BruceVC

So the first thing you see in the real world is women in bikinis walking around the city? Where is that city because I want to get on the next plane and fly there. When you first see Isabella she is not wearing a Bikini. She is wearing a totally normal but sexy revealing outfit. Nothing else. Yes she shows her cleavage but again there is nothing wrong with that. She is a rogue like character and she knows how she can use her body to her advantage. She is using this outfit to get mans attention and then steals from them. Basically she is using men as objects to get money out of them. Also since this is an RPG you know exactly what kind of character or class Isabella is as well. I agree, for me there was also much more to Isabella than just her looks. She had an interesting history and personality

There is a difference between female NPCs in video games and sexualised female NPCs in video games. You would know this. And you can have female NPCs with attractive qualities without them being sexualised. Why wouldn't you want to have female NPCs without them being sexualised? As a feminist, I would think that's what you'd be campaigning for just like the many websites I've seen with young girls, women and feminists do want. You're the polar opposite to all those girls, women and feminists and actually want sexualised female NPCs in games. And as you've stated many times, you go on looks to romance before anything else. And if the character can do other stuff, then that's a bonus for you. But your primary is always looks first. When you're going by looks first, then everything else is secondary. You are absolutely correct, you can have attractive qualities without them being sexualised in a game. But I am not a developer, I don't create the Romance options. I merely base my interaction with my party members on what is available from a NPC perspective. And as others have mentioned the consideration of sexualisation is a fact in marketing of most products and a reality of life. We can't and won't be able to change this. Let me give you an example, I go to bars regularly with friends probably every second week. At these bars they have shooters girls who come you table and sell you shooters. These girls are all attractive ladies, there are no overweight or unattractive ladies who do this. Now you can see this as a negative and say " this is wrong, this is clearly selling shooters by demonstrating the sexualisation of the shooter girls and manipulating men to buy shooter because the girls are hot". But the companies that own these services will tell you that the reality is customers generally only buy shooters from girls that appear to be attractive. But that's not all the girls do, they are witty and enjoy a conversation with someone who doesn't just objectify them. I often end up chatting to shooter girls but also supporting them by buying whatever they are selling. Is this wrong? Who are we to judge the fact that just because these shooter girls are attractive they able to sell more shooters. This is something that absolutely benefits them and they have no issue with So once again the fact that certain NPC are attractive or sexualised is not the only reason I Romance them, so I wouldn't have chosen Isabella to be in my party if she wasn't as effective in combat. I hope this clears this up

However, you have said you need the 'looks' and sexualisation of female NPCs to even start a romance. You could choose any other NPC to fill your party but you choose Isabela because of her looks as well. Even if there was another NPC that could fill the role combat wise and/or have an interesting personality, it was the looks that you chose first and seems anything else was secondary and a bonus in your eyes. The main thing for you was her looks, then personality, then combat prowess. It was the sexualisation of the female NPC that you choose and then you worked your party around her? eg. Well I don't need this NPC because Isabela can do this already and she's in my party. So you've already objectified her in this case as well. And there's more to objectification than just 'looks'. As a feminist you would know this, so it's disingenuous to say objectification is only about one thing. I find it very hard to understand why you're taking this stance as a feminist with your justification of sexualisation of female NPCs because you want to romance the 'hottie' in a video game when it seems to go against everything about what I've read on feminists views on this topic. Perhaps some links would help because I have many links where it seems to back me up on this. You seem to be missing something important, part of a Romance option is obviously the aesthetics . Whats wrong with that? But its not the only thing. Its like going to a Pizza take-away and saying to people "you guys are only eating Pizza because you like the taste"....Duh ?? Obviously, that's why they are eating the Pizza. So in the Isabella example I chose Isabella not just because of her looks but also I enjoyed her personality and her contribution in combat, its the same reason I chose Viconia and Romanced Viconia. So the appearance of the person is not the only reason. I could identify with all the Romance choices I made and I respected them as party members for a number of reasons. This is not the same as objectifying someone, I am surprised you can't seem to grasp this?

Volo that hurts my feelings, what is so bad about my Internet behaviour? Can you share your perspective

I'm not one that believes in tribunal system, if you don't know by now that you aren't suppose to make racist or homophobic comments online I doubt some kind of player based court is really going to change that behaviour. Banning is the right strategy, this type of punitive step will get the message across Where has gone "education is needed to change social injustice on the internet" attitude of yours? Did you grew tired of polishing your white armor already? You know me, I never get tired of polishing my white armour But the reality is I have very little patience with some types of Internet behaviour If you ever make a software to reach through screens and punch people on the face I want to be your customer. If people want to assign some negative label to my commitment to issues of SJ as a joke, to be dismissive or in an attempt to make me sound silly that's fine. I really don't mind. It makes absolutely no difference to me and will in no way change my view or comments I make. Sorry to disappoint

It's not false and it's not slander. You admitted you are all for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. You can't get around that. And what act is this? Quoting you saying you are all for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games? I'm just quoting what you have written. Hiro I wanted to respond to this because you asked a good question earlier Firstly you are 100 % correct that I am a feminist and as you know I take issues of SJ very seriously, in fact I take them more seriously than Romance. But there is no contradiction here. The sexualisation of a person in game is not necessarily a bad thing. My definition of that means that there is sexual dimension to there character. This could be there appearance or how they conduct themselves. Isabella is a good example of this type of personality and she also happened to be my Romance choice, ahhhh....those Pirate boots But a person who is sexualised also needs to have other attributes that make them relevant or important. They need to be defined around something else apart from there sexuality. And that's important, so Isabella wasn't just a hottie. She was a important contributor in combat and had an interesting personality But the objectification of a person is where that person has no other purpose but to be an object and this is normally around there looks, so for example if Isabella only looked like she did and had no other valuable combat skills or had no interesting dialogue choices. This is a negative So you can see the difference, the sexualisation of something is not always a bad thing but the objectification of something is

I'm not one that believes in tribunal system, if you don't know by now that you aren't suppose to make racist or homophobic comments online I doubt some kind of player based court is really going to change that behaviour. Banning is the right strategy, this type of punitive step will get the message across Where has gone "education is needed to change social injustice on the internet" attitude of yours? Did you grew tired of polishing your white armor already? You know me, I never get tired of polishing my white armour But the reality is I have very little patience with some types of Internet behaviour

and that is one o' the problems... and why we asked which western powers. US only has one real ally in the middle east: israel. not only that, most amaericans, even with mounting casualties in gaza, support the idf actions. so, take US sanctions off the table for the nonce as they don't seem at all realistic. sure, if death toll gets too high, the US will threaten, by which time the idf will probable be moping up and preparing for the next major hamas conflict 2 years from now. HA! Good Fun! I share Gromnirs sentiment but also the situation is not as black and white as saying " Lets stop aid or enforce sanctions against Israel as this will improve the situation" The reality is Hamas is considered an Islamic extremist group, linked to other groups like Hezbollah, and almost all Western countries grapple with the problem of Islamic extremism. So no Western country wants to unintentionally empower any fundamentalist group by weakening Israel. And Hamas has been very provocative by firing the rockets So it justifies funding genocide? US has given support to terroris... freedom fighters before, they have no problem when it seems to suit their agenda; I guess they don't mind what their allies do as long as its not done to them. Personally I just dislike how media is treating this, by pulling out whomever dares report anything negative about Israel and how the West has taken a meek, consenting attitude towards the whole thing. It bothers me that these people could wipe out a nation and manipulate perception into making themselves the good guys. Do you really consider what the Israeli's are doing as genocide? Also how do you know the media is pulling out anything negative about Israel, do you have any links you can share about this or is this more your perception? Because in South Africa most people, outside the Jewish community, are very critical of Israel

Kids spend their parents money on this game too, and behave like brats too. Trust me played this game long enough to know. Shadowgate does look good but it also appears to be very hard

Eh, seen worse. Like the one with the scraggly-looking rapist Santa Claus. Anyways, I've learned my lesson since then, and don't skip on my sleep time How long did you go without sleeping and what were you doing that was keeping you awake?

and that is one o' the problems... and why we asked which western powers. US only has one real ally in the middle east: israel. not only that, most amaericans, even with mounting casualties in gaza, support the idf actions. so, take US sanctions off the table for the nonce as they don't seem at all realistic. sure, if death toll gets too high, the US will threaten, by which time the idf will probable be moping up and preparing for the next major hamas conflict 2 years from now. HA! Good Fun! I share Gromnirs sentiment but also the situation is not as black and white as saying " Lets stop aid or enforce sanctions against Israel as this will improve the situation" The reality is Hamas is considered an Islamic extremist group, linked to other groups like Hezbollah, and almost all Western countries grapple with the problem of Islamic extremism. So no Western country wants to unintentionally empower any fundamentalist group by weakening Israel. And Hamas has been very provocative by firing the rockets

Yeah that's the point I've made several times, the IDF should have used a ground invasion from the beginning. Yes they would suffer more casualties but they reduce civilian deaths and allow it allows them to be more surgical I think you just gave the reason why they didn't do it, they really can't or won't allow themselves to get into an actual conflict where they could lose manpower. Its a kind of admirable forward thinking strategy, play the war today whilst preparing for the wars to come. I'm more concerned about the lack of action by Western powers, I wish I had a reason to explain why that didn't become a conspiracy theory. When you say lack of action from Western powers do you mean in a mediation capacity and encouraging/forcing the Israeli's and Hamas to negotiate ? I'm echoing Gromnirs question

Mass media is just government's tool to form public opinion. Lot of people think mass media is supposed to report "the truth". Let's hug and laugh into their face. So what does represent the truth Bester? How do we get accurately informed?

I'd chalk it up to a hallucination induced by sleep deprivation. Have I ever told you guys about the time I hadn't slept enough in a long time and seen a huge glowing purple spider descend on my face? That sounds hectic ......

Tonight I'm having a Dutch sausage with green salad and avocado pear. Healthy and tasty

Not being a military buff myself, I had to look this up. I take it you mean Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, and not the Salzburg Experimental Academy of Dance. Although I do think we'd all be a lot better off if the Ukrainian government and the separatists would just have a dance-off instead. " Salzburg Experimental Academy of Dance" That made me laugh

I love hotdogs, I also enjoy Cheese Grillers and Bratwurst...in fact any sausage in a bun I am amenable to. I am getting hungry

I'm afraid you misunderstand again. What I would like is not the EU/NATO, but for my country to get out of debt and become truly independent, not to live on this artificial life support that the EU is keeping us on. Trust me Sarex its much better for Serbia to be aligned economically and politically with the EU than to be opposed to it, if Serbia going this route this is cause to be joyous. Your future is looking bright

I wonder if she is involved in strip searches

That makes no sense at all. lol I'm surprised you think that any development company will think that a game its makes is perfect and can't be improved on?

Yeah that's the point I've made several times, the IDF should have used a ground invasion from the beginning. Yes they would suffer more casualties but they reduce civilian deaths and allow it allows them to be more surgical

Hopefully, I am cautiously optimistic I think once they have got through the hurdle of making PoE they will say "how can we now improve on the game" and they start looking at a Romance implementation

Were do you get the idea that teenagers don't spend money on lol? In fact they are the ones who will most likely buy the skins. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120229006232/en/PlaySpan-Study-Shows-Percentage-Consumers-Buying-Virtual#.U8-L6PmunLE This study suggests that about 50% of teenagers spend money on virtual goods, and of all the virtual goods purchases made about 32% was to look better in game. So yes, they do spend some money to look good in game. That's an interesting link, nice one

I am because I see this as a positive way to add realism and make the RPG experience more immersive. The levels of party interaction are important and do add to the overall believability of the whole RPG experience Bruce, you've described yourself as a feminist but I'm having a hard time reconciling how as a feminist you're okay with the sexualisation of NPCs in crps. Even more, you say this adds 'realism'. I'm guessing 'realism' in the sense of treating subject matter that presents a description of everyday life. Some points and this post is going to be quite long. And since you're heterosexual and are looking at female NPCs, I'll just focus on female NPCs . Games ask us to play with them. Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can’t do. We are encouraged to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not. The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace. So the developers have set up a series of possible scenarios involving sexualised female characters. Players are then invited to explore and exploit those situations during their play-through. The player cannot help but treat these female bodies as things to be acted upon, because they were designed, constructed and placed in the environment for that purpose. Interactive media has the potential to be a perfect medium to genuinely explore sex and sexuality. But that’s not what’s happening here. These interactions set up a transactional relationship in which women (NPCs) are reduced to a base sexual function. It frames female sexuality as something that belongs to others, rather than as something NPCs enjoy for themselves. I’d argue that none of this is really about sex at all, certainly nothing resembling authentic consensual intimacy; publishers and developers are instead selling a particular fantasy about male power centered on the control of women - at least in this example of female NPCs. This then leads into the dehumanisation caused by objectification, inevitably leads us to the concept of disposability, which is defined as “something designed for or capable of being thrown away after being used or used up”. Especially when you have multiple female sexualised NPCs that you can go from one to the other. Which means that these female NPCs fulfil basically the same function as items the player can purchase from stores. This is a textbook example of another component of objectification referred to as interchangeability. The player treats the 'object' as interchangeable with other 'objects' of the same type (eg. Female romanceable NPCs), and/or with objects of other types.” Since these NPCs serve an identical or nearly identical “resource” function within the game space. So what we have here is sexual objectification. The practice of treating or representing a female NPC as a thing or mere instrument to be used for another’s sexual purposes. Sexually objectified NPCs are valued primarily for their bodies, or body parts, which are presented as existing for the pleasure and gratification of others. You even admitted that you need to be physically attracted before a romance can start. This doesn't sound like realism to me. And since you call yourself a feminist, you're okay with sexualised NPCs in video games. This is a very thought provoking post and you have raised some genuine considerations and concerns , I am going to respond to it but I want to acknowledge first that it is relevant to the discussion. So nice one

I can tell you what would change this debate once and for all, and its a suggestion that wasn't popular when I made it on another thread, is a situation where every single RPG offers Romance. Its optional of course but there is no way that game X doesn't have Romance as a mechanism of better party interaction. If Romance implementation was mandatory in all RPG then there would be more expectations from Developers to create them in a way that resonates with the fanbase? So it would be same as where fans expect a compelling story or variety of races to choose from. We wouldn't we saying " I don't want Romance " we would be saying "how can this Romance arc be improved"" We can then focus our attention on how to make Romance better instead of interminable debates around whether Romance has a place in RPG? What do you guys think?