Sexism in video games.

[Aurora Novus]

What? Where did I say that? I'm arguing against that.

You know, I could make some ridiculous comparisons in your behavior to, but I think there is a pretty damn big difference between having a chick with big tits, and advocating racial slaughter.

You know, one being an immoral act, and the other just being non-realistic.

Right.

How, exactly, does this equate to me making a moral claim about video games again? I said racial slaughter is an immoral act.

So really, what's wrong with that game the KKK made about killing black people? You should be okay with that, even if it is on a different level than sexism.

Depends on what you mean by being "okay" with. Personally comfortable playing? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the story. Opposed to it's existence on some moral grounds? Not one bit. Shaming those who play it? Nope.

...No one here wants to ban those kind of games.

No, you just want to shame people out of making them, by rallying people against them.

A soft ban, if you will.

I find that to be ridiculous, especially when you reasoning stems from nothing other than a self-centered "I don't personally like this, so no one else should either".

So what's your problem with the game I just described?

Why didn't you just said "I'm okay with that" instead of saying "WELL THAT'S A RIDICULOUS COMPARISON NORSTAL BLAH BLAH BLAH" as if to defend your position?

Well, if you noticed, I did both. Because it is a ridiculous comparison to make. There is a huge gap between slaughtering a specific racial group, and character models with over sexualized, unrealistic assets. You know, being that racial slaughter (in the real world) is immoral, but having larger than normal assets, and wearing sexualized clothing, isn't immoral in any sense, in the real world.

That's why your comparison is asinine.

[Aurora Novus]

And they would benefit from more games that aren't sexist too.

No, they wouldn't. You are trying to place objective criteria on subjective matters.

There is nothing innately wrong about enjoying fantasies that involve over sexualized characters, and people would not "benefit" from no longer having these, or reducing their exposure to these.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there is a finite amount of games that can exist

Well, considering we live in the real world, where resources and time are limited...

, and that more that aren't sexist mean less that are.

Generally speaking, yes, that's exactly what it means.

Which, in of itself, isn't necessarily a problem. Personally I'm not that big a fan of over sexualized gaming characters. I don't find it personally appealing, and the only times I've really enjoyed it are when it's done for the sake of comedy (See: Candy Kong).

But there is a difference between being okay with trends changing, and then going about, attempting to force trends to change, by shaming people for not abiding by your subjective tastes, and attempting to turn this into some kind of moral issue.

[Aurora Novus]

How is playing an MMO not going out in public? After a fashion of course.

Last time I checked, when I went out in public, I didn't go on a quest to gather power, slaughter demons, and make the world bend it's knee to me.

Of course, you can say, "but Aurora, you're still going about and talking with people!" But I really think "going about and talking with people" and "going out in public", are two different things.

I mean, by that logic, posting on NS is like going out in public. Perhaps in the loosest sense, but it's not really a good comparison.

Only MMO I've played in recent years was Phantasy Star Online. Though I did play WoW for like an hour before deciding I hated it utterly.

Dude, Phantasy Star Online is an amazing MMO. You're seriously complaining about that game?

And finally... perhaps that wouldn't be the first thing on their mind if the character was designed to look like an adventurer, not eye-candy.

The two are not mutually exclusive, you know that, right? Plenty of MMOs, and games in general, do a combination of both. Further more, it is the very fact that such things are on their mind in the first place, that many of these character designs are created. Taking away the character designs wouldn't take away the desire or mindset of those gamers.

Finally, there is nothing innately wrong with the character designs themselves. If you don't like the character customization of a particular MMO (a problem I find myself having often), play a different MMO. There are plenty of MMOs out there with vast amounts of character customization. Hell, creating characters is pretty much my favorite part of any highly customizable game, beyond even the actual gameplay. I can recommend a few to you if you like.

[Aurora Novus]

A point no one has contested.




No, it wouldn't, because some people enjoy the over sexualization of males and females, or the exaggeration of certain character traits. For them, it's part of the fantasy, and they like it.

You're simply trying to justify forcing your subjective tastes down the throat of all gamers, and trying to pass it off as some crusade against a moral evil. But it's evident it's just you whining because you don't like something, and think no one else should be allowed to enjoy it either.

Yeah I don`t care much about the subjective opinions of sexists.

So now have a personal, subjective taste in sexuality, that doesn't match up with your taste in sexuality, makes someone sexist?

[Aurora Novus]

And who is suggesting keeping them from their jiggle physics? No one that I can see.

You're apparently not reading the thread very well then.

Well, considering we live in the real world, where resources and time are limited...

The resources being put into developing video games in 2013 is:
a)more than in 1983.
b)less than in 1983.
c)exactly the same as in 1983.
Care to take a guess? I can't say I know for sure myself, but I know what I'd put my money on.

Wholly irrelevant. The fact is, we live in a resource and time limited environment, and therefore there cannot be an infinite number of something.

Generally speaking, yes, that's exactly what it means.

Except no, not at all.[/quote]

Because when the FPS fad began to rise, sidescrolling platformers and open world collectathons just kept on trucking right beside it, amirite?

When one trend rises, typically other trends die. That's the nature of, again, a time and resource limited world.

Greater variety in games will attract more gamers, which will make more resources available to games developers, which will allow them to make more games, including games where the main selling point is the realistic nipple simulation.

Not necessarily. I mean, look at Nintendo. The lifetime of the Wii was more or less dedicated to trying to pull in a new gaming audience. "Casual" gamers. And, for a time, it worked. Care to take a guess as to where the resources gained by those games went? Right back into making more casual games.

And eventually, casual gamers lost interest in gaming for the most part, taking away the then largest growing portion of Nintendo's market, and the one Nintendo had been investing the most time and energy in. Time and energy spent that had ended up alienating more dedicated fans, due to lack of service.

So, no, increasing one time of game, isn't necessarily going to bring a benefit the gaming community as a whole.


And while I'm usually a fan of greater variety, that is not what is being advocated by people in this thread. The general attitude is shame, directed at those who enjoy over sexualized game characters, with the purpose of trying to snuff out that trend altogether.

I'm not seeing a problem with shaming people who think of women as a set of bits they want to see jiggle and holes they want to jam their cocks into.

Because in fantasy, this isn't a problem, and it's immoral to shame and attack people for something harmless? Just because something doesn't personally appeal to you, doesn't make it wrong.

[Aurora Novus]

[So now have a personal, subjective taste in sexuality, that doesn't match up with your taste in sexuality, makes someone sexist

Yes, of course it does. What a stupid question.

And what a stupid response.

No, of course it doesn't, and it's asinine to claim so.

[Aurora Novus]

And what a stupid response.

No, of course it doesn't, and it's asinine to claim so.

NO YOUR A DOODIE HEAD!

Seriously, that's really what you're gonna come back with? "nuh uh"?

Considering that's all you provided, yes.

Simple responses beget simple responses. Want a more detailed response? Put a little more thought into your own posts to warrant it.

Pathetic.

My thoughts exactly.

[Aurora Novus]

My thoughts exactly.

I want to frame this. It's kinda perfect.

Yes, your thoughts exactly indeed. "pathetic" is pretty much exactly how to describe them.

I see you dropped the other segment of my post. How classy.

Neo Art, if you're going to criticize someone for not giving a detailed response to one of your posts, it's highly recommended your post actually have substance to it itself.

That you criticize me for giving you a "nu uh" post, when you yourself provided nothing more than this, is nothing short of childish hypocrisy.

Come back when you have an actual point to make.

[Aurora Novus]

Indeed. Just because something doesn't appeal to me doesn't make it wrong. Being wrong makes it wrong.

True.

Good thing there is nothing wrong with having virtual women who serve no purpose other than sex appeal. And from there, there's no problem with women who serve multiple purposes, along with sex appeal.

I mean, seriously, dude, if someone made a game entitled "Nazi Power: Arbeit Macht Frei" in which the goal of the game was to brutally murder as many Jewish children as possible while yelling, "HEIL HITLER LOLOLOLOL" the problem with that game would not be "it's not to my personal taste." It would be "that is fucking horrible." (It would ALSO not be to my personal taste, obviously, seeing as I'm not fucking horrible.)

There would be nothing immoral about that game. The actions you performed within could be considered immoral, but the game itself, as it causes no harm, is not immoral.

In the same way, my problem with misogyny in games

Having unrealistically sexy women is not "misogyny in gaming". Sounds to me like you're whining because you can't be unrealistically sexy.

is not "I don't personally enjoy it." There are lots of games I don't personally enjoy and in no way oppose - pretty much every football game bores me silly, for example. My problem with misogyny is that it's fucking horrible, and I'm sorry that I'm not going to waste my time crying for the poor, oppressed little sexists who just want to be able to see women as a collection of holes to stick a penis in without big ol' meanies like me telling them they're being douches.

In other words, you have no rational argument, outside of name calling and trying to force your subjective tastes upon everyone else.

Gotcha.

[Aurora Novus]

Sounds to me like you're whining because you can't be unrealistically sexy.

I mean, really, doesn't this just sum up the caliber of this poster?

I thought it would be obvious that would be more or less a sarcastic jab.

Her complaint is centered upon the fact that, apparently, having females who serve no purpose other than sex appeal, or at least, sex appeal, along with other purposes, is somehow "misogyny".

I suppose by the same logic, having characters in games who serve no purpose other than to be backdrops to the scenery, or provide you with items, should be considered some form of slavery and dehumanization. Ban NPC's!

It's idiotic.

[Aurora Novus]

I mean, really, doesn't this just sum up the caliber of this poster?

Yup. Although I couldn't quite decide if that or "a game glorifying the Holocaust wouldn't hurt anybody!" was the more amazingly moronic line.

Go ahead and explain how that game, in of itself, harms people.

I'll wait.

[Aurora Novus]

Here's the difference: the effort to intentionally create a character that serves no purpose other than sex appeal is effort that could have made a character that serves the same role without the needless sex appeal.

Okay...but you could say that about most characters.

So, obviously your disagreement stems not fro the needless addition of sex appeal, but from the sex appeal itself.

When did sex appeal suddenly become immoral?

But unless you really don't play video games frequently, you'd understand that NPC's are pretty essential to give games realism. Most games would not function as well without them. But the vast majority games can function without relegating females to trophies, Macguffins, or eye candy.

Which again, is meaningless, because whether or not it needs to be there, has nothing to do with whether or not it's harmful.

And hell, games don't need NPCs, outside of a computer to make it a competition. Look at Pong.

So what this really boils down to, is why you think sex appeal is wrong.

[Aurora Novus]

I suppose by the same logic, having characters in games who serve no purpose other than to be backdrops to the scenery, or provide you with items, should be considered some form of slavery and dehumanization. Ban NPC's!

Holy fucking shit.

It's idiotic.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Mhm.

Come back when you have an argument dearie.

[Aurora Novus]

I thought it would be obvious that would be more or less a sarcastic jab.

Her complaint is centered upon the fact that, apparently, having females who serve no purpose other than sex appeal, or at least, sex appeal, along with other purposes, is somehow "misogyny".

I suppose by the same logic, having characters in games who serve no purpose other than to be backdrops to the scenery, or provide you with items, should be considered some form of slavery and dehumanization. Ban NPC's!

It's idiotic.

Having female players who wish to play females, be forced to serve as sex appeal as opposed to being able to choose it is misogyny.

No, it's not. It's the limits of the game. Not being able to have it exactly how you want stems from the fact that you didn't make it.

It's not misogyny just because you don't get everything you want mate.

Just like forcing a woman to go about her daily business in a bikini and heels would be.

One problem: That would be a violation of human rights. It's oppression, and harmful.

Having the only option to someone in a specific videogame be a particular incarnation of a character, is not oppression, nor a violation of human rights. It isn't harmful. At best, you could say it lacks creativity.

But that's not the same as misogyny.

You're forcing them to present themselves in a certain manner solely to please the male players. How is that not mysoginistic?

Because it's not real life, it's fantasy. A fantasy built by the desires of certain developers, to be marketed to people who would be interested in it (usually adolescent males, who are more often than not straight and horny). That the fantasy incorporates certain desires doesn't make the fantasy misogyny, no more than a person's fetish makes them racist or sexist, because it doesn't include other aspects of other fetishes. It's a fantasy realm.

[Aurora Novus]

Go ahead and explain how that game, in of itself, harms people.

I'll wait.

Decapitation, in and of itself, does not kill anyone. Events that are directly linked to the decapitation and caused by the decapitation do. Yet you'd be pretty ignorant to claim that decapitation doesn't lead to death.

Yes, because decapitation and playing a video game are completely similar.

Because people have no capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

I suppose Super Mario breeds violence against turtles too, hm?

[Aurora Novus]

Go ahead and explain how that game, in of itself, harms people.

I'll wait.

Either you don't believe Holocaust survivors or the friends and family of those who died in the Holocaust are people (which...would explain some things) or you somehow don't think someone saying, "It's so cool the way I can reenact murdering your siblings in front of you like the filthy kikes they are!" is harmful.

The latter.

It generates no real harm. "Hurt feelings" are not real harm. They can, you know, not play the game.

Further more, simply playing such a game is not the same as supporting the actions or beliefs therein in real life. Again, it's fantasy. It's not real.

Or do you think every person who kills another "human being" in a video game is secretly a budding murderer?

[Aurora Novus]

Yes, because decapitation and playing a video game are completely similar.

Because people have no capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

I suppose Super Mario breeds violence against turtles too, hm?

Based on how long you spent in this thread braying that portraying women as only useful for sex isn't inherently sexist

It's not more sexist than having female NPCs who's only purpose is to walk around in the background, sell you items, or give you information.

Simply because a character isn't three dimensional, and completely in line with reality, doesn't make that character sexist, racist, or whatever idiotic name you'd label it. It simply makes them a lacking character. It's at best an artistic fault; not a social issue.

[Aurora Novus]

It generates no real harm. "Hurt feelings" are not real harm.

I tell my PTSD friend this every time I traumatize him. Gives me a kick.

Your argument might have some merit if, you know, we were proposing forcing people to play such a game. But we're not.

[Aurora Novus]

Nope, but I sure as hell think that it contributes to a culture of violence

Hardly. Violence in media does not translate out to violence in real life in this neat little way people like you suggest. It is, again, because people have this little capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

Media doesn't make average people go out and kill people. Media doesn't make them hold specific views, or treat people in certain ways. Playing a violent video game isn't going to make you violent, and playing a video game that has females i it for sex appeal, isn't going to magically turn people into raging misogynists and rapists.

and people take their cues about the real world from the media.

Only if they're retarded.

If you present popular media which infantilizes and dehumanizes social groups, then you have people taking their cues from that media and enacting it in real life.

I'm assuming you also think the it gets better campaign is worthless too, eh? Since "hurt feelings" aren't real harm.

Until someone reaches for a razor.

No one has a right to not be offended, or have their feelings hurt. That's an asinine thing to view, because anyone can find anything offensive. Look at Islam in the middle east, and how Draw Mohammad Day "hurt their feelings".

[Aurora Novus]

It's not more sexist than having female NPCs who's only purpose is to walk around in the background, sell you items, or give you information.

If the ONLY female characters in a game just walked around in the background and gave you items and info that would be sexist.

Now you're getting it.

Except, no, that wouldn't make it so. That's a bloody asinine argument to make.

[Aurora Novus]

That's grade-A bullshit right there. In fact, it is perhaps the height of intellectually dishonesty I've ever seen on NSG. It's that fucking bad.

You know absolutely nothing about any modern science if you can honestly state that you don't believe emotional trauma can lead to "real harm."

Note I said hurt feelings, not "emotional trauma". There's a difference.

As for trauma, that's not our responsibility. It's not our responsibility to make sure we all live our lives in such a away that we don't potentially set off some random person. We should not have to constrict ourselves, because some people have problems.

Further more, again, no one is proposing forcing people to play such a game. Meaning you're saying that, since someone could possibly suffer an episode, simply because they know of the existence of the game, it's immoral and shouldn't exist.

Do you not see how asinine that argument is?

[Aurora Novus]

Except, no, that wouldn't make it so. That's a bloody asinine argument to make.

Actually if female characters did nothing but stand around in town and give you items and gossip that would be incredibly sexist.

But by this point I am not at all surprised that you don't get it.

Go ahead and explain then. How is it "sexist"?

[Aurora Novus]

Yet Aurora comes in and claims that "hurt feelings" aren't real harm.

They aren't, and if you think they are, you really need to grow up. If something makes you feel offended, that's not a real harm. You need to learn how to deal with things that you personally might not like. That's how, you know, mature adults live.

[Aurora Novus]

Go ahead and explain then. How is it "sexist"?

...How is it sexist to have no female do anything important, and just stand around in the village and gossip?

Really? Thats your question?

Yes.

We're not talking about real life here. We're talking about a fictional universe. A computer program, and bits of data.

Explain how having certain bits of data perform a particular function, instead of another function, is sexist. They aren't real people. They aren't negatively affected by their experiences, unless the game dictates that they should be negatively impacted. I mean, hell, if we want to try and rationalize it by projecting personhood onto these characters, we could easily state that the women in this fictional realm simply like to behave in this way, and are exerting their right and freedom to act in ways they personally enjoy.

How you can rationalize that having a character which is not a fully fleshed out, realistic representation of a human being, is sexist, is beyond me. Perhaps if the game was trying to send a message of "this is how all woman are/should be in real life", you'd have an argument, but unless we're talking about some highly specific game here, games don't do that.

[Aurora Novus]

I've never heard of anyone having an episode triggered by a joke. If it's happened, feel free to find the example.
While we're on it though, yes. Noone has that authority.
So what's all this shit about offending people again, what precisely gives you the authority to determine what will and will not offend someone?

Me, for one? I certainly know people who have.

The dozens of rape victims I know who've been triggered if someone tells that fucking 'is it theft or rape hurr durr' "joke". The abuse victims, who hear people laughing about domestic abuse.

I means seriously, it's quite common. I don't think I've had a full blown PTSD attack because someone has said a joke, but it's not out of the realms of possibility for me alone and I'm pretty fucking lucky in terms of my flashbacks and episodes.

Then those people should take measures to not hear those kinds of jokes, either by avoiding certain places/situations, or informing people beforehand that they really don't enjoy such things, as it sets them off.

It is not, however, the responsibility of the public to completely shut down something for everyone, simply because some people have cause to be opposed to it.