But you LOVE “getting taken for a ride”, AMIRITE?
Critical theory sure, feminist theory nah.
Although this girl should take a look at some shipping literature and tumblr…the woman on that objectify men in the most kinky unusual ways that make so called female objectification in gaming look like child’s play.
And money?
I’m not sure you really get what feminist theory is.
And your other point is sort of irrelevant. I mean, yes there are some creepy shippers out there. But if you really think women aren’t objectified as much as men… That’s pretty crazy of you.
That really depends on the parameters used for the term “objectified”.
If you are referring to purely physical sexual objectification, then… possibly.
This, however, is fundamentally rooted in the hardwiring of the species.
Men are objectified just as much, just as much for sexuality vis. reproductive reasons.
The parameters are simply different.
Utility >>> physical beauty, in the objectification of men.
Utility = protection, security, money, hunting, etc. et al.
But do not kid yourself that this is not in fact “objectification”.
A trophy wife goes to the trophy husband, after all.
Trophy wife = nice tits, ass, and face.
Trophy husband = $$$, and that it affords.
Biotruths aren’t a thing.
Ahaha this is literally saying that women are liked for being pretty and men are liked for accomplishing stuff. You are the problem.
Sorry for shortened responses, there’s a lot of people
Personality is almost always post hoc for these things, especially in the old days when not very much thought was put into the games. They come up with the visual design and moveset and then write a story. We can’t know for certain of course, but Mai’s outline when she was pitched was probably ‘sexy kunoichi’. To a large degree the things they wrote about her afterward aren’t that important to my point… especially when they bring her back with an even more extreme presentation. They know what they have, and they know what people want to see. I honestly just get peeved by people making excuses.
My main thing is just getting people admit it’s there. I feel like they’re dodging and making excuses, and honestly it drives me crazy. Mai doesn’t offend me, neither does skullgirls, but they just aren’t realistic depictions of women, and simply are meant to be sexy blowup dolls (again, check that Weird Science clip).
It’ probably kind of the point of the video series too. We have to get people to acknowledge that these tropes exist (like the fighting fuckdoll), before there can be any meaningful discussion.
and this ties in;
Or pointing out that patterns exist. I’d imagine that she makes a ton of judgement calls in there, but there’s value in getting people to acknowledge the tropes.
But Ahad probably did when he was coming up with the original pictures. As far as I know you didn’t design them ><
Kind of said this above but, for me the thing is more the denail/defensiveness for the genre. If I’m judging anything, it’s that really… every one of the games we’re talking about? I’ve bought every version of. But I bought them with an awareness of what’s going on in there, and there are games I won’t buy because they take it a step too far (or take it in a way that’s actually unattractive).
So that's kind of my thing; I probably added some extra judgementalness I didn't particularly mean in the heat of discussion last night (you know how it is, when you meet resistance, you tend to wanna push harder), but my whole thing is that these trends are clear as the day is long, and I was honestly seeing a lot of the canned standard responses to this kind of discussion.
I don't want to change most of these games at all, I just want people to not make excuses and accept them for what they are.
Once we're past that point and are accepting that it's a thing, *then* we can get into the conversation of whether its hurting or helping the games, and if we want, what impact it has on women.
(for instance, the presentation and the controversy definitely hurt sales of Skullgirls and its community, which is kind of where this whole convo came from. Leaving any discussion of moral right and wrong out of it as impossible, in that case it's done real harm)All I see is blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
“Biotruths” != things?
Fembot, please.
What kind of quasi-half-assed-religious gibberish is that?
No.
The problem is you are too arrogant/stupid to see the truth of it.
Also “like” != sexual attraction.
Shite semantic shift.
Right, for a bit I forgot I was on SRK
Carry on then
I’m gonna go actually be good at fighting games + accomplish shit in the real world, have fun
At least you are aware enough to realize that fighting games != shit in the real world.
“You cannot separate economics from sexuality.”
…that’s a direct quote from a prof. who graduated from Stanford, by the way.
Get on her level.
This actually starts getting to the root of what I personally find offensive, in the rare instance that I do get offended by a depiction in my media (game, book, movie, whathaveyou). Sexuality and nudity don’t bother me in the least, but laziness does. You can have a fictional sexy woman, even an openly promiscuous woman, who still has some character depth. It’s not so much a cry for censorship or complete realism so much as it is for care in how it’s done. Both men and women have been guilty of trying to appeal to the most base form of intellect and nothing more when designing characters, but that doesn’t excuse it. Just like the existence of something that’s done well in no way excuses something that’s done poorly (in fact, that there are positive examples to be had only highlights how lazy the negative ones really are).
Nobody should have to cater to the minority of people who have conservative or prudish sensibilities in an effort to be as politically correct as possible*. *At the same time, we shouldn’t try to only target that lowest possible form of intellect, either. What it comes down to for me is that the population of the target audience who is solely interested in an attractive female character’s tits will pay attention to her for the sheer fact that she has them, regardless of whether or not there’s more to that character. That means if a designer does take the time and effort to put more in and make it a less two-dimensional approach, then all that will happen is that more people will find something to be interested in and less to bitch about. The image-obsessed don’t really lose in that case, and despite some of the idiocy I’ve seen online I’m unconvinced that people who like boobs would reject a pair of boobs attached to a fully developed character (and there are characters out there who manage to have both, and those seem to be the ones who are popular with women as well as men). So it’s win-win, from a design perspective. There is absolutely no reason a character can’t have both “sex appeal” and “feminist appeal.” They aren’t mutually exclusive, and I feel that anyone arguing that they are does have tunnel vision, regardless of the side they’re taking.
To totes be like, enlightening and stuff, like, duh.
That’s your conclusion and probably others but that is inferred. I’m willing to argue that the “character design” isn’t even in the top 10 reasons, let alone the idea that the game didn’t meet sales expectations.
*Just a heads up, saying if a game or anything sells well or not is dependent on sales expectations
Maybe only somewhat related, but this ties in to something I said earlier.
Sometimes I feel like the developers just have contempt for their audiences (Say Duke Nuke’m Forever, for instance), and just want to throw cheap sex or shock value at them instead of putting any goddamn work into their games.
Edit:
Well yeah, but I’m not gonna argue my opinion in a wishy washy form, if I think something is proven I’ll generally try to source it. I kind of got stuck on that again from the long essay on the subject Hellfromabove wrote about it and then edited out (probably because sexism talk is verboten over there). He made an exceptionally strong set of arguments.
The whole reason this is even somewhat of an issue is because America seems to be more afraid of sex than everything else, including death, violence, firearms and drugs.
My whole stance on this is: yes, characters both male and female are sexualized. Now tell me why this is a bad thing? Having sex appeal doesn’t mean you have to be lacking in other areas. Society seems to be stuck on the idea that if a woman is sexy, she’s automatically a dumb slut, which is such a sad way of thinking, both for females to reassure themselves that they’re better and for males to feel better about the fact that they’ll never tap that. I honestly cannot see the issue with VG females who know what their bodies are worth. Isn’t this the empowering women all these crazy extremist feminists rave about?
I understand perfectly what feminist theory is, from its primary assumptions to all its flawed secondary theories.
Also when did I ever say that, my entire point from the start of this thread is that objectification goes both ways and to only make 1 a is sexist and bias.
.
Objectification is objectification, if someone is being valued based off their looks vs someone being valued because of their earning potential they are both being determined by superficial values. 1 appeals to men’s sexual interest and the other appeals to women’s sexual interest, both are inherently superficial and reduce a person to a single quality…just because 1 might prefer a romance novel and the other prefers porn doesnt mean the objectification and sexualization isnt reaching the same effect.
Feminist theory is a lot like most modern theories that get retroactively imposed upon humanity and its history - revisionist fantasy excrement.
It is just that feminist theory is more pernicious, having a loud outspoken group of proponents advocating it for their own self-serving agenda.
AKA lies and bullshit wrapped in two-faced ideology.
His post was anecdotal evidence at best.
First, the game in all likelihood exceeded expectations in sales.
10 things (no particular order) before the character designs is a problem for sales
- Not from Capcom, Namco, etc.
- Not an established IP or source
- Small marketing
- Competition
- Lack of males
- Lack of modes
- Limited online
- Small roster
- Missing “features” that are perceived to be necessities (training mode, movelist)
- Not 3D