547 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRatPack55]

Yeah, in any case the thread has blown up to the point of not being recognisable any more

 

I think I'm out now. Somehow discussions about simple matters of taste end up as political battlefields that don't help anybody. If anything, they create confrontations where we should work together.

 

I maintain that having options is better than trying to boil everything down into a mush that fails to please anybody. I agree that there are issues for both sexes (btw you get no quarrel from me that some of Miranda's ass-shots were ridiculous, but that's not a matter of character design but camera direction), but I think we'll never solve those by blowing up a discussion about wardrobes.

 

(PS @RatPack: So what? Men may not be as sexualised as women in computer games, yes. Instead, they are cannon fodder. Would you like to swap? -- my point is... this has devolved into a pissing contest.)

 

@bolded - yes, very much yes.  Believe it or not, avoiding treating women as cannon fodder is simply another manifestation of the 'special treatment' that is based on the belief that women can't fight and are just there so that the hero can save and 'win' them in the end. I'd gladly welcome female cannon fodder characters.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

@bolded - yes, very much yes.  Believe it or not, avoiding treating women as cannon fodder is simply another manifestation of the 'special treatment' that is based on the belief that women can't fight and are just there so that the hero can save and 'win' them in the end. I'd gladly welcome female cannon fodder characters.

No, it's not. It's based on the fact that men are the more expendable gender in both theory and history. Plus the fact that hurting a woman is seen as worse than hurting a man.

[TheRatPack55]

No, it's not. It's based on the fact that men are the more expendable gender in both theory and history. Plus the fact that hurting a woman is seen as worse than hurting a man.

 

That does not contradict my point. Either way it's still sexism. And I personally want to see equal numbers of women and men in the role of cannon fodder for the sake of equality for both genders. I don't like mowing down men but letting women go 'because women' partially because I see it as a double standard, just like the predominance of female sexualization.

[Terodil]

And I personally want to see equal numbers of women and men in the role of cannon fodder for the sake of equality for both genders. I don't like mowing down men but letting women go 'because women' partially because I see it as a double standard.

Surprise! I agree.

Although I will add, on a sidenote, that I'd personally rather get fucked than killed. #justsayin'

So... remind me again why you are against the odd sexy female companion? Because you don't get a sexy male companion? If so, I'd rather ask for a sexy male companion than take out the sexy female companion to create 'balance'. (Again we are reducing characters to just their looks which is, as I explained before, superficial and misleading, but for the sake of discussing just this attribute... bleh)

[Panda]

No, it's not. It's based on the fact that men are the more expendable gender in both theory and history. Plus the fact that hurting a woman is seen as worse than hurting a man.

 

I think that's because quite traditionally women have been not seen as fighters, not as knights or soldiers and there has been this mentality of "gentlemen doesn't hit women". Transfered to video games and other media with violence that mentality of gentlemen however becomes little sexist ^^; Like there is times you see male character refusing to fight and recognize female characters as opponent cause they woman and it's often seen chivalrous, although in my opinion it's opposite, it's disminishing women as worthy opponents.

 

In other hand there is aspect of violence towards women IRL, which is mostly violence towards women who can't defend so in this case it's not two fighters taking each other on, but it's more as assault, often one with sexual tones. I don't know if it's best that video games and other media portray this, I have seen it sometimes and well it's not something I'm that comfortable of seeing. This kinda of violence you don't see male characters suffering so much.

 

In other hand I'd be glad of seeing more female characters being opponents or "canon fodders" than you see now. Meaning, that random enemies that you just kill, it's not different to me if it's woman or man. In other hand if I see powerful female character as enemy I have to fight, I think it's positive thing to me rather than negative.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

That does not contradict my point. Either way it's still sexism. And I personally want to see equal numbers of women and men in the role of cannon fodder for the sake of equality for both genders. I don't like mowing down men but letting women go 'because women' partially because I see it as a double standard, just like the predominance of female sexualization.

Oh, I agree it is sexism. It is literally seeing one gender as inferior to the other. Which gender depends on viewpoint. 

 

I wonder though, if something is sexist to both sexes does that mean it is technically not sexist? (This isn't a serious question. Or at least mostly. )

[DomeWing333]

I'd say MGS is a... special series overall. That said, there is still plenty of female sexualization in it to balance the catsuit out, and I dare say there are more closeups of EVA's or Naomi's breasts then there are deliberate ass-shots of Snake, if any.

My point was actually that skin-tight clothing isn't necessarily sexualization at all. I don't think Kojima put Snake in what is essentially a thin layer of latex body paint as an attempt to overtly sexualize the character. It's just what the character wears.

 

Now, the fans, on the other hand, did take to sexualizing Snake's catsuit (though usually in a joking manner). But that sexualization still doesn't do anything to diminish his status as a badass male power fantasy figure. Characters, male and female, can be both sexual and powerful, for different demographics or even the same ones.

[Uccio]

I wouldn´t call it sexism so much, more like traditional role. Men are usually more aggressive, prone to violence. Even male physiology backs that up. Therefore men have always been the "cannon fodder". That reflects in the games. Though in a fantasy world such restrictions can be avoided.

[SardaukarElite]

That men are often treated as expendable isn't something which cancels out other sexism against women. It's a problem which is tied to how we view both genders in various contexts. I don't get why these discussions always have to be about point scoring and attempting to disarm arguments by looking for double standards.

 

I agree with this, I don't think anyone is on opposite sides here. Some of us would just like some consistency and not have it be dismissed as a male power fantasy when the shoe is on the other foot. Iron Bull is not a male power fantasy.

 

We hear the term "fighting **** toy" being paraded about and being linked to characters like Lara Croft, Bayonetta and Ivy Valentine, Iron Bull actually fit's the trope far more so than nearly any female character I can think of. It will automatically be dismissed however because IB happens to be a guy.

 

I don't like the male power fantasy thing because I don't think it's accurate and takes a very simple view of what a character is.

 

The thing is characters represent concepts. In Casablanca we are repeatedly told by multiple characters that Ingrid Bergman's character is beautiful, she is shown in soft focus and romantic music plays when she is on screen. That's not done to make her appear attractive to a straight male audience, they should already find her attractive (or not). It's done because the entire audience is supposed to understand why Humphrey Bogart's character is interested in her, because that's critical to the plot.

 

Likewise a male character showing off his muscles likely isn't either a male power fantasy or a female sexual fantasy but intended to be a projection of physical power. Bull is probably a bit of both (without gendering on who the fantasy is for because BioWare is progressive like that). It's worth noting that he's similar in appearance to the kind of big man character someone like Indiana Jones would have to outwit - their appearance also plays up size and muscles to show that our hero can't overcome them physically.

 

What I find annoying is how Bull is never brought up to aid the discussion "hey here's a male character is sexualised, what do you think of that, and can we learn something about how to better sexualise female characters or do you think he's as bad?" no, he's just weaponised to score points. I wouldn't mind a female character with similar clothing to Bull, because his clothing looks like it wouldn't fall off when goes adventuring, I can't say the same about Isabela.

 

 

I'm not sure where you're going with this; is this an illustration or a criticism? because I'd love a beautiful and kick-ass warrior in plate mail and with fabulous hair, proud of what she does etc.!

(...)

I think we're talking over crossed wires again. I thought you called it unrealistic that NPCs would ever look the same, so if an NPC is beautiful she always is, and bad moods or inopportune timing etc. never show...? Because I agree that Cullen is a great LI!

 

Okay I can see how that got confusing.

 

The hypothetical knight woman I mentioned was an illustration of what I think is missing. Video game characters normally get one appearance, that's just something we normally have to work with. When designers create that one appearance for a female character who is intended to be attractive they tend to play up her sexual attractiveness to an unnecessary extreme, high heels, no pants, cleavage etc.

 

There are other kinds of attractiveness, not being represented / explored here. There's also the implication that we can't assume a woman can be attractive without overtly showing it. My point is that if we Cas and Isabella as the two archetypal female power fantasies it's kind of sad that the 'realistic' one is downplaying her attraction, and the other is playing up her sexual attraction to the point that other elements are less obvious in her appearance.

 

Meanwhile, most people get that Cullen is supposed to be attractive. He's been held up as an example of a double standard even. But his appearance is clearly that of a knightly fighter, and pretty realistic even by DA standards. With that one design, his artists managed to portray him as pretty, knightly, and commanding all in one go and in a balanced way.

[TheRatPack55]

Surprise! I agree.

Although I will add, on a sidenote, that I'd personally rather get fucked than killed. #justsayin'

So... remind me again why you are against the odd sexy female companion? Because you don't get a sexy male companion? If so, I'd rather ask for a sexy male companion than take out the sexy female companion to create 'balance'. (Again we are reducing characters to just their looks which is, as I explained before, superficial and misleading, but for the sake of discussing just this attribute... bleh)

 

Double surprise! I'm not against it, I would rather have a sexy male added too. I like sexy.

 

The discussion is still going because I don't find the OP's 'suggestions' fitting for the DA verse. Isabela was fine. Morrigan was fine. The barbie dolls aren't. There wasn't a male equivalent. I also have my doubts whether the hypothetical 'sexy male' would actually be equally presented - Iron Bull is not what I consider sexy. Thane is no counterpart to any sexy female MA companion (and he dies...).

 

So that's that. I don't want less sexy, I want it presented tastefully and equally for both genders.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I think that's because quite traditionally women have been not seen as fighters, not as knights or soldiers and there has been this mentality of "gentlemen doesn't hit women". Transfered to video games and other media with violence that mentality of gentlemen however becomes little sexist ^^; Like there is times you see male character refusing to fight and recognize female characters as opponent cause they woman and it's often seen chivalrous, although in my opinion it's opposite, it's disminishing women as worthy opponents.

Agreed. An anime series I like, Kenichi: The Mightiest Disciple, has this actually addressed. The character Kisara's backstory revolves around how she was a skilled martial artist and was very proud of being able to be the best in her class despite 'being just a girl'. However this pride is crushed when after winning a championship she overhears the opponent try to not look bad to his buddies by saying he lost on purpose. This shatters her pride so she joins the street fights because "There are no rules, no regulations, nothing to use an excuse to say you lost on purpose.". The hero of the story granted is someone who was raised to not fight girls, but in the genuinely chivalrous way and not the sexist way, which she even says something like how he probably sees something like that is chivalrous but "sexist crap like that really pisses me off." So she tries to get him to get out of her way, but he stands there and gets the crud beat out of him while not returning the blows, him saying "I understand you have your pride, but I have my principals.". The fight lets them both express their views in both words and actions, and eventually the two become friends and allies later in the series. I really liked how it showed the positives and negatives to both sides of the issue. 

[Terodil]

Like there is times you see male character refusing to fight and recognize female characters as opponent cause they woman and it's often seen chivalrous, although in my opinion it's opposite, it's disminishing women as worthy opponents.

Agreed, the 'let's not take them serious' thing always makes me angry too. Speaking from a RP perspective though I haven't seen that in quite a while, unless it was actually used to underline the character of the man -- and usually not in a good light. It was actually a core point of Aveline's story in DA:KW.
 

In other hand there is aspect of violence towards women IRL, which is mostly violence towards women who can't defend so in this case it's not two fighters taking each other on, but it's more as assault, often one with sexual tones. I don't know if it's best that video games and other media portray this, I have seen it sometimes and well it's not something I'm that comfortable of seeing. This kinda of violence you don't see male characters suffering so much.

Let's not go there, shall we? Domestic violence is miles away from what we are discussing at the moment, and even then your wording 'we don't see male characters suffering so much' is very precise. Dark figures for domestic violence are notoriously high, but there seems to be general consensus that it is even higher where men are victims because society has a double standard. So let's just skip this. Nothing to be gained here.
 

In other hand I'd be glad of seeing more female characters being opponents or "canon fodders" than you see now. Meaning, that random enemies that you just kill, it's not different to me if it's woman or man. In other hand if I see powerful female character as enemy I have to fight, I think it's positive thing to me rather than negative.

Full agreement. Though again I think we are getting pretty far from the thread.
 

Men are usually more aggressive, prone to violence. Even male physiology backs that up.

If anything in this thread was sexist, it is this statement. Seriously. Did you type this with a straight face? Maybe you have some evidence from phrenology studies too?
 

That men are often treated as expendable isn't something which cancels out other sexism against women. It's a problem which is tied to how we view both genders in various contexts. I don't get why these discussions always have to be about point scoring and attempting to disarm arguments by looking for double standards.

Yep! Agreed. Which is why I'm trying to steer this discussion away from this confrontational political level.
 

There are other kinds of attractiveness, not being represented / explored here.

Actually I think they are. Personality still plays a huge role in DA games and is what I'd call the most important aspect of attractiveness, closely followed by intellect, beauty, etc.... what do you think is missing?
 

There's also the implication that we can't assume a woman can be attractive without overtly showing it.

Sorry, come again? I think we had the discussion above: Can a person (man or woman) only be sexy if s/he is wearing sexy clothing? I definitely don't think so, think of Isabela or Miranda in a potato sack. Though I will freely admit that I find Isabela's outfit darn hot and that it underlines (not makes!) her (visual) attractiveness. Just my $.02.
 

My point is that if we Cas and Isabella as the two archetypal female power fantasies it's kind of sad that the 'realistic' one is downplaying her attraction, and the other is playing up her sexual attraction to the point that other elements are less obvious in her appearance.

Uh, isn't that the entire point in them being different people, i.e. that they behave differently? Cass is a functional, no-nonsense, and highly devout woman. Isabela is pretty much the opposite. Why would you expect them to behave differently? I don't see how Isabela downplaying her beauty and Cass accentuating her physical advantages would be in-character. I really see no problem here!

P.S. And here I am posting again, sigh

P.S. 2 / Edit: Caught myself being imprecise with my wording. I still sometimes use 'attractiveness' when I mean 'beauty' or 'sexiness'. Attractiveness is much more than just the visual aspect. Corrected it all, I think, but if you still find it occasionally please read it with this in mind.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

P.S. And here I am posting again, sigh

You've passed the Event Horizon of this thread. Struggle as you might, you can never leave. 

[DomeWing333]

If anything in this thread was sexist, it is this statement. Seriously. Did you type this with a straight face? Maybe you have some evidence from phrenology studies too?

Well, in terms of physical aggression, that actually is true, at least in Western societies. Men are more likely to engage in violence than women and high testosterone levels are correlated with increased aggression. That said, I do highly disagree with that as the reason why men are used as cannon fodder.

[Uccio]

If anything in this thread was sexist, it is this statement. Seriously. Did you type this with a straight face? Maybe you have some evidence from phrenology studies too?

 

Well, a quick search gave me this.

 

https://www.psycholo...male-aggression

 

"The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native; they were selected and evolutionary polished [Sell et al., 2012, p. 33]."

[Terodil]

I'm still getting sick over the 'men are more violent' statement. Without looking into reasons and the nature of likelihoods, it is just as sexist a statement as can be.

Anyway. I came back on here to share a thought I had while walking the puppy. (Puppy has amazing insight sometimes!)

I was wondering why this type of thread seems to elicit such personal, heated debates, and I can only pin it on two possible reasons.

1. Some posters feel that female NPCs are expected/demanded to be sexier than their male counterparts. And/or
2. Some posters feel that NPCs in general should not be sexy.

Am I right with trying to condense it thus?

Then looking at the two reasons...

ad 2: taking this one first, because it's easy. That's a matter of taste in video games in general and definitely not of sexism. You can agree, you can not agree. Fine.

ad 1: There are two possible responses.

1a. Bring down *all* female NPCs to the level of perceived unsexiness as their male counterparts (which is the same response as when you agree with 2).
1b. Elevate *some* male NPCs to the level of perceived sexiness as their female counterparts.

So my question is: Why does the majority of opponents (of the OP) request 1a, when they could just as well request 1b, provided that they are not (possibly also) falling into group 2 (against sexiness in VG in general)? Speaking as a man, I would be perfectly fine with a thread asking for a, dunno, Zhevran-style semi-unclad companion. Why not? In fact, I'm actually strongly in favour of giving women the same level of eye-candy as men, anything else would indeed be unfair; and if there have to be ass-shots at all, then said semi-clad male eye candy should get a share too. So why don't we see more 'give us a prettier male LI' threads from you, ladies? Are you happy with what you got? Is it just not important enough for you to make such a thread?

The fact that these threads all tend to grow to dozens of pages and then end up in the bin seems to indicate that it is important to you, though. But then again, I have to ask: Why not simply start another thread with some input for BW to create guys you can feel more attracted to, if you're currently unhappy? And if you are happy, then why not accept that others (either other women or men) are not and would wish for something different?

I'm a firm believer in 'live and let live', yet somehow... I don't know. This always comes across as a bit totalitarian to me. And I really don't understand it, even after participating in several of these threads.

Edit/PS: That article is crap, Ukki, or at least the way you cited it is. Firstly, it talks in grand averages without taking into account distributions. Secondly, it seems to correlate muscle with violence. How about heavy lifting? There are numerous tasks that require muscles other than violence. Thirdly, evolution is one thing. Behaviour in the 21st century is another. Fourthly, averages fail at making statements about individuals. Fifthly, if we talk about violence in general, let's not discard verbal violence. Sixthly, I don't even want to discuss this any more, if you can't see how wrong this all is you're seriously blind.

[SardaukarElite]

Actually I think they are. Personality still plays a huge role in DA games and is what I'd call the most important aspect of attractiveness, closely followed by intellect, beauty, etc.... what do you think is missing?
 

Sorry, come again? I think we had the discussion above: Can a person (man or woman) only be sexy if s/he is wearing sexy clothing? I definitely don't think so, think of Isabela or Miranda in a potato sack. Though I will freely admit that I find Isabela's outfit darn hot and that it underlines (not makes!) her (visual) attractiveness. Just my $.02.
 

Uh, isn't that the entire point in them being different people, i.e. that they behave differently? Cass is a functional, no-nonsense, and highly devout woman. Isabela is pretty much the opposite. Why would you expect them to behave differently? I don't see how Isabela downplaying her beauty and Cass accentuating her physical advantages would be in-character. I really see no problem here!

 

Yeah, I'm too tired to keep going back and forth like this over what I'd thought was a fairly straightforward point. I'll try to break it down to the core of what I'm getting at.

 

I think Miranda and Isabela are fine characters. I also think it is a shame that of two of BioWare's characters who beauty is fairly important to their character, their visual appearance draws heavily on the generic techniques used to make women in video games sexually attractive rather than try to make give them appearances that look like their characters have reconciled what they do with their own desire to look a certain kind of beautiful.

[SnakeCode]

Can somebody remind me please what we are actually discussing about?

 

I thought the topic was whether games should offer a choice of outfits to appeal to different tastes.

 

Now we have somehow arrived at a competition of 'who has it worse' (I'm sorely tempted to 'contribute' a rant about the disposable nature of men in video games), we are discussing some obscure concept of male power fantasies, we are theorising about what may or may not have been a primary design goal of NPCs, etc., and everybody seems to be talking to themselves.

 

No need, i've done that before. It falls upon deaf ears.

[Uccio]

Edit/PS: That article is crap, Ukki, or at least the way you cited it is. Firstly, it talks in grand averages without taking into account distributions. Secondly, it seems to correlate muscle with violence. How about heavy lifting? There are numerous tasks that require muscles other than violence. Thirdly, evolution is one thing. Behaviour in the 21st century is another. Fourthly, averages fail at making statements about individuals. Fifthly, if we talk about violence in general, let's not discard verbal violence. Sixthly, I don't even want to discuss this any more, if you can't see how wrong this all is you're seriously blind.

 

Easy there, no need to get worked up. This is not the first article I have read about this. As you saw there are references in the end of the article. There are certain issues which dominate statistics. There is no point dismissing them. Male gender is equipped to fight better than female. Male gender is also more aggressive. I just mean that it reflects into the games not because it is sexist but because it is one of the structures of our society. Fantasy game can change that.

[Terodil]

Yeah, I'm too tired to keep going back and forth

I am too, especially of your uncalled-for hostile tone.
 

their visual appearance draws heavily on the generic techniques used to make women in video games sexually attractive rather than try to make give them appearances that look like their characters have reconciled what they do with their own desire to look a certain kind of beautiful.

Last try to get any sort of progress in this question: Isabela has perfectly 'reconciled what she does with her own desire to look [...] beautiful.' Her confidence, her attitude, even her intro in the Hanged Man speak to that -- she is aware of her look, uses it, and enjoys doing so. And Cassandra does not have a desire to look beautiful, she'd consider it fluff, unnecessary, perhaps even detrimental to what is important to her, so there is nothing to reconcile.

You are projecting.

[Vanth]

Heres my 2c. Personally, I agree with the OP. I don't like the art style of DA:I and I think the female characters (apart from Vivienne actually) are all rather plain and unattractive. I like neither Cassandra nor Josephine and I understand that some straight male players feel short changed. 

 

However, I don't really mind. I realise that Bioware had an agenda in making DA:I and it is their game, so it is up to them. It isn't really a big deal to me if the female non-player characters are all unattractive. Hell, in real life one often finds oneself working with unattractive people, so maybe it is good for young men to experience that early.

 

But, I do object to the double standard. DA:I contains many sexualised and objectified men. Just look at the treatment of Iron Bull and tell me that there is no objectification there! They are doing exactly the same thing to the men in DA:I that people in this thread are criticising the OP for wanting done to the women. So there is a huge hypocrisy going on here. Again, I don't mind how they dress Iron Bull. I am fine with women looking pretty and being sexualised, so I am also fine with Iron Bull being treated this way. But I do find the disparity jarring. 

 

And if I am honest, this will make me look very carefully before buying another Bioware game in the future. I will probably wait a while to see the reactions and will certainly not preorder from Bioware again. 

[SnakeCode]

@bolded - yes, very much yes.  Believe it or not, avoiding treating women as cannon fodder is simply another manifestation of the 'special treatment' that is based on the belief that women can't fight and are just there so that the hero can save and 'win' them in the end. I'd gladly welcome female cannon fodder characters.

 

No it isn't, it's because a game that treats men and women the exact same (cannon fodder wise) is usually decried as being sexist and encouraging violence against women. We've seen this recently with games like GTA V, Hatred and the God of War series (who then dropped all fights against female characters/monsters because of it.)

 

I'm all for seeing more female opponents in games, but devs just can't win in the current landscape. If they don't, people like you will cry sexism and say it's because they are saying women are too weak to fight. If they do, the Sarkeesian crowd cries sexism, and say the game supports violence against women.

[Panda]

No need, i've done that before. It falls upon deaf ears.

 

If I remember right, you and Colonel were using this arguement of "canon fodder" male characters against mine in similar topic of female characters being more sexualised in video games compared to male characters. However, when I stated that I whole heartedly support equal gender killing in video games and proposed that by introducing more female characters this could be achieved, you seemed to back down. So your arguement was heard, supported, but you didn't seem to want to support it, you just wanted to use it as counterarguement? That's at least how I remember it going

[TheRatPack55]

Heres my 2c. Personally, I agree with the OP. I don't like the art style of DA:I and I think the female characters (apart from Vivienne actually) are all rather plain and unattractive. I like neither Cassandra nor Josephine and I understand that some straight male players feel short changed. 

 

However, I don't really mind. I realise that Bioware had an agenda in making DA:I and it is their game, so it is up to them. It isn't really a big deal to me if the female non-player characters are all unattractive. Hell, in real life one often finds oneself working with unattractive people, so maybe it is good for young men to experience that early.

 

But, I do object to the double standard. DA:I contains many sexualised and objectified men. Just look at the treatment of Iron Bull and tell me that there is no objectification there! They are doing exactly the same thing to the men in DA:I that people in this thread are criticising the OP for wanting done to the women. So there is a huge hypocrisy going on here. Again, I don't mind how they dress Iron Bull. I am fine with women looking pretty and being sexualised, so I am also fine with Iron Bull being treated this way. But I do find the disparity jarring. 

 

And if I am honest, this will make me look very carefully before buying another Bioware game in the future. I will probably wait a while to see the reactions and will certainly not preorder from Bioware again. 

 

I'll keep repeating this like a broken record, but The Iron Bull isn't sexualized any more than Kratos is sexualized. Or maybe I'm just not feeling the sexy because he is ugly to me. Still, I don't remember a single scene outside of romance focusing on TIB's buttocks or package. An exposed male chest is not sexualization in and of itself. The only male sexualization moment in DAI could be Cullen in the optional Wicked Grace scene, and that's basically treated as a gag, not titillation for female audience.

 

No it isn't, it's because a game that treats men and women the exact same (cannon fodder wise) is usually decried as being sexist and encouraging violence against women. We've seen this recently with games like GTA V, Hatred and the God of War series (who then dropped all fights against female characters/monsters because of it.)

 

I'm all for seeing more female opponents in games, but devs just can't win in the current landscape. If they don't, people like you will cry sexism and say it's because they are saying women are too weak to fight. If they do, the Sarkeesian crowd cries sexism, and say the game supports violence against women.

 

How about instead of the option to beat up prostitutes they give us sensibly armored female mooks alongside the already present sensibly armored male mooks?

[SnakeCode]

If I remember right, you and Colonel were using this arguement of "canon fodder" male characters against mine in similar topic of female characters being more sexualised in video games compared to male characters. However, when I stated that I whole heartedly support equal gender killing in video games and proposed that by introducing more female characters this could be achieved, you seemed to back down. So your arguement was heard, supported, but you didn't seem to want to support it, you just wanted to use it as counterarguement? That's at least how I remember it going

 

I remember it well. It was in the thread where someone had taken offense to a "naked" female form sitting atop one of the staff designs. You didn't, however support it, what you actually said was killing women isn't the same as killing men because women are victims. Which I found so silly I chose to not reply to.