Body Types and video games

[BruceVC]

 

I'm sorry you didn't mean what you said because that's one of the most interesting posts I've read in ages, some really good thoughts and I agree with a lot of it 

Oh I mean what I said, but it is wholly about my personal philosophical views and it has points that I wrote only using "methinks" fact checking, which is reason why I put that note in the end so people know that it isn't meant to be a trolling post, but my personal philosophical pondering. And as I don't see myself as superior philosopher, I used word idiotic to describe it, so that it wouldn't sound as pompous as it did without said word

 

 

Okay excellent now I feel even better about it

[IndiraLightfoot]

That statement is sig-worthy.

BruceVC, go ahead, shorten your post and make a sig of it. It is indeed legendary!

 

Elerond: Post of the day!

[FTL_Dodo]

 

 

 

Thanks alan ... I was wanting to reply to Bester but also didn't want to derail the news thread quite that much.

 

 

I think that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that comes about because some women feel doing such is a path to getting more attention/getting the job/fame they want and/or will make them feel better or more confident about themselves etc.

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it.

 

Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la.

 

But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that.

 

What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth.

 

While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change.

 

...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65!

 

Good post, the one thing missing from these discussions is that we don't get enough comments from our female members about these topics. I know one of the reasons for this is because we don't have a large number of female members who actively participate on the forums but its good to get your opinion in this debate

 

Hey, I registered here on the forum specifically to answer your question. Was lurking for a long time, so here goes.

 

I don't care a gram about body types that female characters have in games, and I find this obsession with *female representation* extremely bothersome. I've been gaming for over 20 years, and never once have I been made to feel inadequate because videogame character X had large boobs (I have small boobs, personally. I don't care). And in my opinion, people who care are just fishing for things to complain about, because this "issue" is less then trivial. If some girls feels pressured to do a surgery because Lara Croft has large boobs (I'm simplifying here), it sems to me that the problem is her self esteem, not Lara Croft. But that's what a disturbingly large part of internet population likes to do very much  - blame others and paint them as responsible for their personal hang ups.

 

Games have been presenting idealised male and female body types basically since the graphics got good enough to do an approximation of a human body. Truth is, no one cared until women started complaining, now it's suddenly some huge issue that we are facing. And when you bring up the fact that men are isealized and sexualized in equal measure, you get that it's somehow still worse for teh wimminz. It's not - take a look at a poster for Deus Ex Human revolution, you know the one with Jensen reclining on his couch all topless and moody. Yeah.

 

And you know what? It's okay. Both complaints (about idealization of men and women) are extremely trivial, imo, and not worth bandwidth that's gets wasted on them. Games are not real life, they're escapism. I, a heterosexual woman, like looking at sexy men doing sexy things. I am terribly sorry, I don't want some fat guy with acne and bad haircut in my escapism. Just a wild guess here, but I imagine hetero guys aren't particularly keen on on an important female character in their game having a moustache and 7 chins. Bottom line, we like pretty, sexy things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Another moment worth considering is money. Correct me if i'm wrong, but different body types mean different body models in game, which cost money. In a single game, there's usually a single male body model and a single female body model, so naturally, the developers lean towards more typical body type (idealized, of course). It would certainly look strange if all women in a singe game were short and chubby, for example. With the body model which is close to average, it's not s noticeable that they're all the same. Again I could be wrong because I know very little about actual game development.

 

That's my perspective, take it or leave it.

 

 

That's an interesting read and you make relevant posts.  But I also think you are missing some key points in this discussion. And they revolve around a few things that include

 

• the marketing of men as the primary gaming target and misperception around what they want to see in games
• in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Read these two links to get an idea what I'm talking about

 

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

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

 

1. I see you share a misconception that is quite common when game marketing is being discussed - that is, assuming that the gaming industry is some hivemind that markets "games" to all gamers at once. Gaming industry consists of companies, and every company develops and markets game to a specific subsection of consumers. Developers of i.e. The Sims market them to women because they know that the lion's share of people who buy The Sims are female. Developers of shooty-shooty AAA titles (with wich the gaming media is primarily concerned), on the other hand, market them to men because I'm sorry, men ARE their primary target. I know that the 42% figure is bandied about a lot, but I find it very hard to believe. Where are all those numerous female gamers?

 

They're not on steam, they're not on origin, they're not on battlelog, they're not in game chats, they're not in L4D, they're not anywhere around AAA titles in the numbers that would make them noticeable. Even in Mass Effect which is widely considered one of the most female-friendly AAA games, we women are still a distinct minority. I know that because out of 80 people on my origin friend list maybe 8 are female, me included. On Ubisoft official forums for Splinter Cell:Blacklist one girl made a thread to find other women who play Splinter Cell multiplayer and coop. The thread got stickied about a month ago; to this date it has 2 replies. Wait, even this conversation of ours started with you asking for female opinion because there are no women on these forums. So where the hell are they???

 

2. As some poster above me aptly said, you can't objectify women in games, because there are no women there - they're bunches of polygons that serve a certain purpose, i.e. they're objects from the start. Just as men are. If you don't agree with the purpose they serve, you're free not to buy a particular game and explain to the developers why you refused to buy it. If there are enough people like you, the developers will hopefully rethink their appropach to female characters. If you think that slapping big boobs on a female toon somehow diminishes me, a player, i strongly disagree. What does it matter to me if some guy somewhere wants to look on i.e. Miranda Lawson's t&a? I, as a person, is neither better nor worse off for that. What's the problem? When I'm playing Blacklist and Sam is hanging off a ledge, all I think is "Dem arms, damn!" What, does that make Sam Fisher somehow less of a character? Will I consider my husband less of a person because Geralt of Rivia has a nice ass? Does that seem sane to you&?

 

As for your links, the first one is typical greviance fishing. One quote is particularly telling:

 

 

 

The stereotype, for example, does not explain why "girls don't play video games." It does not reveal who or what is responsible for it. 

 

The most reasonable answer is that THE GIRLS are responsible - they just don't generally want to play those games. But no, it just has to be somebody else's fault. Funny, all those marketing ploys have never stopped me - but somehow now it's become a prevalent belief that women and girls have no free will and are total slaves to media and marketing. It's demeaning, I tell you. Does the law forbid girls from buying those games? Is there a big ugly bouncer that throw them out of the isle if they attempt to pay money for them? Does a disk check if you have a correct set of getitals before installing the game? No. Girls just aren't generally interested in those types of games, AND THAT'S OKAY.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Thanks alan ... I was wanting to reply to Bester but also didn't want to derail the news thread quite that much.

 

 

I think that sometimes (not always, but sometimes) that comes about because some women feel doing such is a path to getting more attention/getting the job/fame they want and/or will make them feel better or more confident about themselves etc.

No. You're trying to rationalize instinctual behavior, which is a frequent amateur mistake. Females' lives are built around their instinct to attract the strongest of males and get their sеmen. It may sound chauvinist, but I mean no offense. It's just that it's really all there's to it.

 

Heh...not like I'm not familiar with that line of thought, since I've used it in my pessimistic moments re: the essentially unchanged nature of humankind. And yes, despite our intellect we are still instinctual creatures who react without thought to certain stimuli. Fight or flight, fear of unknown/different, and of course the oo-la-la.

 

But the nature of humanity is not always the same thing as the culture of humanity, and that's where using that as an argument against change falls apart. People wanting/wishing to be as attractive as possible to find mates, natural thing and I doubt you'd find anyone to argue against that.

 

What is culturally considered attractive, however, is ever changing and is definitely not ruled by instinct alone, but by whatever is the fad at the time. People's interests change, on a cultural level. At one time pudgy women were the height of sexual attractiveness for some. For others it was an exposed ankle. For still others it could be the bone in their perfectly shaped nose or how long their artificially-stretched-from-birth-via-metal-rings neck is. I believe the objection to objectification sometimes (or often) stems less from an objection to sexuality itself and more from how unreasonable that objectification is vs. any reality of what's reasonably physically possible. To most of our "modern" culture, for example, something like forcing girls to bind/literally cripple their feet as a pinnacle of beauty is/seems barbaric, because it's not something reasonable/humane to expect people to do in order to feel like they're attractive/have social worth.

 

While fantasy Barbie-Doll proportions isn't in the same league as crippling one's feet, as this culture of ours evolves and changes, it's not necessarily unreasonable to think that a culture might eventually deem it unfavorable to use such as a socially-influential measurement of worth. Or such objections may end up petering out and going nowhere. Not for me to say. At any rate, just because we have roots that stem from instinct, in the long run that's usually a poor excuse for justifying not even attempting social/cultural change, if and when a time comes that enough people in a cultural group want change.

 

...myself, I'm still waiting for the day that flat feet and broad, short-fingered hands are considered the height of female sexiness. I'll have it made then. Never mind that I already have a mate. I can't wait, because then I'll still be considered super-sexy when I'm 65!

 

Good post, the one thing missing from these discussions is that we don't get enough comments from our female members about these topics. I know one of the reasons for this is because we don't have a large number of female members who actively participate on the forums but its good to get your opinion in this debate

 

Hey, I registered here on the forum specifically to answer your question. Was lurking for a long time, so here goes.

 

I don't care a gram about body types that female characters have in games, and I find this obsession with *female representation* extremely bothersome. I've been gaming for over 20 years, and never once have I been made to feel inadequate because videogame character X had large boobs (I have small boobs, personally. I don't care). And in my opinion, people who care are just fishing for things to complain about, because this "issue" is less then trivial. If some girls feels pressured to do a surgery because Lara Croft has large boobs (I'm simplifying here), it sems to me that the problem is her self esteem, not Lara Croft. But that's what a disturbingly large part of internet population likes to do very much  - blame others and paint them as responsible for their personal hang ups.

 

Games have been presenting idealised male and female body types basically since the graphics got good enough to do an approximation of a human body. Truth is, no one cared until women started complaining, now it's suddenly some huge issue that we are facing. And when you bring up the fact that men are isealized and sexualized in equal measure, you get that it's somehow still worse for teh wimminz. It's not - take a look at a poster for Deus Ex Human revolution, you know the one with Jensen reclining on his couch all topless and moody. Yeah.

 

And you know what? It's okay. Both complaints (about idealization of men and women) are extremely trivial, imo, and not worth bandwidth that's gets wasted on them. Games are not real life, they're escapism. I, a heterosexual woman, like looking at sexy men doing sexy things. I am terribly sorry, I don't want some fat guy with acne and bad haircut in my escapism. Just a wild guess here, but I imagine hetero guys aren't particularly keen on on an important female character in their game having a moustache and 7 chins. Bottom line, we like pretty, sexy things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Another moment worth considering is money. Correct me if i'm wrong, but different body types mean different body models in game, which cost money. In a single game, there's usually a single male body model and a single female body model, so naturally, the developers lean towards more typical body type (idealized, of course). It would certainly look strange if all women in a singe game were short and chubby, for example. With the body model which is close to average, it's not s noticeable that they're all the same. Again I could be wrong because I know very little about actual game development.

 

That's my perspective, take it or leave it.

 

 

That's an interesting read and you make relevant posts.  But I also think you are missing some key points in this discussion. And they revolve around a few things that include

 

• the marketing of men as the primary gaming target and misperception around what they want to see in games
• in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Read these two links to get an idea what I'm talking about

 

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

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

 

1. I see you share a misconception that is quite common when game marketing is being discussed - that is, assuming that the gaming industry is some hivemind that markets "games" to all gamers at once. Gaming industry consists of companies, and every company develops and markets game to a specific subsection of consumers. Developers of i.e. The Sims market them to women because they know that the lion's share of people who buy The Sims are female. Developers of shooty-shooty AAA titles (with wich the gaming media is primarily concerned), on the other hand, market them to men because I'm sorry, men ARE their primary target. I know that the 42% figure is bandied about a lot, but I find it very hard to believe. Where are all those numerous female gamers?

 

They're not on steam, they're not on origin, they're not on battlelog, they're not in game chats, they're not in L4D, they're not anywhere around AAA titles in the numbers that would make them noticeable. Even in Mass Effect which is widely considered one of the most female-friendly AAA games, we women are still a distinct minority. I know that because out of 80 people on my origin friend list maybe 8 are female, me included. On Ubisoft official forums for Splinter Cell:Blacklist one girl made a thread to find other women who play Splinter Cell multiplayer and coop. The thread got stickied about a month ago; to this date it has 2 replies. Wait, even this conversation of ours started with you asking for female opinion because there are no women on these forums. So where the hell are they???

 

2. As some poster above me aptly said, you can't objectify women in games, because there are no women there - they're bunches of polygons that serve a certain purpose, i.e. they're objects from the start. Just as men are. If you don't agree with the purpose they serve, you're free not to buy a particular game and explain to the developers why you refused to buy it. If there are enough people like you, the developers will hopefully rethink their appropach to female characters. If you think that slapping big boobs on a female toon somehow diminishes me, a player, i strongly disagree. What does it matter to me if some guy somewhere wants to look on i.e. Miranda Lawson's t&a? I, as a person, is neither better nor worse off for that. What's the problem? When I'm playing Blacklist and Sam is hanging off a ledge, all I think is "Dem arms, damn!" What, does that make Sam Fisher somehow less of a character? Will I consider my husband less of a person because Geralt of Rivia has a nice ass? Does that seem sane to you&?

 

As for your links, the first one is typical greviance fishing. One quote is particularly telling:

 

 

 

The stereotype, for example, does not explain why "girls don't play video games." It does not reveal who or what is responsible for it. 

 

The most reasonable answer is that THE GIRLS are responsible - they just don't generally want to play those games. But no, it just has to be somebody else's fault. Funny, all those marketing ploys have never stopped me - but somehow now it's become a prevalent belief that women and girls have no free will and are total slaves to media and marketing. It's demeaning, I tell you. Does the law forbid girls from buying those games? Is there a big ugly bouncer that throw them out of the isle if they attempt to pay money for them? Does a disk check if you have a correct set of getitals before installing the game? No. Girls just aren't generally interested in those types of games, AND THAT'S OKAY.

 

 

That's an insightful  post and thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. A couple of general comments

 

• In life you don't need many people to complain about something or to be offended by something in order for it to be real. For example lets say I'm in a restaurant and there is someone sitting at a table next to me and he is being crude and using excessive  profanity that everyone can hear. Even if no one else at the restaurant  thinks he is being rude or is offended I would be and I would tell the people at the table with me. I guarantee they would agree with me and they would be right as the guy was acting inappropriately in public. The same logic applies here, even though you are a women and have no issues with how women are portrayed in games it doesn't change the fact that thousands of people do feel women are objectified in some games. There is no reason for it and it can be changed in future versions of game. I don't see the issue?
• People have mentioned that a women can't be objectified in game as they are a pixel image and aren't real. I battle with this point the most. Around this debate the way women are represented in some games is symbolism, it doesn't have to be real or an actual person  to make a statement. It is no different to a movie or a book and many other forms of entertainment that can influence peoples thoughts and  where certain groups at times are positioned in a demeaning way. Just because its a game it doesn't mean that  it can't represent something socially unacceptable for some
• Finally I also wish I knew where our female gamers were, many play Obsidian games but they just don't comment on these forums in seems.  I use to play Vanguard and in my old guild out of 20 members at least 8 were female. So female gamers do exist

[Nonek]

 

Shouldn't every individual have that choice, to be their own final arbiter? Is that not exactly what they do when they decide to buy or not buy a game?

 

I can see your logic but no unfortunately that's not how it needs to be. You need to see this as a step to address an aspect of social justice so in this case the  correct choice doesn't need a majority agreement because some in the majority don't really understand the debate in the most accurate context

 

 

You see this is where it always goes wrong for me, who exactly are you and what are your qualifications to be judge, jury and executioner? You've already admitted that you don't mind characters being treated demeaningly in DA2, you are selective in what you judge as worthy of analysis, you have no mandate from an electoral body and your views are unsubstantiated by any kind of facts or statistics. In short you just want to enforce your views on the majority because you feel that you are in the right, now that's your perogative to feel that you're campaigning for a righteous cause, but just because something is parroted in fashionable circles does not mean it is either right or worthy.

 

I don't believe that I or anyone else is qualified to dictate what is right or wrong, what an individual enjoys or what they should or should not find acceptable within the bounds of the law. That is the first step on an extremely dangerous path, dehumanising people and casting them in a lesser light than yourself and your "enlightened" brethren is extremely disturbing to me. Once again you're allowed to think that, but it doesn't mean that you're qualified to be a final arbiter in any fashion.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

 

 what are your qualifications to be judge, jury and executioner?

 

 

This question makes me think of this song performed by one of my favourite singers of all time:

 

And nice to see your putting a firm foot down in the name of liberalism, much appreciated. I have a feeling though that BruceVC is quite a bit of teaser, and sometimes he's even pulling our legs from time to time, especially when it comes to in-game romances.

[Zoraptor]

Personally, I'm sure that Bruce is 100% totally serious about everything he says and is totally not early stage Volourn or obyknyven's more successful 3rd alt.
 

in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Idealisation and objectification are, of course, exactly the same thing just with -/+ spin applied by the person using them. Language is much like subatomic physics in that respect.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Zoraptor

[Blarghagh]

In what universe are idealisation and objectification the same thing? That doesn't even make sense on the basest of levels,

[Malcador]

Seems that one will lead to the other in most cases.

[IndiraLightfoot]

In what universe are idealisation and objectification the same thing? That doesn't even make sense on the basest of levels,

They are. Objectification at its core is everything we do, in cognition, language and other ways of making sense of the world. That aside, objectification can be a "subconcept" of itself and then used in a negative sense, as something degrading and derogatory, while idealisation, another subconcept of objectification, captures it in an overly positive sense.

[Zoraptor]

Yeah.

 

Basically, objectification is regarding something as an object and assigning arbitrary 'values' based on that; a simplification and stereotyping of something more complex- which is usually negative when applied to something as complex as humanity because it reduces people to a set of criteria and list items. Idealisation is exactly the same thing, just with choosing the positive parts or using positive descriptors for your list items. It is different for actual objects like flowers or abstract stuff like stories or poetry because, of course, they cannot be objectified in the first place but for the sake of this discussion we're assuming that video game characters are 'human' analogues and should be judged as such, by and large.

 

To give an example, if I were asked to describe my idealised woman then no doubt that would be seen by (some) others as objectification in several respects- and certainly so if I limited it to a physical description.

 

Plus, it should be noted that the vast majority of truly awful things done in video games are done by men, not women. That's hardly ideal.

[213374U]

 

To give an example, if I were asked to describe my idealised woman then no doubt that would be seen by (some) others as objectification in several respects- and certainly so if I limited it to a physical description.

 

I know you can be more rigorous than that. You can, for any given premise, argue that some nebulous, nondescript "others" will react by XYZ—that doesn't mean it will actually happen and even if it did it adds nothing of substance to the argument you are attempting to reinforce. People gon' people.

 

If you were to carefully word your description in such a manner that reification is absent, no claims that you are objectifying women could possibly stand. Granted, "objectification" may be little more than a mainstream buzzword, but let's try to avoid that?

 

I'm genuinely interested in your idea that idealization = objectification. How you reached that conclusion, and if it's a general principle or only applies to women. Though I have a feeling that it's rather a difference of opinions regarding what idealization is.

[AGX-17]

 

In what universe are idealisation and objectification the same thing? That doesn't even make sense on the basest of levels,

They are. Objectification at its core is everything we do, in cognition, language and other ways of making sense of the world. That aside, objectification can be a "subconcept" of itself and then used in a negative sense, as something degrading and derogatory, while idealisation, another subconcept of objectification, captures it in an overly positive sense.

 

So, you're essentially admitting that every person in your life is an object to you? Just because that's your particular experience doesn't mean everyone does it.

 

I've yet to see or hear of any psychological or linguistic studies (how did you learn every language spoken by all humans in the entire span of human existence, by the way? Since you know every language behaves identically to your version of English which objectifies all people fundamentally,) supporting your claims that 100% of people objectify all other people, or that such a thing is a fundamental part of human cognition. I think it's a testament to your abnormal psychology if you objectify all others and project your neurological dysfunction onto all other people (which is odd considering we're all simply objects and thus incapable of cognition or conscious thought.)

 

If every single person objectifies every other person, why isn't slavery legal? If everyone views everyone else as an object, then by definition all people are simply objects. Why would there even be a word "objectification" to define a phenomenon if that phenomenon is, as you claim, a universal property of the human condition? Where are all the ancient philosophical musings on the paradox that all other people are merely objects that look and act like the one true human? How does one "true human" know they're the "one true human" if they've been born to and raised by objects which, in your hypothesis, all believe all other humans to be objects? Why is there a concept of humanity if nobody has ever believed another person to be human?

 

Or are you just being a smartass and using the linguistic terminology of "subject" and "object" to make a broad, overarching, patently false claim for the sake of trolling?

Edited January 28, 2014 by AGX-17

[Zoraptor]

If you were to carefully word your description in such a manner that reification is absent

 

For the physical description part I'm not sure it's even possible to do that. There isn't really a happy medium between 36-24-36 blonde 19yo triplet and a robotic litany of mathematical formula that literally objectifies, because whatever you say the implication is that you'd be unhappy and reject the brunette 19 yo triplet because her elbows are too pointy she isn't blonde or because her hip to waist ratio isn't 1.414:1 and that mole means she doesn't have excellent symmetry- and you are listing a bunch of physical characteristics as if they are important.

 

The best you can do realistically is a dodge and say that the physical appearance is unimportant or say 'my wife/ gf is perfect' and avoid it that way. But I rather suspect that the vast majority of people would have an ideal appearance in mind for a partner if they were 100% honest about it.

 

I know you can be more rigorous than that. You can, for any given premise, argue that some nebulous, nondescript "others" will react by XYZ—that doesn't mean it will actually happen and even if it did it adds nothing of substance to the argument you are attempting to reinforce. People gon' people.

 

I do agree that people gonna people but that has to be accepted, you cannot exclude human nature in a discussion about, essentially, human nature. And especially so when there's argument here about what constitutes objectification in the first place. Unfortunately, one cannot rigorously apply objectivity to something that relies on subjectivity- Bruce purports to find things to be offensive objectification that others purport not to, there is no rigorous approach to that because where the line is drawn on objectification and idealisation is dependant on personal opinion.

 

I'm genuinely interested in your idea that idealization = objectification. How you reached that conclusion, and if it's a general principle or only applies to women.

 

I'd apply it to pretty much anything that is (a) subject to opinion and (b) where objectification is appropriate as a concept.

 

Conceptually, I make the distinction of being 'objectivised' similarly to the earlier distinction between character and caricature. If all you're saying about a person is their role, or just a physical description then you might as well be describing an object, it's bereft of nuance. By that measure, idealisation is just saying specifically positive things without nuance. Detail and knowing the person ('characterisation') is the enemy of both objectification and idealisation because it adds that nuance.

 

Meh, don't really know if I'm doing a good job of describing it. Take Mother Teresa as an example. The idealised view is that she was a great woman who lessened suffering and lived a life of selflessness- to my mind that isn't describing her though, it's describing her role, without nuance, and you might as well be describing a light bulb for all you know about her from that. Once you get more detail though you start seeing her more as a human, and the 'Mother Theresa' ideal image starts to fray at exactly the same time you stop describing her by her role only.

[BruceVC]

Personally, I'm sure that Bruce is 100% totally serious about everything he says and is totally not early stage Volourn or obyknyven's more successful 3rd alt.

 

in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Idealisation and objectification are, of course, exactly the same thing just with -/+ spin applied by the person using them. Language is much like subatomic physics in that respect.

 

I do joke sometimes. Not all the time but sometimes. For example I am not so narcissistic and delusional  to think that I should be the only person who decides what content is acceptable in games. It also would be practically impossible for a single person to somehow monitor and evaluate all images and representations of women in games

 

But I am not joking when I say I feel some games objectify women.

Edited January 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

Or are you just being a smartass and using the linguistic terminology of "subject" and "object" to make a broad, overarching, patently false claim for the sake of trolling?

It could also just be confusing the objectification as used in social philosophy with the very human tendency to categorize everything. E.g. thinking of a person as a "blonde", the guy with the weird moustache or "that obnoxious one" (rather than thinking of a person as employee #712, the cleaner, Star Trek redshirts etc.). The former (IMHO) being a way of remembering people who are otherwise indistinct to us, the latter a true regarding of someone as an "object".

[Orogun01]

 

Personally, I'm sure that Bruce is 100% totally serious about everything he says and is totally not early stage Volourn or obyknyven's more successful 3rd alt.

 

in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Idealisation and objectification are, of course, exactly the same thing just with -/+ spin applied by the person using them. Language is much like subatomic physics in that respect.

 

I do joke sometimes. Not all the time but sometimes. For example I am not so narcissistic and delusional  to think that I should be the only person who decides what content is acceptable in games. It also would be practically impossible for a single person to somehow monitor and evaluate all images and representations of women in games

 

But I am not joking when I say I feel some games objectify women.

 

Do you feel that objectification is bad thing? Bear in mind that i'm talking about fictitious characters.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Personally, I'm sure that Bruce is 100% totally serious about everything he says and is totally not early stage Volourn or obyknyven's more successful 3rd alt.

 

in most games men are not objectified, they are idealised. There is a huge difference

Idealisation and objectification are, of course, exactly the same thing just with -/+ spin applied by the person using them. Language is much like subatomic physics in that respect.

 

I do joke sometimes. Not all the time but sometimes. For example I am not so narcissistic and delusional  to think that I should be the only person who decides what content is acceptable in games. It also would be practically impossible for a single person to somehow monitor and evaluate all images and representations of women in games

 

But I am not joking when I say I feel some games objectify women.

 

Do you feel that objectification is bad thing? Bear in mind that i'm talking about fictitious characters.

 

 

Objectification can be a bad thing, it depends on the context. I don't see why just because something is a fantasy representation of women it doesn't symbolize something that is offensive to many.

Edited January 28, 2014 by BruceVC

[IndiraLightfoot]

AGX-17: I mean objectification, earlier sometimes called cenopsy (by Pierce), as seen in cognitive sciences, but also in the sociolinguistic sense that has been developed in various schools of philosophy via Saussure. Language is not peripheral to our grasp of the world we live in, but central to it. Words are not just vocal labels or communicational adjuncts superimposed upon an already given order of things. They are collective products of social interaction, essential instruments through which human beings constitute and articulate their world. This typically twentieth-century view of language has profoundly influenced developments throughout the whole range of human sciences. It is particularly marked in linguistics, philosophy, sociology and anthropology.

 

A common view among information theorists, for instance, is that information integrated with entropy in some way is a basic structure of the World. Computation is the process of the dynamic change of information. In order for anything to exist for an individual, it must get information on it by means of perception or by re-organization of the existing information into new patterns (objects and arrays of objects). This cybernetic-computational-informational view is based on a universal and un-embodied conception of information and computation, which is the deep foundation of "the information processing paradigm". This paradigm is vital for most versions of cognitive science and its latest developments into brain function and linguistic research.

 

Taken to its extreme metaphysical scope this paradigm views the universe as a computer, humans as dynamic systems producing and being guided by computational functioning. Language is seen as a sort of culturally developed algorithmic program for social information processing. From a general epistemological as well as philosophy of science foundation, you could argue that an interdisciplinary paradigm of information, cognition and communication science needs, within its theory, to engage the role of first person conscious, embodied social awareness in producing signification from perceptions and meaning from communication in any attempt to build an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for information, cognition, signification and meaningful communication.

Edited January 28, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[BruceVC]

AGX-17: I mean objectification, earlier sometimes called cenopsy (by Pierce), as seen in cognitive sciences, but also in the sociolinguistic sense that has been developed in various schools of philosophy via Saussure. Language is not peripheral to our grasp of the world we live in, but central to it. Words are not just vocal labels or communicational adjuncts superimposed upon an already given order of things. They are collective products of social interaction, essential instruments through which human beings constitute and articulate their world. This typically twentieth-century view of language has profoundly influenced developments throughout the whole range of human sciences. It is particularly marked in linguistics, philosophy, sociology and anthropology.

 

A common view among information theorists, for instance, is that information integrated with entropy in some way is a basic structure of the World. Computation is the process of the dynamic change of information. In order for anything to exist for an individual, it must get information on it by means of perception or by re-organization of the existing information into new patterns (objects and arrays of objects). This cybernetic-computational-informational view is based on a universal and un-embodied conception of information and computation, which is the deep foundation of "the information processing paradigm". This paradigm is vital for most versions of cognitive science and its latest developments into brain function and linguistic research.

 

Taken to its extreme metaphysical scope this paradigm views the universe as a computer, humans as dynamic systems producing and being guided by computational functioning. Language is seen as a sort of culturally developed algorithmic program for social information processing. From a general epistemological as well as philosophy of science foundation, you could argue that an interdisciplinary paradigm of information, cognition and communication science needs, within its theory, to engage the role of first person conscious, embodied social awareness in producing signification from perceptions and meaning from communication in any attempt to build an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for information, cognition, signification and meaningful communication.

 

I don't understand everything you have posted but that's fine as I think I get what you mean

 

What I will say has been discussed before but I want to be clear about it, and I'll keep it simple. In the context of this discussion there is a difference between objectification and idealisation. The former is a negative and latter a positive. There are games that position women characters so that they add relevance to the plot, look good and are interesting to play as the primary character. This is what is meant by idealisation. Its the same as most male characters that we can form a connection with.

 

Then you have games where the female contribution towards the game is really only about there obscenely incongruous  body parts or  the visual aspect of what they add to the dynamic of your overall  gaming experience. There doesn't seem to be variety and anything worthwhile, outside of the looks, that the character adds to the game. This is the objectification of women in games in my view

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Oh, you mean plain old sexism, where the female gender in our society typically gets the short end of the stick, and just comes across as some giggling mass of flesh and fat moulded into over-sized boobies, eyes like saucers and a pouting baboon-ass mouth, bereaved of all intelligence and agency?

 

Why didn't you say so? Then we are in agreement!

[BruceVC]

Oh, you mean plain old sexism, where the female gender in our society typically gets the short end of the stick, and just comes across as some giggling mass of flesh and fat moulded into over-sized boobies, eyes like saucers and a pouting baboon-ass mouth, bereaved of all intelligence and agency?

 

Why didn't you say so? Then we are in agreement!

 

To be honest I really thought that is what I have been saying, I need to work on explaining myself better

[FTL_Dodo]

 

 

That's an insightful  post and thanks for taking the time to share your perspective. A couple of general comments

 

 

• In life you don't need many people to complain about something or to be offended by something in order for it to be real. For example lets say I'm in a restaurant and there is someone sitting at a table next to me and he is being crude and using excessive  profanity that everyone can hear. Even if no one else at the restaurant  thinks he is being rude or is offended I would be and I would tell the people at the table with me. I guarantee they would agree with me and they would be right as the guy was acting inappropriately in public. The same logic applies here, even though you are a women and have no issues with how women are portrayed in games it doesn't change the fact that thousands of people do feel women are objectified in some games. There is no reason for it and it can be changed in future versions of game. I don't see the issue?
• People have mentioned that a women can't be objectified in game as they are a pixel image and aren't real. I battle with this point the most. Around this debate the way women are represented in some games is symbolism, it doesn't have to be real or an actual person  to make a statement. It is no different to a movie or a book and many other forms of entertainment that can influence peoples thoughts and  where certain groups at times are positioned in a demeaning way. Just because its a game it doesn't mean that  it can't represent something socially unacceptable for some
• Finally I also wish I knew where our female gamers were, many play Obsidian games but they just don't comment on these forums in seems.  I use to play Vanguard and in my old guild out of 20 members at least 8 were female. So female gamers do exist

 

 

1. Who draws the line on what's appropriate and what's not? You have a recourse - not to buy a game that's unacceptable for your sensibilities, if there are enough likeminded people, such a game won't make a profit and maybe in their next game the company will rethink their policy toward portrayal of women or whatever. If there are not enough like minded people however, well... then you'll just have to deal with it. It's not your place to dicatete to other people what they should or shouldn't enjoy. Tell you what - personally, I don't like huge boobs on female characters in games. Not because they make me feel inadequate with my mdest rack, I just think they look ridiculous and unnatural. But other people like them, and who exactly am I to decide what's acceptable for other people to like? As for someone else being offended:

 

 

 

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what." - Steven Fry

2. That's the same line of reasoning as "GTA causes murder", i.e. nonsense. No correlation has been found so fat (afaik) between depiction of violence in games and real life violence, same with boobs. People, generally, are perfectly able to separate fiction from reality.

 

Lastly, it seems to me what you call objectification is more just a consequence of overall poor standard of writing in games. There are a lot of characters written poorly, female and male, i.e. they're reduced to simply functions - "comic relief", or "socialite", or "boobs", or "random grunt". It's not a problem that's somehow exclusive to female characters - remember how many faceless goons you've cut down in your last games? If that's not reducing a character to function, i don't know what is.

[Meshugger]

Can't we all just agree that as long as the fictional character is true to itself, as in how the writer imagined it, it can be anything the writer wants to be? Otherwise it will only either politization (or idealization) of the art or pampering to fans, which is simply disingenenous.

 

To put it simply, do we want truth or not?

 

As a philosopher king by hobby, i can decide that we want truth. 

[Orogun01]

Can't we all just agree that as long as the fictional character is true to itself, as in how the writer imagined it, it can be anything the writer wants to be? Otherwise it will only either politization (or idealization) of the art or pampering to fans, which is simply disingenenous.

 

To put it simply, do we want truth or not?

 

As a philosopher king by hobby, i can decide that we want truth. 

Can't you understand that until everyone is a feminist all women are oppressed by males? Men designing virtual women for their pleasure is the ultimate form of objectification, it reduces a woman to just a pair of breasts. You should read up on how you have a privilege that you never knew about and how you're raping women without even knowing it.