186 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I have no issue with the concept of pushing interest; my issue is that I believe those specific interests are harmful and counterproductive. I'm opposed to those interests, not to the concept of interests.
As for artistic integrity, it's really not that hard to meld art with progression.

As a sidenote, while Miranda got no explanation for being oversexualized, Isabela in fact did, though of course many people wouldn't pay attention to it (strangely enough, these people hardly ever seem to have any interest in uplifting women in general, they just want to spray disdain at Isabela personally).

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I don't think you should be taking the moral high ground when it comes to making things "better"

That's just absurd. Even if you want to say it's all about self-interest, if in one case the self-interest is the equal treatment of all groups and the other is sexist and exploitation of a gender for tilitation, then one self-interest just plain wins. 

Yeah, it's 'cloaked' in a mantle of progressiveness? Lots of drives toward social change are part self-interest and part progressive ideology. 

[esper]

renjility wrote...

esper wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

*snip*


In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

*snip*


As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

But Isabella likes being sexualized and have a fighting style fitting to it (Ie. a fighting style revoling around not being hit at all).

There is a huge difference.

Besides the woman in the in the picture above Miranda have an unhealthy obession with rings around her breasts, I have not played the game so I don't know if they are justified, but personally I would rather play in a pantless dress like Isabella's, than I would run around with rings around my breasts.

[Sebby]

esper wrote...

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

His branch is responsible for a pirate skank that constantly talks about sex and wears no pants and has watermelon cleavage however.

it's "interesting" how his "socially progressive" team creates female character designs..



That are no better than what Itagaki's team created for games like Ninja Gaiden and Dead or Alive.

[In Exile]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Then let me add to my post:


This is how you SHOULDN'T represent women in your games:

You mean, equally sexualized and treated like a sex-conquest whose role in the story dissapears after being bedded and then abused, to serve as some kind of motivation for the heroic male protagonists to exact their vengeance on the male antagonist? 

[In Exile]

Seboist wrote...
His branch is responsible for a pirate skank[b] that [b]constantly talks about sex and wears no pants and has watermelon cleavage however.

So we start with really derogatory ****-shaming, then we follow-up with more ****-shaming (but at least this time you had the good grace to be subtle about it) ... and we're supposed to conclude what, other than you having issues? 

[Sutekh]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

<carefully handpicked screenshot 1>

In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

<carefully handpicked screenshot 2>

You mean like these?







which, btw, are from games Gaider actually participated in?

I too can post just the right screenies to make my point 

[Dutchess]

Xilizhra wrote...

As a sidenote, while Miranda got no explanation for being oversexualized, Isabela in fact did, though of course many people wouldn't pay attention to it (strangely enough, these people hardly ever seem to have any interest in uplifting women in general, they just want to spray disdain at Isabela personally).

I like Isabela's character and agree there's more to here than the sex thing. That doesn't mean her character design isn't over-the-top and that there's nothing wrong with those basketball breasts.

[Xilizhra]

renjility wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As a sidenote, while Miranda got no explanation for being oversexualized, Isabela in fact did, though of course many people wouldn't pay attention to it (strangely enough, these people hardly ever seem to have any interest in uplifting women in general, they just want to spray disdain at Isabela personally).

I like Isabela's character and agree there's more to here than the sex thing. That doesn't mean her character design isn't over-the-top and that there's nothing wrong with those basketball breasts.

Well, it's true that her breasts didn't need to be that large for the character concept. They may have gone overboard there.

[esper]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

esper wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

*snip Gears of War 3 picture of Anya*


In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

*snip ME2 picture of Miranda*


As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

Then let me add to my post:


This is how you SHOULDN'T represent women in your games:




Try this instead:

Isabella makes a point out of saying she dress like that, and beside Aveline and Merrill, neither who dresses provocatively, Isabella does have a right to be represented like that. It fits her personality. Now if Aveline suddenly wore a dress like Miranda or Merrill did, we might have a problem.

I do not know if they lady from the witcher 2 likes showing her cleavages, but she sure does. Why is that blouse open, so I don't miss the fact that she has breasts? I know why Isabella is pantless.

Beside with everything else I have seen from the women of the witcher 1 and 2, bioware is the very model of modesty.

[fchopin]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

esper wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Watch and learn Gaider and the rest of BioWare, THIS is how you properly present women in your games:

*snip Gears of War 3 picture of Anya*


In comparison, THIS is how it SHOULDN'T be done:

*snip ME2 picture of Miranda*


As our good friend Luke would say: "Thou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye before thou points out the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye."

Not a game Gaider is responsible for at all.

Then let me add to my post:


This is how you SHOULDN'T represent women in your games:

This is not how it should be done Bioware.

[billy the squid]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I don't think you should be taking the moral high ground when it comes to making things "better"

That's just absurd. Even if you want to say it's all about self-interest, if in one case the self-interest is the equal treatment of all groups and the other is sexist and exploitation of a gender for tilitation, then one self-interest just plain wins. 

Yeah, it's 'cloaked' in a mantle of progressiveness? Lots of drives toward social change are part self-interest and part progressive ideology. 

Pft. One has the the central goal to make a profit. The other has the desire of personal enjoyment and is entirely based on self interest, like the former.

You're not doing this as an avenue for social change, you're doing it because you want it to cater to you more specifically. If you want that fine. Just don't beat about the bush and proclaim it's for the good of society and social change. Because it's not, it's thinly veiled self interest.

Really, sexist. Explain to me how CoD, of BF3 is sexist or maybe the sports game franchise or racing. Why isn't there a drive to make those more inclusive? Why do we only see it in the games that you like. If it's a progressive ideology, then it affects the whole industry and every genre no? 

[Nerevar-as]

renjility wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

As a sidenote, while Miranda got no explanation for being oversexualized, Isabela in fact did, though of course many people wouldn't pay attention to it (strangely enough, these people hardly ever seem to have any interest in uplifting women in general, they just want to spray disdain at Isabela personally).

I like Isabela's character and agree there's more to here than the sex thing. That doesn't mean her character design isn't over-the-top and that there's nothing wrong with those basketball breasts.

Yeah, there´s the thing with not mentioning why the qunari were in KW that ended up with around hundreds od deaths and her getting away with everything. And to be fair, juvenile oversexualization seems to be the way DA is going, if we consider the comics too.

[jillabender]

In Exile wrote...

billy the squid wrote...
Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I don't think you should be taking the moral high ground when it comes to making things "better"

That's just absurd. Even if you want to say it's all about self-interest, if in one case the self-interest is the equal treatment of all groups and the other is sexist and exploitation of a gender for tilitation, then one self-interest just plain wins. 

Yeah, it's 'cloaked' in a mantle of progressiveness? Lots of drives toward social change are part self-interest and part progressive ideology.

I have to agree that when someone's "self-interest" is in not being marginalized by a more powerful group, it's unfair to say that interest is no more valid than any other.

Not all self-interests have the same ethical significance, and the fact that there's an element of self-interest in an argument for social change doesn't mean the argument has no ethical significance.

Modifié par jillabender, 02 avril 2013 - 04:19 .

[Xilizhra]

You're not doing this as an avenue for social change, you're doing it because you want it to cater to you more specifically. If you want that fine. Just don't beat about the bush and proclaim it's for the good of society and social change. Because it's not, it's thinly veiled self interest.

Surely there's a better use for your evident psychic powers than being wrong on the Internet.

[billy the squid]

Xilizhra wrote...

Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I have no issue with the concept of pushing interest; my issue is that I believe those specific interests are harmful and counterproductive. I'm opposed to those interests, not to the concept of interests.
As for artistic integrity, it's really not that hard to meld art with progression.

Despite it being anathema to artistic design. When your ideology begins to dictate how many, and how things are to be portrayed, and who is present, regardless of development desires. Becasue that's what interests are, including yours. They tend to disregard and shape creative decisions.

All you've done is substitue one set for the other, and yours are little better. 

[esper]

Filament wrote...

I like how we're discussing how big breasts "ought" or "need" to be.

On a completely different side not, I would like for it, if bioware is making another female who like very openly sexual, to have her have small breasts.

While I do hope that some of Isabella's basketballness is because she has a corset-like blouse, breast size are something people are born with and an a-cup might be as hyper-sexual as and d-cup might be shy and not happy with her size at all. And this is a time before breast increasing or reduction.

[billy the squid]

Xilizhra wrote...

You're not doing this as an avenue for social change, you're doing it because you want it to cater to you more specifically. If you want that fine. Just don't beat about the bush and proclaim it's for the good of society and social change. Because it's not, it's thinly veiled self interest.

Surely there's a better use for your evident psychic powers than being wrong on the Internet.

Don't you have any better quick comeback or are you down to thowing barbs now?

Or are you really under the impression that changing a commercial industry will change society? When it's formation is to serve the consumption pattern of that society. As things change the industry shifts to cater to new desires not the other way round.

[jillabender]

Billy the Squid wrote...

You're not doing this as an avenue for social change, you're doing it because you want it to cater to you more specifically. If you want that fine. Just don't beat about the bush and proclaim it's for the good of society and social change. Because it's not, it's thinly veiled self interest.

Again, with respect, there's a difference between simply wanting to see one's group catered to as such, and wanting to see one's group enjoy the same inclusion that other people take for granted.

I agree that representation and inclusiveness in games isn't necessarily the most pressing or ethically significant issue when it comes to social change, but I disagree that with the idea that it has no ethical signficance at all.

Modifié par jillabender, 02 avril 2013 - 04:22 .

[Jonata]

Men and women could be oversexualized as much as the artists wants if their characters are good enough. In fact, I think men and women almost should be oversexualized when it comes to a particular style of fiction. Beautiful is beautiful, I don't care if it's a beautiful woman showing off her rack or a man with stone buttocks in tight leather, I'll prefer this classic stereotypes to "ugly heroes" made by pretentious designers who thinks they are changing the world with such groundbreaking ideas (hint: they're not).

Writing is where the difference is made. You have Miranda, oversexualized as she may be, and then you turn her into a strong woman who is fighting to understand who she is, where she belongs and how to deal with her "fake perfection". And suddenly a cute butt isn't important anymore. That's where "groundbreaking" belongs, it's not about having less revealing dresses or calling sexism everytime a woman or a man show off their perfect boides.

I say, bring in more perfect bodies in revealing outfits, then put a great character in those. Jackpot. 

Modifié par Jonata, 02 avril 2013 - 04:24 .

[syllogi]

Xilizhra wrote...

Which was precisely my point, from the begining. There is no difference between you and your ilk and those which drive a commercial and business interest forwards. You simply cloak it in a mantle of progressiveness. That is the hypocrisy. To malign one organisation for pushing it's interests, while you do exactly the same, regardless of the game itself.

I have no issue with the concept of pushing interest; my issue is that I believe those specific interests are harmful and counterproductive. I'm opposed to those interests, not to the concept of interests.
As for artistic integrity, it's really not that hard to meld art with progression.

As a sidenote, while Miranda got no explanation for being oversexualized, Isabela in fact did, though of course many people wouldn't pay attention to it (strangely enough, these people hardly ever seem to have any interest in uplifting women in general, they just want to spray disdain at Isabela personally).

I love Isabela as a character, but I have been vocally critical of her design, because the party lines of "she wants to dress this way" and/or "it suits her personality to look this way" don't really wash with me.  The first explanation is disingenuous, in that we all know that video game characters don't want anything, their creators do.  The second tries to claim that her apparel is part of who she is...but I haven't heard the devs own up to the fact that part of her character design was also skin color and the size of her breasts, and neither attribute actually suits anyone's personality, in real life, nor are they signifiers of promiscuity or "sexiness."  So yeah, not a hater, just  suspicious of any time we see "sexy" Strong Female Characters, and as a consumer I'm told that if I don't accept the awesomeness of Power Girl's Boob Window or EDI's clearly defined labia, I'm a sex-negative FemiBadPerson who is shallow and lame.  Right.

[In Exile]

billy the squid wrote...
Pft. One has the the central goal to make a profit. The other has the desire of personal enjoyment and is entirely based on self interest, like the former.

No, this analytical distiction is just wrong. Not all things people are interested in are equal. Even if you say that all motivation is self-interest, a white supremacist and an advocate for labour rights do not, and will never be, on the same moral ground even if they act out of "self-interest". 

You're not doing this as an avenue for social change, you're doing it because you want it to cater to you more specifically.

I'm with Xil on this one, Ms. Cleo. 

Really, sexist. Explain to me how CoD, of BF3 is sexist or maybe the sports game franchise or racing.  

You mean the two games where women apparently don't exist?

Why isn't there a drive to make those more inclusive? Why do we only see it in the games that you like. If it's a progressive ideology, then it affects the whole industry and every genre no? 

What makes you think there isn't?