BRO" when they bought it.

[Ryzaki]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
Super Smash Brothers' target audience is children, dude. I doubt they were like "LOL T&A YEAH BRO" when they bought it.

 

True. 

Fact remains there's plenty of T&A to be found.  Not that I was looking...

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Sex certainly does sell, it wouldn't be so prevelant in media if it didn't. The question then becomes, does gender-neutrality sell more as a factor than titilation? Or is it merely irrelevent or negligable with regard to profits?

I'd imagine that people generally buy games for gameplay. Or maybe that's just me.

[Massadonious1]

And, no one who plays those types of games almost exclusively really gives a crap what the characters in the single player components of those games wore.

They could put Soap McTavish in a clown suit and people would still ignore it and play multiplayer instead.

[DaringMoosejaw]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Sex certainly does sell, it wouldn't be so prevelant in media if it didn't. The question then becomes, does gender-neutrality sell more as a factor than titilation? Or is it merely irrelevent or negligable with regard to profits?

I'd imagine that people generally buy games for gameplay. Or maybe that's just me.

I'd hope so, but look at the Lara Croft franchise.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Massadonious1 wrote...

And, no one who plays those types of games almost exclusively really gives a crap what the characters in the single player components of those games wore.

They could put Soap McTavish in a clown suit and people would still ignore it and play multiplayer instead.

Yeah, Metroid must sell for the multiplayer, that's it!

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Sex certainly does sell, it wouldn't be so prevelant in media if it didn't. The question then becomes, does gender-neutrality sell more as a factor than titilation? Or is it merely irrelevent or negligable with regard to profits?

I'd imagine that people generally buy games for gameplay. Or maybe that's just me.

I'd hope so, but look at the Lara Croft franchise.

Yeah, but I'd hope Bioware shoots at least a little higher than Tomb Raider. Honestly, I don't get the argument here. Are we saying implausible clothes = good?

[Massadonious1]

And you didn't also post screenshots of Gears and Halo?

Don't act stupid. You know exactly what I meant.

[HighMoon]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Sex certainly does sell, it wouldn't be so prevelant in media if it didn't. The question then becomes, does gender-neutrality sell more as a factor than titilation? Or is it merely irrelevent or negligable with regard to profits?

I'd imagine that people generally buy games for gameplay. Or maybe that's just me.

I'd hope so, but look at the Lara Croft franchise.

True. However, she seems to be less sexed up in the latest game... so maybe that's a step in the right direction?

Modifié par Golden-Rose, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:23 .

[Eromenos]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

Eromenos wrote...

Infestation wrote...

Eromenos wrote...

Oh, I know. I'm here for teh azure of course. Just so long as it's Kaidan's azure.

In the meantime, you shouldn't be so casual about referring to women as hos. I always clarify myself when I use it around this place. I use it as a critique against BioWare's unjust targeting of women in a way that is hurtful to women just so BioWare can pimp them out to dudebros.

Case in point with the way BioWare depicted women characters' "alternative outfits" for this Collector's Edition. Why should they be singled out for this crap? Tsk.

Fact: Sex sells.

Fact: That's an excuse for treating women exclusively as toys.

If people made more money stuffing women in featureless power armor instead of form-fitting attire, you can bet your ass they'd do that instead regardless of whether they think women are toys or not. But they don't, so they won't.

I...must've missed the part where you announced your stake as a BioWare share-holder and/or employee and thus your own vested interest in protecting these debated products from which you must profit by rendering women into sex-toys? Well, perhaps you don't actually have tangible personal investment in this. Simply playing up to capitalistic exploitation for its own sake is the safe and normal thing to do, mebbe. But not for me. Which is why I perceive the harm in segregating Ashley's depictions for misogynistic purposes much more keenly than the promise of any impersonal profit margins that would make me feel unclean. Whether or not I'm a BioWare stock-holder. Which I'm not.

Seems a few other posters referenced Samus for your benefit already. My thanks to them...I'll continue tomorrow! 

Modifié par Eromenos, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:24 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Massadonious1 wrote...

And you didn't also post screenshots of Gears and Halo?

Don't act stupid. You know exactly what I meant.

They're all examples of franchises that sell games quite well and have women in something a person might actually wear into battle. Some have a multiplayer component, some don't.

[Massadonious1]

2 out of the 3 you posted did.

Maybe you need to find better examples.

[DaringMoosejaw]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but I'd hope Bioware shoots at least a little higher than Tomb Raider. Honestly, I don't get the argument here. Are we saying implausible clothes = good?

I'm saying the aesthetic is popular, and there's no real financial incentive to change that. If there were, you'd see it far more often. It isn't created that way as an excuse to chain women down as objects due to the posession of our infernal penises. Less people mind the titilation than do not, less people are enthusiastic about the lack of titilation than those who simply don't care.

Modifié par DaringMoosejaw, 06 juillet 2011 - 06:26 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but I'd hope Bioware shoots at least a little higher than Tomb Raider. Honestly, I don't get the argument here. Are we saying implausible clothes = good?

I'm saying the aesthetic is popular, and there's no real financial incentive to change that. If there were, you'd see it far more often. It isn't created that way as an excuse to chain women down as objects due to the posession of our infernal penises. Less people mind the titilation than do not, less people are enthusiastic about the lack of titilation than those who simply don't care.

Sorry, what do you think we're talking about? Because this is about sci-fi shooter franchises that financially got away with having women who dressed like normal people.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

Massadonious1 wrote...

2 out of the 3 you posted did.

Maybe you need to find better examples.

Or maybe you need to find tactics other than trying to move the goalposts

[fivefingaslap18]

The whole point is that the game is what it is. At the moment, we don't know what Ashley is wearing for the entirety of the game itself. I have been constantly saying that she was there for Shepard's trial. No one knew the Reapers were going to attack for those attending the trial. She was one of them potentially. If she has another change of clothes, than it works out. If not, it's because you don't always wear your military armor to a court proceeding. I believe she should have military armor and it's not impossible for her to acquire later.

Fact is: sex sells. Fact is: BioWare was bought by EA. Fact is: BioWare before EA was about story and gameplay. Fact is: EA has disowned fanbases for profits. Fact is: BioWare after EA has been the EA mantra. Fact is: BioWare after EA is looking to put in multiplayer into all of their games. Fact is: BioWare before EA would NEVER put mulitplayer into any of their games. Fact is: after ME3 I will possibly never buy a BioWare game again. Fact is: EA killed BioWare's integrity.

[DaringMoosejaw]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

Yeah, but I'd hope Bioware shoots at least a little higher than Tomb Raider. Honestly, I don't get the argument here. Are we saying implausible clothes = good?

I'm saying the aesthetic is popular, and there's no real financial incentive to change that. If there were, you'd see it far more often. It isn't created that way as an excuse to chain women down as objects due to the posession of our infernal penises. Less people mind the titilation than do not, less people are enthusiastic about the lack of titilation than those who simply don't care.

Sorry, what do you think we're talking about? Because this is about sci-fi shooter franchises that financially got away with having women who dressed like normal people.

You jumped in when I was responding to a point about how financial concerns are ultimately a meaningless excuse to treat women as objects, that's what I was talking about. I see the financial concerns as, in fact, paramount to the entire design process. In the end, the art team is part of a business who's job it is to make a profit, not to use their ideas in order to perpetuate women as sex objects. Perhaps, at times, that may occur as a side-effect of the design decision but it is certainly not the primary reason.

[littlezack]

Also, speaking of Halo - is there any reason that the military has its AI manifest as a sexy woman in a skintight outfit?

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

DaringMoosejaw wrote...

You jumped in when I was responding to a point about how financial concerns are ultimately a meaningless excuse to treat women as objects, that's what I was talking about. I see the financial concerns as, in fact, paramount to the entire design process. In the end, the art team is part of a business who's job it is to make a profit, not to use their ideas in order to perpetuate women as sex objects. Perhaps, at times, that may occur as a side-effect of the design decision but it is certainly not the primary reason.

Okay, so by your logic why would a game ever choose to not objectify a female character?