Body Types and video games

[BruceVC]

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman.

 

Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. 

 

Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

 

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive. 

[Nonek]

If you don't find lazy, stupid, umotivated and incompetent slaves to be offensive that is your perogative Bruce, but if so it hardly seems you've got a leg to stand on when campaigning for social justice.

[BruceVC]

If you don't find lazy, stupid, umotivated and incompetent slaves to be offensive that is your perogative Bruce, but if so it hardly seems you've got a leg to stand on when campaigning for social justice.

No I do think that lazy, stupid, unmotivated and incompetent slaves is offensive as a representation of characters in a game. I just don't think the women in Bioware games are like this.

[Blarghagh]

 

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman.

 

Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. 

 

Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

 

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive. 

 

 

At least, not in a way that men aren't as well. Everyone in Bioware games is useless and needs the protag to give their life meaning. I don't see how Bastila is different from Anomen.

[Nonek]

Well as I said that's your perogative Bruce, the fact that Aveline is incompetent at her job as is demonstrated by the bandits every ten feet in Kirkwall, that both her and all the companions slavishly obey the protagonist (putting their lives on the line) for no good reason, that none of them can pursue their own objectives without the protagonist holding their hand, that they hang around for ten years doing nothing at all and not even gaining levels, that they cannot even clothe themselves properly for the environment that seems to bear out my claims.

 

But at the end of the day however it's all a matter of taste, and I won't criticise you for liking these characters, just as I won't criticise Dragon's Crown players for liking their overly stylised graphics, if somebody doesn't like it then simply don't buy it. The market allows freedom of choice.

 

@True Neutral: I agree that both genders are handled insultingly, but the conversation is revolving around women.

[Orogun01]

 

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman.

 

Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. 

 

Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

 

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive. 

 

Personally I believe that BW's suspension of disbelief is actually lowering your IQ while you're playing their games and then soon after you stop you realize how wrong some of the stuff was? I'm also guilty of falling for their trappings, but as part of their style they seem to appeal to emotion rather than logic which leads sometimes to irrational plots that are structured to achieve an emotional response. 

So whilst you are emoting you don't think clearly about things like how insane everyone in DA2 was.

[Nonek]

Ah that's why it doesn't work on me, i'm an emotionless shell of a man. Or English.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Sorry but to me i'm afraid that Isabella is worse Bruce, i've pointed this out before and don't really wish to say it again but she wears a shirt into the the combats which occur every ten feet in Kirkwall, a shirt which doesn't provide enough enviromental protection to ensure she doesn't catch hypothermia, she's an utterly ridiculous character stylised in much the same manner as the Elf Drudanae shows from Dragon's Crown. This along with her passivity, idleness, stupidity and willingness to enslave herself for no good reason to the protagonist is an insulting depiction of a woman.

 

Personally if I were crusading for better female role models i'd use her as what not to do, along with the supposedly "strong" guardswoman who is incompetent and needs help courting. 

 

Edit: I also feel that there's nothing wrong with Dragon's Crowns art style, it's massively over stylised for both men and women but that is not in any way a bad thing. It's internally consistent and colourful, everything in the world is similarly designed, and if one objects to that then simply don't purchase it.

 

Okay I respect your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think Bioware objectifies the various female characters in a way that is offensive. 

 

Personally I believe that BW's suspension of disbelief is actually lowering your IQ while you're playing their games and then soon after you stop you realize how wrong some of the stuff was? I'm also guilty of falling for their trappings, but as part of their style they seem to appeal to emotion rather than logic which leads sometimes to irrational plots that are structured to achieve an emotional response. 

So whilst you are emoting you don't think clearly about things like how insane everyone in DA2 was.

 

 

I genuinely enjoyed the narrative of DA2( I know they were lazy around components like dungeon design and monsters just appearing out of the air) and other Bioware games. Granted I didn't analyze it deeply but I generally don't do that with any game I play as for me its just entertainment, not inspiration or a book series like Game of Thrones. I also enjoyed the various characters and there stories so I guess we just have a different perspective on this one?

Edited January 24, 2014 by BruceVC

[Nepenthe]

I agree with Bruce in that Isabela actually does have hidden depths, a lot of people just don't see them since they aren't used to looking for any in (recent) Bioware games.

 

Frankly, it's been rehashed even here, I cba to summarise it all right now (and it's not like I've played the game since the last dlc came out).

[Blarghagh]

@True Neutral: I agree that both genders are handled insultingly, but the conversation is revolving around women.

 

True, but one of the reasons the portrayal of women stands out is compared to the portrayal of men. I saw it said here that Bioware presents its women as incompetent slaves, but that's incorrect. Bioware presents its people as incompetent slaves - its a bad portrayal of everyone.

[Nonek]

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek

[HoonDing]

Like in a jRPG, Dragon Age 2 characters wear outfits unpractical for combat and the outfit visually always remains the same no matter what armour you equip on them. Their stats change through the game, but not their visual look.

 

Also the random encounters in Dragon Age 2 are like in jRPGs, with the party strolling around and every 10 seconds combat popping up out of the blue.

 

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

 

hat would depend on whether or not perceptions have biased developers and publishers to believe their own marketing that there really just isn't a potential market of women playing video games (I do think this is the case and I do think that it is a problem, especially as budgets have gone up and made people risk averse).

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market.

 

 

I don't understand your point, I'll keep my comment simple. Lets say that there is a game like Dragon Crown which objectifies the female characters and the developers  are happy with how the game is designed as they target a niche market that likes the fact how the women are portrayed. Do you not think that pressure should be put on them to change how they represent women in the game?

 

That's an entirely separate point. This was in response to what people want in games, and that it's not necessarily a good thing for gamers or developers that were making games targetted at niches to try to chase a mass market. There's room for niches in the gaming industry.

 

On your point, it's pretty simple. Female characters, as all fictional characters, are objects so cannot be objectified. They are made to serve a purpose, to serve the narrative, to provide comedy or titillation. Why should pressure be put on them to change? I believe that people can separate reality from fiction, the same arguments (often by the same people) are made about games and violence, and they're equally wrong. I don't believe it's right for me in a liberal society with freedom of expression to be sheltered from my entertainment choices. These games are fantasies, most of them may not be my fantasy, but I can empathise with people enough to not want to crush things they enjoy. Finally, I don't even believe the arguments about this are sincere, they're just rationalizations for disgust, like the people that get angry over homosexual acts in fiction or kissing on the street, it's insecure people feeling threatened.

[Malcador]

Like in a jRPG, Dragon Age 2 characters wear outfits unpractical for combat and the outfit visually always remains the same no matter what armour you equip on them. Their stats change through the game, but not their visual look.

 

Also the random encounters in Dragon Age 2 are like in jRPGs, with the party strolling around and every 10 seconds combat popping up out of the blue.

 

 

Looks like she's going to attack with extreme nagging.

[BruceVC]

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

 

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

hat would depend on whether or not perceptions have biased developers and publishers to believe their own marketing that there really just isn't a potential market of women playing video games (I do think this is the case and I do think that it is a problem, especially as budgets have gone up and made people risk averse).

That doesn't depend on that all, you may disagree with the conclusion of publishers that their games will have a primarily male audience and thus adding on top of that more content targetted at them is in their interests, but it doesn't rely on the potential gaming market as a whole, just games on an individual basis. The existence of Saints Row IV doesn't stop the next Sims or Animal Crossing game from existing. It results in bad games when a developer decides to target the broadest audience, the lowest common denominator, that's how certain developers do things but the developers that make good games don't. If there's a potential market publishers will exploit it, Bejeweled and The Sims show that, it doesn't require other games to be changed, it doesn't need to effect the existing industry, developers, and franchises. A new potential market should begin and grow alongside the existing market.

 

 

I don't understand your point, I'll keep my comment simple. Lets say that there is a game like Dragon Crown which objectifies the female characters and the developers  are happy with how the game is designed as they target a niche market that likes the fact how the women are portrayed. Do you not think that pressure should be put on them to change how they represent women in the game?

 

That's an entirely separate point. This was in response to what people want in games, and that it's not necessarily a good thing for gamers or developers that were making games targetted at niches to try to chase a mass market. There's room for niches in the gaming industry.

 

On your point, it's pretty simple. Female characters, as all fictional characters, are objects so cannot be objectified. They are made to serve a purpose, to serve the narrative, to provide comedy or titillation. Why should pressure be put on them to change? I believe that people can separate reality from fiction, the same arguments (often by the same people) are made about games and violence, and they're equally wrong. I don't believe it's right for me in a liberal society with freedom of expression to be sheltered from my entertainment choices. These games are fantasies, most of them may not be my fantasy, but I can empathise with people enough to not want to crush things they enjoy. Finally, I don't even believe the arguments about this are sincere, they're just rationalizations for disgust, like the people that get angry over homosexual acts in fiction or kissing on the street, it's insecure people feeling threatened.

 

 

What about in a free society where people are offended by a game or its representation of characters? What about in a free society where developers can make changes to the game that won't diminish the actual enjoyment of the game but rather make people feel more comfortable with what they are presented with? What about a free society where we don't stereotype groups of people because the marketing engine of a company feels that's what fans want to see?

 

Are these not reasonable points?

[Nonek]

 

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

 

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that.

 

 

And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings.  

 

Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made.

 

Edit: Well family commitments call, thank you for the discussion, the chance to stretch my mental muscles and the frank exchange of views ladies and gentlemen, and for now adieu.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek

[BruceVC]

 

 

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

 

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that.

 

 

And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings.  

 

Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made.

 

 

 

Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. 

 

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

[Malcador]

I guess one would need to look at if these portrayals are harmful to people first.  Which is hard to prove either way, thinking on it.

[Amentep]

 

Like in a jRPG, Dragon Age 2 characters wear outfits unpractical for combat and the outfit visually always remains the same no matter what armour you equip on them. Their stats change through the game, but not their visual look.

 

Also the random encounters in Dragon Age 2 are like in jRPGs, with the party strolling around and every 10 seconds combat popping up out of the blue.

 

 

Looks like she's going to attack with extreme nagging.

 

That's not a woman, Kefka's a man, baby. A man!*

 

Unless you're talking about Terra in which case, mea culpa.

 

*may or may not be cosplayed by a man, though. And he was a weird evil jester type guy so the look is out there.

 

I suppose for me, I don't really think about the visual look of the character to be a real representation of what they were. Most people, for example, wouldn't camp in full plate, would take their helmet off when talking with the King, etc.

 

Its an abstraction. Mind you realistically I say the same thing about boob plate; its not realistic but there you go. If the style fits the game (like I think all the Dragon's Crown protagonists do) then I'm okay with it. Just as I'm okay with PE dispensing with boob plate and the like.

[Malcador]

Huh, well ok, I can kinda see it looking closer.  My mistake then

[AwesomeOcelot]

What about in a free society where people are offended by a game or its representation of characters? What about in a free society where developers can make changes to the game that won't diminish the actual enjoyment of the game but rather make people feel more comfortable with what they are presented with? What about a free society where we don't stereotype groups of people because the marketing engine of a company feels that's what fans want to see?

 

Are these not reasonable points?

No. I don't think they're phrased as reasonable points, I'm not sure what your points are because of the ridiculous formation.

 

1. ****'em. As I'd say to homophobes who would have a problem with Temple of Elemental Evil or Dragon Age: Origins. People should mind their own business, the people "offended" are not the audience, most of the time they'll never experience the game because they're not the audience. Should we remove homosexuality, violence, politics, etc...? Someone is going to get offended by it. I get offended by stuff in games, but I'm not prissy and self-entitled so I just stop playing and not buy games by that developer. It's the opposite of reasonable to expect others to bend to your mores, that doesn't happen in a free society.

 

2. That's making huge assumptions in what will and won't dminish the actual enjoyment of the game. Also it's the decision of the developer what they want to make and it's the decision of the publisher what they want to fund.

 

3. A marketing company that consistantly gets it wrong won't last.

Edited January 24, 2014 by AwesomeOcelot

[BruceVC]

 

What about in a free society where people are offended by a game or its representation of characters? What about in a free society where developers can make changes to the game that won't diminish the actual enjoyment of the game but rather make people feel more comfortable with what they are presented with? What about a free society where we don't stereotype groups of people because the marketing engine of a company feels that's what fans want to see?

 

Are these not reasonable points?

No. I don't think they're phrased as reasonable points, I'm not sure what your points are because of the ridiculous formation.

 

1. ****'em. As I'd say to homophobes who would have a problem with Temple of Elemental Evil or Dragon Age: Origins. People should mind their own business, the people "offended" are not the audience, most of the time they'll never experience the game because they're not the audience. Should we remove homosexuality, violence, politics, etc...? Someone is going to get offended by it. I get offended by stuff in games, but I'm not prissy and self-entitled so I just stop playing and not buy games by that developer. It's the opposite of reasonable to expect others to bend to your mores, that doesn't happen in a free society.

 

2. That's making huge assumptions in what will and won't dminish the actual enjoyment of the game. Also it's the decision of the developer what they want to make and it's the decision of the publisher what they want to fund.

 

3. A marketing company that consistantly gets it wrong won't last.

 

 

You making silly comparisons to what I am trying to say, obviously I'm a liberal so I am opposed to any kind of discrimination and bigotry and that includes homophobia. In fact I often raise that same sex relationships should be an option in any implementation of Romance in a game in the interests of inclusivity.

 

You should go back and read this discussion from the beginning because to be honest I'm going to keep repeating what I have said, sorry

 

In summary

 

• You can make a game without objectifying women
• You can't say with absolute certainty that " fans want xxx" or "fans want yyy" because the marketing direction of a company influences what people think is appealing. Change the marketing and you'll change what people want. Its simple
• But I can say that some games and the way they portray certain groups of people are offensive to those people. There is no reason that this can't be changed

[Nonek]

 

 

 

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

 

Games are for entertainment but that doesn't mean they aren't discussed and become as important to people as books and movies, or as influential. So therefore how they choose to represent characters or groups of people becomes a consideration. When I said I don't analyze deeply games I was referring to Orog's comments about how people fall for trapping of Bioware games, I enjoyed the Bioware games I played and don't see it like that.

 

 

And people don't see anything wrong with Dragon's Crown, that's their choice, and they should be respected for that. They are in exactly the same position as you not seeing anything wrong with the demeaning depiction of women in Bioware games, whether they're trappings or not does not justify them. If you're going to be judgemental then you must also apply your judgements without any form of bias, no matter your personal feelings.  

 

Personally I say do not judge, it's not my place as i'm not without fault, I have no mandate from an electoral group and i'm not capable of being a final arbiter in anything. Leave it to the free market, if it sells then it will be made.

 

 

 

Nonek did you read that article that Alan posted? In summary one of the points it makes is that there isn't really such a thing as a free market as what most people buy or think is worthwhile is driven by the marketing divisions of companies. So my view is why not make a game that doesn't objectify women or other groups. I've posted the link below so you can read it. 

 

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed

 

 

That is hardly pertinent to the discussion, that's the developers/publishers and markeitings fault, therefore it's pointless preaching to us to change their practices. The market has supposedly an even fifty percent split in its audience, so it's foolish to ignore that audience, if games are developed for that audience and of sufficient quality then they will sell...in theory.

 

However nobody knows what makes a good game and what is offensive to a certain group, just as you are allright with all characters being portrayed in a demeaning way in DA2, somebody else has no problem with Dragon's Crowns stylisation. Where is the difference here? Simple it is your perception, you say that DA2 is not to be analysed only enjoyed, and yet Dragon's Crown is to be analysed and changed because you find it objectionable. There's a simple way to resolve this, don't buy Dragon's Crown, and let those who do enjoy it purchase it.

 

Their enjoyment doesn't hurt you in any way surely and there is no reason to force your views on them, or them to force their views upon what you like, as we all know what is reality and what is fantasy. Indeed the mind is extremely proficient at seperating reality from simulation, thus accounting for the dreadful wrongness that occurs in our minds eye when the uncanny valley is explored. Stylisation is blatantly very far from reality and no one can argue that it is not, thus to express that the ridiculous forms of Dragon's Crown are harming the portrayal of women is to say that players are mentally unbalanced, not able to tell apart simulation from reality, and that no game can have any other style than realism. This is unreasonable and illogical.

 

I would argue that players can tell simulation from reality, that they do not treat women like they treat pixels and they enjoy games for pure entertainments sake. As they should, that is their function.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek

[Nepenthe]

And yet that doesn't diminish the insulting aspects of her character Nepenthe, but as games are played purely for enjoyment as Bruce states there's no use trying to force issues into them, but play them just for enjoyment alone. Or is there something that marks out Dragon's Crown as a target but doesn't the more demeaning aspects of DA2? Seems a little unfair and biased if so.

 

@True Netutral: Totally agree.

If "lampshading" doesn't, then I don't know what will. Of course, I've only been insulted in my life by being called names and spat upon, never by a video game character.

 

Personally consider the playing around with tropes around Isabela's character gives her a justification that, say, any character from dead or alive lacks. Now the latter is something to be played just for entertainment, if anything.