I wanted to post this for a while, but technical issues and all. Ahem. Also this is not poking at the author of the article, but more gaming journalism in general.
How about stop worrying so much over FICTIONAL VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. Things like this have been in art for CENTURIES. Paintings, photography, and today, TV/movies and video games.
How about you people start focusing on actual problems women are facing in the real world rather than what happens to a 2D sprite or 3D model on a screen? Write more articles about how some religions/countries treat their women--REAL WOMEN. But focusing on reality isn’t your job now, is it? Otherwise you’d have a better grasp about what it is you’re actually talking about.
How about you write about ACTUAL problems facing the industry? Like developers/publishers pouring money into marketing rather than developing? Or how some journalists are CLEARLY paid off. But of course, that doesn't matter at all, right? A fanservicey set of chicks kicking butt in a game is WAY MORE problematic than something like that. And of course, these girls are capable, strong both physically and mentally. The only difference between them and Lara Croft is... they show some more skin. How offensive. They actually have personalities, motives, etc. But their characters are ignored and they are reduced to mere objects by the same people who cry objectification. Somehow their ability to show some skin negates everything else about them.
I am sick and tired of this. If a fictional girl shows so much as some cleavage and panties, there's an outcry. Are you so sheltered and immature? No, you're not acting 'mature' by singling out VIDEO GAMES like this and then saying "OMG THIS FICTIONAL CHARACTER HAS LARGE MOVING BREASTS AND IS SHOWING CLEAVAGE! THIS IS WRONG. I AM OFFENDED." That is the opposite of mature. You are complaining about something that is so small it makes you look like you're just whining. This is like walking up to a woman --a stranger-- who is showing cleavage and complaining about it to the people around her. You are not seen as helpful or doing good, but just a nuisance and whiner.
On the topic of real women; do peoples’ heads explode when they see a REAL attractive woman in a bikini? How about when, during a movie, a woman shows some cleavage and thigh? Because you know that PG-13 movies allows some nudity. No? Because people complaining about this make me think otherwise.
Oh, this amused me: people are worried about their children being exposed to this. Then be a good parent? Don't buy these games for them? Pretty sure it's not rated "For all ages". Parents should do the parenting. DO NOT ask the developers to do the parenting for you. Hell, they even try to help with parental controls to make things easier for you. I worry about parents who think that the world has to do their parenting for them.
Another thing--so WHAT if the developers wanted it to be a fanservice game? What is the problem? You are thinking about boycotting something like this, for what purpose? Because it is harmful? And if it is so harmful, what of graphic violence and gore, and potentially disturbing or unsettling imagery which is in most games? These are not equally as harmful? Maybe you should think about boycotting those instead. Or do you just want to continue having double standards? Do you want to boycott free speech and artistic freedom while you're at it? You know, some of the things that civilization is built upon?
If this kind of thing "offends you" then keep on trucking. The game world is vast. You'll surely find some other game to play.
I don't see the Barbie game developers catering to boys--maybe they should try. I'm offended by Barbie games. I will boycott them for having things I dislike, and not having things I like. Ken is way too handsome. He should look more relatable. They should cater more to me, to the demographic I'M part of.
"but what, here, is being lost by making these characters normal looking, relatable women?"
I doubt they’re meant to be relatable. Why would they be? Do you relate to Superman? Or for a better example, Batman in the Arkham games? Nope. Not at all. He and his situations are not relatable and not at all normal. Neither is Lara Croft and her situations. Or Nathan Drake, or Solid Snake. You cannot identify with these characters. The majority of characters in video games are like this. You can make them ‘believable’, yes, but it’s still very much in fantasy universes and their situations are not at all relatable. You can still be concerned for and get attached to characters whether there’s fanservice or not. That is not a wall to bar you from seeing personalities or motives, or whatever.
So what would you lose? How about style, artistic integrity/freedom? Uniqueness? The developer wanted it this way. This is like asking Bayonetta or Sorceress from Dragon's Crown to look more 'relatable', more… normal. No, that's not going to work. It's part of the style and uniqueness of the game and its designs. It's also what the developer envisioned. Why do you want to take that freedom away? Even if it’s a shallow vision such as wanting to see boobs in 3D, it’s still an artistic expression. It doesn’t have to be DEEP to be art, but people in the game industry seem to suffer from the idea that things must have a deeper meaning or be complex to be considered art. That’s not the case. Sure, they may not be masterpieces, but it’s still expression. Still art.
These are the developers who don't pour money into advertising more than game development. They actually develop out of love of video games and their visions, targeting small demographics rather than making a game that's run-of-the-mill, pandering to everyone. So what if they 'give the finger to major demographics'. That wasn't their goal in the first place. It literally boils down to "if you don't like it, don't play it", because it wasn't made with you in mind. Move on.
Not all games cater to everyone. And they SHOULD NOT. All you'll get at the end is a general, tasteless, committee-approved paste that's put onto a cartridge or disc and sent off to you for $60US.
Freedom does come with responsibility yes. That is how it has always been. However the people creating this are not upset at the protests. The ones who are offended are upset. There is no consequence for something like this. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Artists have died for their art. In artistic circles, forcing artists to censor or change their art would be seen as a stifling of freedom of expression and creativity. Critics would by and large stand up for the artist. What is this in video gaming circles? Ah, "perfectly valid censorship of stupid things" Why? "Because it offends me."
These are fictional characters. They do not exist. They have no bearing on what happens in real life unless you cannot differentiate between fiction and reality. Can you differentiate between fiction and reality? Yes? Then you shouldn't have a problem.
There is no "serious problem with objectification" in video games. I can count more harmful problems than this overblown one. If you really consider this a problem, please set your targets on TV, commercials, ads, movies, music videos etc. Video games are the least of your 'problems'.
It’s like some of you people live in a bubble.
The video game industry needs to grow up. Particularly the journalist portion. Games that take away control from the player repeatedly because of frequent cutscenes or ‘cinematic gameplay’. Games that are almost ‘push button to win’ offering no difficulty or challenge. These aren’t problems, but fictional characters in video games are. Games that aren't even finished are rushed to meet deadlines have had millions of dollars more going into marketing rather than development. This is also not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Publishers cut out pieces of their game, charge a full 60$ for it and then charge extra for the pieces. This is not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Publishers pay off game journalists to give games high scores rather than reviewing them fairly. This is not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Companies litter console homescreens with ads. Some games even have advertisements in them. Of course, these are not problematic at all. But how a fictional character looks, how she's shaped, what she wears--this is the REAL problem. We should kick up a storm about this. Should we boycott games like this?
Video games are NOT a soapbox for social agenda. Conforming to your worldviews is NOT a prerequisite for ANY form of entertainment.
You’ll only succeed in barring Japanese games from the west. And I would not like that to happen. Japanese games in general have a variety and fantastical nature and style that you rarely ever see coming from the west.
If you don’t like The Birth of Venus, then stop complaining about it while looking at it and go look at the Mona Lisa instead.
The world is FULL of stuff that people will think is fun to them. It just seems so pointless to waste time on things you don’t like or can’t understand.
Fun facts: Japan has had female protagonists for the longest while. In fact, the first game to feature one was a Japanese game. Japanese games in general also have MORE female protagonists than the west. Also, despite fanservice (as eroticism is a part of Japanese culture), most of them are MORE than comparable to Lara Croft. For every strong western female character, there are 5 more strong Japanese female characters.
The game industry hasn’t been ‘growing up in recent years’. Lara Croft is late to a growing party.
Comments 2
Re: Denis Dyack Blames "Unethical" Journalists For Almost Killing Shadow Of The Eternals
Considering that Kotaku have shown themselves to be liars (called out and never apologized http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=quickdirty#wardell ), as well as an outlet that insults both devs ( https://archive.is/LoRMt & https://archive.is/d51CO) and their audience ( http://deepfreeze.it/article.php?a=enemy#dead )
As well as proving themselves to be one of the clickbaitiest games media sites on the internet...
https://pretendracecars.net/2015/01/18/kotaku-writes-the-same-article-about-project-cars-twelve-times/
And considering that Sterling is just about as slimy as Kotaku.
I'd say Dyack is right.
Re: Soapbox: Ignoring The Objectification Of Women In Games Won't Make the Problem Go Away
I wanted to post this for a while, but technical issues and all. Ahem. Also this is not poking at the author of the article, but more gaming journalism in general.
How about stop worrying so much over FICTIONAL VIDEO GAME CHARACTERS. Things like this have been in art for CENTURIES. Paintings, photography, and today, TV/movies and video games.
How about you people start focusing on actual problems women are facing in the real world rather than what happens to a 2D sprite or 3D model on a screen? Write more articles about how some religions/countries treat their women--REAL WOMEN. But focusing on reality isn’t your job now, is it? Otherwise you’d have a better grasp about what it is you’re actually talking about.
How about you write about ACTUAL problems facing the industry? Like developers/publishers pouring money into marketing rather than developing? Or how some journalists are CLEARLY paid off. But of course, that doesn't matter at all, right? A fanservicey set of chicks kicking butt in a game is WAY MORE problematic than something like that. And of course, these girls are capable, strong both physically and mentally. The only difference between them and Lara Croft is... they show some more skin. How offensive. They actually have personalities, motives, etc. But their characters are ignored and they are reduced to mere objects by the same people who cry objectification. Somehow their ability to show some skin negates everything else about them.
I am sick and tired of this. If a fictional girl shows so much as some cleavage and panties, there's an outcry. Are you so sheltered and immature? No, you're not acting 'mature' by singling out VIDEO GAMES like this and then saying "OMG THIS FICTIONAL CHARACTER HAS LARGE MOVING BREASTS AND IS SHOWING CLEAVAGE! THIS IS WRONG. I AM OFFENDED." That is the opposite of mature. You are complaining about something that is so small it makes you look like you're just whining. This is like walking up to a woman --a stranger-- who is showing cleavage and complaining about it to the people around her. You are not seen as helpful or doing good, but just a nuisance and whiner.
On the topic of real women; do peoples’ heads explode when they see a REAL attractive woman in a bikini? How about when, during a movie, a woman shows some cleavage and thigh? Because you know that PG-13 movies allows some nudity. No? Because people complaining about this make me think otherwise.
Oh, this amused me: people are worried about their children being exposed to this. Then be a good parent? Don't buy these games for them? Pretty sure it's not rated "For all ages". Parents should do the parenting. DO NOT ask the developers to do the parenting for you. Hell, they even try to help with parental controls to make things easier for you. I worry about parents who think that the world has to do their parenting for them.
Another thing--so WHAT if the developers wanted it to be a fanservice game? What is the problem? You are thinking about boycotting something like this, for what purpose? Because it is harmful? And if it is so harmful, what of graphic violence and gore, and potentially disturbing or unsettling imagery which is in most games? These are not equally as harmful? Maybe you should think about boycotting those instead. Or do you just want to continue having double standards? Do you want to boycott free speech and artistic freedom while you're at it? You know, some of the things that civilization is built upon?
If this kind of thing "offends you" then keep on trucking. The game world is vast. You'll surely find some other game to play.
I don't see the Barbie game developers catering to boys--maybe they should try. I'm offended by Barbie games. I will boycott them for having things I dislike, and not having things I like. Ken is way too handsome. He should look more relatable. They should cater more to me, to the demographic I'M part of.
"but what, here, is being lost by making these characters normal looking, relatable women?"
I doubt they’re meant to be relatable. Why would they be? Do you relate to Superman? Or for a better example, Batman in the Arkham games? Nope. Not at all. He and his situations are not relatable and not at all normal. Neither is Lara Croft and her situations. Or Nathan Drake, or Solid Snake. You cannot identify with these characters. The majority of characters in video games are like this. You can make them ‘believable’, yes, but it’s still very much in fantasy universes and their situations are not at all relatable. You can still be concerned for and get attached to characters whether there’s fanservice or not. That is not a wall to bar you from seeing personalities or motives, or whatever.
So what would you lose? How about style, artistic integrity/freedom? Uniqueness? The developer wanted it this way. This is like asking Bayonetta or Sorceress from Dragon's Crown to look more 'relatable', more… normal. No, that's not going to work. It's part of the style and uniqueness of the game and its designs. It's also what the developer envisioned. Why do you want to take that freedom away? Even if it’s a shallow vision such as wanting to see boobs in 3D, it’s still an artistic expression. It doesn’t have to be DEEP to be art, but people in the game industry seem to suffer from the idea that things must have a deeper meaning or be complex to be considered art. That’s not the case. Sure, they may not be masterpieces, but it’s still expression. Still art.
These are the developers who don't pour money into advertising more than game development. They actually develop out of love of video games and their visions, targeting small demographics rather than making a game that's run-of-the-mill, pandering to everyone. So what if they 'give the finger to major demographics'. That wasn't their goal in the first place. It literally boils down to "if you don't like it, don't play it", because it wasn't made with you in mind. Move on.
Not all games cater to everyone. And they SHOULD NOT. All you'll get at the end is a general, tasteless, committee-approved paste that's put onto a cartridge or disc and sent off to you for $60US.
Freedom does come with responsibility yes. That is how it has always been. However the people creating this are not upset at the protests. The ones who are offended are upset. There is no consequence for something like this. Or rather, there shouldn't be. Artists have died for their art. In artistic circles, forcing artists to censor or change their art would be seen as a stifling of freedom of expression and creativity. Critics would by and large stand up for the artist. What is this in video gaming circles? Ah, "perfectly valid censorship of stupid things" Why? "Because it offends me."
These are fictional characters. They do not exist. They have no bearing on what happens in real life unless you cannot differentiate between fiction and reality. Can you differentiate between fiction and reality? Yes? Then you shouldn't have a problem.
There is no "serious problem with objectification" in video games. I can count more harmful problems than this overblown one. If you really consider this a problem, please set your targets on TV, commercials, ads, movies, music videos etc. Video games are the least of your 'problems'.
It’s like some of you people live in a bubble.
The video game industry needs to grow up. Particularly the journalist portion. Games that take away control from the player repeatedly because of frequent cutscenes or ‘cinematic gameplay’. Games that are almost ‘push button to win’ offering no difficulty or challenge. These aren’t problems, but fictional characters in video games are. Games that aren't even finished are rushed to meet deadlines have had millions of dollars more going into marketing rather than development. This is also not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Publishers cut out pieces of their game, charge a full 60$ for it and then charge extra for the pieces. This is not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Publishers pay off game journalists to give games high scores rather than reviewing them fairly. This is not a problem, but fictional characters in video games are. Companies litter console homescreens with ads. Some games even have advertisements in them. Of course, these are not problematic at all. But how a fictional character looks, how she's shaped, what she wears--this is the REAL problem. We should kick up a storm about this. Should we boycott games like this?
Video games are NOT a soapbox for social agenda. Conforming to your worldviews is NOT a prerequisite for ANY form of entertainment.
You’ll only succeed in barring Japanese games from the west. And I would not like that to happen. Japanese games in general have a variety and fantastical nature and style that you rarely ever see coming from the west.
If you don’t like The Birth of Venus, then stop complaining about it while looking at it and go look at the Mona Lisa instead.
The world is FULL of stuff that people will think is fun to them. It just seems so pointless to waste time on things you don’t like or can’t understand.
Fun facts: Japan has had female protagonists for the longest while. In fact, the first game to feature one was a Japanese game. Japanese games in general also have MORE female protagonists than the west. Also, despite fanservice (as eroticism is a part of Japanese culture), most of them are MORE than comparable to Lara Croft. For every strong western female character, there are 5 more strong Japanese female characters.
The game industry hasn’t been ‘growing up in recent years’. Lara Croft is late to a growing party.