Sexism in video games.

[Aurora Novus]

So we now have three different posters attesting that "hurt feelings" cause real harm.

Will Aurora please concede their point now?

Hurt feelings =/= PTSD.

[Aurora Novus]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttrauma ... s_disorder
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/p ... ndex.shtml
http://www.ptsd.va.gov/
http://www.helpguide.org/mental/post_tr ... atment.htm

You are objectively wrong. Much as any rational person would like it to not be so, PTSD and emotional trauma in general are entirely real and dangerous things. Since you have made it clear that you do not understand how PTSD works, try reading about it. Instead of being so insultingly arrogant. That's, you know, what mature adults do.

Again, hurt feelings, and emotional trauma, are not the same thing.

Alternatively, are you proposing that every time some draws Mohammad, they are causing Muslims who complain about it to experience PTSD?

[Aurora Novus]

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.

Yes, how dare people who have suffered severe emotional trauma have the audacity to hear callous jokes! Obviously, all people who have suffered trauma should be force to live in isolation to fit your worldview.

Not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is we, the public, have no responsibility to constantly live on edge, for fear of setting someone off. Nor should it be.

[Aurora Novus]

Hurt feelings =/= PTSD.

So you are now both intellectually honest

Not at all, I told you at the very beginning that the two were not the same thing. The very first time you started accusing me of not recognizing PTSD as a real harm, I told you that that's not what I was talking about.

That you refuse to recognize this is intellectual dishonesty on your part, not mine.

and didn't read the three different posters mentioning physical injury caused by a stupid joke.

That's going to help your case so much, I'm sure.

There are so many posts going by I'm having difficulty keeping track. Please direct me to the source that jokes cause physical injury.

[Aurora Novus]

Not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is we, the public, have no responsibility to constantly live on edge, for fear of setting someone off. Nor should it be.

Sure. But we have every right to tell the public "Hi! This is harmful to a lot of people!" when you do.

And we have a right to say so what? Just because someone, because of their personal experiences, felt hurt by something someone said, doesn't make what they said an "objective harm", and therefore, doesn't mean squat when it comes to whether or not people should be allowed to do something, or should/shouldn't be shamed for doing something.

If someone pointed out that it would hurt them, and someone went along anyway, that's another matter; but that's not what we're describing now is it?


In the same way, if having sex appeal in a game "offends" you, well, guess what? You don't have to play the game, miracle of miracles. And in fact you can find plenty of games that don't have that.

So...what's your problem again? Why do you feel the need to take your subjective tastes, and try to make them some moral imperative?

[Aurora Novus]

Well, it's obvious we're not talking about sexism in video games anymore. I feel kind of awkward right now...

Oh, no, we are.

But apparently, since it's not real, it doesn't matter.

Well, yeah. If someone dies in a video game, nothing bad has happened, because no one has actually been harmed.

If someone feel supset because someone dies in a video game, they can just walk away, and not play the game. Or suck it up and move on.

The fact that it's not real is precisely the point, and it's a pretty big fucking deal. Because it's not real, people have the freedom to not interact with it. They have the choice to not be involved in that fantasy realm. So unless someone is forcing you to play in the realm, any "harm" you experience as a result of that game is neigh entirely your own doing, and your own choice.

[Aurora Novus]

So your argument is "It's ok to present women as objects because it's not a woman, it's an object we're pretending is a woman."

Pretty much, yes. It's not a real person, it's not actually being harmed or oppressed. Even if the theme of the game is that they are being oppressed, it's not real. It's just bits of preprogramed coding, working in a way it was designed to work.

Sorta a bad argument when a big selling point of games is immersion.

Not really. That you can relate to and believe, to an extent, something is real, doesn't make in any less real.

Further more, you'll notice that games heavy on immersion, typically have lots of fully fleshed out, realistic characters. Male and female.

It's games that typically aren't about heavy immersion, that have cardboard cutout caricatures of humanity.

And many games have a mixture of both. One of my favorite game series is Disgaea, which among other things, is known for a lot of it's fanservicey scenes and characters. But there's also a lot of more realistic (well, as realistic as you can get, given the genre) characters as well.

Which is again why I say that this isn't a social issue. What this is is an issue of artistic merit and creativity. The more creative and impacting the game is, the more realistic the characters become. The more childish and uncreative games are, the less immersive and realistic they typically are.

If you want a really nice example of this in my opinion, just look at the difference between the Mario platforms, and the Paper Mario series. In the former, the Koopas are entirely evil, and are enemies to be conquered and destroyed. In the Paper Mario series, which is far more story based, the game's characters are far more nuanced, and there is a mixture of good and bad in the species throughout the game.

To claim that simply have unrealistic female characters is sexist, would be like claiming Super Mario Bros. is speciesist against turtles, fish, and the other species that appear with their only role as "enemy to defeat".

[Aurora Novus]

So, essentially, you're saying that if women don't like sexism in video games, we should just not play video games?

No, what I'm saying is, if you don't like certain "sexist" games, don't play those specific games. Go play different games, or make your own games, or fund someone to make games that appeal specifically to you.

You could, also, suffer throughout it and purchase these games, but then when companies ask for feedback, talk about the kinds of things you'd like to see in a game. They will more often than not take this into account when making future games. In fact, they may go looking for people specifically for the urpose of making the kinds of games you might like.

Video games are not the exclusive and sole domain of men.

Nor have I claimed such.

You don't own them, and you can't marginalize us. We are your equals. Start fucking acting like it.

Somehow I'm not acting like women are equal to men? I mean, nothing about my argument is specific to women. You could take the same things I've said and apply it to men, in any field where they are not the dominant market force.

When you're done playing around with fantasy, I'll be waiting.

[Aurora Novus]

It's doubly-irrelevant because the appropriate response to "Wow, that's really sexist towards women" isn't "Men suffer too!" without any sort of admission of the criticism being valid.
(I'm getting this from "People always complain about [...] but" since the implication is that the complaints are invalid due to males also being harmed by stereotyping)
[Can't remember the technical term for- displacement? Think that's the one.]

How about this. Life isn't fair so stop complaining about things which barely effect you when there are so many larger problems to deal with.

The existence of greater evils, does not makes lesser evils no longer evils.

[Aurora Novus]

The existence of greater evils, does not makes lesser evils no longer evils.

I'm sorry, but since when did enlarging a woman's boobs in a video game become an evil?

I don't think that. I just disagree with your reasoning for opposition. It's a common argument made, and it's a poor one. I don't like seeing it thrown around.

[Aurora Novus]

Someone get the man a prize.

I would, but he also believes sexism isn't evil.

No, I believe that what you call "sexism" when it comes to fantasy realms, isn't an evil.

There's a large difference there.

[Aurora Novus]

What games? I've been playing video games since the age of four, and I have yet to see a single one that is devoid of sexism.

Then you're apparently not been looking very hard, or do not have as much experience in the realm of videogames as you claim to have.

"Go play different games" only works when those "different games" actually exist.

To name just a few game that have strong female characters.

The Portal Series
The Elder Scrolls Series
The Fallout Series
Donkey Kong Country 2, 3, (and the upcoming game Tropical Freeze), along with their Land counterparts
Any Mario RPG
The Disgaea Series (although this runs heavy with sex appeal too, but there are plenty of "positive female role models")
Most MMOs where there is decent character customization
The Tomb Raider series
Perfect Dark

I could go on. You really have to be blind if you think there are no games with strong female characters.

"Make your own games?" What sort of fantasy world are you living in? Triple A, mainstream games require millions in funding and thousands of hours to make. The average person can't do that.

In other words, Capitalism sucks. Yeah, I get that. Hence my flag.

The fact that Capitalism is a shitty economic system, that prevents people from pursuing their dreams, doesn't justify your reasoning however.

"Don't like sexist oppression? Just deal with it!"
Fuck that. Fuck that so hard. No.

I wouldn't call it sexist oppression. Seriously, who is oppressed by the existence of bits of coding made to look like "beautiful" women? That's oppression? Jesus...

Like I said, Capitalism sucks. But that is an option.

And again, what sort of fantasy world are you living in? Mainstream game designers don't give half a shit what the public wants.

Uh, really? What fantasy world are you living in? Developers respond to the desires of the public all the time, especially when it comes to sequels.

I'm really doubting your claim that you're a gamer. If you are, you don't pay much attention to the broader gaming culture.

That's why they keep pumping out the same shooter crap over and over.

Um, the reason they keep pumping that garbage out, is because of the idiots who want it. This might come as a surprise, and disappointment to you, but there are people who actually want and enjoy those games. It's sad, and something that the gaming community has bitched about for years.

Just look at Microsoft's reveal of the Xbox One. Does it look like they have any idea what gamers want?

Microsoft is notorious for it's greed when it comes to anything it makes.

No. No they don't. Sending a letter to a game designer isn't going to do anything because the real world isn't an Saturday morning cartoon.

I highly disagree. Hell, I've seen plenty of times where the desires of a gaming community were responded to by developers. The upcoming DKC game is a perfect example of Retro responding to desires put forth by it's fans from the time they released Returns.

Yes you are. You literally just did in this very post.

Quote me. Show me the exact line where I claimed video games were a male thing, and women shouldn't be allowed to play them.

You're acting as if sexism isn't a problem and/or doesn't exist. That's almost the definition of misogyny.

First of all, misogyny isn't the lack of belief in sexism. I love how this term gets tossed around all the time, yet hardly anyone seems to understand what it means. I've completely lost any respect for the term.

Further more, no, I'm not pretending sexism doesn't exist. I've given specific arguments for why sexualized female game characters isn't sexism, and is not a moral evil.

Care to show the least bit of intellectual honesty dear?

[Aurora Novus]

I don't think that. I just disagree with your reasoning for opposition. It's a common argument made, and it's a poor one. I don't like seeing it thrown around.

You are aware that there's a difference between "Fanservice is evil/sexist" and "The vast majority of woman characters in video games being used for fanservice is evil/sexist," right? I'm seeing a lot of the latter and not much of the former.

I don't see much a difference at all.

If there is nothing immoral about having female game character's, who's only purpose, or at least a purpose, is sex appeal, and there is nothing wrong about people liking that in a fantasy realm, then it logically follows that it doesn't matter how many people like it, it's still not immoral. And likewise, if lots of it is made, to appeal to the lots of people who like it, it's still not evil, nor immoral.

I've said this before, but what is with this hipster shit that claims "it's okay if only a few people like it, but if a lot of people like it, it magically becomes immoral"? Nonsense.

[Aurora Novus]

Hurt feelings =/= PTSD.

I just want to remind everyone that Aurora's argument was explicitly that Holocaust survivors would not be hurt by a game glorifying the Holocaust.

Apparently, Holocaust survivors only suffer from "hurt feelings" about watching their families be murdered. Who knew?

Not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is we, the public, have no responsibility to constantly live on edge, for fear of setting someone off. Nor should it be.

Once again, I want to remind everyone that Aurora's argument was explicitly that Holocaust survivors would not be hurt by a game glorifying the Holocaust.

That's not quite it.

My point was that it does not create objective harm. It can generate subjective harm, certainly. But unless someone is forcing someone else to sit down and play this game, the fact that holocaust survivors might dislike it doesn't mean jack shit. No one is making them play it, so any "pain" they feel as a result of it is their own fault.

Apparently, not glorifying the Holocaust is REALLY HARD and requires CONSTANTLY LIVING ON EDGE, you guys. I know I often trip and find I've accidentally yelled, "HEIL HITLER KILL ALL THE JEWS."

You can stop being disingenuous at any time you know.

It's not the responsibility of those who would like to play a video game as a nazi in WWII, to not play such a game, because the existence of such a game could potentially "offend" somebody. It's the job of the person who might be offended by it, to not engage with it, and inform others that such ideas hurt them, so others can leave such topics be around those people.

It is not justification to outright ban such a game, or label such a game as "immoral" and an "objective source of harm".

[Aurora Novus]

A few women and men here and there being used as a tease for people playing the game is okay because there is nothing wrong with pandering to people's sexual fantasies in and of itself. There is no underlying trend to it. When the overwhelming majority of female characters in video games serve only as eye candy or to serve male characters, then there is a trend. That is sexist, not because women are being objectified

Stop.

First of all, these aren't real women. They are virtual coding made to represent women, and even then, not necessarily real women. So to complain about "objectification" is really idiotic. They are objects by their very nature.

Further more, if it's not sexist when it's just a few games, then it's not sexist when it's a lot of games. Sexism doesn't magically generate itself when some happens frequently. It either is, or isn't, in a situation. how many times that situation is repeated afterwards doesn't mean anything.

, but because it demonstrates and perpetuates the belief that women are nothing but objects both by its treatment of women characters and by its disregard for the women in the audience.

Except, it doesn't do that at all. Again, it's a fantasy realm. People have the capability to differentiate between fantasy and reality. Fantasy should not be regulated by realistic expectations, unless the point of the fantasy is to be realistic. But if it's supposed to be fantasy, then any break from reality is perfectly fine.


It seems to me your complaint is less about the game themselves, and more about what you believe to be a borader social attitude.

So...why are you attacking video games then? Go attack the social attitude. But don't chastise people for enjoying a particular fantasy, and people appeasing that fantasy, by marketing games to it. That makes no rational sense.

Unless of course you complaint isn't about society, and it's just that you childishly think people should bow to your subjective tastes.

[Aurora Novus]

"Strong female characters" does not automatically equal a lack of sexism.

So...you're problem isn't even having realistic, three dimensional women? It's the existance of any non-realistic women what so ever?

Well, first of all, even some of the above mentioned would still apply (such as Portal or Perfect Dark), but even then, what the fuck? Literally your argument has boiled down to "how dare people not make games exactly the way I want them, it's oppression that they market multiple desires!"

Also, by the by, trying to pass of Mario as lacking sexism really makes me doubt your credibility.

Note that I said the Mario RPGs. As in, the Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi series. Have you ever played one?

The irrelevance of that statement is astounding.

It's not irrelevant in the least, you simply do not wish to grapple with it. The fact is, your complaint there was an economic complaint. A complaint that's existence stems from a system which prevents people from by and large pursuing their dreams, due to the way resources are handled and distributed.

Rather then point out how this system hampers your ability to, in this instance, make games you want made, and suggest ways to alter the system to allow for such things to occur, you instead opt for the solution of chastising and trying to snuff out anything you don't like, so only what you like is made.

But that solution does not logically follow from you complaint, nor is it the best solution.

If you have a problem with the economic realities of the system, deal with the economic system.

More utter irrelevance. Capitalism has jack squat to do with this.

Capitalism has everything to do with economics, and your complaint was an economic complaint. If we, for instance, lived in a communist society, you wouldn't have the issue of money facing you when it comes to making a video game.

If you're not prepared to deal with economics, dont make economic complaints.

No, that's not how it works.

"Nu uh, you're wrong!!"

Game developers don't try to make good games because that requires risks, and they can't afford risks.

Then why do they take risks all the time? The Wii? That was a risk. Taking Mario back to his 2D roots? That was a risk.

Do you realize how childish you sound? "Game developers don't make good games..." is the kind of complaint a child makes, because they don't have something they want. Game developers do make good games. Just ones you apparently don't find personally appealing. That doesn't make them bad games, and it doesn't mean that they don't respond to fans, when they choose to implement some things, but not things you personally want.

Further more, I've given you a number of good games above that have features you might like and enjoy.

Quit your childish tantrum.

Games are so obscenely expensive to make that even the biggest of companies must invest everything they have into each game they produce.

...what?

They invest all their money in each game they make?

If that were the case, Nintendo would have been bankrupt the moment they made Metroid: Other M.

OH! That's ANOTHER good game series by the way! The Metroid series! It's my second favorite series actually, and Samus is one of my favorite gaming characters in general.

I'm calling bullshit on your claims of playing games since you were 4. You are the most out of touch with gaming culture "gamer" I have ever heard of.

If it doesn't sell, then they go bankrupt, and the company implodes. Thus, they make games that reside squarely in the lowest common denominator and play it entirely safe, making mediocre shlock that is guaranteed to sell instead of taking the risk of doing something good.

Mhm...Bioshock 3 sure was marketing to the "lowest common denominator" and "playing it safe". Yup. Totally.

Yes, people buy the games because there is literally no other option available. Either you play bad games, or you play no games, and most prefer the former.

Which explains the large communities dedicated to praising certain games series that you claim are "bad games". They're obviously all lying. Yup.

Do you understand the definition of the word "subjective" dear?

So you're just handwaving them away as being irrelevant? Despite the fact that they are a central figure in the gaming world? Yeah, you can't do that.

No, what I'm doing is rationalizing their reasoning for making the Xbox One the way they did when it was first announced. Once there was the large community outcry, guess what? They changed shit to appeal to the masses.

I still think they're a terrible company however. I'll never forgive them for what they did to Rare...

You're saying that if women don't like sexist games, we should just deal with it or not buy any.

Well, yeah. That's what I would say to anyone with regards to any product, male or female. I'm not saying video games are a "male" thing, I'm saying if you don't like a particular game, don't play it. Go play a different game or, if by some extreme antiluck, there are no games in existence which appeal to you, make your own, get someone to make your own, or just wait it out and try and get companies to make some games you like.

But don't try and destroy the types of games people like that you don't like. That's, ironically, bigotry.

I mean, bloody hell, do you know how long I had to wait for a new DKC game? Donkey Kong Country 3 was released in 1996. Was I "oppressed" because for over 10 years, the gaming industry wasn't making a particular game I liked? Were they just making "bad games"? Give me a fucking break.

Misogyny is the hatred of women. Declaring sexism non-existent when it is obviously prevalent seems pretty mean-spirited to me.

That you perceive it as mean-spirited doesn't make it mean-spirited. For instance, such a person could be entirely ignorant of the society. Or they might have rational reasons for not seeing it.

But it's not automatically misogyny. That you try and frame it as such is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

[Aurora Novus]

Maybe it's just one of Peach's traits, being easily capturable.

Mario always having to rescue Peach isn't necessarily sexist. If it wasn't a common theme in games, it would simply be a quirk of the Mario games. The issue is that it is an ingrained part of the video game industry that the strong, attractive male has to save the weak, attractive woman.

I have never perceived Mario as "strong" or "attractive". That's...an odd way to describe him.

Further more, Peach isn't actually that weak, if you play games other than the platformers. She's a pretty in-depth and well-rounded character, and quite capable of handling herself.

Further more, the "damsel in distress" trope has less to do with sexism, and more to do with quickly setting up a reason for playing the game. Someone you care about being taken is a pretty damn good reason to get off your ass and go on an adventure.

In Donkey Kong Country 2 the trope was used, but instead of a woman, Donkey Kong himself was kidnapped and held for ransom. Diddy and his girlfriend Dixie had to go on an adventure to save him. And in DKC3, Both DK and Diddy go missing, and Dixie goes on an adventure to save them.

The reason it's used so often is because it's and easy setup to the story. It's quick, gets the point across clearly, and everyone can relate to it on one level or another.

[Aurora Novus]

First of all, these aren't real women. They are virtual coding made to represent women, and even then, not necessarily real women. So to complain about "objectification" is really idiotic. They are objects by their very nature.

An object made to represent women can have an impact on women's self-perception and men's perception of women,

Only if that person is incapable of understanding that a fictional reality, with less than three dimensional characters, is not an accurate representation of reality, nor is it meant to be.

and therein lies the potential for objectification of women themselves.

In other words, "people will do bad things if they see this media". This is the same old dance and song that people have been spewing for years about all sorts of media, from games, to music, to movies. It's utter horseshit each and every time.

It's less direct than objectifying women physically, but it's no less objectification thereof. You've already acknowledged that, you just don't think it matters in this case because you feel the impact from such representations is negligible and/or avoidable.

Actually, I don't truly hold it to be objectification in any meaningful sense. I don't believe it's objectification, because the "objectified" party in question isn't real. They aren't even a person.

It's like saying that someone who masturbates to an image in their head, is objectifying that image in their head. It's utter nonsense, and almost verges on accusations of thought-crime.

It is objectification and sexism if there's one "Ms. Fanservice" or a whole cast of them, yes.

How? How is the lack of three dimensional characters evidence of sexism and objectification? Why does there need to be a token "this is how real women are" character, for it to not be sexist? No one has yet to explain this line of thinking, they merely keep asserting it.

The point is that elements of one's fantasy world can reinforce real-world ideas, even if entirely unintentionally.

"Reinforce" and "create" are two different things. If your complaint is that assholes who have incorrect, harmful views of reality, might use fantasy as justification to continue to hold these views, speaks nothing about the games, and speaks solely about the intellectual credulity of the person who's saying such nonsense to begin with.

This again all seems to be to be perfectly fine justification...for attacking perceived cultural norms. Not video games. Games, like all media, are at best made in response to culture. They are not at fault for a given culture's existence.

The two aren't as easily separated as you believe. Reality and fiction are indeed separate things which can be divorced in the mind, but fiction can reinforce non-fictional ideas.

Again, only if (1) those ideals were preexistent to begin with, and (2) the person in questions cannot, or refuses to out of willful ignorance, differentiate between reality and fiction.

Which is, by and large, not how humanity operates.

[Aurora Novus]

... and everyone can relate to it on one level or another.

Yes. Women can very much relate to getting kidnapped all the time and having to wait for the big, strong man to save her.

Everyone can relate to the fear of losing a loved one, and and thinking about to what extent they would go to save them.

Come on, stretch those critical reading skills a little.

[Aurora Novus]

I have never perceived Mario as "strong" or "attractive". That's...an odd way to describe him.

Further more, Peach isn't actually that weak, if you play games other than the platformers. She's a pretty in-depth and well-rounded character, and quite capable of handling herself.

So if you ignore the games where she's reduced to a trinket that Bowser steals from Mario, she's never treated as a trinket that Bowser steals from Mario? Throw a facepalm in there and you're a shoe in for a silver medal.

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is, the fact that in the platform games she's frequently kidnapped, doesn't make hr a poor video game character, and it doesn't make her getting kidnapped "sexist", especially when you consider getting kidnapped and being the goal for the end of a game isn't her only character trait in any given game.

You can try and claim that Peach is some sexist, misogynistic icon of video gaming, but that simply does not line up with reality.

[Aurora Novus]

Everyone can relate to the fear of losing a loved one, and and thinking about to what extent they would go to save them.

Come on, stretch those critical reading skills a little.

Yes, everyone must relate to the man, especially the women. That's logic for you.

Never said that either. In fact, I provided some examples earlier of the damsel in distress trope being used, where a female character had to go save male characters.

It's a matter of people relating to the protagonist.

Further more, are you implying that a woman relating to a man (or vice versa, a man relating to a woman) is evidence of sexism? The irony.

[Aurora Novus]

Everyone can relate to the fear of losing a loved one, and and thinking about to what extent they would go to save them.

Come on, stretch those critical reading skills a little.

And the last time a woman saved a man in a video game was......?

That depends, is the woman in question an important NPC, or the player character?

Or alternatively, do you want me to just chug out a list of games I've played with a woman saving a man?

[Aurora Novus]

And when the protagonist is a man in almost every single game, then I can pretty safely say "a man" because the times when the protagonist are not a man are rather negligible.

I'd hesitate before saying men are the protagonist in "almost every single" game. Most, sure. But there are tons of games where a female is the protagonist, or at the very least. a protagonist, usually in the case of RPGs.

Hell my favorite Final Fantasy game is VI, and the main protagonist is a woman.


Really this all relates to your blindness, willful or otherwise, of games with strong female protagonists. As I've yet to see you respond to that post, I'm going to assume you've conceded that argument.

[Aurora Novus]

Customizable characters is the industry saying "We're afraid to write female protagonists, so we'll write androgynous protagonists and let you pretend whatever you want." I'm not saying it's bad, but it's foolish to pretend that that is a substitute for real woman protagonists.

Oh, no. Not at all. They're not writing androgynous protagonists. They're writing male protagonists and then having an option to slap some tits on him.

Yes, obviously it's just evil male plotting rather than, you know, developers appealing to people's desire to personalize their characters. No, obviously it's Patriarchy and all that nonsense.

God you guys reek of confirmation bias.

[Aurora Novus]

I'd hesitate before saying men are the protagonist in "almost every single" game. Most, sure. But there are tons of games where a female is the protagonist, or at the very least. a protagonist, usually in the case of RPGs.

Hell my favorite Final Fantasy game is VI, and the main protagonist is a woman.


Really this all relates to your blindness, willful or otherwise, of games with strong female protagonists. As I've yet to see you respond to that post, I'm going to assume you've conceded that argument.

Assume whatever the hell you want. I don't care what you believe about me.

In other words, yes.

Got it.