Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread.
15,084 replies, posted
[QUOTE=EmperorVagak;46792231]I wonder how much bullcrap and statistics it'll take for the Wikipedia administration to cave in?
Probably 10 miles worth, I guess.[/QUOTE]
Once more: Jimmy can come down at any point on Wikipedia administration whenever he wants to. He can even come down on WMF themselves and fire everyone that stands in his way. He's in a position of power to call out bullshit from any reactions afterwards, even if he has to do it on the WMF's behalf and not on his own account.
[QUOTE=wickedplayer494;46792981]Once more: Jimmy can come down at any point on Wikipedia administration whenever he wants to. He can even come down on WMF themselves and fire everyone that stands in his way. He's in a position of power to call out bullshit from any reactions afterwards, even if he has to do it on the WMF's behalf and not on his own account.[/QUOTE]
Hes never done so and will never do so unless the administration is so blatantly incompetent that the entire site has been taken over by spammers. He doesn't want too either, which is understandable.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792964]You're still missing the point. As Reimu explained, having out of place outfits that are purposefully for sexualization, you view the wearer as a sex object first and a nuanced character second. It's bad writing, it's bad for diverse representation, and it's not a good message to send to anyone.[/QUOTE]
I agréé with the "bad writing" argument. That you view the character as a sex object in a context where it makes no sense means it's badly written but sexualisation isn't a bad thing in itself.
I don't see your point about "diverse representation", though. Those are fictional characters so it isn't a requirement to represent all of them equally, nor is it discriminatory not to abide by those requirements.
Your point about message doesn't really seem relevant to me either. Following that logic you could claim that Total War's message is that enslavement and genocide is the way to go.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792964]
It's not a crime, but when you have only women subject to such sexualisation, its a problem.[/QUOTE]
Well there's games like Dragon Age:Inquisition which I assume has those kinds of stuff due to Bioware having a hardon with having a diverse cast of characters and multilodes of romance options.
The only thing you need to do know is just shout "HEY WE LIKE THIS KIND OF STUFF" loud enough with your wallet and keyboards
[QUOTE=_Axel;46793033]I agréé with the "bad writing" argument. That you view the character as a sex object in a context where it makes no sense means it's badly written but sexualisation isn't a bad thing in itself.
I don't see your point about "diverse representation", though. Those are fictional characters so it isn't a requirement to represent all of them equally, nor is it discriminatory not to abide by those requirements.
Your point about message doesn't really seem relevant to me either. Following that logic you could claim that Total War's message is that enslavement and genocide is the way to go.[/QUOTE]
You aren't reading my posts, I have never said once that sexualisation is a bad thing. I also never said that developers are required to equally represent everyone. Is it really that hard to figure out why women and other minorities are complaining about it? Regardless I'm not going to continue this argument because you clearly aren't understanding the concepts and are starting to twist my logic into something its not for the sake of attacking it better.
Also as an artist,I really want to know what constitutes as "sexualised" male character since I remember hearing how having topless men is not enough when people point out stuff like He-man or some shit
Bikini armor is a "barbarian" thing. Like it's not actually supposed to be armor in most places where the barbarian theme is actually focused on, it's just that the barbarian theme gets clumsily mixed into a lot of modern quasi-medieval fantasy settings. Barbarians are supposed to be really strong so they make the strongest characters look like barbarians even if it doesn't fit their lifestyle.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46793089]You aren't reading my posts, I have never said once that sexualisation is a bad thing. I also never said that developers are required to equally represent everyone. Is it really that hard to figure out why women and other minorities are complaining about it? Regardless I'm not going to continue this argument because you clearly aren't understanding the concepts and are starting to twist my logic into something its not for the sake of attacking it better.[/QUOTE]
I can say the same of you. If you'd read my post you'd see I understand your point about out-of-place sexualisation having a bad impact on writing. If you want to depict me as twisting your logic at least give examples where I actually do.
By the way, that snippet:
[Quote]It's bad writing, it's bad for diverse representation, and it's not a good message to send to anyone.[/quote]
Does imply that representation in games actually matters, and it also implies games' message are something that can actually bring harm, even though it's a state of mind that people don't seem to have when it's about violence in games, something you haven't adressed.
[editline]25th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matrix374;46793104]Also as an artist,I really want to know what constitutes as "sexualised" male character since I remember hearing how having topless men is not enough when people point out stuff like He-man or some shit[/QUOTE]
I don't really think there is some high authority which can state whether something is sexualised or not, rather varying degrees of sexualisation which are perceived differently depending on the person.
[QUOTE=Reimu;46792858]Hi all, Merry Christmas! Sorry I've been away. I saw this post though and wanted to jump in,
The intent of a lot of bikini armor artwork is to create a half-naked woman character that players can oggle. There's never any other intent to give a female character bikini armor - it's [i]always[/i] about sexualizing the character.
It doesn't make sense, true. But it's also gross because it asks the player to view women characters as a sex object first before looking at them as nuanced individuals center to the gameplay/plot.
Imagine if someone cast "Macbeth" with Lady Macbeth wearing only a thong and a bra for... no reason at all. It makes no sense in relation to the plot nor setting, but it's there, and she's half-naked. The intent is to ask viewers to look at her as a sex object first, a character second. For the narrative, this affects the way that viewers engage with a character, which is one of the reasons writers should be avoiding objectification - it weakens their character's entire characterization.
That's not to say that you cannot have characters showing cleavage or in swimsuits. It just means that this is a larger pattern of characterization that exists in gaming, in which women are designed for the player character based on physical attractiveness first. That actually [i]is[/i] a problem that's constant throughout gaming, albeit very few people feel like explaining it in detail. Because Polygon and Kotaku pay based on page views, not explaining feminist theory.[/QUOTE]
Problem for me with this view is I tend to view the character individually for their sexualization. If I see a sexualized woman in the virtual world I'm not going to all of sudden think of all woman as my objects to be toyed around with. I never hear hear any actual facts or studies cited for these kin of games giving sexist thoughts Reimu so your assertions seem moot. Violent games where I am meant to kill people don't make me violent in real life so would a dating simulator where I dress up and date women make me think woman are inferior?
One thing I do know for sure it's bad to pander for one audience for a pretty design choice. Having no interesting females because you want them all sexualized in your game only makes your game have less interesting and 2-dimensional characters. It's just bad design choice.
I feel like you put a strange focus on the character being a woman, especially on that comment of games with sexualized characters asking viewers to see women as sex objects. Does sexualizing men equal the same amount disgusting pandering that makes women view men as sex objects?
When a developer makes a shitty design choice like this they're just pandering to straight men and lesbians not oppressing woman. Making a hot woman to be ogled at isn't going to actually cause men to think all woman should try their hardest to be like their video game characters. Otherwise porn would be considered sexist. And I'd rather be playing a game when I click play than look at porn.
[QUOTE=Reimu;46792858]The intent of a lot of bikini armor artwork is to create a half-naked woman character that players can oggle. There's never any other intent to give a female character bikini armor - it's [i]always[/i] about sexualizing the character.[/QUOTE]I would be careful about using absolutes, because for pretty much any trope there's usually at least one person analyzing it to see what they can have fun with.
Like, from my D&D days one optional rule from a non-core book that still sticks with me was one made specifically to explain stuff like bikini armor. The rule was that all magic produced heat as a waste emission; much like most forms of technology, but magnified to the point of being an active hazard because tampering with reality is heavy stuff. With this detail in place all spellcasters would be prevented from using traditional armor not because of balancing considerations, but because they would quickly overheat and pass out (or maybe even be cooked alive) if they needed to cast anything in such an insulated outfit. The standard spellcaster would then have an "outer layer" of loose but protective clothing that could easily be thrown off during a fight (thus the fondness for stuff like robes and cloaks) with an outfit underneath that covers nothing but the absolute essentials so that the environment can siphon away as much heat from the body as possible while lightning bolts are flying every which way. The end result was that "bikini armor" not only had viable reasons to exist, but was a constant necessity across an entire type of character and for [i]both[/i] genders.
[video=youtube;CB6TiRJNI-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6TiRJNI-Q[/video]
Applies to video game characters as well.
[QUOTE=Matrix374;46793104]Also as an artist,I really want to know what constitutes as "sexualised" male character since I remember hearing how having topless men is not enough when people point out stuff like He-man or some shit[/QUOTE]
Male characters can't be sexualised because if they have big bulgy muscles then it's a power fantasy.
Because all men want to be Arnold.
Also Merry Christmas, 6 days left till we bury #stopgamergate2014
[QUOTE=Thlis;46793554]Male characters can't be sexualised because if they have big bulgy muscles then it's a power fantasy.
Because all men want to be Arnold.[/QUOTE]
Wasn't there a woman who said that those could be seen as attractive ?
Like I said, it's really up to interpretation, just like real world attractiveness.
[QUOTE=_Axel;46793564]Wasn't there a women who said that those could be seen as attractive ?
Like I said, it's really up to interpretation, just like real world attractiveness.[/QUOTE]
The general argument is "Well all men want to be like that, it's a power fantasy for them" which is about as dumb as saying "well all women want to look like Natalie Portman, it's a power fantasy".
Let's just make things. If you want to make a character that wears a thong then go ahead, if you don't like that then make a character that wears something else.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KRXY7sM.jpg[/IMG]
the tumblr post:
[url]http://zackerey.tumblr.com/post/106146095223/let-me-make-my-stance-on-child-pornography-very[/url]
Wait, they're mislabeling someone who is disapproving of how Gamergate supporters approached the CP issue? Is that what I'm seeing here?
[QUOTE=EmperorVagak;46794119]Wait, they're mislabeling someone who is disapproving of how Gamergate supporters approached the CP issue? Is that what I'm seeing here?[/QUOTE]
i think they're just trying to find "pedo apologist" GGers because they realized they all fucked up when they spread CP around
Now that I think about it... a lot of the crap that GamerGhazi does and a lot of GG opposers do is very similar to this comic.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/FthPFNp.gif[/t]
No wonder they side with the journalists.
[QUOTE=Matrix374;46793104]Also as an artist,I really want to know what constitutes as "sexualised" male character since I remember hearing how having topless men is not enough when people point out stuff like He-man or some shit[/QUOTE]
It's just that it's generally hard to find sexualized men in Western video games because they are typically marketed to young adult males. Japanese games tend to have many sexualized male characters. Basically think of all the androgynous males in Final Fantasy or Soul Caliber.
He-Man is considered as a power fantasy because he isn't depicted topless for the sexual context but because the shirtless warrior is a traditional western trope. It's no different than Conan the Barbarian. Some people might find that sexy, anyone can find anything sexy. But the character wasn't conceptualized as the sexy barbarian. "Male power fantasy" might not be the best words to describe it because I personally don't fantasize about being powerful because of my physical strength but it's just more about context and portrayal.
It's the same way EVA in MGS3 can be blatantly sexualized but at the same time never objectified. It fits her character because she is the 60's femme fatale double agent.
[editline]25th December 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thlis;46793622]The general argument is "Well all men want to be like that, it's a power fantasy for them" which is about as dumb as saying "well all women want to look like Natalie Portman, it's a power fantasy".
Let's just make things. If you want to make a character that wears a thong then go ahead, if you don't like that then make a character that wears something else.[/QUOTE]
The argument was never "All men want to be him" it was that men created the character to be a strong and powerful warrior, not to be sexy. As I said, the term "male power fantasy" isn't very helpful and I'd rather not use it because of the connotations but I'm struggling to find a better phrase.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792452]Their purpose is still to objectify and sexualise women, don't try to pretend like it's not.[/QUOTE]
Fun fact, the same thing is there for women in the form of muscular men.
The entire industry is heavily influenced by Comic Books which used idealized proportions. And before you say Male Power Fantasy, that doesn:'t actually exist in scholarly circles.
There is also the fact we have little data about the negatives involved in boys ingesting the idealized male form.
Metal Gear is a good go-to for sexualized male designs.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;46794317]Metal Gear is a good go-to for sexualized male designs.[/QUOTE]
theres a picture of a magazine article or something where kojima describes in depth about the comparisons of raiden and snake's butt. its hilarious because near the end he defends his straight sexuality and says he has a family and stuff.
i need to find it again.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;46793395]I would be careful about using absolutes, because for pretty much any trope there's usually at least one person analyzing it to see what they can have fun with.
Like, from my D&D days one optional rule from a non-core book that still sticks with me was one made specifically to explain stuff like bikini armor. The rule was that all magic produced heat as a waste emission; much like most forms of technology, but magnified to the point of being an active hazard because tampering with reality is heavy stuff. With this detail in place all spellcasters would be prevented from using traditional armor not because of balancing considerations, but because they would quickly overheat and pass out (or maybe even be cooked alive) if they needed to cast anything in such an insulated outfit. The standard spellcaster would then have an "outer layer" of loose but protective clothing that could easily be thrown off during a fight (thus the fondness for stuff like robes and cloaks) with an outfit underneath that covers nothing but the absolute essentials so that the environment can siphon away as much heat from the body as possible while lightning bolts are flying every which way. The end result was that "bikini armor" not only had viable reasons to exist, but was a constant necessity across an entire type of character and for [i]both[/i] genders.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the reasoning for casters not wearing armor in most settings is that thick armor restricts the flow of magic through the caster's body or something.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46794149]i think they're just trying to find "pedo apologist" GGers because they realized they all fucked up when they spread CP around[/QUOTE]
What's happening is like
aGGer: "Here's CP as evidence that proves GG are guilty of pedophilia by association"
GGer: "So you have CP? Reported u pedophile"
GGer: "Actually this is why CP law sucks and also not justice"
So aGG would like to label the former GGer as a pedo apologist but that would mean admitting that the aGGer deserves what's coming for having CP as evidence?
[QUOTE=Talishmar;46794383]So what's happening is like
aGGer: "Here's CP as evidence that proves GG are guilty of pedophilia by association"
GGer: "So you have CP? Reported u pedophile"
GGer: "Actually this is why CP law sucks and also not justice"
So aGG would like to label the former GGer as a pedo apologist but that would mean admitting that the aGGer deserves what's coming for having CP as evidence?[/QUOTE]
anyone who can reason out of this without hurting agg's image will recieve a olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792964]It's not a crime, but when you have only women subject to such sexualisation, its a problem.[/QUOTE]
It isn't "a problem", really. There can be games that pander to men and games that pander to women, and not every game needs to be super serious trying to push gaming forward or else we demand the game isnt sold on steam/target/whatever and disregard gameplay, sound, art, everything else just because bikini armor was present and someone's dick may have got stiff over it.
The solution is simple, if you don't like a game don't buy it, and if you want more games of a certain type badly enough, go make the game or fund someone who is. Theres no need for anita levels of destructive nonsense.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46794179]It's just that it's generally hard to find sexualized men in Western video games because they are typically marketed to young adult males. Japanese games tend to have many sexualized male characters. Basically think of all the androgynous males in Final Fantasy or Soul Caliber.
He-Man is considered as a power fantasy because he isn't depicted topless for the sexual context but because the shirtless warrior is a traditional western trope.
[/quote]
[IMG]http://www.likesbooks.com/coverballot/2002/WO-02g.jpg[/IMG]
Conan, He-Man or Romance Novel?
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;46787965][t]http://i.imgur.com/YYOJ9az.png[/t]
"over sexualized characters turn most female players off from games"
Is the distinction really necessary? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "turn most players off from games"? Or do women have an anti-sexyness gene that only he knows about?[/QUOTE]
Most people I know find sexiness in games generally unappealing, so I'm surprised it's made out to be such a big deal considering how uncommon that sort of stuff actually is in the mainstream if you aren't looking for it.
Still the problem is supposedly that sexiness is 'socially harmful', but that's on par with believing that games cause violence.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;46794383]What's happening is like
aGGer: "Here's CP as evidence that proves GG are guilty of pedophilia by association"
GGer: "So you have CP? Reported u pedophile"
GGer: "Actually this is why CP law sucks and also not justice"
So aGG would like to label the former GGer as a pedo apologist but that would mean admitting that the aGGer deserves what's coming for having CP as evidence?[/QUOTE]
no, they don't need to admit he deserves what is coming for him because [ARGUEMENT NOT FOUND], and GG are all pedo apologists because they're reporting him for downloading and spreading CP.
