Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gatleos]

-snip-

I agree that it's distracting. But not everyone is going to phrase it the way you did, and some actually try to pass an "all X are racist/sexist/etc." argument. The irony is that I want to complain of being generalized, but I'm ultimately generalizing people who want to talk on this issue as "crazy sjws" based on the bigoted words of a very small group.

[Eagle_eye]

Glowcat:

Thinking of people in terms of groups is part of the problem. Social issues are individual issues. The notion of "white people" or "people of color" or "men" or "women" as cohesive groups makes things easier to think about, but ultimately, it's, at best, an approximation of reality. It's useful when you're talking about actual practical applications- like government policy, where there simply aren't the resources or the ability to deal with things on an individual level. You couldn't replace affirmative action with a full examination of every college applicant's life circumstances, for example. But when you don't have those constraints, behaving as if those approximations were reality is going to lead you to characterize the individual people you're talking to as something they're not. You're not making policy prescriptions, you're having a conversation with individual people: treat them like individuals.

[Neonivek]

Why is it that male characters being oversexualized just brushed off as a "male power fantasy"? Do people seriously think that all men want to play as super-muscular people?

It's because of who makes the games, and the reasons those men look like that. It isn't to titillate women. And yeah, the assumption isn't that "all men want to play as super-muscular people", it's that their target audience do in fact want to play as that.

I highly doubt that no video game has ever made fanservice to appeal to women. And even if no video game has, then how is oversexualizing male characters any less bad? Also, not all game developers are men.

It is more that it is different flavors of objectification then one being wrong and one not.

Men's depiction in videogames is like a fashion magazine or a diet commercial. It presents an extremely narrow viewpoint on what is "manly" and presents it as ideal.

[Tack]

To be fair, most video game characters either male or female are going to be attractive, and attractive in a specific way.
So most video game men are going to be bishounen or trucks, and many of them will show a lot of skin too.
I've never really had a problem with it.

[Neonivek]

To be fair, most video game characters either male or female are going to be attractive, and attractive in a specific way.

Indeed, if you are making a escapist fantasy... would you want to play some out of shape dude on a couch? Or some Paragon?

[alexandertnt]

TBH you play as the Paragon in so many games there isn't really anything special about it per se anymore.


Most video game characters when created to be "attractive", are created to be attractive to males regardless of their gender. A powerful hulk is generally so because the target audience (males) want to be powerful, strong and attractive, and the sexy females are like that for the same audience.

The hulky muscular mass stereotype is dumb (and I hate it), but the fact that the muscular-man is also a dumb stereotype doesn't make it any easier for women to get into gaming, and can still alienate women.

I also think its rubbish that companies have no obligations beyond making money. If we took that reasoning to the extreme a lot of nasty implications surface. Everything they do has an effect on society and the enviroment and that effect may be good or bad independent of the ammount of money they make.

(Yes, counter examples exist, the issue isn't really that "there exists" one game that portrays women badly, its that its common enough to make gaming in general seem awfully male-centric and difficult for women to not feel alienated or belittled)
(Or at least thats my take on it as a white male).

[Neonivek]

I also think its rubbish that companies have no obligations beyond making money

That is because you live in a Capitalist society and as such it is founded on the believe that companies and the people who run it should have limited liability for their actions and that it is the actions of the consumers that truly say what is right and what is wrong.

That essentially capitalism self-corrects itself because we will not endorse things we see as immoral.

That is how it works in theory mind you. But this belief is what created the one that companies are not people, expecting a non-person have moral responsibilities is invalid, as well as many others.

Or at least thats my take on it as a white male

Honestly this should be complete and utter irrelevant information for this topic.

TBH you play as the Paragon in so many games there isn't really anything special about it per se anymore

Honestly there is a MUCH bigger point to be made here.

You are right, many of the aspects of the male power fantasy have been done so much they have just stopped having the same impact it once did.

This is often why parents who don't play games see them as rather insane. Compare the depictions of videogames in the Simpsons, CSI, or Law and Order. They see a much more extreme picture because they haven't been desensitized to it. It would be like a out of shape person looking at a 10 mile run.

It is why whenever a non-gamer depicts these games they just see it as excessively violent, machismo, "do this kid" gameplay... and while there are certainly games that are like that (except "do this kid" because people who write shows are either dumb or they think their viewers are dumb), they are far from the norm. I mean at least the Simpsons was a parody, but CSI was serious.

[Sappho]

I find it interesting that the response to my post is largely to the hypothetical "what if all male characters were hypersexualized" rather than "what if every time you wanted to play a video game, you had to play as a girl," which was my main point. The "and the rare male character is some ridiculous barbarian wearing a codpiece and that is your only option, ever."

My point was, imagine never getting to play a character you can relate to at all. Throw out the stuff about sexualization for a second. That's not the point. Imagine that since you were a child, every time you wanted to play a video game, you had to play a girl. Are the guys here really going to say that they wouldn't have a problem with that? Think about it, really. I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to make you understand something. More than half the people on the planet are women. We like games too.

Regarding race, my point wasn't that you'd be shooting at white people. It was that white people would be there solely to be the enemy. Your character is always black, and your enemies are almost always white. How would you really feel about that? Because on the rare occasion a game has tried something like that (such as letting you play the Arab side in a war against America), there's been a huge public backlash. And this is sadly the reality for most non-white people. There are starting to be more black and brown characters in games, but even still, most of them are stereotypes, and for sure if you see an Arab in a game it's because you're shooting at them. Most black and Hispanic people are NOT criminals. Most Arabs are NOT terrorists or religious extremists. Yet in games, that's usually all we see. How do you think kids who grow up playing Call of Duty are going to see non-white people?

And I see that no one responded to the sexual orientation one. How would you feel if every relationship in a game was between men? Or between women, but not between straight girls with makeup and high heels -- between butch lesbians with short hair who dress like guys. That wouldn't bother you at all? You wouldn't sometimes say "man, what the hell, not everyone in the world is straight, why do I have to be gay all the time?" I'm not saying that the majority of game relationships should be homosexual. The majority of people are straight, so it makes sense that the majority of characters are straight. But 10% of all people consider themselves homosexual, and a much larger percentage (I've yet to find a reliable statistic but based on general studies of sexuality and my firsthand experience all around the world) identify as non-heterosexual in some way. What percentage of video game characters are not straight? 0.0001%? Maybe? That's ridiculous. And not putting non-straight characters in games sends the message that non-straight people don't exist. That they don't matter. They don't factor in to the world. Or when they are found, they're not "right." It's not normal.

My point is, this is reality for everyone who isn't a white heterosexual cis male. This is reality for me. You didn't choose to be in the majority, you were born there. There's nothing wrong with being a white heterosexual cis male, and there's nothing wrong with there being plenty such characters in games. But to say there's "no need" for more diversity is to say that the rest of the world doesn't deserve to see themselves in games. That women - more than half of the planet - don't deserve to be treated fairly in games. And that in a world where most kids grow up playing video games, there's no need for them to learn to empathize with and respect people who are different than them.

[Neonivek]

What percentage of video game characters are not straight? 0.0001%? Maybe?

It depends if we are counting characters with unstated and unimplied sexual preferences as "straight" or not.

As well it depends if we are counting characters with interest in the opposite sex as not "bi" or not.

Which I know the answer is "Of course we assume they are straight" but it is an interesting thought in it of itself.

It also brings up the idea of: "Now much is sexual preference important to most videogame characters". I know this is unique to me, but I never played a character and cared what their preference was or saw a character and cared if they were homosexual or straight.

But that is just me, I am not someone who looks to celebrities, historical figures, or characters as inspiration. I have Asperger's for example and I never found solace in knowing that celebrities or characters had it. Heck absolutely no videogame character I am aware of has Asperger's and I don't care too much.

But that is just for sexual preference preference. Mind you I think what someone wants in that situation is more of a support structure and community they can go to.

My point is, this is reality for everyone who isn't a white heterosexual cis male.

Not... EXACTLY... Ignoring that, for the most part, sexual preference often doesn't show until much later. There is diversity in games if you look.

It isn't that there isn't a need, even a desperate need, for more diversity. More that, I find what you state to be more hyperbole then fact even when I see it from your point of view UNLESS you have a very limited scope of experience with videogames... Like only playing shooters.

But I understand you are just presenting a point of view I am not meant to take it this literally. The people who say "They don't need more" diversity in this topic, I feel, mean more that they believe that diversity is advancing at an acceptable rate and that it shouldn't be forced... and honestly I can see where they come from.

Then a lot of people say "well that is just your limited viewpoint", but they never go in depth to explain WHY the current rate isn't acceptable. Only that "If you had my experiences you would agree", which might certainly be true... but it doesn't help people see their viewpoint. What is an acceptable rate of expansion? What means is acceptable to pursue this? What direct harm is it causing? What are your experiences liking a genre and finding that you had no one to relate to? What videogames made you uncomfortable to play because of how it utilized minorities?

Cause I understand, it is clear from the rhetoric that it isn't just a "Fair point and I don't agree with". This view that the current rate is acceptable is considered abhorrent. People need to understand that people who come from a "the current rate is acceptable" are not trying to be supremist in fact I am sure they see themselves as being "fair" or "Neutral".

How do you think kids who grow up playing Call of Duty are going to see non-white people?

More fair and balanced then kids growing up watching action movies, Romantic Comedies, Comedies, or pretty much movies in general I will admit.

How were ethnicities presented in Enchanted again? Broad stereotypes? ahhh yes. What about Shrek? Broad Stereotypes? What about Cars? Broad stereotypes?

I somehow convinced myself that Call of Duty is more balanced and less harmful then the typical children's movie... and call of duty is as "white" as you can get in a videogame now adays (other then Other M... because it has a black character who would be really offensive if he wasn't the only character with a personality, and competence, in the entire game... ok maybe he is offensive)

Mind you I am just muddling my message... Which really I am just saying "I think you are exaggerating the effect of call of duty" and I am someone who actually believes in the effect of videogames on children.

Also you need to split up your "White" as well. Since by white I assume you mean specific groups of "White people" and not people like the Irish, Scottish, Gypsies (arguably, then again race is made up anyway), or the Turks (arguably, once again race made up) . What was the quote again? "Thank goodness Scottish people are white or else this would be considered an offensive stereotype".

Not all white people get white privilege.

-Edit Note: By "Race is made up" I mean... the concept of different races of humanity is almost completely and utterly fabricated. What made someone "White" versus "Not-White" often was just "Do we like this group?"

[Willfor]

Neon, why exactly are you pointing to an industry that needs even more fixing than video games in order to marginalize the need for video games to change too? Are the arguments excluding the possibility that movies need to change?

Video games are trending in the very same direction that Hollywood has already strangled itself on: The executives at the top vetoing the depiction of anything outside the Generic American Protagonist, and refusing funding to it. There are outliers, but they remain few and far between. Fewer and farther between every year it seems. Even when sales seem to indicate that the "logic" that they keep convincing themselves -- that alternatives won't sell -- is proven wrong time and again.

The marketing departments have already become the gods of the AAA game industry, and it's the same fucking people involved in making the decisions about what games are going to be invested in, and how they have to present themselves. Both of these industries present an often toxic product.

The argument is like saying "I think the kids that are eating shit are better off than the kids that are eating toxic waste." It's technically true, but no one is advocating that either of these things are a good thing.

[scrdest]

@Sappho

I swear I thought I responded to the sexuality point :3

Anyhow, yes, I would have an issue with such a world, perhaps even be uncomfortable. So what do you want to do about it?

You can include the 'gay option', which most modern games with multiple possible relationships actually *do* - and which IMO works only for purely player-projection characters in general - not the option, multiple relationships thing - if you want a story about a defined character, just give them a defined sexuality, anything it would be.

Also, your approach creates the problem that:

a) the percentage of (straight+bisexual) versus (straight+gay) as well as (straight) vs. (gay) leans towards the former, so if you want a well-written relationship to appeal to as many people as possible, you have much better odds that a randomly picked person will like it if it's heterosexual,

b) you could apply the same argument to any sexuality, no matter how small a minority. So what about asexual aromantic people, who feel uncomfortable with displays of affection - should we remove all such elements from all games for them?

c) you assume that relatability is a very easy to break with a small physical difference. The only 100% relatable for everyone character would be a Virtual Paper Doll, and even then without any particular personality - an Audience Surrogate. And yet nobody wants to hear stories about such characters. In fact, it's pretty much impossible to have a character that is not in some way different from you and yet be interesting.

[Neonivek]

Neon, why exactly are you pointing to an industry that needs even more fixing than video games in order to marginalize the need for video games to change too?

Honestly I think I had no point beyond "you are exaggerating a bit there" but it really does nothing to Saphro's argument as really, at least that part of it,... Even if she did exaggerate I never did anything to say her points are invalid.

Which really I could have saved everyone time and said "While I agree with your points, I think you are exaggerating quite a bit"

You can include the 'gay option', which most modern games with multiple possible relationships actually *do*

Honestly I am sort of happy videogames are SLOWLY starting to get away from the "wink wink nudge nudge, gay is funny" from their 'gay option'.

[Willfor]

Neon, why exactly are you pointing to an industry that needs even more fixing than video games in order to marginalize the need for video games to change too?

Honestly I think I had no point beyond "you are exaggerating a bit there" but it really does nothing to Saphro's argument as really, at least that part of it,... Even if she did exaggerate I never did anything to say her points are invalid.

Which really I could have saved everyone time and said "While I agree with your points, I think you are exaggerating quite a bit"

Ahh, thank you for the clarification! That makes more sense.

[Vector]

.

[Neonivek]

Why can't women have stories that are relatable to them and not so much to men

I have no opinion one way or another on women or issues that involve them. So I cannot really answer.

Why can't gay people have games that are relatable to them and not so much to straight people

Ignoring demographics and that I honestly don't think a really homosexual focused videogame could do too well on the mass market. Absolutely nothing.

But we aren't talking about creating niche markets because these niches almost always existed.

You seem to think the point is "Every game needs to be relatable to all people."

No it is sort of the opposite. I am saying that for the most part. It really isn't relatable.

At least for me videogames have never really approached being all that relatable to me. Maybe there were a few... but they were far outliers.

The idea that one would need to cater to a minority exclusively as in your aromatic asexual example is a strawman, and in fact exactly what Sappho is fighting against.

That wasn't really my point. My point was that I never felt that I needed videogames to fill that niche for me. As well I never used it as an argument against her, so much as presenting my point of view that ultimately... Videogames just don't mean that much to me when it comes to sexuality.

And I even recognize that, it very well may be unique to me... but I just never cared.

"So, you recommend removing all people of color, queer people, and women from your games in order to cater to the relatively small white male cis straight etc. demographic?"

Ignoring that the White Straight Male Demographic is actually quite large within videogames and not a "relatively small" demographic. No one is arguing that.