3626 réponses à ce sujet

[Halfdan The Menace]

Don't worry, Mass Effect isn't an anime, you should be happy with Andromeda.

Bioware shouldn't ruin the plot with tentacle monsters. Hopefully there are no space tentacle monsters in the galaxy.

[Redbelle]

On oversexing characters.... the only way I'd let it slide in my own mind is if for every woman with a skin tight catsuit and plenty of cleavage walks past, there must be a man in speedo's.

 

Only Speedo's.......

 

Starting with the Player Character.

[Cyonan]

On oversexing characters.... the only way I'd let it slide in my own mind is if for every woman with a skin tight catsuit and plenty of cleavage walks past, there must be a man in speedo's.

 

Only Speedo's.......

 

Starting with the Player Character.

 

Well real men charge the enemy head on without a shirt on while sporting a glorious beard.

 

That's just basic manliness.

[SnakeCode]

The term tends to irritate me as it's nonsensical and more often than not used as a scare word. "Oh noes, we're being treated like objects!" Never mind the fact we're all objectified constantly and moreover we all objectify other people all the time.

More often than not what people mean by the word is 'sexualization'. Which I don't think it's inherently negative, by the way. The notion that it is sounds entirely too Victorian.

 

Yeah, it's annoying that the only form of objectification people seem to see or care about is "sexual objectification" as some huge problem for female characters in games/films/TV. When people say "objectification" they actually mean sexualisation. If we're talking actual objectification in general then men are objectified far more in popular media. In videogames especially we are used to killing hundreds, (thousands even,) of nameless, faceless men who exist for no other purpose than to be cut/gunned down by our protagonist. Of either gender.

 

When it comes to objectification i'm of the same opinion as I am about comedy. Either it's all ok or none of it is (I think it all should be allowed.) Rather than just decrying a specific instance/s that upset you more.

[Panda]

Equal cannon fodder

[SnakeCode]

Equal cannon fodder

 

Exactly. I'd rather have equal cannon fodder and equal sexualisation than none of either.

[In Exile]

Yeah, it's annoying that the only form of objectification people seem to see or care about is "sexual objectification" as some huge problem for female characters in games/films/TV. When people say "objectification" they actually mean sexualisation. If we're talking actual objectification in general then men are objectified far more in popular media. In videogames especially we are used to killing hundreds, (thousands even,) of nameless, faceless men who exist for no other purpose than to be cut/gunned down by our protagonist. Of either gender.

When it comes to objectification i'm of the same opinion as I am about comedy. Either it's all ok or none of it is (I think it all should be allowed.) Rather than just decrying a specific instance/s that upset you more.

If we really get academic almost everything in videogames is objectified by necessity as a matter of design. The very existence of most things - particularly background characters - is for a narrow purpose with everything about them being either tacked on or purely instrumental.

[Gwydden]

I know that this thread applies to both male and female armor, but I found this picture and it made me laugh.  It sounds all too familiar.  Please remember that this is just a joke on my part.  My video card decided to act up yesterday while playing ME3.  Pro-Tip: Avoid Nvidia Inspector.  I changed two settings and my video card wouldn't work at all until after a manual reinstall of the hardware itself.  It wasn't even showing up in the registry keys.

 

Again, this is just a joke.  I know that the majority of the thread isn't like this:

It's funny, I agree 

 

I just hope the people who made it also meant it as a joke. Some of them are ridiculous, but given the appropriate context some of those are actually valid points. For example, take "This outfit is normal for her culture/climate!". If someone decided to make an RPG set in the Aztec empire (why isn't this a thing?) I would expect your average woman to be scantily clad. Of course, same would go for the men!

 

Or indeed "Don't expect fiction to be realistic!". It's not applicable all the time. If realism is a design goal the point is moot, but if a developer obviously prefers to just go bonkers and do whatever they think is fun/interesting/cool/sexy/whatever they should be judged accordingly.

 

 

If we really get academic almost everything in videogames is objectified by necessity as a matter of design. The very existence of most things - particularly background characters - is for a narrow purpose with everything about them being either tacked on or purely instrumental.

Pretty much. 

 

I can get why someone would be bothered by women being used solely for sex appeal. But I am of a mind that any concerns should be mitigated given that there is more to female characters than just sex appeal and/or said sex appeal is equal opportunity.

[Jorji Costava]

Yeah, it's annoying that the only form of objectification people seem to see or care about is "sexual objectification" as some huge problem for female characters in games/films/TV. When people say "objectification" they actually mean sexualisation. If we're talking actual objectification in general then men are objectified far more in popular media. In videogames especially we are used to killing hundreds, (thousands even,) of nameless, faceless men who exist for no other purpose than to be cut/gunned down by our protagonist. Of either gender.

 

When it comes to objectification i'm of the same opinion as I am about comedy. Either it's all ok or none of it is (I think it all should be allowed.) Rather than just decrying a specific instance/s that upset you more.

 

I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between forms of objectification that are gender-specific and those that aren't. When you're gunning down mooks in an FPS, there's nothing gender-specific about this; what I mean is that you could replace those male mooks with zombies or robots and it would make little to no difference to the game. No one complained about gunning down dozens of Asari commandos in Mass Effect. Nothing about violence in games targets men specifically as a group.

In the case of sexual objectification, things are a bit different; you generally don't male NPCs in skanty clothing or suggestive poses. Most sexually objectifying imagery is of women for the benefit of men (hence the prevalence of memes like this). There's even some evidence to suggest that sexually objectifying imagery can make men more likely to judge women as less intelligent or competent. While I'm aware of no studies that have been done on the matter, I doubt that playing Call of Duty for two hours will make one more likely to judge that men, as a group, are dumber or have less value as people than women.

I'm not suggesting that sexual objectification is never allowed; that sends the message that women's bodies are bad and need to be covered up. In "Objectification" (link to pdf), one of the more influential papers written on the subject, Martha Nussbaum argues that whether or not objectification is bad is entirely a context-sensitive matter. But the point is that there is a key conceptual difference between these two forms of objectification. You can argue that both are equally bad, but I don't think you can argue that there are as many gender-specific forms of objectification targeting men as a group as there are of women.

 

EDIT: Added a link that was missing.

[Mcfly616]

Don't worry, Mass Effect isn't an anime

 Hmm ME2 could've fooled me.

[Gwydden]

I'm not suggesting that sexual objectification is never allowed; that sends the message that women's bodies are bad and need to be covered up. In "Objectification" (link to pdf), one of the more influential papers written on the subject, Martha Nussbaum argues that whether or not objectification is bad is entirely a context-sensitive matter. But the point is that there is a key conceptual difference between these two forms of objectification. You can argue that both are equally bad, but I don't think you can argue that there are as many gender-specific forms of objectification targeting men as a group as there are of women.

Then why are most random mooks you kill men?

 

I suspect the reason is that men have almost exclusively fought in all wars and other violent engagements that have taken place since the birth of civilization. That sounds like some pretty serious gender-specific form of objectification right there.

 

Pretending that mowing down endless hordes of penis-having people is not a problem while freaking out over a chainmail bikini sounds more than a bit... inconsistent, wouldn't you say? I mean, I could argue men are biologically expendable, and games like those help keep that notion in the social consciousness, therefore causing society to dismiss the lives of young men dying in wars overseas and as victims of violence here in the US (men are victims of violence much more often than women, both in fiction and in real life).

 

But frankly, I have better things to do than overthinking video games and their impact on people.

 

EDIT: Big disclaimer — I feel nothing but contempt towards the Manosphere and this is not about men being victimized by the social order. I despise war and violence as a concept but I don't see them as gendered issues. Just pointing out facts.

[SnakeCode]

Men are definitely seen as more disposable than women in society. I don't think it has anything to do with how they're portrayed in media though, because this has been the case long before films and especially videogames, were even a thing. I think it's far more likely that society influences how people are portrayed in videogames than the other way around.

 

I think it's a little weird to imply that sexualisation is a gendered issue because it mostly happens to women, but disposability isn't, even though it's almost entirely men who are placed in disposable roles.

[In Exile]

I think it's worthwhile to distinguish between forms of objectification that are gender-specific and those that aren't. When you're gunning down mooks in an FPS, there's nothing gender-specific about this; what I mean is that you could replace those male mooks with zombies or robots and it would make little to no difference to the game. No one complained about gunning down dozens of Asari commandos in Mass Effect. Nothing about violence in games targets men specifically as a group.

In the case of sexual objectification, things are a bit different; you generally don't male NPCs in skanty clothing or suggestive poses. Most sexually objectifying imagery is of women for the benefit of men (hence the prevalence of memes like this). There's even some evidence to suggest that sexually objectifying imagery can make men more likely to judge women as less intelligent or competent. While I'm aware of no studies that have been done on the matter, I doubt that playing Call of Duty for two hours will make one more likely to judge that men, as a group, are dumber or have less value as people than women.

I'm not suggesting that sexual objectification is never allowed; that sends the message that women's bodies are bad and need to be covered up. In "Objectification" (link to pdf), one of the more influential papers written on the subject, Martha Nussbaum argues that whether or not objectification is bad is entirely a context-sensitive matter. But the point is that there is a key conceptual difference between these two forms of objectification. You can argue that both are equally bad, but I don't think you can argue that there are as many gender-specific forms of objectification targeting men as a group as there are of women.

EDIT: Added a link that was missing.

The point being made by Snake, though, is that often gunning down mooks IS gender specific because those mooks are typically (if not exclusively, depending on the game) male. This is both because men are partly "privileged" to serve in the military and because power is hierarchical and the men that are troops are very much disposable.

So regardless of what side of the issue you fall on (men in the military in combat rules is a symbol of male privileges because women are excluded or men in the military in combat rules is an example of how men are disadvantaged without anyone caring because they are very much treated as disposable) you can't say the issue is not one of gender.

Sexualisation may well rightly be said to be a subset of objectification and it's (IMO) true that women are sexualised in a way men are not. But that doesn't mean that men aren't objectified when portrayed as disposable mooks.

[In Exile]

Men are definitely seen as more disposable than women in society. I don't think it has anything to do with how they're portrayed in media though, because this has been the case long before films and especially videogames, were even a thing. I think it's far more likely that society influences how people are portrayed in videogames than the other way around.

I think it's a little weird to imply that sexualisation is a gendered issue because it mostly happens to women, but disposability isn't, even though it's almost entirely men who are placed in disposable roles.

To add to that, there are different ways of looking at the issue. This is where the shortsightedness of the current public and political part of the movement on gender equality becomes evident, by focusing on differences between genders without grasping how power is hierarchical. "Men" as a group aren't uniform. Some men have a great deal of power, prestige and status. That power is maintained by - in part - enforcing social roles and beliefs. But the men in power certainly don't want to share that power because they'd have less of it. So plenty of men - the poor, those who are minorities - get totally shut out (or mostly shut out). Military service is part of this trend.

The inability of modern narratives on equality to grasp this branch of intersectionality - because of a focus on how "men" in comparable circumstances tend to be advantaged - just fragments society and undermines the message of equality.

[Han Shot First]

Men Are The Expendable Gender

[Former_Fiend]

So, I ran this thread by my ex, whom I'm still good friends with, and she had a few thoughts on it, that I thought I'd share with the group;

 

"Once upon a time, there used to be this thing where women were allowed to wear whatever they wanted."

 

I proceeded to explain that the thread was touching on both men and women being underdressed, though I was probably being a little more fair to the thread than it deserved, but she conceded that was fair, but I had already gotten her riled up, so she went on a mini-rant from there.

 

"Also, who f*cking cares. I wish I was in the position that I could waste all my time and energy giving at least half of the f*ck that these people do. If the want things different, then they can start making the games. Goddamnit." 

 

"And ALSO, I'm really tired of my ladies only having the option to wear butch armor. I'm looking at you, Inquisition. Maybe I want my lady to show skin. Maybe I want a Morrigan. But no. All the leather is so bulky that it's unrealistic to even assume that the woman could f*cking MOVE in it, let alone fight. Hey, I was pretty happy that she didn't walk like a man all the time like the other two DA games, but goddamnit, I want the option to be a skank. Seriously though. The fact that SJWs are throwing a fit and taking that option away from me irritates the sh*t out of me."

 

Just thought I'd share the opinion of one particularly passionate graphic artist that I know.

[In Exile]

As a fan of the skimpy anime dude outfits - especially the ones showing some sexy abs - I can somewhat relate to skimpy armour. I just want it to be equal opportunity.

[Pasquale1234]

The point being made by Snake, though, is that often gunning down mooks IS gender specific because those mooks are typically (if not exclusively, depending on the game) male.

That is likely a problem in a lot of media.

As for ME, they could have included more human females - but that's about it.

We did mow down a number of asari. Female krogan are isolated, female turians didn't exist until the DLC, female vorcha were not present in any capacity, and the only female salarian we ever saw was the dalatrass.

More female presence in general could lead to more of them as cannon fodder - both of which would be very welcome.

[Former_Fiend]

The thing with my ex is that her big thing is "option". She'd be pissed off as anyone with a game that forced her character into skimpy armor with no alternative, unless it was played for comedy like, say, Bayonetta. 

 

But she finds removing skimpy armor all together to be as big of a problem as having it as the only choice because both remove her ability to choose. 

[Sully13]

Like seriously, I'm going to be cringing if we have characters running around in stiletto's, catsuits, spandex, etc. 

 

Not to mention exposed skin in combat and outer space

 

EDIT: I am mainly referring to the combat outfits, casual outfits are ok

EDIT 2: This has nothing to do with being politically correct, as I could care less about that bullcrap. This is about logic and practicality

EDIT 3: If you are going to bring up feminism, Anita Sarkesian, or any of the gamergate, feminism gaming war bullcrap, then please feel free to get the **** off my thread.

Umm no you cant dictate who posts what on the thread you do not own the thread.

 

Ok in the ME universe they have Kenetic dampeners whitch sudgests that jacks beltbra would act as well as a modern kevlar.

and there is forcefeilsa N'stuff.

now the standard gear shown to be skintight is upposed to be microweaved materials that are bullet resistant and weatherproof. now the boots. yeah i hate heels too they are stupid.

Ok now why are the combat clothing tight? 

Easy less snagging and materials used over all. sure femsheps Breasts should be bound to accomodate a flatter surface and  create a better resistance. but meh kenetic dampeners and Ezo yada yada.

[Jorji Costava]

Then why are most random mooks you kill men?

 

I suspect the reason is that men have almost exclusively fought in all wars and other violent engagements that have taken place since the birth of civilization. That sounds like some pretty serious gender-specific form of objectification right there.

 

Pretending that mowing down endless hordes of penis-having people is not a problem while freaking out over a chainmail bikini sounds more than a bit... inconsistent, wouldn't you say? I mean, I could argue men are biologically expendable, and games like those help keep that notion in the social consciousness, therefore causing society to dismiss the lives of young men dying in wars overseas and as victims of violence here in the US (men are victims of violence much more often than women, both in fiction and in real life).

 

But frankly, I have better things to do than overthinking video games and their impact on people.

 

EDIT: Big disclaimer — I feel nothing but contempt towards the Manosphere and this is not about men being victimized by the social order. I despise war and violence as a concept but I don't see them as gendered issues. Just pointing out facts.

 

Probably should have clarified my point: When I say that sexual objectification is generally gender specific, what I mean is that it targets one group (mostly women) in order to benefit a different group (mostly men). If violent video games were mostly marketed to and played by women, if it were mostly women making decisions about what wars get fought and who goes to war, or if it were mostly women who inflict the violence sufferered by many men, you'd have a stronger point. The point is not that video game violence inflicted on mostly-male mooks is inherently less bad than sexual objectification; it's simply that it is not a direct male analogue to sexually objectifying imagery of women. There are conceptual differences here that tend to get lost in these conversations.

 

As far as why most mooks are men, there are a lot of reasons for this. Part of this is that historically, men have had more access to the public sphere, where most violence takes place. Also, when you're using violence as a form of entertainment, it's often convenient to use as targets members of groups who aren't perceived as vulnerable. This is why you never fight against child soldiers in games, and why so many bad guys in books, movies, etc. are rich business men. If anyone suggested that media is 'oppressing' corporate executives by portraying them all as slimy jerks, it'd be hard to take them seriously. And I suspect that it's for similar reasons that people don't get too up in arms about men being objectified in movies and games by being portrayed as targets for violence. If games tended to play up the characteristics of men that can make them vulnerable to violence (i.e. You're shooting at mostly poor, conscripted minorities), then you would get a lot more complaints.

 

EDIT: Added some stuff.

[Daemul]

People have to be careful to not treat women(or men) like their some sort of hive mind who have the same view on everything. Some women are more conservative and don't want to women in video games sexualized, some women love to give their female characters skimpy outfits and create as many as they can for them in games like Skyrim(What? You thought all those nude and skimpy armour mods in Skyrim were made by dudes? LOL! You have much to learn) and some women don't care either way. The perfect example of this is Bayonetta, some women find her sexist whilst others find her empowering. 

 

So please people, keep this in mind before speaking about women in general terms, so that we avoid nonsense like this:

 

Like seriously, what is this? 

[Sully13]

Love how this was destened to become a wummin iz Oppressed & menz iz pure evil. there is no inbetween ever.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Well real men charge the enemy head on without a shirt on while sporting a glorious beard.

 

That's just basic manliness.

 

What about not wearing any clothes at all, to intimidate the enemy with your "manliness"? ^^

 

So, I ran this thread by my ex, whom I'm still good friends with, and she had a few thoughts on it, that I thought I'd share with the group;

 

"Once upon a time, there used to be this thing where women were allowed to wear whatever they wanted."

 

I proceeded to explain that the thread was touching on both men and women being underdressed, though I was probably being a little more fair to the thread than it deserved, but she conceded that was fair, but I had already gotten her riled up, so she went on a mini-rant from there.

 

"Also, who f*cking cares. I wish I was in the position that I could waste all my time and energy giving at least half of the f*ck that these people do. If the want things different, then they can start making the games. Goddamnit." 

 

"And ALSO, I'm really tired of my ladies only having the option to wear butch armor. I'm looking at you, Inquisition. Maybe I want my lady to show skin. Maybe I want a Morrigan. But no. All the leather is so bulky that it's unrealistic to even assume that the woman could f*cking MOVE in it, let alone fight. Hey, I was pretty happy that she didn't walk like a man all the time like the other two DA games, but goddamnit, I want the option to be a skank. Seriously though. The fact that SJWs are throwing a fit and taking that option away from me irritates the sh*t out of me."

 

Just thought I'd share the opinion of one particularly passionate graphic artist that I know.

 

She's not wrong, but this isn't what that thread is about.

 

As has been said repeatedly in exhaustive detail everyone can wear whatever they want (as prim or skanky as they wish) but going into combat like that is stupid. Bikinis aren't armor. If you want to wear one outside of combat, then you should have that option. Although then you might ask if it's appropriate attire for a military vessel.

 

While I fully support the right of anyone to express themselves in any way they want, we can't ignore social conventions completely. I detest suits and ties but even I would have trouble to take a banker in a bermuda shirt and flip-flops seriously. Certain jobs require certain outfits. Uniforms and such.

 

Let's take ME2 for example: Aside from the butt cam there was nothing (well, not much) wrong with the outfits your crew wore on board the Normandy. What was wrong was wearing those outfits into combat. You can't have an entire galaxy wearing proper armor and then have your special snowflakes of a crew wave their boobs and/or asses into the faces of the enemy.

[Sully13]

People have to be careful to not treat women(or men) like their some sort of hive mind who have the same view on everything. Some women are more conservative and don't want to women in video games sexualized, some women love to give their female characters skimpy outfits and create as many as they can for them in games like Skyrim(What? You thought all those nude and skimpy armour mods in Skyrim were made by dudes? LOL! You have much to learn) and some women don't care either way.

 

So please people, keep this in mind before speaking about women in general terms, so that we avoid nonsense like this:

 

Like seriously, what is this? 

that armor needs like 20 extra tons of reinforced titanium before i will ware it. go heavy or go home.

Random fact the 1st nude mod on oblivion was made by a woman.