547 réponses à ce sujet

[XMissWooX]

They didn't seem to care when making the Avvar enemy types:

 

 

I'm pretty sure that's literally body paint.

 

Wait, she's an archer?

 

...Ouch!

 

[DomeWing333]

When you say things like sexualization for sexualization because characters they are for are sexualized, the thing most people have been arguing against game companies doing, then you shouldn't be surprised to have your views be questioned about this sort of thing.

 

Are the Spartans from Halo inappropriately sexualized for having skintight underarmor on while they are between deployments too? 

I...actually don't understand the point you're trying to make with the first statement.

 

Are Spartans from Halo often seen fighting Elites in their skin-tight underarmors rather than their Spartan Armor for no adequate reason? I don't play Halo, so I wouldn't know, but if so then yes, they are inappropriately sexualized.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I...actually don't understand the point you're trying to make with the first statement.

 

Are Spartans from Halo often seen fighting Elites in their skin-tight underarmors rather than their Spartan Armor for no adequate reason? I don't play Halo, so I wouldn't know, but if so then yes, they are inappropriately sexualized.

You've argued that sexualization is bad, but sexualizing a sexualized character is good? This isn't math where two negatives make a positive. It's just doubly bad. So you shouldn't be surprised when someone disagrees with your scale of which is worse. 

 

But I guess as long as the character in question is a w**** then sexualization is fine. I thought this discussion was arguing against those stereotypes, not for them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the double standards already in this thread. 

[DomeWing333]

You've argued that sexualization is bad, but sexualizing a sexualized character is good? This isn't math where two negatives make a positive. It's just doubly bad. So you shouldn't be surprised when someone disagrees with your scale of which is worse. 
 
But I guess as long as the character in question is a w**** then sexualization is fine. I thought this discussion was arguing against those stereotypes, not for them. I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the double standards already in this thread.

My argument has always been about intention. If you're sexualizing a non-sexual character just because that's what gamers like to see, that's stupid and pandering and wrong. But there's nothing inherently wrong about creating a character who is sexual by nature and then matching their appearance to that nature. A character's sexuality itself doesn't make them bad as long as that sexuality is part of the characterization. Sexualization is bad when it's imposed on a non-sexual character for the cynical aim of marketing that character to a target audience of drooling teenagers. That's exploitation.
 
Well...yeah. "Whores" (I think that's the word you used?) are sexual characters, so it's fine if they're portrayed sexually. That seems...rational. What double standard are you talking about?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

My argument has always been about intention. If you're sexualizing a non-sexual character just because that's what gamers like to see, that's stupid and pandering and wrong. But there's nothing inherently wrong about creating a character who is inherently sexual by nature and then matching their appearance to that nature. A character's sexuality itself doesn't make them bad as long as that sexuality is part of the characterization. Sexuality is bad when it's imposed on a character for the cynical aim of marketing that character to a target audience of drooling teenagers.

 

Well...yeah. "Whores" are sexual characters, so it's fine if they're portrayed sexually. That seems...rational. What double standard are you talking about?

So purposefully making characters into sexual caricatures is a good intention and should be applauded while making a character wear or do something that can be seen as sexual(which literally anything can be seen as sexual) is a bad intention and should be condemned? Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that logic.

 

The double standard between what constitutes sexualization between women and men that happened a few pages ago. 

[DomeWing333]

So making characters into sexual caricatures is good intention and should be applauded while having a character wear or do something that can be seen as sexual(which literally anything can be seen as sexual) is a bad intention and should be condemned? Yeah, nothing hypocritical about that logic.
 
The double standard between what constitutes sexualization between women and men that happened a few pages ago.

Making characters who are sexual caricatures is as bad as making characters who are any other kind of caricature: Kratos is a caricature of violence, Pit is a caricature of purity, Arl Howe is a caricature of evil. Nothing particularly laudible or worthy of condemnation there (unless you count lack of subtlety).

 

As for the bolded passage, I said nothing of the kind. In fact, I was just arguing that Vivienne despite her low-cut dress is not sexualized. Zero Suit Samus, I thought, was a pretty uncontroversial example of sexualization in video games due to her body being used as a reward for gamers and the needless depictions of her in that suit. I could have also used Sonya Blade from Mortal Kombat or the sorceress from Dragon's Crown. My point was against blatant example of sexuality being needlessly imposed on a character for no reason and arguably to the detriment of the character's integrity.

 

I was asking which double standard you were accusing me of. I assumed it's what I addressed above and not any gender double standards as I'm fairly sure I didn't use any.

[Enigmatick]

A topic using modded skyrim screens as a comparison got three pages.

 

Never change BSN.

[Mihura]

I never said it was a bad thing, the problem I have with fanservice is how unequal it is with female and male characters, DA:I does not have this problem at all. It is almost perfect really.

Also Isabela is my favorite character and her lack of pants is kinda part of her concept, so it is totally fine. The same clothes would look awful on Aveline, my problem with sexualising a character, is when it is done for the sake of the viewer and not because it makes sense with their concept, exemples Miranda ass shot and Bethany cleavage, thank the Maker they are a lot better now.

[Vanth]

Making characters who are sexual caricatures is as bad as making characters who are any other kind of caricature: Kratos is a caricature of violence, Pit is a caricature of purity, Arl Howe is a caricature of evil. Nothing particularly laudible or worthy of condemnation there (unless you count lack of subtlety).

 

I disagree with that. For the purposes of storytelling it can be quite useful to have some characters fully embody certain distinct characteristics, such as violence or evil or even sexuality. However, n my view it shouldn't be gratuitous - there should be a point to it in the story.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Making characters who are sexual caricatures is as bad as making characters who are any other kind of caricature: Kratos is a caricature of violence, Pit is a caricature of purity, Arl Howe is a caricature of evil. Nothing particularly laudible or worthy of condemnation there (unless you count lack of subtlety).

 

As for the bolded passage, I said nothing of the kind. In fact, I was just arguing that Vivienne despite her low-cut dress is not sexualized. Zero Suit Samus, I thought, was a pretty uncontroversial example of sexualization in video games due to her body being used as a reward for gamers and the needless depictions of her in that suit. I could have also used Sonya Blade from Mortal Kombat or the sorceress from Dragon's Crown. My point was against blatant example of sexuality being needlessly imposed on a character for no reason and arguably to the detriment of the character's integrity.

 

I was asking which double standard you were accusing me of. I assumed it's what I addressed above and not any gender double standards as I'm fairly sure I didn't use any.

Uncontroversial from the part of the Internet you come from, maybe. But the fact it serves a practical function,in this case still improves her body's capabilities, that anyone who thinks beyond "OMG, it's a skintight suit! What misogynists!" would realize makes it not intentional or sexualization for sexualization purposes. The other examples you gave are better for your point since those outfits don't have a practical function and would probably impede more than help.

 

I wasn't accusing you of a double standard. I just knew once the double standard happened in this thread that hypocritical posts like yours would come.

[Terodil]

I think a major problem in this discussion is that we keep coming back to the 'intention'. This 'intention' is, however, rarely known, unless we have a direct statement from the character designer about it or unless it's simply evident, such as in the case of games without any stories and just visuals (as I imagine street fighter to be, but I could be wrong. Not my type of game). In RPGs it's far more difficult to ascertain, because the writing process is so iterative and complex. I got the feeling (again, could be mistaken) that some posters felt that Miranda was sexualised first and that this sexualisation was rationalised thereafter by weaving a story around her. This could be very wrong though and necessitates a [quotation needed] tag. It's not enough, imo, to simply claim so on the basis of the viewer's isolated perception.

 

... And even if that was the case, i.e. if a character was invented to be sexually attractive and 'only' rounded off with a personality, history etc. thereafter, would that be bad if the end result is a coherent, deep and sexually attractive character? I'd definitely say 'no'. Sex is not inherently bad and does not have to take a back seat because it's 'eww'. After all, every organism is sexual in some way, and it's therefore an attribute like any other that must (!) be used to describe a person in full. You have to start with something, and not every character concept has to start off with a deep philosophical outlook on life. Why not start with sexual attractiveness for a change?

 

Just to avoid misunderstandings: These thoughts naturally apply to men and women equally.

[Dreamer]

I think a major problem in this discussion is that we keep coming back to the 'intention'. This 'intention' is, however, rarely known, unless we have a direct statement from the character designer about it or unless it's simply evident, such as in the case of games without any stories and just visuals (as I imagine street fighter to be, but I could be wrong. Not my type of game). In RPGs it's far more difficult to ascertain, because the writing process is so iterative and complex. I got the feeling (again, could be mistaken) that some posters felt that Miranda was sexualised first and that this sexualisation was rationalised thereafter by weaving a story around her. This could be very wrong though and necessitates a [quotation needed] tag. It's not enough, imo, to simply claim so on the basis of the viewer's isolated perception.

 

... And even if that was the case, i.e. if a character was invented to be sexually attractive and 'only' rounded off with a personality, history etc. thereafter, would that be bad if the end result is a coherent, deep and sexually attractive character? I'd definitely say 'no'. Sex is not inherently bad and does not have to take a back seat because it's 'eww'. After all, every organism is sexual in some way, and it's therefore an attribute like any other that must (!) be used to describe a person in full. You have to start with something, and not every character concept has to start off with a deep philosophical outlook on life. Why not start with sexual attractiveness for a change?

 

Just to avoid misunderstandings: These thoughts naturally apply to men and women equally.

 

It's much easier to accuse others of wrongdoing when you make assumptions about their intentions. In other words, you've discovered exactly why this "issue" is so asinine and ridiculous.

[DomeWing333]

Uncontroversial from the part of the Internet you come from, maybe. But the fact it serves a practical function,in this case still improves her body's capabilities, that anyone who thinks beyond "OMG, it's a skintight suit! What misogynists!" would realize makes it not intentional or sexualization for sexualization purposes. The other examples you gave are better for your point since those outfits don't have a practical function and would probably impede more than help.

 

I wasn't accusing you of a double standard. I just knew once the double standard happened in this thread that hypocritical posts like yours would come.

I'd be quite curious to know which part of the Internet you think I come from.  You can look up topics on the sexualization of Zero Suit Samus on almost any gaming site (notorious hives of psycho-feminists ) and find widespread agreement over its sexualization. Dissenting posts mainly consist of "who cares?" and "well, she's always been sexualized."

 

I'll trust that you don't have an argument against my general point as you didn't present it.

[DomeWing333]

I disagree with that. For the purposes of storytelling it can be quite useful to have some characters fully embody certain distinct characteristics, such as violence or evil or even sexuality. However, n my view it shouldn't be gratuitous - there should be a point to it in the story.

Sometimes, gratuity does serve a point. Bayonetta's over-the-top sexuality, playfulness, and sadistic tendencies inform her interactions with other characters just as Kratos' over-the-top violence and rage informs his interactions with other characters. The over-the-top aspect isn't absolutely necessary for the plot but it's necessary for the character. Kratos can still do everything he does without being in constant, animalistic rage and Bayonetta can still do everything she does without being in constant sadomasochistic pleasure, but then it wouldn't be Kratos and Bayonetta doing that any more. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I'd be quite curious to know which part of the Internet you think I come from.  You can look up topics on the sexualization of Zero Suit Samus on almost any gaming site (notorious hives of psycho-feminists ) and find widespread agreement over its sexualization. Dissenting posts mainly consist of "who cares?" and "well, she's always been sexualized."

 

I'll trust that you don't have an argument against my general point as you didn't present it.

Just whatever sites you go to. The sites I've gone to never even bring it up, or talk about how it isn't sexualized, so clearly you go to a different part of the Internet than me. 

 

No, I disagree with your general point about when it is or isn't okay. I just see no point in continuing since we aren't going to budge. 

[Mihura]

I think a major problem in this discussion is that we keep coming back to the 'intention'. This 'intention' is, however, rarely known, unless we have a direct statement from the character designer about it or unless it's simply evident, such as in the case of games without any stories and just visuals (as I imagine street fighter to be, but I could be wrong. Not my type of game). In RPGs it's far more difficult to ascertain, because the writing process is so iterative and complex. I got the feeling (again, could be mistaken) that some posters felt that Miranda was sexualised first and that this sexualisation was rationalised thereafter by weaving a story around her. This could be very wrong though and necessitates a [quotation needed] tag. It's not enough, imo, to simply claim so on the basis of the viewer's isolated perception.

 

... And even if that was the case, i.e. if a character was invented to be sexually attractive and 'only' rounded off with a personality, history etc. thereafter, would that be bad if the end result is a coherent, deep and sexually attractive character? I'd definitely say 'no'. Sex is not inherently bad and does not have to take a back seat because it's 'eww'. After all, every organism is sexual in some way, and it's therefore an attribute like any other that must (!) be used to describe a person in full. You have to start with something, and not every character concept has to start off with a deep philosophical outlook on life. Why not start with sexual attractiveness for a change?

 

Just to avoid misunderstandings: These thoughts naturally apply to men and women equally.

 

Not really, the person responsible for a design has no control on the interpretation of the viewer, even if their intentions are not objectifying in nature. I think it is kinda naive, especially when it comes to this type of art, where there are concepts and ideas behind character design.  Also there is prove that Miranda was sexualised I think in the art book.

The problem is not sex is "ewwww" is sex only applies to female characters, to me this shows a huge amount of immaturity, especially when this affects their creative process. For example when you look at the cast of DA:I most of the female characters in the companion are either humans or elves and really average when it comes to body types, when you look at the male character there is a huge variety of bodies from IB to Varric.

Also David Gaider said that there were more male companions because they just made more sense in that type of concept, why is this? is bioware sexist? probably but not intentionally. The people that did the designs are so used to certain kind of concepts that it is impossible to represent it more fairly. Qunari woman with muscle were a must or at least more big than the human males but since female with muscle are rare the concept does not appear. The same goes for fanservice, it is done over and over with female characters, so now people are afraid of male butts and dicks to the point of being censored or really rare.

Bioware is much better now but there is always work that needs to be done.

[DomeWing333]

Just whatever sites you go to. The sites I've gone to never even bring it up, or talk about how it isn't sexualized, so clearly you go to a different part of the Internet than me. 

 

No, I disagree with your general point about when it is or isn't okay. I just see no point in continuing since we aren't going to budge. 

So...is your disagreement that sexing up a non-sexual character for the sole purpose of fan-service is okay? Or that interweaving sexuality into a character is bad?

[DanteYoda]

Sure. personally I don't find any of the options for straight females particularly attractive either, but I'm not starting twenty threads whining  about not being catered to, like the OP does.

 

The thing is, he has the option of finding female LI with his 'preferred' look in tons of other games. Female gamers have few other options.

We still have no proof that person made 20 threads, and is in fact Brevnau. People just seem to assuming its him with no proof?

[SnakeCode]

Not really, the person responsible for a design has no control on the interpretation of the viewer, even if their intentions are not objectifying in nature. I think it is kinda naive, especially when it comes to this type of art, where there are concepts and ideas behind character design.  Also there is prove that Miranda was sexualised I think in the art book.

The problem is not sex is "ewwww" is sex only applies to female characters, to me this shows a huge amount of immaturity, especially when this affects their creative process. For example when you look at the cast of DA:I most of the female characters in the companion are either humans or elves and really average when it comes to body types, when you look at the male character there is a huge variety of bodies from IB to Varric.

Also David Gaider said that there were more male companions because they just made more sense in that type of concept, why is this? is bioware sexist? probably but not intentionally. The people that did the designs are so used to certain kind of concepts that it is impossible to represent it more fairly. Qunari woman with muscle were a must or at least more big than the human males but since female with muscle are rare the concept does not appear. The same goes for fanservice, it is done over and over with female characters, so now people are afraid of male butts and dicks to the point of being censored or really rare.

Bioware is much better now but there is always work that needs to be done.

 

Terodil is right though. Yes the creators don't have any input on how you view their creations, but you certainly don't get to decide what their intent was either.

 

It's also laughable that you gave Inquisition as an example of a game that was balanced in terms of sexualised characters per gender. It is incredibly skewed, it's just that it's in the opposite direction to what we normaly see. We have Dorian, Iron Bull and Cullen as examples of overtly sexualised males, whilst for females we have.....? Having almost every female npc wrapped up in thick furs, chantry robes or full plate, and having many male npcs baring their abs does not a balanced representation make. 

 

Also, having more male companions does not make Bioware sexist. If anything it logically ensures that there will be more romance options for women and gay guys (which was the case in Inquisition, at least for straight gals.)  This is the kind of thing I was talking about before when I said that devs just can't win. They have more male companions, so people accuse them of being sexist and not wanting to represent various female characters who are distinct and varied. Had they had more female companions (and straight guys had got the lion's share of romance content, like with the ME trilogy) people would have said that they were pandering to the straight male gaze. It seems you're sexist  damned if you do and sexist damned if you don't.

[KaiserShep]

We still have no proof that person made 20 threads, and is in fact Brevnau. People just seem to assuming its him with no proof?

Maybe it's a Brevnau disciple, one of the many that gather in a private group on Facebook or something.

[DirkJake]

For me, sexualization is fine as long as it does not become over-sexualization. But the problem is the line between the two is not clear most of the time(at least for me).

 

Let me give some concrete examples.

 

One example for over-sexualization is when being sexualized is the only thing about a character. Such character contributes nothing to the plot, and do not have any meaningful stories about them. Such character has no agency of their own. These are the common characteristics I found in over-sexualized characters (exceptions do occur though).

 

Another thing confounds me further is the difference between a character and how the character is presented. While a character is complex and has their own agency, how they are presented and graphically portrayed can give me an impression of over-sexualization. Excessive ass shots and totally unreasonably revealing clothes (that do not make sense when it comes to the lore) are often a red flag. Again "excessive" and "unreasonable" are subjective.

 

Isabela, I say, is fine. There is a lot of things about her in addition to being sexualized. To me her clothes are not outrageously revealing.

 

I think DA series is doing fine in the sexualization/over-sexualization department.

[DanteYoda]

It's times like these I'm so glad I don't really get this sexualization thing.

I get it, i just don't care... I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person but i kinda like it in my gaming, as long as its aesthetically pleasing.

 

I play fantasy as fantasy, not reality.

[KaiserShep]

It's also laughable that you gave Inquisition as an example of a game that was balanced in terms of sexualised characters per gender. It is incredibly skewed, it's just that it's in the opposite direction to what we normaly see. We have Dorian, Iron Bull and Cullen as examples of overtly sexualised males, whilst for females we have.....? Having almost every female npc wrapped up in thick furs, chantry robes or full plate, and having many male npcs baring their abs does not a balanced representation make.

 

This seems a bit exaggerated. With the exception of Bull, who's perpetually topless, everyone is covered up by heavy robes and armor all of the time, unless you engage in a romance to the point of getting a sex scene. I guess there's Dorian's bare left arm.

 

I wonder where this forum would be if we got a male equivalent of Isabela.

 

Spoiler

[SnakeCode]

This seems a bit exaggerated. With the exception of Bull, who's perpetually topless, everyone is covered up by heavy robes and armor all of the time, unless you engage in a romance to the point of getting a sex scene. I guess there's Dorian's bare left arm.

There's far more to sexualisation than the way one is dressed, as has been pointed out by people on both sides of this debate. Dorian and Cullen are far from scantily clad, but they are sexualised in other ways.

 

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing (far from it) but let's not pretend that the game is balanced in this regard. There really isn't a female counterpart to any of those three.

[DomeWing333]

There's far more to sexualisation than the way one is dressed, as has been pointed out by people on both sides of this debate. Dorian and Cullen are far from skantilly clad, but they are sexualised in other ways.

 

I'm not even saying this is a bad thing (far from it) but let's not pretend that the game is balanced in this regard. There really isn't a female counterpart to any of those three.

I think the unbalanced nature of the game helps balance out the series as a whole (as we have by all the Iron Bull-Isabella comparisons).

 

That said, moving forward, I wouldn't like to get into the habit of balancing out every instance of sexualization of one gender with an instance of sexualization of the other. I don't care that there's a 7:3 ratio of male nipples to female cleavage or vice-versa. I just care that the nipples and cleavage are appropriately distributed to the characters and situations that warrant them.