547 réponses à ce sujet

[Amne YA]

well i like fantasy , but  girl  wearing  string to a fight was immertion breaking for me ! seriously  ,  i think   girl should dress like casandra  if they are going to fight   melee  ,    and have some scars ,  cause it ridiculous  to fight  with a string against a giant monster and still look  like an angel without a single scratch ! that stupid 
i think  in fighting and adventuring they should wear armor and in when you go back  to your main base , they should change to something more confortable/sexy and this  is also aplicable on male , after the long fight in the heavy armor  , wear some sweat short and relax  on the roof of skyhold sunbathing 

[Panda]

I get that. However I dislike a substantial portion of the idea behind it. It implies that NPCs are more or less direct representations of women IRL, AND that by extension, some women need to/should/may tell other women (NPCs in this case) how to dress, how to behave, etc.

Now before you get your guns out, I, for one, appreciate that Marvel, for example, now includes more women among their superhero cast. I also appreciate, as a matter of principle, that women get out of their 'damsel' historical gravitational hotspot into more active leadership positions. That's been long overdue, and I think we have reached at least equilibrium, for example, in TV crime series with female investigators taking the lead positions.

However I draw the line where I perceive, candidly speaking, that feminism goes too far -- and I'm not just speaking from my own perception here but also from what I gathered from a lot of talking with female friends and relatives. Women are right to throw off the shackles that have kept them back from enjoying equal opportunities. However they are NOT right in creating new shackles for their consexuals by coming up with ideas about how *all* women should behave.

If a woman wants to feel sexy (for herself and/or for attracting male attention, it simply doesn't matter) and therefore dresses quite provocatively, it's not progress if other women tell her to cover up. Besides, dozens of million women do that every Friday night (and actually take ass-shots selfies, so I can chuckle about the 'Miranda ass-shot' argument sometimes, even though I do see its merit). If a random female character happens to behave like a damsel, and this gets decried as backward, misogynist etc., it's not progress, because it reduces characters to this one attribute and completely disregards the fact that we, as humans, simply have a very large bandwith of preferences and behaviour.

That said, looking on the other side of the fence, we (and I'm also looking at my consexuals here, because they contribute a lot to the issue persisting) definitely need to change what we perceive as acceptable and non-acceptable in men. As long as men cannot be accepted as victims, weak, and in need of support, without being also considered less of a man for just that, we'll never reach a state where we can simply accept every human as a human with a myriad of properties, where sex is just one among many. Every man, every woman, can be a hero, a coward, a victim, a perpetrator, sexy, ugly or whatever.

This is a RL consideration. In videogames, I'd generally be in favour of a slightly unrealistic positive bias. I don't play VGs to play a RL simulator 2.0, I play to enjoy myself. There's enough drama, sadness, hurt and ugliness in the world that we don't need, imo, to multiply it into fantasy realms as well simply for the sake of realism. So I'd generally want prettier, stronger, friendlier people in my games than uglier, weaker, or unfriendlier (while still maintaining a somewhat healthy mix, it'd be boring otherwise. I know this is a spongy statement).

 

I find that there is difference in making critic on what's seeing bad treatment of female character and telling developers/artists and also other women how they should dress and behave. I mean, I think woman can dress sexily, even provatively both IRL and video game without it being something bad or fight against. However if every female character regardless of their personality and their profession dresses provocatively and their male counterparts don't, then there is problem in my opinion.

 

There is one blog, that has male characters of comics drawn/cosplayed/etc. in poses and outfits of female characters to point out, how ridiculous these poses and outfits often are: http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com/ I think it shows quite well what many women are against. If it's not something you can take seriously, well it's at least pretty funny

 

There might be bit overdoing criticism in side of some women towards these issues, maybe from me as well, but I think that will mellow down when more developers and artist take criticism in the consideration and make improvements in their products. After all I think what people wants is that female characters are as vast and different as male characters (or if male characters aren't, maybe they should be too in some medias), that their writing makes them dimensional characters instead of fanservice and that they aren't treated just as eye-candy in terms of clothing. Some developers and artist already do this better than others, for example Bioware is one of best companies in writing and drawing women, from anime side Attack on Titan (especially manga) did it well.

 

Though, in other hand, there is art styles and developers/artist that focus on making more sexualised characters in extravagant outfits and fanservice/eye-candy or focusing their product strongly to one demographic. I'm not really against this either, but I don't like it being trend, since I think strong focus towards one gender for example alienates lot of people and if majority of fantasy games focus on same gender, other gender is out of games to play ^^;

[XMissWooX]

I guess I don't see why a character should be sexualised outside of a sexual situation. If you're watching a romance sex scene, you'd expect their sexiness to be a focus, but beyond that why would a woman bare her breasts when she's in the middle of a fight, and why would a man give you 'come hither' looks when he's informing you of an approaching threat? It just seems unnecessary, to the point of obnoxiousness.

[MissMayhem96]

Reality VS Fantasy

 

On the left we have a realistic portrayal of Cassandra, technically a woman who in my opinion is not the least bit attractive, although she has an incredible personality. Cass appears slightly more masculine than most men would care for. Keep in mind that she is a romance option for straight males, but she is actually quite popular amongst women and gay men (check google).  The flat chested armor is REALISTIC to deflect blows, I can respect that. The nature of the armor would add to immersion. Aveline's armor was the same way which preserved immersion and realism, but she was also masculine in appearance and not a romance option, however Cassy can be romanced.

 

On the right we have a highly sexualized portrayal of a fantasy hunter. Her body is nearly flawless and almost non-human.  She is highly attractive and feminine in appearance. Most men without an agenda would find the women on the right far more attractive than Cassandra.  Her armor isn't about utility, it's about art and sex appeal. It shows how beautiful she is.  The picture on the right completely captures my imagination, it feels fantasy.  The picture on the left is someone I could see at the super market.

 

 

 

Okay, so metal bikini's and long perfect blonde hair in a medieval time period is your idea of fantasy?

 

Couldn't you just go to a strip club for that?

[Terodil]

Okay, so metal bikini's and long perfect blonde hair in a medieval time period is your idea of fantasy?
 
Couldn't you just go to a strip club for that?

Good grief. I want a penny for every single such pointless comment. I'd be rich by now. Wanting a mane of blonde hair and pretty armor (not necessarily chainmail bikini) warrants sending to a strip club?

Here are examples for long hair and sexy / more or less skimpy armors on male warriors, both historical and contemporary, from different cultures. There are probably much better examples, and far more around, these were gathered at speed.

Spoiler

Europe, 18th ct. I think


Aztec, 19th ct.


US, today

I'd be happy with something like this. I don't care if it's realistic or not. And nobody dare request her to put a tin can over that dazzling blonde hair.

Spoiler

[Panda]

Good grief. I want a penny for every single such pointless comment. I'd be rich by now. Wanting a mane of blonde hair and pretty armor (not necessarily chainmail bikini) warrants sending to a strip club?

Here are examples for long blonde hair and sexy / more or less skimpy armors on gentlemen, both historical and contemporary, from different cultures. There are probably much better examples, and far more around, these were gathered at speed.

Spoiler

Europe, 18th ct. I think


Aztec, 19th ct.


US, today

I'd be happy with something like this. I don't care if it's realistic or not. And nobody dare request her to put a tin can over that dazzling blonde hair.

Spoiler

 

Maybe she's cosplaying current Thor?

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

It sure looks like it.

 

But I think that person meant picture of blonde warrior in the OP.. who does have steel bikinis ^^;

[Shechinah]

(to Panda) I can dig that costume. It looks sweet

Chestplate looks a bit odd, though, but that may just be because of the reflective surface.

[TheRatPack55]

Good grief. I want a penny for every single such pointless comment. I'd be rich by now. Wanting a mane of blonde hair and pretty armor (not necessarily chainmail bikini) warrants sending to a strip club?
 

 

Cut them some slack, it's just people who didn't painstakingly go through 18 pages of this thread fighting tooth and nail over every inch of it, and didn't have time to work out their differences. They click it for the first time, get assaulted by the OP's poorly worded and obnoxiously illustrated post and have a knee-jerk reaction. 

[Terodil]

It's not like this debate hasn't gone on for 18 pages and moved on quite a bit...

Edit: Ninjaed by RatPack

Edit 2: Have fun folks and don't blow up the thread, I'm going to play my strong, independent, deep, wicked, and stunningly beautiful (and quite sexy too) sith warrioress.

Edit 3: Yes, she has a scar. A huge one right across the face. Still looks insanely pretty.

[Commander Rpg]

"Realistic" doesn't mean unappealing. The topic's title is faulty.

[Rannik]

"Realistic" doesn't mean unappealing. The topic's title is faulty.

 
To be fair, in most cases it does.
 
Realistic armor design is utterly boring, simplicity is king and there's very little variation in it.
 

Okay, so metal bikini's and long perfect blonde hair in a medieval time period is your idea of fantasy?
 
Couldn't you just go to a strip club for that?

Or you could just go to the supermarket to see realistic people doing realistic things.

See? Works both ways.

[DomeWing333]

 To be fair, in most cases it does.
 
Realistic armor design is utterly boring, simplicity is king and there's very little variation in it.

There's was very little variation in the non-realistic armor designs for females. That's why you had female fans from so many series decrying the infamous "armored bikinis."

 

Sometimes when a franchise or genre goes really far into fantasy, it develops an over-reliance on tired "fantasy" tropes and a call for realism can actually help the designs be more creative. A very recent example of this is with Mortal Kombat X. People naturally freaked out when it was first announced that Netherrealm studios were trying to make the outfits and proportions of their female fighters more realistic, but result ended up being armor and character designs that were far more interesting and (in my opinion) better looking than any of its predecessors.

[Panda]

 
To be fair, in most cases it does.
 
Realistic armor design is utterly boring, simplicity is king and there's very little variation in it.
 

Or you could just go to the supermarket to see realistic people doing realistic things.

See? Works both ways.

 

It depends what is meant with realism really. Is realism copy of real world? Or is realism style where warriors look armored enough to survive battle without fatal cuts? Cause the OP seems to think realism is latter and he's against that.

 

Also realism can be very sexy when "art" is not all about nudity. Stripping clothes doesn't add artistic value of the game nor it adds fantasy feel and immersion. It may or may not fit with art style artist is going for, but nudity is not art or fantasy itself.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

 Giving fans what they want is great, but not when it comes at a cost to the integrity of the art or character. Unlike you, I feel that giving Swimsuit Batman the same amount of attention as regular Batman would do a disservice to him. Because he's not one-half caped crusader, one-half fun-loving beach goer. He's BATMAN. Just as Samus didn't used to be one-half space bounty hunter, one-half girl in skin-tight blue jumpsuit. She was just Samus.

 

If that doesn't make sense to you, then I suppose our differences are intractable.

As I said, we have gotten into a battle of personal criteria. We should stop since it's not going to go anything positive. 

 

I see where you're coming from, I hope.   

 

I think sexualization is inherently negative, but being sexy isn't.  With that in mind, I completely agree that they aren't one and the same.  It's a fine balance.  I think they did a good job with Isabela, but I've also met plenty of other folks that felt BioWare pushed it too far.   I think that line between the two can be hard to pinpoint because it's a matter of taste.  That's a heck of a mine field, because what is sexy and what is sexualized can be a big subject of debate.

 

The reason why I've liked some of the posts from both sides of this debate is because I can see in some cases where both sides are coming from.  I'm keeping an open mind about this, and I'm trying to get more perspectives.   Besides, I've liked posts that I might not agree with, but I do see the merit in a well-presented point.  

They are one and the same, though. Sexualization is the means, sexy is the end. Sexualization is literally defined as ":  to make sexual :  endow with a sexual character or quality".

 

Or is this another case of people adding another definition to a word, like how asking for something to be represented is now an insult to the various equality movements? 

[TheRatPack55]

 

 

As I said, we have gotten into a battle of personal criteria. We should stop since it's not going to go anything positive. 

 

They are one and the same, though. Sexualization is the means, sexy is the end. Sexualization is literally defined as ":  to make sexual :  endow with a sexual character or quality".

 

Or is this another case of people adding another definition to a word, like how asking for something to be represented is now an insult to the various equality movements? 

 

 

They are not one and the same. That still depends on personal tastes and preferences. I can find sexy someone who isn't sexualized at all, and find a sexualized character entirely un-sexy.

 

A Mass Effect example - Legion. Not sexualized in the slightest. Sexy for me. Same goes for Javik. (Yes, my tastes are... refined ). If one believes Iron Bull is sexualized, well, he does nothing for me. Eww.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

They are not one and the same. That still depends on personal tastes and preferences. I can find sexy someone who isn't sexualized at all, and find a sexualized character entirely un-sexy.

 

A Mass Effect example - Legion. Not sexualized in the slightest. Sexy for me. Same goes for Javik. (Yes, my tastes are... refined ). If one believes Iron Bull is sexualized, well, he does nothing for me. Eww.

As I said, sexualization is the means of making something sexy. For example, if someone designs a car to have a sexy quality to it, that is an act of sexualization towards the car. 

 

To be more accurate, it's a case of "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.". In this case, everything sexy is sexualized but not everything sexualization is sexy.

[TheRatPack55]

As I said, sexualization is the means of making something sexy. For example, if someone designs a car to have a sexy quality to it, that is an act of sexualization towards the car. 

 

To be more accurate, it's a case of "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.". In this case, everything sexy is sexualized but not everything sexualization is sexy.

 

Eh? I just said I find a number of non-sexualized characters sexy (like Legion and Javik - yes, sexy as in 'would bang'). Therefore they are sexy (to me - subjective quality) while not being sexualized, which contradicts the statement that everything sexy must be sexualized.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Eh? I just said I find a number of non-sexualized characters sexy (like Legion and Javik - yes, sexy as in 'would bang'). Therefore they are sexy (to me - subjective quality) while not being sexualized, which contradicts the statement that everything sexy must be sexualized.

Everything sexy is a result of it being sexualized, since sexualization is literally the act of making something sexy. It can be unintentional sexualization, but still sexualization nonetheless. 

[TheRatPack55]

Everything sexy is a result of it being sexualized, since sexualization is literally the act of making something sexy. It can be unintentional sexualization, but still sexualization nonetheless. 

 

So, wait, are we separating 'sexy' into some sub-categories now, as in 'sexy' that is always the result of sexualization, even if some people find that result sexually unappealing, and 'sexy' that is a subjective quality that some people (like me) find in characters that literally have not been in the slightest bit sexualized, intentionally or not? Because then isn't the first instance just the quality of being 'sexualized' rather than the subjective 'that's sexy, I'd bang that' that can encompass everything from a porn star to a refrigerator, cause people are weird like that?

[Junebug]

all i hear is "my penis is unsatisified waah satisfy it bioware boooohooo"

there are websites that exist to help you fulfill your ridiculous fantasies. use them.

[Seraphim24]

 

 

They are one and the same, though. Sexualization is the means, sexy is the end. Sexualization is literally defined as ":  to make sexual :  endow with a sexual character or quality".

 

Or is this another case of people adding another definition to a word, like how asking for something to be represented is now an insult to the various equality movements? 

 

 

Agreed there... anyway (I'm not saying your saying this necessarily), I would say that sexualization is not evil in the same way sex is not evil.. it's just a natural desirable human process. Plus I would say pretty much all characters are "sexualized" to a degree, it's also not evil to consider just desirability as an element of the character IMO.

 

Even though someone like Merrill comes off all calm and such that's still an aura of sexuality, just a more cute and soft one, instead of like Cassandra from the Seeker which is all aggressive and intense, or Isabella.

 

It seems to me inevitably the more aggressive ones trigger more responses and commentary but it's all basically the same thing to me.

[Terodil]

all i hear is "my penis is unsatisified waah satisfy it bioware boooohooo"
there are websites that exist to help you fulfill your ridiculous fantasies. use them.

We have another winner that prefers displaying outrage over actually reading further than the first post in an 18-page-thread.



My wealth grows.

Re: sexualisation vs. 'natural sexiness': I think there is at least a very large overlap, and I agree with Hanako's linguistic dissection. If Legion is sexy to you, then by definition he has to have been sexualised at some point -- if not by his character designer(s), then by you as the player. There is nothing inherently bad about sexualisation in my books, either, it's a natural process that happens for every organic being hundreds of times in their lives (well maybe not, fruit flies might want to disagree...).

This seems to lead back to the question of priority and chronology, i.e. was a character designed to be sexy first and everything else was secondary, or is that character one coherent 'package' of attributes that happens to include sexiness. It's hard to know most of the time.

I also don't know if we should indeed not talk about 'good' vs. 'bad' sexualisation. For example, if a female NPC is introduced as a useless but extremely sexy and willing companion, then I can understand the outrage (if it's the norm rather than the exception, because just like individual men can be useless and extremely sexy and willing, so can individual women. But it should not become the norm, like Panda says). But let's, for example, take BloodRayne (the game, the movie was a typical Boll catastrophe). I could see why people would call her 'sexualised'; she has all the optical attributes required to be called such (unnaturally large breasts, skin-tight clothing that, while revealing, leaves all the important parts covered, yet leaves little to the imagination), but at the same time I cannot remember any time in the game that she was presented as a trophy or anything but a dangerous and beautiful heroine. In fact, every male NPC in the game that tried to 'objectify' her ended up dead. So is this 'good' sexualisation or 'bad'?

(spoilered because depending on your tolerance, it may be NSFW)

Spoiler

I mean that picture's subtitle pretty much sums up the difficulty I have sorting this character. It yells 'made sexy to please male audience', yet at the same time, she's never a victim, always controls the scene, and always comes out victorious. And while looking for pictures of her, I found a multitude of women cosplaying BloodRayne too, so the attraction cannot be on the male audience exclusively.

[DomeWing333]

They are one and the same, though. Sexualization is the means, sexy is the end. Sexualization is literally defined as ":  to make sexual :  endow with a sexual character or quality".

Or is this another case of people adding another definition to a word, like how asking for something to be represented is now an insult to the various equality movements? 

Maybe this will help. Think of the word "sexualize" like the word "enlargen." To sexualize means to take something and making it sexual; to enlargen means to take something and make it large. But things can still be sexual before they are sexualized, just as things can be large before they are enlargened (for instance, a mountain). 

 

I think what Natashina was trying to get at is along the same lines of what I was trying to conceptualize. And that's distinguishing between creating something that is inherently sexual versus taking something that isn't inherently sexual and then sexualizing it. One feels natural and appropriate; the other less so. Of course, it's not always easy to distinguish which is which. But one fairly reliable clue is when you have a character whose sexuality is completely tangential or even contrary to their personality and interactions.

[TheRatPack55]

>snips all around<

Re: sexualisation vs. 'natural sexiness': I think there is at least a very large overlap, and I agree with Hanako's linguistic dissection. If Legion is sexy to you, then by definition he has to have been sexualised at some point -- if not by his character designer(s), then by you as the player. There is nothing inherently bad about sexualisation in my books, either, it's a natural process that happens for every organic being hundreds of times in their lives (well maybe not, fruit flies might want to disagree...).

 

 

That's a good point, but I was thinking about 'sexualization' as the act of deliberately playing up someone's sexual characteristics with the aim to titillate, and 'sexiness' as a subjective perception of someone's sexual attractiveness, which makes them separate - if occasionally overlapping - concepts to me. I may be sexualizing Legion in my mind by wanting to bang him, but that does not mean his appearance/presentation is in any way sexualized.

[Terodil]

That's a good point, but I was thinking about 'sexualization' as the act of deliberately playing up someone's sexual characteristics with the aim to titillate, and 'sexiness' as a subjective perception of someone's sexual attractiveness, which makes them separate - if occasionally overlapping - concepts to me. I may be sexualizing Legion in my mind by wanting to bang him, but that does not mean his appearance/presentation is in any way sexualized.

You want to bang his personality, gotcha. Might be slightly disappointing though! (sorry, could not resist)

But we're really heading into the chicken-and-egg territory here. If anything we seem to be differentiating between 'optical sexiness' and 'personality-wise sexiness' now, which is fair enough! But they're definitely not mutually exclusive, so as to say that if an otherwise unattractive person gets 'sexualised' in the optical sense, it's bad. It's simply chance giving different characters different measures of luck in different characteristics.

Otherwise, if I was to agree with many posters on here that consider Cassandra very sexy looks-wise, then I would almost have to yell 'sexualisation', because I consider the rest of her (personality etc.) very unattractive. Doesn't seem very logical to me, or at least I'm not quite getting the merit of this distinction between 'outward sexiness = sexualisation' vs. 'inward sexiness = non-sexualisation'. *confused*