Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

Anything else
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:20 pm

Vespabros wrote:I don't think the game should get points off for over sexualization of women in games. In fact, I'm going to take it a step further and say that they shouldn't get any flak for misrepresenting women in games at all. Why do people expect that games, made by men, predominantly for men, should represent women properly in games? Men don't identify with women.

conversely, magazines like cosmopolitan or vanity fair don't represent men properly. It doesn't represent the male point of view or male interests, and neither do video games who's target demographic is males. Men aren't women, and because of this, we don't represent women or their interests in our games. Go figure.

If women and white knights are really upset and want women to have a "correct" portrayel in video games, they should make video games.
Pretty much this.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:12 pm

Vespabros wrote: Why do people expect that games, made by men, predominantly for men, should represent women properly in games? Men don't identify with women.
There's lots and lots of reasons... personal, general, economical, all sorts of reasons. That's like asking why there should be shoes that aren't brown.

1) About 50% of all gamers are women. Currently, women don't play AAA titles as much as they play casual and mobile games. That means there's a huge untapped market in there, and so there's lots of money involved in there.

2) Even if people who play AAA games are predominantly men, all of them aren't. There's a minority of female gamers who play AAA games. Since they're also paying customers, their existence should be taken into account.

3) Because a woman with a personality makes makes for a better story than a carboad cutout. Ellie from Last of Us is a great character. Lara Croft from the newest Tomb Raider had actual characterization. The female scientist from the XCom remake similarly represented a specific approach and mentality towards the alien tech.

4) Imagine World of Warcraft where every character was a male human. That's less variety, right? Not as interesting. Just like elves, dwarves and gnomes add something to the world, so does the existence of female characters.

5) A game where a man CAN identify with a woman might be more difficult, but just like a movie or a book with a female protagonist, they can be done and they can be excellent.

conversely, magazines like cosmopolitan or vanity fair don't represent men properly. It doesn't represent the male point of view or male interests, and neither do video games who's target demographic is males. Men aren't women, and because of this, we don't represent women or their interests in our games. Go figure.
It's not wrong to have games targeted primarily to male audiences, but at the moment, those games exist, and games targeted towards female audiences are kinda rare.

There's a variety of magazines, but a relative dearth of inclusive games. Women are about 50% of gamers, so games shouldn't represent only male POV and interests.
If women and white knights are really upset and want women to have a "correct" portrayel in video games, they should make video games.
"If you don't like this bug in this game, make your own game that doesn't have any bugs!"
People are allowed to tell what they're willing to pay for, what they like, and what they don't like. If they're upset, they're also allowed to say that. And they do.

There are people who want to make video games with female protagonists, but they can't. For example, publishers might refuse to fund games with female protagonists if they believe there's no demand for them.
http://www.shacknews.com/article/78281/ ... rotagonist

'Well, we don't want to publish it because that's not going to succeed. You can't have a female character in games. It has to be a male character, simple as that.'

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:06 pm

Endoperez wrote: It's not wrong to have games targeted primarily to male audiences, but at the moment, those games exist, and games targeted towards female audiences are kinda rare.

There's a variety of magazines, but a relative dearth of inclusive games. Women are about 50% of gamers, so games shouldn't represent only male POV and interests.
Hooray for double standards!

As soon as women are involved target audiences are wrong but as soon as males get into the equation it's okay?

Sure.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:17 pm

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Hooray for double standards!

As soon as women are involved target audiences are wrong but as soon as males get into the equation it's okay?

Sure.
What are you saying?

User avatar
Vespabros
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:35 pm

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Vespabros » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:57 pm

Endoperez wrote:
1) About 50% of all gamers are women. Currently, women don't play AAA titles as much as they play casual and mobile games. That means there's a huge untapped market in there, and so there's lots of money involved in there.
What makes you think a whole demographic would just suddenly move from their niche? Say we did make games featuring more female protagonists, there would still be that "video games are for boys" stigma in society. Many women still wouldn't be interested. But this is speculation, so i can't say that for sure. But why would a business want to take that risk and potentially lose money?
Endoperez wrote:
2) Even if people who play AAA games are predominantly men, all of them aren't. There's a minority of female gamers who play AAA games. Since they're also paying customers, their existence should be taken into account.
Again, from a business POV, there would be labor and money used to make games targeted for the female demographic, which isn't a reliable one. There is a risk of losing money here, and money is what it's all about, not the morals.
Endoperez wrote: 3) Because a woman with a personality makes makes for a better story than a carboad cutout.
I'm going to assume here by "cardboard cutout" you mean the gunslinging white middle aged man. With a beard..sometimes

I don't judge the quality of a character on their appearance. I really don't give a damn about that. I judge a character based on the quality of the character. Booker and Joel are not the same "cardboard cutout". Sure, they're both white dudes with guns, but when you compare it to their VAST differences in character development/personality, their gender and skin color do not matter.
Endoperez wrote:4) Imagine World of Warcraft where every character was a male human.
I never played it, but i'd imagine it would still be just as fun as a game. And a more proper analogy for this situation would be "Imagine if all the female characters in world of warcraft had disproportionate over sexualized chests"
Endoperez wrote:5) A game where a man CAN identify with a woman might be more difficult, but just like a movie or a book with a female protagonist, they can be done and they can be excellent.


Agreed
Endoperez wrote:It's not wrong to have games targeted primarily to male audiences, but at the moment, those games exist, and games targeted towards female audiences are kinda rare.
Guess which types of games sell better? That's all EA or activation or blizzard generally care about.
Endoperez wrote:There's a variety of magazines, but a relative dearth of inclusive games. Women are about 50% of gamers, so games shouldn't represent only male POV and interests.
Im curious as to what you define as an "inclusive" game...does it have to represent women as some sort of goddess? Or do you mean it has to have a female protagonist? Some best selling games have female LEAD characters. The portal series. Mirrors edge. TLOU. Borderlands. Super mario bros 2. The gaming industry is, and has been open arms to female gamers for a long time. But sadly, women just aren't as interested in home console gaming as men.
Endoperez wrote:"If you don't like this bug in this game, make your own game that doesn't have any bugs!"
Bugs are a problem. This, is not.

Endoperez wrote:publishers might refuse to fund games with female protagonists if they believe there's no demand for them.
If there is little demand for a certain product, don't expect that product to be released in abundance. Business generally doesn't care what's morale, or politically correct. They care about what rakes in the most cash, your "cardboard cutout." Which is really just a codeword for "formula that sells the most copies."

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:30 pm

Endoperez wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Hooray for double standards!

As soon as women are involved target audiences are wrong but as soon as males get into the equation it's okay?

Sure.
What are you saying?
Whoops, I interpreted what you were saying as "It's okay to have a male focused game so long as women don't enter the equation".

My bad.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:48 pm

Vespabros wrote:What makes you think a whole demographic would just suddenly move from their niche? Say we did make games featuring more female protagonists, there would still be that "video games are for boys" stigma in society. Many women still wouldn't be interested. But this is speculation, so i can't say that for sure. But why would a business want to take that risk and potentially lose money?

Again, from a business POV, there would be labor and money used to make games targeted for the female demographic, which isn't a reliable one. There is a risk of losing money here, and money is what it's all about, not the morals.
There's two ways to increase your profits: increase prices while you sell to your current audience, or sell to a larger audience.

Game prices seem to be going down - full 50-60$ titles aren't as dominant as they used to be.
That leaves expanding the audience.

I'm going to assume here by "cardboard cutout" you mean the gunslinging white middle aged man. With a beard..sometimes
No, I actually meant a direct comparison - if you make a female character of any sort, a well-written female character is better than a badly written cardboard cutout of a female character.

Your comment did remind me of this, though:
Image

You know how in Metal Gear Solid you can hide inside a carboard box? They're upgrading the box... it's rather ridiculous.
I never played it, but i'd imagine it would still be just as fun as a game. And a more proper analogy for this situation would be "Imagine if all the female characters in world of warcraft had disproportionate over sexualized chests"
I imagine it'd be much less fun. Seems like we're at an impasse.

What is "this situation" for which you are making the analogy? Bayonetta 2, or games in general, or some specific argument I should know?
Guess which types of games sell better? That's all EA or activation or blizzard generally care about.
So because Cosmopolitan and Vanity fair sell well, there's no money to be made in magazines for men?

And since we're making comparisons to traditional magazines... this is an actual thing that happened.
http://kotaku.com/5291717/egm-subscribe ... eplacement

Quite sexist! (and I guess I'll have to explain this so there's no misunderstandings - it's sexist because it assumes that the stereotypical male gamers will all like boobs).
Im curious as to what you define as an "inclusive" game... does it have to represent women as some sort of goddess? Or do you mean it has to have a female protagonist? Some best selling games have female LEAD characters. The portal series. Mirrors edge. TLOU. Borderlands. Super mario bros 2. The gaming industry is, and has been open arms to female gamers for a long time. But sadly, women just aren't as interested in home console gaming as men.
Inclusive is the opposite of exclusive. It doesn't exclude large gamer groups out without representation in it. For example, I think the new XCom remake is inclusive - the named characters include soldiers of various ages and ranks, a young, ambitious female scientist, and a middle-aged, somewhat overweight engineer of Chinese descent. The soldiers can be male or female, represent several nationalities and ethnicities.

Gaming industry has been specifically marketed towards boys and men for a long, long time, and marketing people know how to influence people. Look at mobile games, casual games. Those types of games could probably have been sold in the 90s, already, if anyone had realized that market. Tetris is neutral, and maybe some platformers like Spyro the Dragon games for PS1...

http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12 ... ls-allowed
"Even leading up to the '90s, the marketing had started changing and iconic video game box covers started to emerge. Like the cover of the game PhotoBarbarian, which featured a scantily clad, buxom woman at the feet of a barely clothed man. She's not a playable character in the game, of course. Her pixelated curves can be seen watching the game's action from the grandstand in the background."
Endoperez wrote:"If you don't like this bug in this game, make your own game that doesn't have any bugs!"
Bugs are a problem. This, is not.
Okay, let's assume it's some sort of a minor feature that isn't a big problem, then. It's still ridiculous to demand someone to spend years of his own time to do something. I mean, if you go to a shop and ask if they have a shirt in a different size, you don't expect to hear "if you want it so much why don't you make it yourself", do you?

Endoperez wrote:publishers might refuse to fund games with female protagonists if they believe there's no demand for them.
If there is little demand for a certain product, don't expect that product to be released in abundance. Business generally doesn't care what's morale, or politically correct. They care about what rakes in the most cash, your "cardboard cutout." Which is really just a codeword for "formula that sells the most copies."
I was pointing out that even if someone wanted to make a game and had the skills, it might still be impossible.

If there truly was no market, couldn't you just say that there's no market, and skip the "do it yourself" thing?

When would that ever be a polite, constructive thing to say? Is it anything but a veiled insult, "you don't know what you're talking about so go away"?

User avatar
Vespabros
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:35 pm

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Vespabros » Sat Oct 18, 2014 11:46 pm

Endoperez wrote:Game prices seem to be going down - full 50-60$ titles aren't as dominant as they used to be.
Nope: http://www.statista.com/statistics/2010 ... -industry/

"The statistic contains data on the total retail revenue of the U.S. video game industry. In February 2014, the revenue in the United States amounted to 887 million U.S. dollars. In comparison to January 2013, the revenue grew by nine percent."

It seems to me the industry is making money just fine doing what they're doing.
Endoperez wrote:No, I actually meant a direct comparison - if you make a female character of any sort, a well-written female character is better than a badly written cardboard cutout of a female character.
That applies to any character
Endoperez wrote:You know how in Metal Gear Solid you can hide inside a carboard box?
Yeah, i thought it was pretty hilarious. It's supposed to distract the soldiers..that series always had things like that. Kojima even contacted with playboy magazine and got it into MGS4.
Endoperez wrote:What is "this situation" for which you are making the analogy?
Bayonetta 2.
Endoperez wrote:So because Cosmopolitan and Vanity fair sell well, there's no money to be made in magazines for men?
No, just much less. If you look at Wikipedias US list of magazines by circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... ted_States) You'll notice that the first magazine targeted specifically towards men is in 37th place, "Men's health". You could argue that "American Rifleman" is targeted at just men, but even that comes in 23rd place.

If cosmopolitan started to devote part of their time and resource to make a magazine for men, then they would lose much of their profit. And that's not just because it would be a shitty magazine.
Endoperez wrote:this is an actual thing that happened.
http://kotaku.com/5291717/egm-subscribe ... eplacement
Pahaha wow...I think this speaks more for EGM's stupidity than anything else
Endoperez wrote:Gaming industry has been specifically marketed towards boys and men for a long, long time, and marketing people know how to influence people.
I disagree. The gaming industry has tried to make games with girls in mind for years, they just usually never are a success. This is probably because they get it all wrong because when a man tries to make a game for a woman he obviously gets it all wrong. There needs to be more women in the gaming industry if you want a balance, that's just how it is. We also need to break the girly stereo-type if we're making a game for girls. As Lauren Faust once said: "Cartoons for girls don't have to be a puddle of smooshy, cutesy-wootsy, goody-two-shoeness. Girls like stories with real conflict; girls are smart enough to understand complex plots; girls aren't as easily frightened as everyone seems to think."

I think we need a Lauren Faust in the gaming industry :wink:
Endoperez wrote:"Like the cover of the game PhotoBarbarian, which featured a scantily clad, buxom woman at the feet of a barely clothed man."
Image

I so agree, there is a huge misrepresentation of gender here.

I mean, look at his muscles, not all men are like that! Look at his tan skin, the grimace on his face...ugh #privilege
Endoperez wrote: It's still ridiculous to demand someone to spend years of his own time to do something.
A little misinterpretation here, I am implying there should be more women involved in game development, but I didn't word it very well, my B. It's not a demand, simply a suggestion. Likewise, it's ridiculous to demand and entire industry to suddenly have to always represent women correctly in games OR ELSE! (which, by the way, is very difficult for a man to do) Speaking of this, there are a few fem devs already that made some great games.The Portal series and Assassins creed are the two i can think of off the top of my head that had leading female devs.


Imagine if it were the other way around; what if there were more female developers, and more female gamers in the world. Then men would be "misrepresented" in games. Because whatever women would want is what would sell. It's bidness 101.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:13 am

I have come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless.

Why?

Because you shouldn't fucking care.

Why the fuck does it matter if there are women protagonists? Why do you care so much?

You shouldn't.

It isn't gonna make the game any better having a female protagonist, nor is it gonna make the game any better having a male. The only thing is the poor bastard writing lore for a game has to rewrite anything that keeps women from being what the protagonist is.

It's because Misogyny is news but misandry is not.

Let's do an experiment with what I think would happen if these four games exist:

Game 1: A Broforce like, with male protagonists.

Game 2: A Broforce like, with female protagonists.

Game 3: A Ride to Hell like, with male protagonists that encourage misogyny.

Game 3: Above, but encourages misandry with a female protagonist.

No one would care about games 1, 2 and 4. But game 3 would make fucking international news because god forbid misandry stop existing but misogyny needs to be stomped out.

I'm not saying gender roles don't hurt anyone THERE IS NO DENYING THAT

I'm not saying misogyny is good IT NEEDS TO GO AWAY RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

I'm not saying female protagonists would hurt anything BECAUSE THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T.

But if you care enough to go on a holy crusade against male protagonists you should probably stop pestering us and make your own game, so we can call it out on it's bullshit.

Unless it's not, in which case we'll give fair reviews n shit.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:35 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I have come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless.

But if you care enough to go on a holy crusade against female protagonists you should probably stop pestering us and make your own game, so we can call it out on it's bullshit.

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:13 am

Vespabros wrote:
Endoperez wrote:Game prices seem to be going down - full 50-60$ titles aren't as dominant as they used to be.
Nope: http://www.statista.com/statistics/2010 ... -industry/

"The statistic contains data on the total retail revenue of the U.S. video game industry. In February 2014, the revenue in the United States amounted to 887 million U.S. dollars. In comparison to January 2013, the revenue grew by nine percent."

It seems to me the industry is making money just fine doing what they're doing.
From your article:
"The figures presented above clearly show that gaming is in an advanced stated of digitization. Sales revenue generated by the physical retail channel contracted by 25 percent between May 2012 and May 2013, from 517 million U.S. dollars to 386 million. Both hardware and software sales lost 31 percent of their worth."

http://gearnuke.com/pc-dominates-market ... ew-report/

"PC dominates market with 51%, Console at 30% and Mobile at 13%, according to new report"

"According to this report, in 2008, consoles were leading the industry with about 42% user share, PCs at 37% and mobiles at just 5%. Seems like the tables have turned now as more users are turning towards PC and Mobile. While it is true that the numbers of gamers have also increased exponentially, the increase is happening mostly in PC or Mobile market share."

What the industry is doing right now isn't what it was doing 6 years ago, and it's changed from what it was just few years back. Things CHANGE. Game industry has increased its revenue by increasing the number of gamers (exponentially, as noted in the latter article), which is what I claimed they are doing.

Also, your claim was "Again, from a business POV, there would be labor and money used to make games targeted for the female demographic,"

How about this then?
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/adult-wome ... mographic/
"Women over 18 made up a whopping 36 percent of the gaming population, followed by adult men at 35 percent."

Women who consider themselves gamers spend just as much as men who consider themselves gamers:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... s-men.html

Note that these two data points are from different studies. I'm not claiming that the 36% demographic is "adult women who consider themselves gamers". However, it's still disingenuous to claim that there's no way for money to be made from games for the female demographic.

Endoperez wrote:No, I actually meant a direct comparison - if you make a female character of any sort, a well-written female character is better than a badly written cardboard cutout of a female character.
That applies to any character
Exactly. If women characters are endemically worse than men, then they should be improved. There's no golden rule to make a perfect character, so it's impossible to measure if one character is better than another (as you can see from every 'X is better than Y' argument ever), but you can look at various characteristics and measure those characteristics between different characters. When you compare many female characters to many male characters, certain trends appear.

After doing this, you can make specific claims about those trends, such as: pink color is specifically used to denote female or feminine characters. In many games there's a single "token" female, who is defined by her gender (pink + ribbons + cute), while male characters are defined by their role (fighter, smart, shy, strong, weak).

You can use the exact same process to claim that specific characteristics are common when designing male characters (e.g. olympian physique of perfect muscles). Strong, well-muscles, hits things, likes hitting things... that's a cardboard cutout. Adding something that breaks stereotypes attached to that archetype makes the character more interesting.

If you rely ONLY on these traits to make a character, it becomes a cardboard cutout. It has no identity, just traits you've already seen numerous times. Understanding the common pitfalls might help you think BEYOND these, well, tropes.
Endoperez wrote:What is "this situation" for which you are making the analogy?
Bayonetta 2.
So in your opinion, a better answer to this question (in regards to Bayonetta 2's reviewer pointing out that the game's main character is sexual and occassionally nearly naked);
"Why do people expect that games, made by men, predominantly for men, should represent women properly in games? Men don't identify with women."

would be this:
"Imagine if all the female characters in world of warcraft had disproportionate over sexualized chests"

I don't get it. Are you saying that we should expect huge sexualized boobies in games because men like boobies? :|
Endoperez wrote:So because Cosmopolitan and Vanity fair sell well, there's no money to be made in magazines for men?
No, just much less. If you look at Wikipedias US list of magazines by circulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ma ... ted_States) You'll notice that the first magazine targeted specifically towards men is in 37th place, "Men's health". You could argue that "American Rifleman" is targeted at just men, but even that comes in 23rd place.
Yup, seems like you're right. I'm surprised by two things:
1) There's a huge demand for "women's magazines" but very few similar products aimed at men; instead men get hobby magazines which are at least theoretically aimed at hobbyists of both genders.
2) Game Informer is really big.
Endoperez wrote:Gaming industry has been specifically marketed towards boys and men for a long, long time, and marketing people know how to influence people.
I disagree. The gaming industry has tried to make games with girls in mind for years, they just usually never are a success.
The article I posted disagrees. A few games, yes, absolutely, and even specific genres (like karaoke games) - but games as a hobby has been pushed towards boys and men.

In fact, I'd say the basic game controller with two thumbsticks etc. has always been associated with a male gamer, but some games have had success with different controllers. That's just a random idea popped to my mind, so don't take it as a fact.
This is probably because they get it all wrong because when a man tries to make a game for a woman he obviously gets it all wrong. There needs to be more women in the gaming industry if you want a balance, that's just how it is. We also need to break the girly stereo-type if we're making a game for girls. As Lauren Faust once said: "Cartoons for girls don't have to be a puddle of smooshy, cutesy-wootsy, goody-two-shoeness. Girls like stories with real conflict; girls are smart enough to understand complex plots; girls aren't as easily frightened as everyone seems to think."

I think we need a Lauren Faust in the gaming industry :wink:
Yes, exactly!
Perhaps after she's done with the analysis of the video game market at large, Anita Sarkeesian could make a few videos that analyze the character tropes in the pink ghetto of girl-games.

Here's a funny site that demonstrates the difference in toy marketing, related but distinct from video game marketing:

http://www.genderremixer.com/html5/#
Endoperez wrote:"Like the cover of the game PhotoBarbarian, which featured a scantily clad, buxom woman at the feet of a barely clothed man."
Image

I so agree, there is a huge misrepresentation of gender here.

I mean, look at his muscles, not all men are like that! Look at his tan skin, the grimace on his face...ugh #privilege
"Why are we talking about games when there's bigger problems out there!"

You're dodging one problem, the fact that the woman does nothing and is just background decoration and a prize, by pointing out at another, the impossible beauty ideal.

They're both problems, both should be addressed, and... well. You know which group has VERY much experience talking against harmful body images (especially in products targeted towards kids)? Feminists.
Likewise, it's ridiculous to demand and entire industry to suddenly have to always represent women correctly in games OR ELSE!
Seems like we're mostly in agreement here too, then. Having more women in game industry is helpful if you want to make games for women. It's not a requirement though, my 3D teacher told the company he worked at made a Barbie license game, something about ponies IIRC. The company was a normal indie, and he says they were actually rather proud of the end product.

One thing I vehemently disagree on is that claim I quoted. You know what that "OR ELSE" is? It's "Or else I'm not happy and will say it aloud."

It's ridiculous to demand an entire industry to include Oculus Rift support in every game OR ELSE (OcuRift early adapters won't have much to play)!

It's ridiculous to demand your burger is ready in three minutes OR ELSE (I will shout)!

It's ridiculous to demand to be taken seriously OR ELSE (I will write an angry facebook post)!

Where is this mythical feminist who threatens to destroy games unless her demands are met? I've only seen feminists who tell what they want, and who threaten to keep speaking until something changes.

Speaking your mind isn't exactly a crime... I mean, it can be super annoying, and it's actually rather hard to ignore someone who's speaking in the same (virtual) space you spend time in... but so what? I personally find PhoenixWarrior annoying and some of his claims ridiculous.

User avatar
Vespabros
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 9:35 pm

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Vespabros » Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:03 am

Endoperez wrote: How about this then?
http://www.dailydot.com/geek/adult-wome ... mographic/
"Women over 18 made up a whopping 36 percent of the gaming population, followed by adult men at 35 percent."
Alright, i think there's a huge difference between legitimate gaming (PC / console / handheld) and that casual garbage (smartphone games / facebook games / flash games, etc) The study seems to consider that if you play farmville than you are considered a gamer..

Also, i'd like to know how this study was done..was there some gaming census that I didn't hear about? I question the legitimacy of this data.
Endoperez wrote:However, it's still disingenuous to claim that there's no way for money to be made from games for the female demographic.
Alright, so you genuinely think game companies are missing out on this huge cash crop by not making games to a certain demographic because their evil misogynists?
Endoperez wrote:In many games there's a single "token" female, who is defined by her gender (pink + ribbons + cute)
Apparently i'm living under a rock because i simply do not see this. All I kind think of is Ashley from resident evil 4. But modern games have enough actually fleshed out female characters, like mass effect, or borderlands, hell, i'm guessing even call of duty has one. There's enough that i beleive Bayonetta 2 can justify making an "over sexualized" female in a game simply because you don't see it all the time anymore.
Endoperez wrote:I don't get it. Are you saying that we should expect huge sexualized boobies in games because men like boobies? :|


Haha..actually yes, for the most part. Believe it or not, men will put things they like into a game and men will buy games with things they like in them. Now i know you think it's wrong to consider all people buying these games like "boobies" but the majority, straight white male, do. And the other? Probably don't care.
Endoperez wrote:2) Game Informer is really big.
I thought that was weird too..there must be some deal with Gamestop or something
Endoperez wrote:The article I posted disagrees. A few games, yes, absolutely, and even specific genres (like karaoke games) - but games as a hobby has been pushed towards boys and men.
I also think games are more associated in society with boys and men. But why? Personally, I thought it was because they're just the demographic that buy consoles and PC games more often, but, assuming your article is true, why is that generalization still around?

I haven't heard or read anything about Anita Sarkeesian but isn't she stirring some big controversy for some reason?
I had way too much fun with this
Endoperez wrote:You're dodging one problem, the fact that the woman does nothing and is just background decoration and a prize, by pointing out at another, the impossible beauty ideal.


This game is literally one example from the 80's, things aren't that extreme anymore. The majority of people were probably racist in the 50's but that doesn't mean it's still like that today.
Endoperez wrote:Feminists.
Alright, so here's the problem with many feminists. You see, on paper it sounds great, and by it's definition, a goal to achieve social/economic/political equality to men, like 90% of people (excluding crazies) are feminists. According to that definition, I am a feminist. But, much like communism, in practice there is corruption and people take advantage of certain things. Feminism now to many people has become putting down men and protecting women even more. Yes, there are still some cases where women aren't given the same rights, but there are also some cases where men don't have the same rights. Payed maternity leave? Women get custody of children in a divorce? Where's the group trying to make that right? Are men just supposed to suck it up? Nobody is working on equality, really; each group just wants a bigger slice of cake for themselves.
Endoperez wrote:It's not a requirement though, my 3D teacher told the company he...
Yes, there are cases where some men and some women get it right for the opposite gender. But complaining when it doesn't isn't going to change anything.
Endoperez wrote:One thing I vehemently disagree on is that claim I quoted. You know what that "OR ELSE" is? It's "Or else I'm not happy and will say it aloud."
Actually it's "OR ELSE i will take points away from your game in my review, talk down about it to the readers of my article, who will hopefully think twice before buying this smut despite the restof the game being quite decent"

effectively indirectly taking money out of people's pockets so they can take some sort of moral high ground.
Endoperez wrote:I personally find PhoenixWarrior annoying and some of his claims ridiculous.
eh..I feel kind of bad for him :( If only he could explain his reasoning more eloquently then perhaps he would get a little more respect around here...and curse less

User avatar
Endoperez
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Endoperez » Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:41 pm

Vespabros wrote:Also, i'd like to know how this study was done..was there some gaming census that I didn't hear about? I question the legitimacy of this data.
This is old news, there's several studies. It's been going this way for years. The "male and female gamers spend as much money" was a poll and it's from the UK, the other one is probably based on industry-wide customer statistics. At least I was looking at those, too, when looking for the info.

The trick is that it's not, indeed, female 'gamers'. That denotes a specific subculture. This is about people who play games, at least sometimes, and includes social games, casual games and so on.
Alright, so you genuinely think game companies are missing out on this huge cash crop by not making games to a certain demographic because their evil misogynists?
No, it's the result of a long cycle of "analyze market -> define the most likely target audience -> aim marketing at that audience -> analyze market that was affected by previous marketing -> etc".

Detailed here, already posted on page 2.
http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/201 ... le-geek-2/
Apparently i'm living under a rock because i simply do not see this. All I kind think of is Ashley from resident evil 4. But modern games have enough actually fleshed out female characters, like mass effect, or borderlands, hell, i'm guessing even call of duty has one. There's enough that i beleive Bayonetta 2 can justify making an "over sexualized" female in a game simply because you don't see it all the time anymore.
How many examples would be enough for you to think "token female characters" still are prevalent? Are any games ok or are you going to set some specific limits?

How many examples of over-sexualized women for you to accept that it's a problem? Bayonetta 2 doesn't need to justify its sexualized character IMO, but it should accept criticism for the choice.
Haha..actually yes, for the most part. Believe it or not, men will put things they like into a game and men will buy games with things they like in them. Now i know you think it's wrong to consider all people buying these games like "boobies" but the majority, straight white male, do. And the other? Probably don't care.
That's sexist towards men, and as a feminist, I disapprove. Men, and our sexuality, shouldn't be grouped under a single simple banner like that. You should accept that some men like boobs, some men don't.
I haven't heard or read anything about Anita Sarkeesian but isn't she stirring some big controversy for some reason?
I skipped some questions because I didn't have answers.

In my last post I described that if you look at multiple characters across several games, you can find trends. That's what Anita does. She calls the trends "tropes", and she's focusing on tropes that feminism thinks are harmful for women. So, "tropes vs women". I've heard it said that Last of Us was, in part, inspired by her message, and I've got to say the characters in the game are rather different from the usual stereotypes.

The videos are pretty bland, actually, unless you assume that she's trying to ruin gaming forever.




Endoperez wrote:Feminists.
Alright, so here's the problem with many feminists. You see, on paper it sounds great, and by it's definition, a goal to achieve social/economic/political equality to men, like 90% of people (excluding crazies) are feminists. According to that definition, I am a feminist. But, much like communism, in practice there is corruption and people take advantage of certain things. Feminism now to many people has become putting down men and protecting women even more. Yes, there are still some cases where women aren't given the same rights, but there are also some cases where men don't have the same rights. Payed maternity leave? Women get custody of children in a divorce? Where's the group trying to make that right? Are men just supposed to suck it up? Nobody is working on equality, really; each group just wants a bigger slice of cake for themselves.
Feminists have identified several problems. Because equity has mostly been reached in most areas, currently feminism doesn't have a single unified goal, and specific subgroups tend to focus on specific problems.

One of these problems is harmful stereotypes. I'll go directly to how this applies to men: men must be strong and independent; they can't show weakness such as crying, and if they're taking care of kids instead of earning money for the family they're looked down upon.

By working against these stereotypes, it would be more acceptable for women to be strong and independent, but also for men to e.g. show weakness, perhaps by it being acceptable for a man to cry and be an emotional wreck.

As I said there's many subgroups. Some focus on all stereotypes, some on women's stereotypes; some focus on trans questions, for or against; yet others on economical questions. I first started talking with a group of feminists about 2 years ago (your post describes my stances from that time rather accurately, although communism as a political curseword is a rather American thing), and while we clashed a lot in the beginning I've since come to agree with them on many points.
Yes, there are cases where some men and some women get it right for the opposite gender. But complaining when it doesn't isn't going to change anything.
Complaining does help, at least when it's actual critique!

It doesn't change what happened, but if the original developer wants to do better in the future, the feedback may be useful. Also, if a different developer is interested in avoiding those mistakes, that developer can just check up what others have done before, and how it was received.

For example, Sejuani, a female warrior-princess from the frozen tundras, a character from League of Legends used to wear a fur bikini, but her current apparel is more appopriate to the climate.
[+] Sejuani
Image
Actually it's "OR ELSE i will take points away from your game in my review, talk down about it to the readers of my article, who will hopefully think twice before buying this smut despite the restof the game being quite decent"

effectively indirectly taking money out of people's pockets so they can take some sort of moral high ground.
Oh, I see. Yes, in that specific instance I can see the outrage. Earlier in the thread we wondered what would be a better way of doing it.

Would it be acceptable if it's mentioned ONLY in the text but doesn't affect the score?

What if it affects the score, but the details are shown, as below?
Bayonetta 2: 7½ (+1 if you don't mind the sexism)


eh..I feel kind of bad for him :( If only he could explain his reasoning more eloquently then perhaps he would get a little more respect around here...and curse less
Agreed. But the same is true of many feminists, so I still stand by the comparison.

User avatar
Korban3
Posts: 4146
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:14 pm
Location: 42nd St E, Hell

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Korban3 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:01 pm

I think this discussion is ridiculous. The solution isn't to fix what we do wrong and target a specific audience.
The actual solution is to simply produce an equal number of games with oversexualized male characters that pander to a female audience. I, for one, will be releasing patches for all of my projects that replace all of the male outfits with speedos and tear-away muscle shirts.

User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Post by Phoenixwarrior141 » Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:36 pm

Endoperez wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I have come to the conclusion that this argument is pointless.

But if you care enough to go on a holy crusade against female protagonists you should probably stop pestering us and make your own game, so we can call it out on it's bullshit.
I'm pretty sure no one is crusading against female protagonists, but people are pestering us and crusading for female protagonists.

There's something I could call you out on for that but I forgot what it is so...

Post Reply