Depictions of Women in Gaming (and other related issues)

[Koopaul]

I'm finally doing this, but I have confidence we are mature enough to discuss it. See I'm starting this thread because I think it was wise to redirect any inevitable talk of the subject here and away from the other thread. This has always been a touchy subject but I feel it is important for myself and others to say what needs to be said. This is a topic that has caused many problems in the past, but ignoring it won't solve anything. If we can all be mature adults about this I feel we can finally grow as a community. I'm putting this in the General Discussion because I feel it could lead to other topics related but not about video games.

With all that said. I invite everyone to speak freely but do so without insulting others or sparking conflict. Let us be calm and understand we are talking about video games and entertainment in general. Nothing that is said here should affect how we treat each other.




So let me start by asking a question. Are the more undesirable depictions of women in entertainment wrong? Well it certainly can be offensive, I'm not arguing that it isn't offensive.

But is being offended by something the same as being oppressed by something?

I say no. Everything is offensive to someone, everyone wants something changed or removed from a show or video game. But I don't think we have a right to dictate an artist's creations just because it makes us feel uncomfortable. I am a strong supporter of a creator's right to create what he or she wants. I am a strong supporter of a viewer's right to be entertained by that creator's creation. And those who are offended by the results should not be able impede on those rights.

Why do I defend a game makers right to make what they want so much? What do I care? I play games with cartoony apes! But I have a strong moral code when it comes to the freedom of expression. I too am offended by a lot of things. But I understand that I cannot put that above another's rights.

But you might be thinking, what if those depictions are actually harmful? I do not believe that fanservice in a video game is anyway harmful. No more than gun violence in video games leads to "training" children to mass murder.

I have faith in humanity that we know the difference between fantasy and reality, for both violence, and the depiction of women. If you do not believe it is wrong to make a game where you can shoot and murder people, than you should not believe it's wrong to make a game where big breasted warrior women wear bikinis.

Afterall we can all agree murder is wrong. What kind of sicko would find killing people fun!? But it isn't real. It's a fantasy. We have the right to enjoy shooting someone in the back of the head if it's just a fantasy. That is the prime motive of video games, to fulfill fantasies. These are the very fantasies of artists and creators who wish to share it with the world... and profit from it.

What determines if something is wrong is are actions towards people. The harassment of women at cons or online is truly wrong! That is what needs to stop. Actions that truly hurt women or violate their rights.

So... is what I'm saying that unreasonable?

[Paladin]

So... is what I'm saying that unreasonable?

Well, you're mostly right, but I still think women in games should be allowed to put some pants on.

Fantasies are okay, but things like this:

Spoiler

Can come off as quite offensive, I think, and really limit targeted audience to perverted males. Which means women often get a bit excluded.

[Koopaul]

I agree. I think Ivy looks ridiculous! And we should encourage more females into gaming. But at the same time I support the developers decision to make Ivy like that. It's a difficult thing.

I think the solution to the problem is to make new studios that make more games with better female protagonists. Which is slowly starting to happen. However I feel games that feature characters like Ivy should still be made. The key is making all different kinds of games instead of trying to make all games follow the same standard. Surprisingly there are a some female gamers who actually like Ivy how she is. They may draw fan pictures and cosplay as her.

So yes the solution is to make more variety of games, rather than transforming all genres to a certain standard.

[Paladin]

I guess there isn't really an answer to this debate
because you can't just say that all females will react with disgust to
how women are portrayed in games because people are
different and will therefore react differently.

Of course, you could always base the answer on the majority, but still.
I think you make a great point when you say you support the
devs because it is a difficult choice, I think that's correct.

It must be a really hard decision to make when designing
characters because you have to take different views into
consideration. Perhaps I should have thought of that before I posted.

[Koopaul]

No no! You said nothing wrong. I don't want my statements in the first post to make people believe that we shouldn't have more positive female characters in gaming. That is something that should be done. But I just don't believe censorship or forcing developers to change their characters is the solution.

[Gors]

Lack of dicks doesn't really mean anything; or rather, should not mean anything. Let's just put this way: there are serious men and there are flamboyant showy men in the world. So the equivalent to females also exist. Gender doesn't have to do with preference and any combination of person + body appearance + personality is plausible.

Working my explanation a little better, there are Ivy-like women in the world, so being offended with her is in my opinion, kinda dumb. It's not like she is representing 100% of the females in the world (and even then, there should be nothing wrong in having an Ivy-like character)
This line of thought also acknowledges that females in games are getting closer to the real life. As you said up there, we're getting more 'solid' characters of both genders, and I wouldn't doubt if there are LGBT representants equally as solid. This boils down to 'characters represent the real world so chances are you'll find showy men/women'. This happens, and I would not change it.

HOWEVER, I am against tacky and/or retarded designs, be it physically and/or in personality. While showy people exist, fighting while wearing a scantily clad bikini is not that logical and reeks of fanservice. And there are some personalities that are so superficial/artificial that makes me feel sad. Those are what I wouldn't like in any design. Simply put, you should design your characters while thinking 'what will it do, how would it behave, does it have relevance to the story or something?', not 'awww yissssss dem b00bz and abs'. This is what causes objectification of any type of person, and that's sad. Sad!

(And that's how you make fun characters for everyone, by considering them as people, not masses of muscles and tits)

Finally, another thing I don't like is making a group of only men/only women characters; that's a peeve of mine. While they exist, I think it's kinda boring and unrealistic. I would rather have a mixed cast with different characters; this allows even bigger breathing space for designs and stuff. I also enjoy drawing men and women in armors, it's fun.

I am not exactly the best person to talk gender equality myself because I commit terrible slips sometimes, something I'm trying to correct. So if anything up there is confusing and can have two different interpretations, I probably meant the less worse interpretation

OBS: replace 'games' with any entertainment media; it will still be true.

[MoneyMan]

The problem with the whole issue of objectification is drawing the line of what it is. It's such a hard thing to define. I mean, if you think about it, isn't finding someone physically attractive objectifying in and of itself? And what's the line between sexualization and objectification? After all, saying females can't be sexual is oppressive, isn't it.?

And that's just it. I don't think there's a single answer, and if there is then I sure as hell don't know what it is. There definitely are some things that are more damaging that others (females specifically designed to be sexy and nothing else, for one), but the line of what is "bad" and not is different from person to person. I guess all you can do is push for females to play a role in games that aren't simply made for male gratification.

[E-Man]

I don't know how many people would like me to say this, but I'm not the biggest fan of overly revealing clothing for women. If they want to have that in games, it's fine, but it's not the kind of thing that I like to see in female characters.

Personally, when I want to control a female character, I don't want her to have unrealistically large breasts or clothing that exposes too much of the body. It's fine to do this for a few female characters, but if I am going to use one for the rest of the game and from the get go, I would like her to be a little more decent and have either medium or small sized breasts. As for a personality, I would like her to have a similar personality to some male heroes in games (probably not the one of an over the top action hero if possible) as opposed to the personality of some girl you would meet late at night at a bar who would get a drunk man to sleep with her. What I'm implying is not the best female character to use in a video game, but it is the combination that works for me.

[Koopaul]

Well fanservice is a guilty pleasure among many. There's even fanservice made for females, but it's sadly rare and I think it's unfair. There should be more sexy males for the female audience too!

I also believe in the realm of fantasy, every character is an object because they are not real people. Video games don't have to be realistic or depict realistic characters. They can can just have characters designed to fulfill a simple purpose.

When I play MadWorld and told to murder the other people in the goriest fashion, they do not design the characters realistically. They are depicted as cartoonishly stupid goons that are fun to rip a part. That goon is an object for my gory entertainment.

The problem is, too many female characters fulfill the same purpose.

[Paladin]

I mean, fanservice has become very common over the last years and it can be okay as long as it isn't in your face all the time.
If a character exists purely for fanservice and has no personality, that's bad (like Gors said).
I guess the design and personality both matter, and if you make a serious character they should have a serious design.

[Koopaul]

Exactly. I think fanservice shouldn't cross lines with serious characters.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite cartoon characters Velma. When they had redesigned her for Mystery Inc. I was very annoyed. She was more curvy and busty and had bows in her hair. This was a character that was meant to be more than eye candy. Now if they had done something to Daphne then it wouldn't have bothered me. Daphne was sort of designed to be a pretty face, while Velma was a character that was more about mind than body.

[E-Man]

Well fanservice is a guilty pleasure among many. There's even fanservice made for females, but it's sadly rare and I think it's unfair. There should be more sexy males for the female audience too!

It's an unfortunate side effect of males outnumbering females in various "masculine" fields and hobbies. If there were more females from the beginning in the world of video games, there probably be more of an increase in "non offending female characters" and an increase in male characters made with an intent of fan service in mind.

Considering that not all men are prudes (for lack of a better word), some men tend to slip at least a little fan service by and might do a nod to a fetish or two (hence why there are tentacles in a good deal of Japanese media). Some males can't help their dirty desires and they tend to look for a way to vent it out to satisfy it. If it's done in ways that are not too tasteless and not very frequent, I'm sure a fair amount of the population would accept that. Otherwise, I would ask the developers to cut back on the questionable eye candy for their own good.

[Sengir]

Some males can't help their dirty desires and they tend to look for a way to vent it out to satisfy it.

That's what deviantArt is for. Keep kinks out of gaming.

Unless it's Guitar Hero. Then the Kinks are ok.

[E-Man]

That's what deviantArt is for. Keep kinks out of gaming.

True, but not all game developers have the self control to keep all their fetishes out of games. Every once in awhile, they tend to sneak a few fetishes by. If the media watchdogs were strict about people sneaking a fetish or two in a game, then games like Mortal Kombat and Fat Princess would be heavily censored or outright not sold in public game markets. In fact, if they were that strict, then not only would we never see women looking like Ivy in games, but also many games would be banned if they feature as much as a single tentacle.

[StarSock64]

Gosh I really hate reading, but I'll try my best. I hope everyone else does too! Because text walls.

I'm actually going to start with this. I'm sure people are going to disagree with me, but I think it needs to be brought up.

Anyway, this is the statement; in any discussion of minority issues where you are not directly a part of that minority, your job is essentially to shut up and listen.
I know that sounds blunt, but that's only because it's so important, and because we're discussing female perspectives and experience here, I say that as someone who's job is to shut up and listen.
Obviously you can ask questions and if invited, to share your perspective, but the important thing is to make sure the experiences and feedback from the minority in question are the ones that are represented.

I actually hate this mentality. I understand why it happens, but that doesn't mean it's sensible. It sounds good on paper, and I used to think as much myself, but from what I've seen it's extremely poisonous and does more harm than good.

I'm gonna make it clear that anything I say is going to be about this mentality in general, and not about PZ. So if I use "you," it's just a general "you." Forum communication gets messy, so I have to cover my bases!

First of all, it's incredibly unfair. Yes, yes, check your privilege, that's important, sure. But it's not like anybody chose to be privileged.
OKAY
YES, I KNOW
PLEASE JUST HOLD ON, DON'T LOSE FAITH IN ME YET
I know, men don't need to be defended from big bad feminists. They should be aware and responsible. They're the ones who have power, you shouldn't trivialize feminism, blah blah blah.

That's not my point. I think my point is much more practical.
I've seen numerous instances where decent guys, rational guys even, have been completely shut down because feminists just don't want to hear dissenting opinion. It is not everyone on this planet's job to be aware of every problem on the planet. Blaming privileged people for not thinking about your problems, even after openly admitting they have no reason to, doesn't make sense.

It's totally great that you want to make them become more aware. It's frustrating when they don't get what you mean immediately. To you, their initial reaction of disagreeing with you is maddening. Here, you thought, is someone who was cool. But wow, they don't even think sexism is a problem? Only idiots don't think sexism is a problem. It's beyond apparent that it is. Thanks for contributing to the problem with your ignorance, not-so-cool guy.

But having an initial reaction that sexism isn't a problem doesn't even make them stupid or irrational. It's not their fault that they haven't been exposed. It just isn't. By blaming and shaming, you give them a reason not to listen to you. A fairly valid one, even. If they know you're not going to give them a chance, why should they even try? I don't know about you guys, but when I'm put in a situation where I'm told everything must be one-sided and I can only be talked at, I pretty much stop caring. Because it's useless to try. Because you made it that way! Getting people to stop caring about what you're trying to advocate is really bad!

I mean, I get it. I get angry. Lots of people have more serious reasons than me to get angry. It's hard to keep your patience. But I am so perplexed about how people are parading this as a good thing.

Personally, when I lose my cool and shut down the conversation, I feel bad about it. It's not something to be proud of. It's my weakness, and I need to work on it. It's frustrating to try to express your points, especially when you have to make the same ones over and over again, or when things get kind of abstract and it's hard to reveal your point even though you feel more certain than anything you're right because you've lived it. But God dang it, that's my problem. I can't just blame the entirety of males for my own lack of self control. That's ludicrous.

But other people seem to feel empowered by their "right" to get angry. Society should discourage sexism, certainly. But automatically going off on people when they even seem the slightest bit sexist isn't a very practical way of going about it.

While calm, I've made actual progress in discussions with people I've disagreed with wholly on some points. We've come to actual understandings! We might not agree with everything, but we usually end up revealing some cool stuff to each other. I don't think you should aim to make huge sweeping victories, no matter how correct you feel. It freaking sucks when your buddies think your point is wrong when you feel so right. It can be pretty offensive, even. But it's okay if someone doesn't see every issue as an issue. That's just a part of critical thinking. I don't know how you can preach tolerance and then be so intolerant. The bigger picture is more important, rather than every single individual issue.

When you can make someone feel similar on a general level or at least open them up to new possibilities, you've made a victory. When you've gained a greater understanding of how the other side feels and what reasons they have for feeling so, you've made a victory. When you start "othering" them, which is kind of ironic I might add, then you lose an opportunity to understand your audience and you cannot strategize accordingly. That's a loss.

I've never made progress by being angry about it. I've made the opposite of progress, because things get really tense and then nobody wants to talk or think about the problem anymore. Shaming people into feeling guilt or accusing people of being bad people because they don't agree with you or haven't come to a greater understanding yet shouldn't be your main goal. I know, there are some people who are total douchebags who won't even try to listen. And maybe those people do deserve to be shamed, because society shouldn't tolerate that kind of madness. The issue is that everyone who dissents at all gets caught in the cross-fire, including rational people who are decent and just have not yet heard anything convincing to change their minds.

Since I'm on the topic, another thing that's bothering me is that I've seen feminists (or other _ists) make points that are extremely faulty or at least questionable, but I almost never see other feminists criticize their points. Maybe I'm just not aware of the times that they do. If that is the case, though, it means that such criticisms are not very public, and that means that many other people are getting the same impression I am. I think that makes this worth bringing up.

Anyone who does try to criticize is automatically ostracized. It's ridiculous, because these issues definitely are not black-and-white enough that everyone should be forced to agree with every point. Sometimes the points are even basically wrong! There's no checks and balances, which I imagine is why I've seen so many people treat feminists as some kind of hivemind and automatically dismiss them as feminazis. And honestly, I don't think I can blame them that terribly much. I'm really sick of seeing people misrepresent things that matter to me, and then severely discouraging discussion of those same things.

Sorry for being massive, but I don't feel like there's a convincing way to be concise for this kind of thing. Anyway, onward to feminism!

I agree. I think Ivy looks ridiculous! And we should encourage more females into gaming. But at the same time I support the developers decision to make Ivy like that. It's a difficult thing.

You shouldn't, though. It's not only socially stupid, it's creatively stupid.
I'm so glad Soul Calibur came up because it's a really good example of being a horrible offender! Now, I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm not a huge SC fan, so maybe something that I say will be wrong. If that's the case, feel free to say so, but I don't think I'm too far off here.

Anyway, y'all need to understand that sexualized females need not always be the worst thing ever. As far as I'm concerned, it's all about context. That's why arguments about "well, what about when men are sexualized?" are typically irrelevant. They have a different context, both in the real world and often in-universe.

Putting a ~sexy~ girl in your game can be okay. I have more of a problem with it when:
1. It doesn't make sense for the character.
2. She's treated as the token girl, and ends up being the sole female representation.
3. There isn't enough variety in the cast of females.
4. The creator's intentions are distractingly transparent.
and possibly other things I can't think of right now. Like the whole sexualization of violence or whatever, but I'm going to leave that out for now.

Whether you think sexism is a problem or not, I dare to say that these points should strike creative minds as just being bad work. These types of things should be discouraged regardless of social context. These things don't bother me only as a female, but also as a fellow creator and audience member who is trying to pay money to enjoy quality work.

Ivy fits -at least- 1 and 4, but also possibly 3.
Ivy has A VOW OF CHASTITY. Was that a typo for chastitty, because something tells me that her outfit doesn't match her character at all. It doesn't really tell me anything, which is what character design is supposed to do. Her alternate outfits give me a much better picture of what her character is supposed to be like. So why are they alternate and not the main ones?
Which brings me to point 4, where the creator is only trying to shove boobs in your face instead of trying to make good character design. It's obnoxious. It's manipulative. It's bad work.



Sophitia, another SC character, has gotten more sexualized across the series. To be honest, the SC2 and SC3 designs don't even bother me that much. But SC4 doesn't even make sense. There is so much room for nipslip there. It completely undermines her appearance as a strong warrior. It's obnoxious and takes you out of the work. The only reason a creator would consciously make that decision (and any decent creator is very conscious of the changes they make!) is to pull in the preteen boys. If you think it's okay to lower your creative standards in some completely unnecessary attempt to appeal to the audience's -- or the creator's own -- sexual appetite, then I frankly question your presence on an art board.

You guys are right. There are girls who like that sort of sexy stuff, and there are girls like that in real life! The problem is with the current balance and quantity of these things. There is a depressingly low number of examples of "good" female characters. If there were simply more examples of good female characters in video games, then a few examples here and there of stupid booby games might not be so bad. Yes, "good" is very subjective. Whether or not Samus is good, for example, can be argued a million different ways. However, if there were just more examples, and a better variety of examples, and more skillful examples, then having those sorts of "arguably good arguably awful" characters isn't really so bad at all. That's part of variety. But as things stand, it just isn't there right now. I know that's an argument that begs for a lot of examples, but I've already written too much. I hope you at least feel open to this point, and if you want to explore it further, I don't think that's a bad thing, even if you're feeling skeptical!

Lack of variety and relatability in stuff I want to enjoy sucks. And it's not just a problem for females. Men probably enjoy having varied characters too! Despite what Tomb Raider's creators may say, I bet they also like relating with all sorts of characters, including girls. Not every character needs to be sympathetic, but like I said, it's all about context. In many contexts, there's a simple lack of good characterization. That's a good enough reason to encourage change and promote a more conscious awareness in creators. I could make a million appeals to societal effects, but for now I'm just going to settle for an appeal as to why you would want creators to pay more attention even without those considerations.

I sort of jumped around while writing this, so I hope it's coherent. I don't have time to proofread right now...But I hope I contributed some good things to think about!