Body Types and video games

[Nonek]

Well the insult would be implicit in the fact that she hasn't the brain power to dress reasonably for the climate or the constant combat, that she is enslaved to the protagonists commands for years at a time for no good reason (she's the captain, he's the penniless immigrant,) that she does nothing over those years to resolve her own problems and when she finally acts has to have the protagonist hold her hand and if romanced it is revealed that all she needed to open up would be sex with the protagonist. Thus as I pointed out she's portrayed as stupid, unmotivated, idle, powerless and incompetent, but as i've said it's just entertainment and shouldn't be judged or have issues clumsily attached to it.

 

Personally I don't see what tropes she's exploring, there's the sub par Joss Whedon dialogues (I like big boats - how current) and her being sexually promiscuous, but it's only a child who believes that sexuality has to be portrayed through skimpy clothing and constant crude references.

 

Edit: As i've said before I put sixty hours into DA2 and enjoyed it however, as that's what games are there to do, trying to hamfistedly force issues into a virtual construct is pointless. The demeaning treatment of women is fairly blatant to me, but that's because of how my mind works and I don't campaign for it to be changed by Bioware, because it's just a game.

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

 

 

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.

 

 

You have raised some good points and some I agree with. But I don't want this discussion to become fixated just on Dragon Crown, there are broader issues here. Let me ask you a different question, do you think there is a problem with women being objectified in some games? And do you think this should be addressed?

 

Now I can guess what you going to say, you'll say " but the objectification of women in games is subjective, just like I don't think Dragon Crown demeans women and you think DA2 is fine " ( am I right? )

[Nonek]

 

You have raised some good points and some I agree with. But I don't want this discussion to become fixated just on Dragon Crown, there are broader issues here. Let me ask you a different question, do you think there is a problem with women being objectified in some games? And do you think this should be addressed?

 

Now I can guess what you going to say, you'll say " but the objectification of women in games is subjective, just like I don't think Dragon Crown demeans women and you think DA2 is fine " ( am I right? )

 

 

Objectified? Yes I would say there is a problem with objectification in games, but it is nothing to do with stylisation or what a character (male or female) looks like, it is more to do with how they are generally portrayed as unthinking brutes who solve every problem with their guns, fists or swords. It's a legitimate character archetype, just as over stylisation and realism in graphics is legitimate, but there needs to be more options other than slaughtering your way through every game. Our characters are objectified as chosen ones and special, despite their frankly (in game) sickening deeds, and fawned over with crude flattery and every character desperately trying to copulate with them, no matter their sexuality or personality.

 

Characters are blatantly and hamfistedly ego stroked, and that is the objectification that I object to. Stylisation, whether of men or women I don't, it's a legitimate graphical choice and I wouldn't dream of enforcing my views upon anybody else. Just as I like the fine armours and armaments of the renaissance era that are due to appear in Poe, so I like the gaudy design of 40k's Adeptus Astarte's, neither are wrong.

 

Edit: All this distasteful flattery does in my eyes is undermine enemies as pathetic and no challenge, make npc's nothing but fodder for the romancers and totally destroy the settings authenticity, but once again I would not campaign against it as it's just a game. A great variety will allow a choice for everyone. 

Edited January 24, 2014 by Nonek

[alanschu]

 

 

I think that most CoD players genuinely do like it- but also that I think it's not a constructive position even if it were true. Telling someone they only like something because it's been marketed to them or because they're a walking stereotype will just annoy them and come across as preachy sanctimony, and Activision or whoever won't have a Road to Damascus moment while their game is a licence to print money.

 

I actually think that they like it too.  I don't mean to say "People like it exclusively because it's marketed to them."  As you say, marketing failures still exist and even if a game has high quality marketing, if the game isn't to quality there may be high initial sales but it won't have the staying power (nor the sequels).  But I do think that there's still the influence of "Hey, give this game a try.  It's what the cool kids are doing" that help with that initial hook.

 

Although this is starting to slide a bit tangential to the discussion of body types.  I find plenty of men are increasingly speaking out against the stereotypical body types of both men and women in video games.

[BruceVC]

 

 

You have raised some good points and some I agree with. But I don't want this discussion to become fixated just on Dragon Crown, there are broader issues here. Let me ask you a different question, do you think there is a problem with women being objectified in some games? And do you think this should be addressed?

 

Now I can guess what you going to say, you'll say " but the objectification of women in games is subjective, just like I don't think Dragon Crown demeans women and you think DA2 is fine " ( am I right? )

 

 

Objectified? Yes I would say there is a problem with objectification in games, but it is nothing to do with stylisation or what a character (male or female) looks like, it is more to do with how they are generally portrayed as unthinking brutes who solve every problem with their guns, fists or swords. It's a legitimate character archetype, just as over stylisation and realism in graphics is legitimate, but there needs to be more options other than slaughtering your way through every game. Our characters are objectified as chosen ones and special, despite their frankly (in game) sickening deeds, and fawned over with crude flattery and every character desperately trying to copulate with them, no matter their sexuality or personality.

 

Characters are blatantly and hamfistedly ego stroked, and that is the objectification that I object to. Stylisation, whether of men or women I don't, it's a legitimate graphical choice and I wouldn't dream of enforcing my views upon anybody else. Just as I like the fine armours and armaments of the renaissance era that are due to appear in Poe, so I like the gaudy design of 40k's Adeptus Astarte's, neither are wrong.

 

Edit: All this distasteful flattery does in my eyes is undermine enemies as pathetic and no challenge, make npc's nothing but fodder for the romancers and totally destroy the settings authenticity, but once again I would not campaign against it as it's just a game. A great variety will allow a choice for everyone. 

 

 

That's a good post, end of the day we have different definitions of how characters are objectified. I think the visual aspect is what matters more and of course how the character is portrayed, in other words a gay character that is completely licentious and doesn't show any other redeeming qualities. So I suppose I am talking about stereotyping. But I can see what you saying. Once again we have to agree to disagree. But thanks for explaining your perspective, I have found it interesting

[Nepenthe]

Well the insult would be implicit in the fact that she hasn't the brain power to dress reasonably for the climate or the constant combat, that she is enslaved to the protagonists commands for years at a time for no good reason (she's the captain, he's the penniless immigrant,) that she does nothing over those years to resolve her own problems and when she finally acts has to have the protagonist hold her hand and if romanced it is revealed that all she needed to open up would be sex with the protagonist. Thus as I pointed out she's portrayed as stupid, unmotivated, idle, powerless and incompetent, but as i've said it's just entertainment and shouldn't be judged or have issues clumsily attached to it.

 

Pretty sure you're just seeing what you want to see, here.

[Nonek]

 

Well the insult would be implicit in the fact that she hasn't the brain power to dress reasonably for the climate or the constant combat, that she is enslaved to the protagonists commands for years at a time for no good reason (she's the captain, he's the penniless immigrant,) that she does nothing over those years to resolve her own problems and when she finally acts has to have the protagonist hold her hand and if romanced it is revealed that all she needed to open up would be sex with the protagonist. Thus as I pointed out she's portrayed as stupid, unmotivated, idle, powerless and incompetent, but as i've said it's just entertainment and shouldn't be judged or have issues clumsily attached to it.

Pretty sure you're just seeing what you want to see, here.

 

 

Seems borne out by evidence in the game to my mind, but then again everyone is different and those differences are to be respected so i'll simply say fair enough and bow out, as i'm getting sick of my own words. TTFN.

[alanschu]

 

 

that they hang around for ten years doing nothing at all and not even gaining levels

 

Ahahahaha I always enjoy a gameplay vs. narrative divergence discussion.

 

 

I do agree that I'd find it increasingly fascinating if the characters in RPGs, including BioWare's, were more autonomous.  I'm not in any way suggesting BioWare is exempt from a lot of things that I critique in this thread.

 

Part of it is the belief that, if a game doesn't have sufficient combat encounters and the like, players will disengage.  But, is this really a problem or as I suggested earlier, is the perception of the problem actually the problem.  But AAA isn't a great place to find shifts against the standard conventions because the level of money and risk involved is very high.  If the game strays and epically bombs, people could conclude that it bombed because of how it tried new things (which may or may not be true) and swaths of people risk becoming unemployed.

 

I'm really hoping a game like Torment (despite the reservations I had against it) can be absurdly successful because of the narrative focus it has, over fairly standard combat gameplay.  I think that indie/smaller scale projects are more empowered to try pushing boundaries, and could really benefit from it.

[Malcador]

Although this is starting to slide a bit tangential to the discussion of body types.  I find plenty of men are increasingly speaking out against the stereotypical body types of both men and women in video games.

 

 

Not seeing that myself, though my encounters with the gaming proles is just Reddit these days so that skews things a bit if I were to say, spend time on RPS or Gamasutra, etc.  Granted it does get commented on if it's particularly standout for women but nothing too much.

 

Heh, is funny these days how pretty much everything related to gaming involves being unhappy and complaining (I think that dude with the grating nasal voice had a video on that).

[alanschu]

 

 

Not seeing that myself, though my encounters with the gaming proles is just Reddit these days so that skews things a bit if I were to say, spend time on RPS or Gamasutra, etc.  Granted it does get commented on if it's particularly standout for women but nothing too much.

 

You're seeing some of it in this thread.

 

I'd be surprised if it was exclusively women that gave the feedback for Wildstar.

[Malcador]

Well, not to assault your ego, but you three or four don't count as plenty.  

 

As for the Wildstar complaining, hm, that'd be worth looking into, though probably a fair amount of work to find posters complaining and go through each of their histories to determine the gender.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

Well, not to assault your ego, but you three or four don't count as plenty.  

 

As for the Wildstar complaining, hm, that'd be worth looking into, though probably a fair amount of work to find posters complaining and go through each of their histories to determine the gender.

 

We could always take a poll.  I'd really guess that the folks that want cartoony big melons are going to be in the minority.  You will get a decent number of don't cares, a few for the itty bitties, and a good sized group voting for nice ample C to D cup range.  

[alanschu]

 

 

Well, not to assault your ego, but you three or four don't count as plenty.

 

True.  Though my jaded self-pity has long since convinced me that I am not a special little snowflake.  Granted, much of the critiques I see regarding body types comes from people that don't like whatever game they are critiquing, so they may just be looking for as much ammunition as possible in fueling their critique.

[Malcador]

 

We could always take a poll.  I'd really guess that the folks that want cartoony big melons are going to be in the minority.  You will get a decent number of don't cares, a few for the itty bitties, and a good sized group voting for nice ample C to D cup range.  

 

 

On the Wildstar forums ? Well I guess that would help. 

[Gromnir]

 

Well, not to assault your ego, but you three or four don't count as plenty.  

 

As for the Wildstar complaining, hm, that'd be worth looking into, though probably a fair amount of work to find posters complaining and go through each of their histories to determine the gender.

 

We could always take a poll.  I'd really guess that the folks that want cartoony big melons are going to be in the minority.  You will get a decent number of don't cares, a few for the itty bitties, and a good sized group voting for nice ample C to D cup range.  

 

keep in mind that we doubt folks is complete honest 'bout such stuff, and sometimes don't even realize that the proportions they like is... monstrous. a poll might suggest that even 18-25 males prefer women that could plausibly perform athletic feats in normal earth gravity, but sales o' western superhero comics, Japanese anime, and video games o' various genres would suggest otherwise.

 

heck, anybody recall the barbie doll protests from a few years ago? had stories and images being posted on time and cnn sites showing what life-sized barbie would looks like and how unfair that is to little girls and their ideal body image. current barbie is still "stacked," but mattel (am genuine not sure who owns barbie nowadays) did increase waist measurement a smidgen on current dolls. polls and interviews revealed that most people thought barbie proportions were over-the-top, but manufacturer concession avoided the obvious bullet-bra chest reduction option... and we is talking 'bout a doll for girls, yes? 

 

having been a jock most o' our life, we has always been 'round athletic women who rare has particular pronounced chests. perhaps that is why we appreciate athletic-builds. 'course most o' the guys we played football with over the years had preferences more along the lines o' the nerds from Weird Science.  don't know what to tell you. regardless, we wouldn't trust polls or comments regarding preferences. the companies who gots millions invested in titillation may not always got their finger on the pulse o' desire, but we suspect that looking at their end-product is just as viable for diving truth as is the polls and comments from folks on a message-board.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Orogun01]

I think the quote in this picture has some relevance to the discussion (spoliered due to cursing)

 

[alanschu]

The context by which Stephen Fry makes that comment is in response to people that get their knickers in a twist because he says something that others find offensive.

 

Would it seem that the best analogue for whom he'd be talking to about this, are those that get pissy simply because people speak out about what they'd like to see in the game as body types?

 

 

If it makes you feel better, then sure, I'm whining.  But in response to your picture my response is "well so ****ing what?"  The irony is that those that post said picture are espousing the very thing that Fry is pointing out as having no meaning.  You're annoyed at a particular topic, and effectively whining because maybe it's not a topic you find interesting nor want to take part in or whatever, and make a passive aggressive dig at those because of reasons.

 

Note that Fry isn't saying that people cannot have their grievances.  Just prior to that specific comment, he talks about the overuse of the word "respect" and makes reference to how it's overused, taken from the very understandable historical usage of black americans seeking respect (including self-respect) in southern United States.  He actually makes a snide emphasis on the word "respected" when he says "it has no reason to be respected as a phrase."  He's saying that the word is overused and that people feel that simply saying "that offends me" has weight behind it.  I'm not offended by the prevalence of inhuman body types.  I just find them absurd and an overused crutch, that may potentially have unfortunate implications when applied and coalesced with the greater cultural influence of society.  I'm not simply saying "I'm offended" and leaving it at that.

 

 

So while I'd agree that the picture has relevance to the discussion, I'm not sure I'd agree with you on who it'd be applied to.  And for those that are whining about me continuing the discussion: well so ****ing what?

Edited January 24, 2014 by alanschu

[Malcador]

So what about idealized body types, rather than 'inhuman' ones ?

[Orogun01]

@Alan: I just like the picture and the quote I wasn't actually directing a comment to anyone in particular. 
Not everything is about you.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Would it seem that the best analogue for whom he'd be talking to about this, are those that get pissy simply because people speak out about what they'd like to see in the game as body types?

No, BruceVC advocated not having certain body types because some might find it offensive. It's relevant because people are saying they're offended as if that should count for anything, this is the drive behind a lot of the complaints about video games. If you cannot see how that quote applies to what's being said in this thread then that's your problem. I can't see anyone saying you shouldn't have this discussion or that you should stop because they're offended, so I don't know how you think it applies to others in this thread apart from massive delusion.

 

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

It's not silly, it's just hypocrisy on your part. Saying you're against discrimination is nonsense, everyone discriminates, it's who and why that's important. It's not very liberal to expect content creators and niche audiences to kowtow to other groups just because they find something offensive.

• You can't objectify fictional characters, they're already objects.
• It's easier to market things people already want through cultural and biological biases than manipulating people,

  game company's marketing departments did not create sexual cultures around the world and do not dictate human biology.

• Why is this even up for debate? Of course portrayals of certain groups can be changed, question is who makes those decisions and should they be changed.

[BruceVC]

 

Would it seem that the best analogue for whom he'd be talking to about this, are those that get pissy simply because people speak out about what they'd like to see in the game as body types?

No, BruceVC advocated not having certain body types because some might find it offensive. It's relevant because people are saying they're offended as if that should count for anything, this is the drive behind a lot of the complaints about video games. If you cannot see how that quote applies to what's being said in this thread then that's your problem. I can't see anyone saying you shouldn't have this discussion or that you should stop because they're offended, so I don't know how you think it applies to others in this thread apart from massive delusion.

 

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

It's not silly, it's just hypocrisy on your part. Saying you're against discrimination is nonsense, everyone discriminates, it's who and why that's important. It's not very liberal to expect content creators and niche audiences to kowtow to other groups just because they find something offensive.

• You can't objectify fictional characters, they're already objects.
• It's easier to market things people already want through cultural and biological biases than manipulating people,

  game company's marketing departments did not create sexual cultures around the world and do not dictate human biology.

• Why is this even up for debate? Of course portrayals of certain groups can be changed, question is who makes those decisions and should they be changed.

 

 

 

You have strange logic, but thanks for responding

 

I want to be clear I understand what you are saying ( please note this is just a general overview of your perspective)

 

•  A video cannot represent anything realistic because its just a video game..its fictional and not real so no harm done
• A person can't be against discrimination because everyone discriminates in there own way
• You can't expect a small development company to change how they portray characters or themes because this is unreasonable as they are targeting a niche market anyway. They can't please everyone
• marketing departments have no real influence on what people buy, they are just targeting what certain people already believe

Edited January 25, 2014 by BruceVC

[AwesomeOcelot]

A video cannot represent anything realistic because its just a video game..its fictional and not real so no harm done

What kind of logic is that? Realism does not preclude fiction. I didn't say no harm could be done through fiction either, so well done reading comprehension. I'm pretty sure I said you can't objectify objects, for obvious reasons. I'm skeptical of the moral panic around sex and violence in video games.

 

A person can't be against discrimination because everyone discriminates in there own way

Yes, and it's a nonsense for people to say they're against discrimination without giving details.

 

You can't expect a small development company to change how they portray characters or themes because this is unreasonable as they are targeting a niche market anyway. They can't please everyone

No, you've conflated two points. There's nothing wrong with a small development company targeting a niche market, they can't please everyone. You can't expect them to change because it's not up to you what they do, liberalism.

 

marketing departments have no real influence on what people buy, they are just targeting what certain people already believe

Bull****. You couldn't possibly read this from my comments. This is not an honest dialogue. This is also minimizing your claims when you're defending them, by a lot, and grossly exagerating my claims when attacking them.

Edited January 25, 2014 by AwesomeOcelot

[Meshugger]

Maybe it is just me, but reading all these comments about women, their waist size, breast size and their possible promiscuos character traits only makes me, uh, think objectified thoughts about them.

[BruceVC]

 

A video cannot represent anything realistic because its just a video game..its fictional and not real so no harm done

What kind of logic is that? Realism does not preclude fiction. I didn't say no harm could be done through fiction either, so well done reading comprehension. I'm pretty sure I said you can't objectify objects, for obvious reasons. I'm skeptical of the moral panic around sex and violence in video games.

 

A person can't be against discrimination because everyone discriminates in there own way

Yes, and it's a nonsense for people to say they're against discrimination without giving details.

 

You can't expect a small development company to change how they portray characters or themes because this is unreasonable as they are targeting a niche market anyway. They can't please everyone

No, you've conflated two points. There's nothing wrong with a small development company targeting a niche market, they can't please everyone. You can't expect them to change because it's not up to you what they do, liberalism.

 

marketing departments have no real influence on what people buy, they are just targeting what certain people already believe

Bull****. You couldn't possibly read this from my comments. This is not an honest dialogue. This is also minimizing your claims when you're defending them, by a lot, and grossly exagerating my claims when attacking them.

 

 

Okay thanks for the comments, to be honest I've made my point several times so I think my position on the objectification of women in games is clear. You and I don't agree and that's okay, we don't have to agree

[ErictheFallenJedi]

Good read all around.