littlezack wrote...
DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...
littlezack wrote...
As a guy who reads a lot of comic books, the concept of a woman in somewhat..revealing clothing isn't new to me. And yes, some of them are made up for pure titallation, but others still - Power GIrl, Wonder Woman, Black Canary, et cetera - can dress like they do and still come across as competent, strong, intelligent women, so long as they've got the right writer handling the job.
Just because Ashley's in that dress, doesn't mean she automatically devolves into some mindless fawn. To assume that or anything close is just silly.
There's also the issue of mixed messages. You can have writing that tells you that a character is intelligent and competent, and visuals that tell you she's a sex object. But honestly, this debate has ocurred over and over again, and the question is less "does objectification exist?" (answer: yes) and more "how should people portray female characters in media?"
Hm. You make a civil argument. I will engage you, sir.
While I understand the argument against it, I think we do ourselves an injustice by moving over to the other extreme - surely, there is a limit, but I don't think every single woman in a videogame should dress like a nun. Some women prefer to dress sexy. That's their thing. People are more than what they dress - ultimately, it's what they do and how they act that defines them. I think we do ourselves a grave disservice by looking at a character design and immediately dismissing the character based on looks alone. The entire package should be taken into account.
Many women in video games are depicted in a manner that is patently objectifying. I think one of the best examples of this is Ivy from the Soul series (I really don’t need to provide a link, you should know this by now). Given that video gaming is a male-dominated industry, it’s somewhat expected that the male artists will create what other men have appetites for – which includes scantily clad women dressed to “impress” than for any other reason. But the extent to which this is taken is sometimes, rather appalling. It has varying degrees – some go as far as making characters like Ivy, and other characters are less sexualized. But what really bothers me are players who think this is how womenshould[/i] always be depicted, no matter what.
But I also believe that this doesn’t preclude games from having sexy or impractically dressed characters, male or female. Games, as a means of entertainment, are also a form of escapism and fantasy. Yes, women would never ever go into battle wearing high heels and clothing that is practically underwear. But some people find that appealing – the very impossibility that gaming allows lets us enjoy the unreasonable, a chance to flair our aesthetics and eschew realism. You can’t fight wearing whatever you want in real life, but you can in a game. In fantasy, aesthetics can mean more than realism, and some people will prefer that.I believe that the ultimate answer to this debate is by providing players with choice,
a strategy that Guild Wars 2 adopts. Aaron Coberly, character art lead for Guild Wars 2, states the following:
I would like to say a quick word about where we stand when it comes to the “sexiness” of our armors and costumes. This is a controversial subject that I encounter frequently on forums and message boards—not just about Guild Wars[/i], but about a lot of games. I understand that many players feel that armor should be practical, realistic, and shouldn’t leave skin exposed to attack. When coming up with ideas for armor, the character and concept department try to balance the practical with the fantasy. We make armor that looks protective and functional, but we also make armor that looks sexy and shows a generous level of strategically placed skin. We recognize the “fantasy” aspect of our game; if you are able to rain down balls of fire from the sky, your clothing should not be a factor when it comes to body temperature, whether you are wearing your underwear or a fur coat. We’ve always intended to create outfits for male and female characters that are appealing and attractive without making our players feel uncomfortable about what their character or other player-characters are wearing. I think that Guild Wars[/i] has been very successful in this regard, and we will continue to make outfits that adhere to this philosophy.
It will be that some players prefer fashion over realism in video games, and others vice versa. And guess what? That’s totally OK in my book. I think there is a place for more female Shepards, just as there is a place for characters like Bayonetta. If you're completely against the depiction of characters like Bayonetta, I don't think a wholesale campaign to eradicate such characters will ever be successful, because gaming, just like music, art, film, or literature, is a projection of our imagination. In lots of music, men and women both sing about hypothetical lovers that transcend the limits of reality.
The difference gaming has with these media is that it is far more recent (along with the fact that visual art, as a serious intellectual/artistic pursuit, is arguably dead, but I digress). The other media I have mentioned have had a comparatively larger time to evolve, and thus more women develop them. Pornography has always existed, and I would bet it has generally (if not always) catered to men. So does "Tom Clancy" literature. But because more women are involved in print, we have fashion magazines, romance novels, and erotic publications more dedicated towards women.
I think one of the deciding factors will be the number of women who work in the industry. As more women become game developers, we should see a greater variety in terms of the style, art direction, and manner in which women are portrayed. I think it could be very interesting – after all, women are much more fashion-conscious than men, so I think character design can only benefit from having more women in game development, especially in art.
Modifié par TheKillerAngel, 06 juillet 2011 - 01:19 .