Ok, so, boob jiggle and one-dimensional female characters in video games make it more likely that women will be raped in real life, or will create an environment where raping women is more tolerated? Baloney! Not buying it. Neither you nor Anita provide one scintilla of evidence that video game plots have any effect on actual mistreatment of women. You can argue whether games reflect or shape culture, but you discredit yourself with the laughable, cheap implication suggesting that resisting the PC police's attempts to sterilize games of anything that offends them is akin to excusing or not caring about sexual abuse of women.
This is all about a group of language and PC Police, ever vigilant in exposing and seeking to ban so-called heteronormative, patriarchal, objectification, so-called male gaze catering, blah blah to the point of ridiculousness. Where does this end? More of you should be concerned about the danger posed by politically correct bullies who seek to ban all that offends them or that which they disagree with. This is not merely about simple, harmless examination of tropes.
Thanks for completely missing the point of what I was saying. Your entire argument basically states that you don't want boobs removed from games because that is entertaining to you. I am retorting with the assertion that the fact you only see a boob jiggling shows that our culture and the media that supports it dehumanizes women by making them entertainment. By making women all about parts of their anatomy and used for entertainment in media, it makes real fights for equality much harder.
Gamers aren't going to go out and rape someone because they watch a boob jiggling. That's ludicrous and not what I said at all. But they will get the message that if a game doesn't have a boob jiggling in it, there is something wrong with it. That if a woman doesn't want to have sex, there is something wrong with her. That this is real entertainment and removing it will remove the fun from everything, therefore everyone against this must be killjoys. All media is somewhat responsible, but the difference with games is that there are not many alternatives.
Seriously, I don't know how I need to explain how damaging this can be, just in perceptions. Okay, take someone you respect. Your mom, for instance. Would it still be easy to respect her if there was a video of her on youtube just focused on her chest bouncing and it had millions of views and people liked it? Suppose that was the primary representation of her anywhere. Suppose you had to do a deep hour long google search to find anything else. Would those jiggling boobs still just be entertainment? It would certainly make it more difficult to respect her in any way and nobody else would respect her either. This is the sort of damage that these perceptions can cause. It is incredibly difficult to respect someone who is portrayed by the world to be entertainment.
Actually...yes, I do think the elvish women were very feminine, and you cannot be feminine or masculine without sexualisation.
The concepts of masculinity and femininity are social constructs (since different societies have different views on what is considered masculine and feminine), they have nothing to do with sexualization (which is a different social construct, since different societies have different views on what constitutes this as well).
For instance, a toddler wearing a summer sun dress would be considered very feminine, but there's definitely nothing sexualized about her (since she has just started to grow at all, let alone sexually, which won't happen for another decade or so).
Alcoremoretis, if developers were required censor themselves and ensure that every aspect of their games was politically correct, then we'd be left with some pretty dull games. Going down that road poses a real threat to free artistic expression, and I totally reject it.
I guess we'll just have to disagree about the potential harm to society posed by bouncing, bikini-clad babes in video games. Boobs do bounce in real life, and it can be appealing. Search on YouTube for "Kate Upton bouncing" for a prime example. I see nothing wrong with similar depictions in video games, if even just for mindless entertainment. Aren't games supposed to be fun, and not just self-serious, overly-cautious attempts to show "sensitivity" to the latest politically correct sensibilities?
I remember hearing that, during the Kickstarter for Mage's Initiation, Himalaya came under fire by members of the P.C. sensitivity brigade for having a female character depicted in a bikini in their game. To their great credit, Himalaya held firm, resisted the pressure and refused to alter the character. Unfortunately, not all developers will have the same backbone and many will cave to these bullies.
Apparently the politically correct police would rather female characters be depicted in full-body burqas. Maybe then the womanly attributes of the female characters wouldn't prove to be so "distracting" to male players.
Look, sexy, big-busted babes are people too. If they want to show off their bodies, then I support it. There is nothing dehumanizing about someone willingly and proudly displaying their sexiness. If we all just enjoyed the sexiness and quit worrying about finding new ways to get offended, then we'd all be happier as a group.
The concepts of masculinity and femininity are social constructs (since different societies have different views on what is considered masculine and feminine), they have nothing to do with sexualization (which is a different social construct, since different societies have different views on what constitutes this as well).
For instance, a toddler wearing a summer sun dress would be considered very feminine, but there's definitely nothing sexualized about her (since she has just started to grow at all, let alone sexually, which won't happen for another decade or so).
My point exactly. One can be feminine, effeminate, masculine or butch without brining sexuality into the conversation.
I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to the theory that gender is separate from sex. That is probably where the confusion is coming in...when I say sexualisation, I mean exactly that...to make of one sex or the other. To make a character feminine is to make her sexualised because it makes them of a sex. It might not be sexually explicit, but it is of one sex or another.
That is probably where the confusion is coming in...when I say sexualisation, I mean exactly that...to make of one sex or the other. To make a character feminine is to make her sexualised because it makes them of a sex. It might not be sexually explicit, but it is of one sex or another.
I had this great insightful reply and the forums ate it. So I won't write it out again. Cliff's notes:
1. Comic books have better and more varied female characters than video games do. Comic books from the freakin 1970s. This is something that should be noted, especially considering that comic books, like video games, have a white male target audience. Still, they somehow manage to make a spectrum of female and minority characters that have more to them than your average cardboard cutout.
2. I would be pleased as punch if women in video games were treated as well and with as much dignity as your average comic book. Considering the average comic book, the fact that video games haven't even been able to achieve that is disappointing to say the least.
3. The goal is not to ban boobs forever, the goal is to put an actual person behind them. The fact that you keep on referring to women in video games as boobs shows that there is a problem with this.
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
5. I had something about how I wanted a game where a middle-aged asian mother and kung fu master has to fight hordes of ninjas to get back her seven year old son.
6. It's Alcoremortis. The Alcor refers to a star in Ursa Major, Mortis means "of death". The "e" is silent. Feel free to put it together if you want to see how much of a nerd I am.
(Don't want to click? It's an article about a proposed 'Boob Jam', "a game jam dedicated to breasts, real or fake, big or small, trans or cis, female or male, with just one design criterion: Make a game that talks about boobs without resorting to the ‘straight male gaze.’ " It's actually a pretty interesting read.)
Here's a related article: http://kotaku.com/and-just-like-that-im-out-of-the-hype-train-947518525
Sad to see the author imply that bigger, more appealing, jigglier breasts on characters make them weaker characters. Having big, jiggly breasts doesn't make female characters any less intelligent or dignified.
Good for Motomu Toriyama!
I'm frankly disgusted to see big, jiggly breast-enjoying gamers demeaned as adolescent or sexist. It's only human to enjoy such things and is nothing to be ashamed of. Giving customers what they want is good practice.
The people who should be ashamed are the self-superior, P.C. busy body scolds who try to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to play or enjoy. So ridiculous to see people in the comments under that kotaku article having a cow because a character's physical attributes were changed and, in many people's opinions, enhanced. Maybe the character got a boob job in between games? That's her right. We need to quit demeaning women with nice assets who like showing off those assets.
sex·u·al·ize\ˈsek-sh(ə-)wə-ˌlīz, ˈsek-shə-ˌlīz\ transitive verb : to make sexual : endow with a sexual character or cast
Also, I've played Final Fantasy X and X-2. Lulu and Leblanc are really hard to take seriously at all with their boobs nearly hanging out. Not to mention that Yuna and Rikku are highly sexualized in X-2 compared to X, which I found unfortunate as Yuna is one of the few characters I liked in X.
EDIT: Now, I've also been playing Skyrim lately and, as a man, I understand the desire to pretty-fy female character models with fan-made mods. However, I see individual gamers intentionally artificially sexualizing characters in their own copy of a game through mods to be different from developers making big, barely-covered boobs to be a defining characteristic for female characters in their games.
Why is it different? Because male hormones can be really annoyingly strong in young men, and what a guy does on his own computer in his own home is his business (albeit it will certainly affect his relationships with women.) On the other hand, for the media to objectify women openly encourages male chauvinist behavior, and doesn't help the culture as a whole to become more respectful of each other's differences.
Here's a related article: http://kotaku.com/and-just-like-that-im-out-of-the-hype-train-947518525
Sad to see the author imply that bigger, more appealing, jigglier breasts on characters make them weaker characters. Having big, jiggly breasts doesn't make female characters any less intelligent or dignified.
Good for Motomu Toriyama!
I'm frankly disgusted to see big, jiggly breast-enjoying gamers demeaned as adolescent or sexist. It's only human to enjoy such things and is nothing to be ashamed of. Giving customers what they want is good practice.
The people who should be ashamed are the self-superior, P.C. busy body scolds who try to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to play or enjoy. So ridiculous to see people in the comments under that kotaku article having a cow because a character's physical attributes were changed and, in many people's opinions, enhanced. Maybe the character got a boob job in between games? That's her right. We need to quit demeaning women with nice assets who like showing off those assets.
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
Originally Posted by Alcoremortis
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
Seriously, though, what you're saying is reasonable. Of course a variety of female and male characters might make for a richer, better gaming experience in some games.
Of course in real life we shouldn't value people (male or female) solely for how they look. But objectification isn't always necessarily a bad thing, and sometimes mindless fun shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. The problem is with the people who get offended by any game that isn't totally politically correct; the problem is not with these games!
What you're saying here is a far cry from what RPS and the Ellie Gibsons of the world are saying, which is essentially that male gamers ought to feel guilty about and make amends for their so-called "male privilege" and that developers should be punished for including any character portrayals which don't conform to the politically correct agenda (no female characters in skimpy clothing for the purpose of titillating male players, no less-than-totally-positive or even slightly stereotypical non-white or non-straight characters [not even satirically], etc.) Realize that this desire to try to ban or eradicate all things politically incorrect will never be satisfied.
What the politically correct crowd seeks, under the guise of "equality," is power and control. It is about controlling and limiting and sometimes even criminalizing speech that offends them. They are neither "enlightened" nor the spokesmen for all women; what they are is intolerant and the enemies of free expression. The disgusting, cheap, absurd and dishonest insinuation that, "if you don't support our politically correct agenda, then you contribute to real life rape of women" ought to be rejected and ridiculed all the way back to the stupid "wimmin's study" faculty lounge.
Game developers should not be forced to limit or censor themselves so as to avoid running afoul of some hyper sensitive politically correct ideology. If they do, then we all suffer.
Yes, condemn material that calls for violence against specific individuals or that flirts with pedophilia, for example, but remember to use common sense. When we've gotten to the point where showing jiggly boobs is made out to be evil or rape-encouraging, where having an Indian quickie mart clerk in a comedy game means that the developers and players of the game are vilified as so-called racist bigots, when the depiction of the princess in Super Mario Bros is condemned as a crime against women (LOL!), then I think we have lost our minds.
I'll be darned if I'm going to stay silent while some humorless bullies try to force their victimization worldview on me and others and while they threaten to smear as bigots or sexists anyone who doesn't play by their rules.
Why is it ok to degrade males by derisively referring to horny guys as "adolescent" or "cavemen?" Why is a guy's desire something that is right to mock? Oh, yes, I do notice strains of misandry within the agenda of some of the self-appointed champions for "fairness" and "equality." But I guess that's okay because only certain groups are entitled to protected status while others are expected to shut up and feel guilty.
I also noticed that some people here and elsewhere want to claim that the existence of mean, anti-Anita YouTube comments left by a small a minority of gamers reinforces what Anita is saying. The truth is that mean online comments come from all sides and are a function of the anonymous nature of commenting more than anything. And even if some people make nasty comments, anonymous or not, it's still not any justification for allowing a group of loud, perpetually-offended bullies to pressure and dictate to the rest of us what the content of games should be. Sorry, but I am NOT okay with people who go beyond "I personally don't enjoy content X in games" to "you shouldn't be allowed to play games with content X, and if you do then you should be branded a woman hater." HELL NO.
What would the reaction here be if major gaming sites started pushing the idea that we ought to eradicate violence from video games, arguing that it perpetuates violence in our culture and that people who enjoy such games are depraved and a menace to society? Now, I have never enjoyed any games which involve running around and shooting people. Doesn't appeal to me. This isn't because I am against guns (I own many). I simply don't enjoy the monotonous, super realistic depictions of gunning down people. Still, though I have no proof either way, my tendency is to believe such games have little to no effect on the level of violence in society. The point, however, is that I would never try to trash or prevent anyone from playing such games. And, if you want to talk about behavior depicted in games, I think murder is a lot worse than a character simply jiggling around a pair of hefty bozangas.
You are now lumping together thousands of feminist positions just to sublimate the most extremist views as representative. That, I would argue, is even off topic. None of the ideas you have voiced in 830 words even tries to make a connection with what Anita Sarkeesian says. As she has voiced no video game 'agenda' to speak of, I concede that her videos would be quite fruitless for such mind games.
The past few pages have been mind-numbing so I'm not caught up.
One train of thought I have is that most old-school games have damsels in distress inspired by classic fairy tales. But while the fairy tales used similar stereotypes, it was much more common in those stories for the princess to be the protagonist. Sure, they weren't the most empowered characters, but they were developed characters with agency and motivation, and in those cases it was the princes that tended to be shallow plot devices (to the point where "Prince Charming" can be used as a blanket term to refer indiscriminately to the princes from Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty). Donkey Kong was based on the classic Beauty and the Beast story, but (to put an anachronistic spin on it, since DK came out well before the Disney movie) you're effectively playing as Gaston. I guess Braid touched on this but even there the Princess was an object rather than a person.
The argument isn't that people have to stop including kidnapped princesses in games, the argument is that that motif has been done to death and even doing it ironically isn't clever anymore. Earthworm Jim did it ironically twenty years ago. The argument is that game developers should be able to come up with new plots, or at least pay tribute to the full variety of old school plots (searches for treasure, cross-generation conflicts, revenge, blah blah blah) and stop relying on the same one constantly.
Hate to tell you, Luigi, but the first thing I learned in screenwriting 101 was that nothing is ever written: it's only rewritten. Any plot to any film or game has already been thought of; we are now just putting different spins on the same top.
I would also like to point out that the concept of a man going through hell (literally in some cases) to rescue the woman he loves is a staple of storytelling that dates back to the greek tragedies. Not because its objectifying women, and not because no one has thought of anything else to write about. It's because the formula relates easily from all sides.
What woman at one point in her life doesn't want to know that the person she loves would do literally anything to see them safe? What man at some point in their lives does not know the feeling of wanting to be that guy?
According to the "2013 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry" report, produced by the Entertainment Software Association, 45% of all game players, and 46% of the most frequent purchasers of games, are female. Adult women make up 31% of the game-playing population.
(There are other interesting statistics in that report as well.)
If any changes come about, it's really going to be that sort of trend that does it.
Half of the "statistics" in that report smack of twisted statistics.
Women 18 or older represent a significantly greater portion of the
game-playing population (31%) than boys age 17 or younger (19%)
Who the fuck takes statistics like that? You don't compare statistics like that. You compare on the same age bracket.
E.G.:
Girls 17 or younger make up a smaller portion of the game-playing population (14%) than boys age 17 or younger (19%).
or
Women 18 years of age or older make up a smaller portion of the game-playing community (31%) than Men age 18 or older (36%)
That would be an accurate portrayal of the report, but that seems to be contradicted to what they are trying to portray in this report. And then there is the statistics that just don't add up.
55% Men/45% Women play games, but 54% Men/ 46% Women frequently buy games? Go home report; you're drunk.
You don't compare statistics like that. You compare on the same age bracket.
The market caters to whoever is buying the product. It's been thought for years that female gamers were just a small niche market. But this shows that adult females are a larger market than underage males, which considering who the industry usually targets to (ie: young males), to a lot of people this is a pretty surprising statistic.
Girls 17 or younger make up a smaller portion of the game-playing population (14%) than boys age 17 or younger (19%)
or
Women 18 years of age or older make up a smaller portion of the game-playing community (31%) than Men age 18 or older (36%)
I don't get your point, in either case. It doesn't contradict anything. It's still only a 5% margin in both cases (and backs up the mere 10% difference linked above).
The point is that the amount of video gamers of each gender is much closer than most people thought (as said before 55% male/45% female - nearly half, and it's accurate enough to round each to half when you consider how close the margin is). This extremely close margin between the genders will surprise most people since video games are still regarded as a male dominated hobby.
55% Men/45% Women play games, but 54% Men/ 46% Women frequently buy games? Go home report; you're drunk.
How's that a skewed statistic? There are some women who don't play games, but are the ones who buy them (ie: mothers or girlfriends). The surprising thing to most people would be that it's only 1% of all female purchasers who buy the games for someone else, and that the other 45% of female purchasers buy them for themselves.
The market caters to whoever is buying the product. It's been thought for years that female gamers were just a small niche market. But this shows that adult females are a larger market than underage males, which considering who the industry usually targets to (ie: young males), to a lot of people this is a pretty surprising statistic.
I don't get your point, in either case. It doesn't contradict anything. It's still only a 5% margin in both cases (and backs up the mere 10% difference linked above).
The point is that the amount of video gamers of each gender is much closer than most people thought (as said before 55% male/45% female - nearly half, and it's accurate enough to round each to half when you consider how close the margin is). This extremely close margin between the genders will surprise most people since video games are still regarded as a male dominated hobby.
How's that a skewed statistic? There are some women who don't play games, but are the ones who buy them (ie: mothers or girlfriends). The surprising thing to most people would be that it's only 1% of all female purchasers who buy the games for someone else, and that the other 45% of female purchasers buy them for themselves.
The problem is that we literally have only their word to go on it...And what is the purpose of the ESA?
ESA offers services to interactive entertainment software publishers including conducting business and consumer research, providing legal and policy analysis and advocacy on First Amendment, intellectual property and technology/e-commerce issues, managing a global anti-piracy program, owning and operating E3, and representing video game industry interests in federal and state government relations.
That's right, these guys are in politics...so you still trust the facts coming from them at face value?
On top of that, they didn't even do the research themselves.
The 2013 Essential Facts About the Computer and Video Game Industry was released by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) at E3 2013. The annual research was conducted by Ipsos MediaCT for ESA. The study is the most in-depth and targeted survey of its kind, gathering data from more than 2,000 nationally representative households.
That's right, they hired another company to do their job for them, and do not site any actual sources for their statistics...just a vague "study." I'm sorry, but if you handed this in to any organization with no sources to back it up, how much would you be taken seriously?
That's right, these guys are in politics...so you still trust the facts coming from them at face value?
On top of that, they didn't even do the research themselves.
You read the facts, but you make conspiracies out of them. I don't understand how you could. The ESA represents software publishers. The ESA is paid by software publishers. The software publishers have an inherent interest in analysing their target audience correctly. Hence, the chance that they're purposefully telling bullshit to others here - and themselves to boot - is zero. There is nothing to be gained by anyone if these statistics are a misrepresentation.
Indeed, if software publishers just wish to go on and on to cater for primarily a male audience, as they have been for 30 years, it would be in their best interest to downplay the percentage of female gamers. But obviously, even 30 years ago, women were already growing strong as gamers.
Anita Sarkeesian said: My dad was a computer networking engineer, so while I was growing up our house was full of computers and he would always have a few machines loaded with games for me. When I was about 10, I remember I campaigned for months to convince my parents that the “Game Boy” was not in fact just for boys. Eventually I won the debate and got my first portable gaming device the following Christmas.
On top of that, they didn't even do the research themselves.
That's right, they hired another company to do their job for them, and do not site any actual sources for their statistics...just a vague "study." I'm sorry, but if you handed this in to any organization with no sources to back it up, how much would you be taken seriously?
That's the way market research works. Companies have to hire independent sources to conduct the research for them, or else questions of bias come into play (since the interested party will often skew questions towards how they think the result will turn out, both intentionally and non-intentionally). That's the reason research agencies exist.
In this case, since the research is conducted by an independent organization that has no connection to the subject matter, and the fact that the agency in question is one that is well known (Ipsos is the third largest research agency in the world), the study is actually more reliable, not less.
That's the way market research works. Companies have to hire independent sources to conduct the research for them, or else questions of bias come into play (since the interested party will often skew questions towards how they think the result will turn out, both intentionally and non-intentionally). That's the reason research agencies exist.
In this case, since the research is conducted by an independent organization that has no connection to the subject matter, and the fact that the agency in question is one that is well known (Ipsos is the third largest research agency in the world), the study is actually more reliable, not less.
So because this company did it and not another we are supposed to accept it blindly without numbers and actual data?
Comments
Thanks for completely missing the point of what I was saying. Your entire argument basically states that you don't want boobs removed from games because that is entertaining to you. I am retorting with the assertion that the fact you only see a boob jiggling shows that our culture and the media that supports it dehumanizes women by making them entertainment. By making women all about parts of their anatomy and used for entertainment in media, it makes real fights for equality much harder.
Gamers aren't going to go out and rape someone because they watch a boob jiggling. That's ludicrous and not what I said at all. But they will get the message that if a game doesn't have a boob jiggling in it, there is something wrong with it. That if a woman doesn't want to have sex, there is something wrong with her. That this is real entertainment and removing it will remove the fun from everything, therefore everyone against this must be killjoys. All media is somewhat responsible, but the difference with games is that there are not many alternatives.
Seriously, I don't know how I need to explain how damaging this can be, just in perceptions. Okay, take someone you respect. Your mom, for instance. Would it still be easy to respect her if there was a video of her on youtube just focused on her chest bouncing and it had millions of views and people liked it? Suppose that was the primary representation of her anywhere. Suppose you had to do a deep hour long google search to find anything else. Would those jiggling boobs still just be entertainment? It would certainly make it more difficult to respect her in any way and nobody else would respect her either. This is the sort of damage that these perceptions can cause. It is incredibly difficult to respect someone who is portrayed by the world to be entertainment.
For instance, a toddler wearing a summer sun dress would be considered very feminine, but there's definitely nothing sexualized about her (since she has just started to grow at all, let alone sexually, which won't happen for another decade or so).
Well I just
I hate women.
I guess we'll just have to disagree about the potential harm to society posed by bouncing, bikini-clad babes in video games. Boobs do bounce in real life, and it can be appealing. Search on YouTube for "Kate Upton bouncing" for a prime example. I see nothing wrong with similar depictions in video games, if even just for mindless entertainment. Aren't games supposed to be fun, and not just self-serious, overly-cautious attempts to show "sensitivity" to the latest politically correct sensibilities?
I remember hearing that, during the Kickstarter for Mage's Initiation, Himalaya came under fire by members of the P.C. sensitivity brigade for having a female character depicted in a bikini in their game. To their great credit, Himalaya held firm, resisted the pressure and refused to alter the character. Unfortunately, not all developers will have the same backbone and many will cave to these bullies.
Apparently the politically correct police would rather female characters be depicted in full-body burqas. Maybe then the womanly attributes of the female characters wouldn't prove to be so "distracting" to male players.
Look, sexy, big-busted babes are people too. If they want to show off their bodies, then I support it. There is nothing dehumanizing about someone willingly and proudly displaying their sexiness. If we all just enjoyed the sexiness and quit worrying about finding new ways to get offended, then we'd all be happier as a group.
Bikinis, not burqas! Bikinis, not burqas!
this is censorship they gonna take my boobies away what will my penis do
cry
your thinly veiled arguments about "censorship" aren't anything but an attempt to make yourself look better than a pubescent kid
it isn't working out for you
if you like lowbrow, bottom of the barrel male entertainment, that's fine
demographics are changing. the industry needs to reflect this. sorry if this hurts your feelings.
I had this great insightful reply and the forums ate it. So I won't write it out again. Cliff's notes:
1. Comic books have better and more varied female characters than video games do. Comic books from the freakin 1970s. This is something that should be noted, especially considering that comic books, like video games, have a white male target audience. Still, they somehow manage to make a spectrum of female and minority characters that have more to them than your average cardboard cutout.
2. I would be pleased as punch if women in video games were treated as well and with as much dignity as your average comic book. Considering the average comic book, the fact that video games haven't even been able to achieve that is disappointing to say the least.
3. The goal is not to ban boobs forever, the goal is to put an actual person behind them. The fact that you keep on referring to women in video games as boobs shows that there is a problem with this.
4. Is it so much to ask for a spectrum? Sexy, non-sexy, old, young, scheming, wimpy, badass, good, evil, snarky, smart, dumb... I want it all. I want a variety of female characters. Some of them can be eye candy, just like some male characters are, but I'd like a few grizzled female veterans, a few main character wimps, a few of everything, really.
5. I had something about how I wanted a game where a middle-aged asian mother and kung fu master has to fight hordes of ninjas to get back her seven year old son.
6. It's Alcoremortis. The Alcor refers to a star in Ursa Major, Mortis means "of death". The "e" is silent. Feel free to put it together if you want to see how much of a nerd I am.
(Don't want to click? It's an article about a proposed 'Boob Jam', "a game jam dedicated to breasts, real or fake, big or small, trans or cis, female or male, with just one design criterion: Make a game that talks about boobs without resorting to the ‘straight male gaze.’ " It's actually a pretty interesting read.)
You might find this handy (and I'd highly recommend it to anyone that frequently posts in forums). Here's the Chrome version.
That's actually a completely different argument, but I get the feeling that you're not talking about transgenderism here.
And now I'ma go back to staying out of this clusterfuck.
http://kotaku.com/and-just-like-that-im-out-of-the-hype-train-947518525
Sad to see the author imply that bigger, more appealing, jigglier breasts on characters make them weaker characters. Having big, jiggly breasts doesn't make female characters any less intelligent or dignified.
Good for Motomu Toriyama!
I'm frankly disgusted to see big, jiggly breast-enjoying gamers demeaned as adolescent or sexist. It's only human to enjoy such things and is nothing to be ashamed of. Giving customers what they want is good practice.
The people who should be ashamed are the self-superior, P.C. busy body scolds who try to tell people what they should or should not be allowed to play or enjoy. So ridiculous to see people in the comments under that kotaku article having a cow because a character's physical attributes were changed and, in many people's opinions, enhanced. Maybe the character got a boob job in between games? That's her right. We need to quit demeaning women with nice assets who like showing off those assets.
Here's another ridiculous article which trashes Leisure Suit Larry for supposedly being both sexist and racist (!):
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-22-leisure-suit-larry-reloaded-review
Also, I've played Final Fantasy X and X-2. Lulu and Leblanc are really hard to take seriously at all with their boobs nearly hanging out. Not to mention that Yuna and Rikku are highly sexualized in X-2 compared to X, which I found unfortunate as Yuna is one of the few characters I liked in X.
EDIT: Now, I've also been playing Skyrim lately and, as a man, I understand the desire to pretty-fy female character models with fan-made mods. However, I see individual gamers intentionally artificially sexualizing characters in their own copy of a game through mods to be different from developers making big, barely-covered boobs to be a defining characteristic for female characters in their games.
Why is it different? Because male hormones can be really annoyingly strong in young men, and what a guy does on his own computer in his own home is his business (albeit it will certainly affect his relationships with women.) On the other hand, for the media to objectify women openly encourages male chauvinist behavior, and doesn't help the culture as a whole to become more respectful of each other's differences.
Read my post yet?
Problem is when that's the entire plot.
http://kotaku.com/5983896/latest-dead-or-alive-5-patch-brings-enhanced-boob-control
Stop. Stop describing my penis movement.
That's great.
I give you Peggy from LSL7: http://youtu.be/8g6PcY0ER9M
Seriously, though, what you're saying is reasonable. Of course a variety of female and male characters might make for a richer, better gaming experience in some games.
Of course in real life we shouldn't value people (male or female) solely for how they look. But objectification isn't always necessarily a bad thing, and sometimes mindless fun shouldn't be taken as anything more than that. The problem is with the people who get offended by any game that isn't totally politically correct; the problem is not with these games!
What you're saying here is a far cry from what RPS and the Ellie Gibsons of the world are saying, which is essentially that male gamers ought to feel guilty about and make amends for their so-called "male privilege" and that developers should be punished for including any character portrayals which don't conform to the politically correct agenda (no female characters in skimpy clothing for the purpose of titillating male players, no less-than-totally-positive or even slightly stereotypical non-white or non-straight characters [not even satirically], etc.) Realize that this desire to try to ban or eradicate all things politically incorrect will never be satisfied.
What the politically correct crowd seeks, under the guise of "equality," is power and control. It is about controlling and limiting and sometimes even criminalizing speech that offends them. They are neither "enlightened" nor the spokesmen for all women; what they are is intolerant and the enemies of free expression. The disgusting, cheap, absurd and dishonest insinuation that, "if you don't support our politically correct agenda, then you contribute to real life rape of women" ought to be rejected and ridiculed all the way back to the stupid "wimmin's study" faculty lounge.
Game developers should not be forced to limit or censor themselves so as to avoid running afoul of some hyper sensitive politically correct ideology. If they do, then we all suffer.
Yes, condemn material that calls for violence against specific individuals or that flirts with pedophilia, for example, but remember to use common sense. When we've gotten to the point where showing jiggly boobs is made out to be evil or rape-encouraging, where having an Indian quickie mart clerk in a comedy game means that the developers and players of the game are vilified as so-called racist bigots, when the depiction of the princess in Super Mario Bros is condemned as a crime against women (LOL!), then I think we have lost our minds.
I'll be darned if I'm going to stay silent while some humorless bullies try to force their victimization worldview on me and others and while they threaten to smear as bigots or sexists anyone who doesn't play by their rules.
Why is it ok to degrade males by derisively referring to horny guys as "adolescent" or "cavemen?" Why is a guy's desire something that is right to mock? Oh, yes, I do notice strains of misandry within the agenda of some of the self-appointed champions for "fairness" and "equality." But I guess that's okay because only certain groups are entitled to protected status while others are expected to shut up and feel guilty.
I also noticed that some people here and elsewhere want to claim that the existence of mean, anti-Anita YouTube comments left by a small a minority of gamers reinforces what Anita is saying. The truth is that mean online comments come from all sides and are a function of the anonymous nature of commenting more than anything. And even if some people make nasty comments, anonymous or not, it's still not any justification for allowing a group of loud, perpetually-offended bullies to pressure and dictate to the rest of us what the content of games should be. Sorry, but I am NOT okay with people who go beyond "I personally don't enjoy content X in games" to "you shouldn't be allowed to play games with content X, and if you do then you should be branded a woman hater." HELL NO.
What would the reaction here be if major gaming sites started pushing the idea that we ought to eradicate violence from video games, arguing that it perpetuates violence in our culture and that people who enjoy such games are depraved and a menace to society? Now, I have never enjoyed any games which involve running around and shooting people. Doesn't appeal to me. This isn't because I am against guns (I own many). I simply don't enjoy the monotonous, super realistic depictions of gunning down people. Still, though I have no proof either way, my tendency is to believe such games have little to no effect on the level of violence in society. The point, however, is that I would never try to trash or prevent anyone from playing such games. And, if you want to talk about behavior depicted in games, I think murder is a lot worse than a character simply jiggling around a pair of hefty bozangas.
One train of thought I have is that most old-school games have damsels in distress inspired by classic fairy tales. But while the fairy tales used similar stereotypes, it was much more common in those stories for the princess to be the protagonist. Sure, they weren't the most empowered characters, but they were developed characters with agency and motivation, and in those cases it was the princes that tended to be shallow plot devices (to the point where "Prince Charming" can be used as a blanket term to refer indiscriminately to the princes from Cinderella, Snow White, and Sleeping Beauty). Donkey Kong was based on the classic Beauty and the Beast story, but (to put an anachronistic spin on it, since DK came out well before the Disney movie) you're effectively playing as Gaston. I guess Braid touched on this but even there the Princess was an object rather than a person.
The argument isn't that people have to stop including kidnapped princesses in games, the argument is that that motif has been done to death and even doing it ironically isn't clever anymore. Earthworm Jim did it ironically twenty years ago. The argument is that game developers should be able to come up with new plots, or at least pay tribute to the full variety of old school plots (searches for treasure, cross-generation conflicts, revenge, blah blah blah) and stop relying on the same one constantly.
What woman at one point in her life doesn't want to know that the person she loves would do literally anything to see them safe? What man at some point in their lives does not know the feeling of wanting to be that guy?
It's not sexism, it's storytelling.
You can tell stories with it, and some are even good, but they do draw on outdated gender roles. It's less storytelling and more lack of creativity.
(There are other interesting statistics in that report as well.)
If any changes come about, it's really going to be that sort of trend that does it.
31 is less than half of 69.
Failure on understanding what half means: Priceless.
31% of the video game playing population are adult females.
45% of all video game players are female.
So if you take 45% - 31% that means 14% of all video game players are underage females.
E.G.:
Girls 17 or younger make up a smaller portion of the game-playing population (14%) than boys age 17 or younger (19%).
or
Women 18 years of age or older make up a smaller portion of the game-playing community (31%) than Men age 18 or older (36%)
That would be an accurate portrayal of the report, but that seems to be contradicted to what they are trying to portray in this report. And then there is the statistics that just don't add up.
55% Men/45% Women play games, but 54% Men/ 46% Women frequently buy games? Go home report; you're drunk.
I don't get your point, in either case. It doesn't contradict anything. It's still only a 5% margin in both cases (and backs up the mere 10% difference linked above).
The point is that the amount of video gamers of each gender is much closer than most people thought (as said before 55% male/45% female - nearly half, and it's accurate enough to round each to half when you consider how close the margin is). This extremely close margin between the genders will surprise most people since video games are still regarded as a male dominated hobby.
How's that a skewed statistic? There are some women who don't play games, but are the ones who buy them (ie: mothers or girlfriends). The surprising thing to most people would be that it's only 1% of all female purchasers who buy the games for someone else, and that the other 45% of female purchasers buy them for themselves.
Well, we still have to account for your mom who buys games for you, don't we?
I certainly believe the Entertainment Software Association could not be any clearer.
How is this part 4 for mobile Nintendo systems?
not to mention all the spin-off-games.
On top of that, they didn't even do the research themselves.
That's right, they hired another company to do their job for them, and do not site any actual sources for their statistics...just a vague "study." I'm sorry, but if you handed this in to any organization with no sources to back it up, how much would you be taken seriously?
You read the facts, but you make conspiracies out of them. I don't understand how you could. The ESA represents software publishers. The ESA is paid by software publishers. The software publishers have an inherent interest in analysing their target audience correctly. Hence, the chance that they're purposefully telling bullshit to others here - and themselves to boot - is zero. There is nothing to be gained by anyone if these statistics are a misrepresentation.
Indeed, if software publishers just wish to go on and on to cater for primarily a male audience, as they have been for 30 years, it would be in their best interest to downplay the percentage of female gamers. But obviously, even 30 years ago, women were already growing strong as gamers.
In this case, since the research is conducted by an independent organization that has no connection to the subject matter, and the fact that the agency in question is one that is well known (Ipsos is the third largest research agency in the world), the study is actually more reliable, not less.