Hiro Protagonist II

So you're taking the parties and clubs with skimpy dressed females as the standard of how women dress in all settings of real life and how they should be portrayed in all settings of video games? You ignore every other possible occasion where you meet females who aren't dressed with skimpy clothes but are still very attractive? Okay.

Pretty much all women I meet don't wear skimpy outfits and have their cleavage sticking out at me. Are you suggesting that's what happens in real life?

Worst cop out I've ever heard, especially from a feminist. Well we can't change anything, so let's just go with the flow.

And looks is always the first thing you need as you've stated before.

I've never played DA 2 and never finished DA:O so no I don't know anything about her. So anything you're saying about her I have no knowledge of.

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.

No one has said this. So another worthless post by Lephys.

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.

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.

Yes. Truth hurts.

It's not false and it's not slander. You admitted you are okay for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. You can't get around that. And what act is this? Quoting you saying you are okay for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games? I'm just quoting what you have written.

Nope, not on my ignore list. It's good to show everyone you're okay with sexualisation and objectification of female NPCs in video games.

I'm not taking a feminist stance on this. I'm asking a feminist being Bruce why he is okay with the sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. Bruce usually waits for others to come to his rescue such as people like Lephys and then he agrees with those posts. So these last few pages haven't been Hiro vs Lephys. It's been Hiro vs Lephys and Bruce with Bruce in the background.

Lephys' default setting is to disagree with nearly everything I post on this forum. And it's been pretty much stock standard since he's come to the forums. Pretty much when I post something, Lephys will jump in and disagree. Just have a look at anything I've posted in this thread and Lephys has jumped in to disagree. And then when I have a discussion with Bruce, you also have Lephys jumping in and disagreeing with me. And then a self confessed feminist like Bruce is 'liking' and agreeing to quite a few of Lephys' posts with his stance on sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. First time I've come across a feminist who is all for the sexualisation of female NPCs in video games when there's a plethora of young girls, women on the internet, feminists, blogs, etc who are also against this. That's why I asked Bruce why as a feminist, he's now for sexualisation of female NPCs in video games.

No, I didn't literally tell you what you do in games. But nice try. And the fact remains with your posts. You are okay with sexualised female NPCs in video games as well as those NPCs being objectified.

The old dodge and weave tactic. I'm not talking about what you do with a particular playthrough with a particular game. I have been addressing your posts on why you're okay with sexualised female NPCs in video games as well as objectifying them.

Here we go again. Round and round Lephys goes, where he'll stop no one knows. I am quoting your whole post as well as the words you use. Specifically one word in particular in the context of your post. And I did provide a reason. Go read my post again. And we are also talking about 'realism' as well. Realism as well as a game mechanic you've come up with to be used as an emotional attachment against a resolve check. As if emotional attachment can be quantified into a game mechanic based on realism. No, I did it purely to keep it in context of what I was saying. And the game does objectify sexually expressive sexualised female NPCs. The game also allows you to treat them as objects because that's what the game is designed to do as per my previous post on this. And now you're justifying sexualised female NPCs because there might be 'some women' in real life who are sexually expressive? So is that now the standard we should look at and put them in video games? LMAO. You couldn't write about this stuff. You're digging yourself a hole with every post you make on this subject and it keeps getting deeper for you. It's a bit redundant for you to guess at my reasons and then make arguments against those reasons. There we have it folks. Lephys is okay with the sexualisation of NPCs in video games. And with sexualisation comes objectification as I already pointed out many times. No, it's been you who's been objectifying sexualised female NPCs in video games as objects to do what you will including having sex with them. And you see nothing wrong with objectifying sexualised female NPCs in video games. And you keep justifying this objectification of sexualised female NPCs in video games with reasons that are just mind blowing. Reasons why a lot of women would like to see the objectification of sexualised female NPCs taken out of video games. Plain and simple, objectifying female sexualised NPCS in video games treats them as objects meaning they are denied agency, instead of what they should be like in reality. Some people start to favour the lie instead of relish in the truth. And last time I checked, nothing substantial is built on lies.

Well I am quoting you. And it is funny how you say romance has been incorporated into real life. It's not a word I would use and I've never heard anyone else use that word in real life. Yeah, you just described that an emotional attachment can be used as a game mechanic. You did italicise 'allows' in your own quote. So I'm doing the same. So Lephys, you're okay with the objectification of sexualised NPCs in a video game. And I like how you say "Is sex supposed to be the only way one can interact with an object?" as if a sexualised NPC is just that, an object.

A) And what is non-arbitrary, reasonable sexualisation of female NPCs? And 'Normal fashion' in the same way romance is 'incorporated' into real life? I like that. Romance has been 'incorporated' into real life! I've never heard anyone say that about romance in real life. Well the fact is it's been explained many times that romance in real life can't be incorporated in a video game with the realism that it is in real life. Gotta love those game mechanics you come up with. Kill sexualised Female NPC, some 'minus check' to Resolve. Meh, I can get that resolve or emotional attachment back up anyway. This is as far from reality as you can get, unless you're a serial killer and we are talking about 'realism'. B) You even said yourself the game allows you to treat people as objects. And that also objectifies the sexualisation of female NPCs. Treating people as objects instead of people and sex is just one way of doing that? And you don't find how weird that is? Wow, just wow.

A) And so you are okay with the sexualisation of female NPCs because that was one of the main points of my post. And what is a 'normal fashion' for romances to be incorporated in a video game? B) We're not talking about torture or selling people. You're not even talking about romances when you bring up things like torture and slavery, and trying to compare romances to those other things. Very weird. I'm talking primarily about the sexualisation of female NPCs in video games. And you're okay with that. In fact, not only you are okay with this, but you're okay with the objectification of sexualised female NPCs by comparing them as objects to other virtual people because the game allows it to treat them as objects.

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.

Why won't you answer the question of why NPC's are sexualised in video games? Why is it so hard for you to answer that?

Oh of course Bruce, that's why Lephys has been evasive for 4 pages now, bringing up irrelevant examples and still refusing to answer the question and going to extremes and exaggerations even with Anita Sarkeesian's videos. You know this to be true and Lephys just doesn't want to give any kindling to me. LMAO. I still can't get over that. 'kindling' But at least you could answer the question of why NPC's are sexualised in video games. I'll give you credit for that.

So you've been arguing for pages (page 19-23 of this thread) about something you don't know for sure? Okaaay. That explains a lot. And why the exaggerations and extremes for Anita Sarkeesian's videos? You have something against Anita? Another delaying tactic. Also, it's good to check out Anita's videos because she covers a lot of games from the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s up to the present and gives analysis of why developers do it, and reasons for future products as well. Seriously, just answer the question why developers sexualise NPCs instead of arguing.

LMAO. Here we go. You have to be more 'specific'. Another evasive tactic to avoid the question.