The VG Resource

Phew that was quite a read. But there's something that concerns me. It seems that there's a slight attitude that fanservice is somehow harmful beyond being annoying. Does anyone believe that fanservice somehow hurts women? I don't know if I'm reading something wrong.

Anyway I understand that these are bad designs. Like StarSocks said they are "creatively bad" but despite this, I still support the creators decision to make bad designs. There are plenty of shitty movies that rely on fart jokes. I think Twilight are the worst books ever written, but I still support the authors creative freedom to make such abominations. It doesn't mean I like the work, but we simply cannot tell them to stop. We must find another solution to the problem.

it doesn't directly hurt women (as far as i know, i could be wrong, someone toss some examples out maybe), but it indirectly hurts them as gratuitous fanservice can make society think women exist to be looked at sexually. which... it kind of does already.

I'm not sure if that's true.

There hasn't been any substantial evidence to support that fanservice can make people sexist. The same way there isn't substantial evidence to support that violence in video games turns kids into bloodthirsty murderers.

There are plenty of people fighting to remove gun violence in video games, but I see that as wrong.

I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN SAID A MILLION TIMES BUT WOW

STARSOCK'S POST ON PAGE ONE IS AMAZING AND PRETTY MUCH SUMS UP MY ENTIRE THOUGHTS ON EVERYTHING EVER

CONGRATS

---

(02-27-2014, 07:52 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not sure if that's true.

There hasn't been any substantial evidence to support that fanservice can make people sexist. The same way there isn't substantial evidence to support that violence in video games turns kids into bloodthirsty murderers.

There are plenty of people fighting to remove gun violence in video games, but I see that as wrong.

This is the part where if I were a social justice warrior I would say "check your privilege."

You don't know what females go through on a day to day basis. These mindsets are incredibly common throughout all of media, and gratuitous fanservice only serves to reinforce them.

I don't know how checking privilege changes what science has and has not learned about how media impacts the ways individuals act in the world.

There is no substantial evidence to validate that playing violent games makes people more violent.
There is no substantial evidence to validate that enjoying any media will make people act more like that fictional world.

Neither is there evidence to the contrary.

But no, that isn't a privilege thing. That's a science thing.
Telling someone who is asking for an unbiased analysis that they are speaking from "Privilege" is likely going to shut down conversation. Instead, start experimenting to determine whether fanservice influences sexual objectification or whether it does not.

But does it reinforce them?

If you think I don't know about the horrible harassment and poor treatment of women, your wrong. I'm well aware of it. But I'm still not convinced this reinforces it.

EDIT: Kriven sort of beat me to it.

It can't not impact your attitudes toward the opposite gender but at the same time influence people's opinions on oggling.

Either it influences your attitude toward the opposite gender or it doesn't.

If it's not impacting this at all, then no, it isn't "helping" but neither is it "hurting". And it has not obligation to help.
If it is impacting this at all, then yeah, it is not "helping" and maybe is potentially "hurting". It should probably be reevaluated.

Let's find out if it does or does not impact real life perceptions before talking about what it tells people is "A-Okay".

But that's sort of like saying. "Murder in video games for your visual pleasure says murder is A-OK!"

People are a subject to violence and murder everyday. It is also a huge problem.

But would you say that violence in video games is wrong? That it trivializes violence in real life?

(02-27-2014, 08:07 PM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know how checking privilege changes what science has and has not learned about how media impacts the ways individuals act in the world.

There is no substantial evidence to validate that playing violent games makes people more violent.
There is no substantial evidence to validate that enjoying any media will make people act more like that fictional world.

Neither is there evidence to the contrary.

unlike violent games, were most gamers know that there is a false correlation between reality and fiction, in the issue of gender people actually (superficially perhaps) identify with media representations and more importantly with the media reaction (or at least that seems to be the implication from the anecdotal examples that are in the media periodically)
as long as we exist in a culture where people believe that representations in media denote some kind of ideal persona, or more particularly are persuaded into believe that those representations are harmful, people will be harmed by them (and that's even if actually direct effects don't exist)

my personal, and maybe idealist, thoughts on this topic is that we should try to promote individualism, where people can separate themselves for representation at all, instead of trying to create a better breed of role model
maybe in a world like that, we'd see a more diverse cast of women in fiction (after we get over the hump of pandering to any kind of demographic)
but I'm saying this as a straight white male so who knows

oh also I can understand why you would have trouble finding the evidence for this stuff substantial, there is so much bias in these edgy topics

also I hope none of you guys are missing the bigger theme of this thread, that we should diversify female representation for the sake of better story telling (and males too even in that regard)

It's not even the bias that makes me question the finding on either side, but the scale of the experiments done. I don't think a proper examination can reach a positive conclusion unless the same experiment with the same parameters can be carried out in a wide variety of locales with a wide variety of individuals multiple times. And it should be peer reviewed by respected officials who swing both ways and neutral.

(02-27-2014, 07:52 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]There hasn't been any substantial evidence to support that fanservice can make people sexist.

this is literally the dopiest thing i've ever read on an internet forum

i'm sorry koopaul, but that just


reads silly. of course there's no "substantial evidence", just like how there's no "substantial evidence" that eating too much McDonald's will kill you

(02-27-2014, 01:46 PM)StarSock64 Wrote: [ -> ]Post about Sophitia's design in the SC series gradually becoming pandering

but...couldnt another reason for her updated appearances be Namco's attempt to push their rendering engine? :/
namco's doing a team ninja here


thinking about it, graphics like these on a PSX (sophitia btw, in the original soul edge)

was pretty mindblowing back then. I feel like each Soul Calibur had a character that pushed certain limits (i.e. Xianghua showing silk against lighting effects [and Kilik too? but a different type of fabric] and Ivy being...well, jiggle physics)

Sophitia's is more of like, a showcase of opaque cloth, and each SC title showcasing how many more polygons they're able to throw down to render nicer, more natural looking cloth.



And they improved on the rendering techniques with SC4 - look at that semirealistic opaque cloth, and, looking at the model against the art, she actually doesn't look too bad ingame (in fact she seems somewhat more modest than in SC3, where she just looks...scant); just seems like the graphic artist responsible for drawing her said "this looks too boring i need to Spruce It Up"



...though, now I'm kind of fallling into the same boat as some of you, wondering why it was necessary to get rid of her armor entirely. :/

though, i'm pretty sure if there's any rendering marvel to be witnessed, i think it's "layering many opaque textures to make a texture with a solid appearance"

---

Now imagine, most female characters' rebooted appearances being an exercise in polygon budgeting as opposed to "how many titties can we fit on the screen at once euehueheuheheuhehe" Large breasts not completely sexual but exercises in lighting and modeling. =:0

* Kosheh grumbles and goes back to watching anime fanservice porn

Wait, Kosheh.

Sidetrack - That was really cool of you exploring the technical aspects of the character designs, which aren't anything I've thought about since "Mario's design was to depict a realistic person in 4-Bit graphics."

It would be really neat if you did stuff like that for various games as kind of its own thread or something. Or a blog. Or something.
Sorry, I just started getting really interested in what you were talking about and I was sad that you stopped.

(02-27-2014, 08:07 PM)Kriven Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know how checking privilege changes what science has and has not learned about how media impacts the ways individuals act in the world.

There is no substantial evidence to validate that playing violent games makes people more violent.
There is no substantial evidence to validate that enjoying any media will make people act more like that fictional world.

Neither is there evidence to the contrary.

But no, that isn't a privilege thing. That's a science thing.
Telling someone who is asking for an unbiased analysis that they are speaking from "Privilege" is likely going to shut down conversation. Instead, start experimenting to determine whether fanservice influences sexual objectification or whether it does not.

This is what I hate to try to explain, because there's just no entirely definitive way that I know to explain it. Maybe there's a good answer out there. I just don't know it. I've read a few papers, but not many. I agree that there should be more studies. However, I don't think this means we should twiddle our thumbs in the meantime. I'm tempted to start ranting about cultural norms and whatever but I don't think it'll get us anywhere. That's why I said I don't even like to talk about this line of reasoning! I think there are other reasons to promote better depictions of women. Which, for me, doesn't mean censorship. I think I'm basically in agreement with the "censorship isn't the solution" side. I kind of just want to form a greater understanding and encourage creators to try harder. Then society will probably change on its own, yeah? I guess maybe for some people that's not fast enough, but that's how I feel.

I do think creators should be held accountable for what they say and what they make, especially what they say because that's getting into real world issues, but...I don't think that's a helpful topic either, so I'm gonna forgo text walls about that. Also, I don't think it's a bad idea to have continued discussions of problematic depictions such as those that we are having about soul calibur. That type of critical thinking potentially leads to better creative decisions, and that's never a bad thing. I guess that type of thing is often turned into "burn this game to the ground!" but, well...I don't know if that's something I support either.

(02-27-2014, 07:31 PM)Koopaul Wrote: [ -> ]It seems that there's a slight attitude that fanservice is somehow harmful beyond being annoying. Does anyone believe that fanservice somehow hurts women? I don't know if I'm reading something wrong.

From a consumer/creator point of view, since that's what I was talking about earlier, it can. Not always, certainly no, but when it's badly done, it lowers the quality of something I paid for. That sucks!
When it fits the tone and context of the work without being distracting, it's alright I guess. Again, it's not really fanservice in itself that I have a problem with, but fanservice that is poorly implemented, and the imbalance of works with fanservice and those without. I don't think fanservice would be a problem if it weren't so prevalent in the context of a society in which women are mistreated.

I want to make another point, but I'm kind of getting incoherent. I'll at least leave the gist of it and maybe I'll develop it more later:

My last statement begs the question, if all fanservice fit its context, would it be a problem? If there were two hundred rumble roses games where the fanservice made sense in context, but only two other games, would there be a problem? This is certainly an exaggeration, but I'm just trying to illustrate what I'm talking about.

I'm not trying to appeal to the creative side of the argument anymore, so pretend for a minute like the lack of creative variety isn't a problem.
It's a thing of audience and alienation. When I play games, sometimes I feel forced to pick male characters because the female characters either offend me or they just suck. When you play as characters, don't you want to just be cool and beat stuff up? Maybe not always, but it's fun to have that chance, isn't it? It's hard to describe what it's like to not have that chance, because it's something that people just kind of take for granted. I don't get to be a cool woman beating stuff up very often. I can identify with male characters sometimes, sure, but I don't like feeling like I'm in a boys club with no alternative options outside of a few niches. I hate having to face constant disappointment when I like something but I can't enjoy the female characters in the game, and I'm a little sad at how few opportunities there are to play as them. It might not be any one creator's duty to make something with women in mind, but I think things should be encouraged to go in the direction of more variety. That's why awareness is good.

To answer your original question more directly, I do think fanservice hurts women on a societal level because objectification and whatnot, but I just got done saying I don't think going down that path of reasoning will lead anywhere, which makes me kind of sad, but...that's that, I guess.

I don't really see a reason NOT to promote better depictions of women. The complete removal of fanservice stuff or whatever I guess would be bad, but would the reduction of it be? Like, is it really that important that you get so much of it?

Kosheh ur next on my hitlist -_____- (I'm just joking) (But maybe I'll respond later, I'm sick of writing text walls for now)

Just quickly:

Quote:but would the reduction of it be

Kind of.

This is where I tend to become rocky stubborn. Once the discussion veers away from "What things can be made that aren't like this" and becomes "Why can't we just make less things like this". They're pretty different things, and I'm really against the second route for most things.

Because I see the first option as the solution. Instead of taking away the things people already like (and making them enemies in the process), creators and people who are not yet creators should be looking at making new things that reflect their ideals. If more people were making things, we'd get a more varied market and everybody could be happy.

Sorry, that was really unclear. I didn't really mean reduction in number but reduction in overall ratio. Like, if 70% of games included pandering, then reducing that number to 40% of games (such as by increasing the number of non-pandering games)