Warface Producer Defends Female Designs as "Cultural Relativism"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

CHUD:

Res Plus:
Really don't understand stand why developers even bother with these rubbish justifications, just say you are making the game you wants to make and tell the tiny but oh so vocal minority of Feminazis to go make their own game.

And if a game contained, say, blatant racism (not as part of story, as in; Bioshock Infinite, but REAL racism) - would you just exclaim that developers can make whatever game they want and that the "anti-racist fascists" (or whatever) can go make their own games?

I certainly hope not.

To put it simply: It is NOT okay to portray a group in a dergatory or objectifying way (if it is not relevant to the story) - even if it is YOUR game it (or movie, or book, or whatever). Unless there is an in-story reason for it, women soldiers in shooters should be presented the same way as their male counterparts - both in regards to competence and in regards to not walking around like they are only there for eye-candy.

Where did "blatant racism" come from? Why the switch? Did you not feel your point would stand up if you stuck with "sexism"?

Anyway, to put it simply: if I want to make a game with hundreds of scantily clad, wasp waisted, huge boobed nymphets who can't tie their shoe laces being saved by hyper intelligent super men whom they swoon into the arms of that's my right. You might think that is "blatantly sexist", I might not. No amount of you writing "NOT OK" in big letters changes that.
If fact no amount of you writing "NOT OK" even makes it "NOT OK". The only fact here is that you don't think it's OK. That is all.

You have options of course: not buying it, thinking I'm a dick, hanging around on websites where like minded people post to make you feel like your opinions have wider acceptance than they do, or writing articles bemoaning the fact, full of gender studies buzz words such as "male gaze", but you don't have the right to make me change my game. You can campaign for me to do so but you can't make me change my game. I have a right to do stuff no matter how much real or imagined offense is taken. So, as I said, I don't know why they don't just tell the Femnazis to do one, they can't do anything and if they had any intellectual honesty they'd make their own games rather than trying to influence everyone else's.

Personally, for the little it is worth, I reckon most characters in computer games are stereotypes and need addressing but I am far more concerned about the modern trend for people to shout "blatant this" and "NOT OK that" and then try to ban it is far, far more worrying that some female computer game sprites that aren't dressed the same way as the males ones.

image

One of these two are wearing proper combat attire. Can you guess which one?

Hint: It's the one dressed like the male Warface characters.

Res Plus:
I have a right to do stuff no matter how much real or imagined offense is taken.

Actually, no - you don't. And no matter how many times you claim so, it still won't be true. If you had made a game that portrayed the Nazis as being right, or a game that claimed that slavery was a good thing, or that portrayed people of any ethnic group as completely sub-human - you would likely be charged based on some kind of hate-crime law. And you should be.

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such. That was the point of my analogy, but this seems to have been lost on you. So here I'm spelling it out. Perhaps for now, one can get away with straight out sexism. However, I'm hoping this will change - and that sexism WILL be treated as serious as racism and other hate-crimes in the future.

Maybe you HAVE the right to portray women as a sexualized joke, at present, but that does not MAKE it right... and in the end, maybe that right should be taken away. That is MY opinion, and it is part of what is discussed.

You see. Objectifying women is not just "NOT OK" - it is bad, evil, degrading... whatever negative term you prefer. And in the end, excuses made by chauvinists are just that - excuses - made because they enjoy seeing women reduced to objects for their own amusement and pleasure.

To continue my example of racism; it would not be acceptable to portray black people in a horrible dergatory manner just because it happened to amuse the people buying games. And it is unacceptable to do the same to women. Now, seeing that the gaming industry will keep pandering to these "brotards" if it can. Then yes, in the end - if they will not change, they should be MADE to change - by law. The same way laws were used to battle racism in the past.

And you are correct, that is the true face of us "evil feminazis" (well, OK, THIS feminazi, at least) - to challenge anyones "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

Amakusa:
Seriously WTF, Give me sources cause most the stuff you say is bull or exaggerations of truths. 70% cases of domestic violence is against men with the women is the abuser. Umm no. So when i say sources i mean legitimate ones, preferable from academics, case law, or legislation. I do not want BS sources from some random generic "men that hates women agency" internet group.

Seriously

Crimes Act 1900 No 40 (NSW Australia)
Current version for 12 September 2013 to date (accessed 9 October 2013 at 21:13)
Part 3Division 10Section 61I

<< page >>

61I Sexual assault

Any person who has sexual intercourse with another person without the consent of the other person and who knows that the other person does not consent to the sexual intercourse is liable to imprisonment for 14 years.

Source http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/maintop/view/inforce/act+40+1900+cd+0+N

Please tell where is says that rape (sexual assault is the legal word in NSW) is man attacking women only in that definition? Seriously you are exaggerating or literally pulling shite out of thin air.

And here is an example of the the New York State Legislature of a Rape Crime which is a USA jurisdiction.

Penal

§ 130.35 Rape in the first degree.
A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person:
1. By forcible compulsion; or
2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless;
or
3. Who is less than eleven years old; or
4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more.
Rape in the first degree is a class B felony.

Source http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS

As again please tell which jurisdictions have rape as man raping women only, because you have made some very BIG generalisations.

The only valid case you might have is in relation to the family court. However you don't go to jail in Australia for failed child support. You can get sued. However if you tried to commit fraud to avoid paying, then you could go to jail possible since fraud is a crime and that would be separate case pursued by the ATO or the Crown (state).

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00465 Is the link for the child support law.

Listen its okay to for you to say you dislike women and think they are second rate people. Be honest instead of outright misrepresenting things and making weak links with no sources and with no context. This reminds me of the White guy defense force carton on critical miss that enraged some readers a few weeks ago.

Alrighty, here we go.
First of all, I did not say that 70% of domestic violence was a woman beating her man. Please do practice some reading comprehension for this post.
What I said amounts to 50% of domestic violence being a man and a woman abusing each other, 33'ish% being a woman abusing a man and 17% being a man abusing a woman.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf (keep this one open in a tab, I will be referring to it a lot... for now, go to pages 37-49)
While the CDC numbers don't quite match the numbers in the Martin Fiebert analysis, they do get quite close, which is impressive for a survey that is biased enough against men to define being made to sexually penetrate someone else as something other than rape.
So please do try to refrain from using straw-man arguments here... it's unbecoming.
Now, with these facts in mind, try doing a google search for "government funded shelters for men"... see if you can find any.

The Duluth Model is the pre-eminent model for treating Domestic Violence, and the American Police force is trained in it by power of the Violence Against Women Act. This is all fairly common knowledge. What most people ignore however, is how the Duluth Model blatantly discriminates against men.
The Duluth Model posits that violence and abuse between intimate partners is definitionally male violence, and that victimization in domestic abuse is definitionally female victimization.
In the Duluth Model, all violence and abuse is male-sourced, even that which is perpetrated by women. Female-initiated violence and abuse does not exist, because all such violence or abuse must, in the framework of the Duthuth model, be either in self defense from a male aggressor, or in response to pre-existing male-initiated abuse and violence. Indeed, the Duluth Model posits a psychological framework of domination, control and aggression onto the male psyche, as if masculinity itself is a malignant, violent mental disorder.
All violence is male. All victimization is female. Female abusers don't exist, male victims don't exist. In fact, the causes of violence within intimate relationships, such as poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, poor communication or coping skills, childhood trauma, PTSD and other causes, none of these things exist either. Or, if they exist, they do so separate from, and with no causal relationship to domestic violence or abuse. In Duluth, all abuse is male, and masculinity is a synonym for "abusive", "aggressive" and "violent".
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/training/resources.html
Go ahead and read up on it from their own material, they barely even try to hide their bigotry.

As for Title IX, if you're not going to believe me, then maybe you're going to believe a fellow feminist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
Strange how a law that was advertised as a way to get more female students into sports has somehow given school tribunals the power to do criminal investigations.
"She Fears You" lectures are very much real and of course are only one of the examples of how male college students are demonized, stating that it is men's responsibility to prove that they are not rapists.

Funny how you should bring up New York State Law as an example of how I'm wrong, since even feminists criticize New York State Legislature for defining rape only as vaginal penetration and not also anal and oral pentration.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/when_the_law_wont_call_it_rape/
And since it's pretty much impossible to penetrate a man's vagina, then it is legally impossible to rape a man in the State of New York.
So your so-called gender-neutral legislation isn't worth the shit it could hold as toilet paper.
I'm not very well read on Australian law, but I do know that you have your fair share of problems with misandrous legislation.

Since you called bullshit on everything I said except my family court claim, that must mean you also didn't believe me when I said that the percentage of male victims of being "forced to penetrate" matched the percentage of female victims of rape.
If you already have the tab for the CDC report open, go to pages 18 and 19 then have a look at the 12 month period stats for female rape victims as well as male victims of being "made to penetrate".
If not, here's the link again:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

"There are several Federal Offices for Women's Health and none for Men's Health, despite men having on average 5 years shorter lifespans."
You're seriously demanding sources for this? This shit is common fucking knowledge that a 10-second google search will easily confirm.

"Significant government funding goes into making the job-market more woman friendly and safe for women, meanwhile 95% of all workplace deaths are men."
Affirmative action isn't about hiring the most qualified person. It's about purposely advantaging people who are not the most qualified.
Oh, and I'm terribly sorry about reciting statistics off the top of my head and getting them wrong by a whopping 2%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality
Look under "Risk Factors".
Funny how getting women into more leadership positions is seen as one of the main ways of achieving equality, but getting more women into, shitty, hard and unhealthy lines of work isn't.

Next up we have my sources for sex disparities in criminal sentencing.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
You're welcome.

Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004).
Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men (Anderson and Smith 2003).
24,672 suicide deaths reported among men in 2001.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
24,672 / 30,622 = .8056952
In other words, over 80% of all suicide deaths in 2001 were male.
Now... this is where I will admit to having made a mistake.
A divorced man is not ten times more likely to commit suicide than a married man... he's only three times more likely to commit suicide. He is however ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced woman. I got those two factoids mixed up.
And as always, my source: http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm
Maybe you've heard of this man: http://thomasjamesball.com/

But hey, you don't have to listen to me. You can just accuse me of hating women and be done with it, like most other people do.

rbstewart7263:

Aidan(Roland):
Say what you will about Call of Duty, the female characters are realistic.

Oh hang on, there aren't any. Well if there were, they could potentially be realistic, so that at least counts for something.

(anybody think the sniper looks an awful lot like early MGS 5 character art for Quiet the Sniper?)

actually the new ones got em and last I checked there consistant with the male designs.

Cool. The only character I could remember was the chopper pilot from Modern Warfare 1, and I'm pretty sure she's just a voice in your ear.

Ryan Minns:
Is it just me or does the female snipers left hand seem... not right?

of course it's not right, it's her left hand ;p would be odd if her left hand was also right...

Joking aside I can actually get really annoyed by these things. The female soldiers just look awfully unpractical and waaay too different from their male coleagues. A small difference I can understand as they should still be visually distinguishable but they shouldn't be sexualised. (because honestly why would you play a shooter for sex, or is that just me...)
Anyway, such things break my imersion...
And i'll leave you with this last thing, I usually look to the female marines and army troopers in the halo series (2 through reach since I can't comment on 4 as I haven't played that one)on how to do it right.

Friis:

Amakusa:
Snip

Alrighty, here we go.
First of all, I did not say that 70% of domestic violence was a woman beating her man. Please do practice some reading comprehension for this post.
What I said amounts to 50% of domestic violence being a man and a woman abusing each other, 33'ish% being a woman abusing a man and 17% being a man abusing a woman.
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf (keep this one open in a tab, I will be referring to it a lot... for now, go to pages 37-49)
While the CDC numbers don't quite match the numbers in the Martin Fiebert analysis, they do get quite close, which is impressive for a survey that is biased enough against men to define being made to sexually penetrate someone else as something other than rape.
So please do try to refrain from using straw-man arguments here... it's unbecoming.
Now, with these facts in mind, try doing a google search for "government funded shelters for men"... see if you can find any.

The Duluth Model is the pre-eminent model for treating Domestic Violence, and the American Police force is trained in it by power of the Violence Against Women Act. This is all fairly common knowledge. What most people ignore however, is how the Duluth Model blatantly discriminates against men.
The Duluth Model posits that violence and abuse between intimate partners is definitionally male violence, and that victimization in domestic abuse is definitionally female victimization.
In the Duluth Model, all violence and abuse is male-sourced, even that which is perpetrated by women. Female-initiated violence and abuse does not exist, because all such violence or abuse must, in the framework of the Duthuth model, be either in self defense from a male aggressor, or in response to pre-existing male-initiated abuse and violence. Indeed, the Duluth Model posits a psychological framework of domination, control and aggression onto the male psyche, as if masculinity itself is a malignant, violent mental disorder.
All violence is male. All victimization is female. Female abusers don't exist, male victims don't exist. In fact, the causes of violence within intimate relationships, such as poverty, mental illness, drug addiction, alcoholism, poor communication or coping skills, childhood trauma, PTSD and other causes, none of these things exist either. Or, if they exist, they do so separate from, and with no causal relationship to domestic violence or abuse. In Duluth, all abuse is male, and masculinity is a synonym for "abusive", "aggressive" and "violent".
http://www.theduluthmodel.org/training/resources.html
Go ahead and read up on it from their own material, they barely even try to hide their bigotry.

As for Title IX, if you're not going to believe me, then maybe you're going to believe a fellow feminist.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
Strange how a law that was advertised as a way to get more female students into sports has somehow given school tribunals the power to do criminal investigations.
"She Fears You" lectures are very much real and of course are only one of the examples of how male college students are demonized, stating that it is men's responsibility to prove that they are not rapists.

Funny how you should bring up New York State Law as an example of how I'm wrong, since even feminists criticize New York State Legislature for defining rape only as vaginal penetration and not also anal and oral pentration.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/26/when_the_law_wont_call_it_rape/
And since it's pretty much impossible to penetrate a man's vagina, then it is legally impossible to rape a man in the State of New York.
So your so-called gender-neutral legislation isn't worth the shit it could hold as toilet paper.
I'm not very well read on Australian law, but I do know that you have your fair share of problems with misandrous legislation.

Since you called bullshit on everything I said except my family court claim, that must mean you also didn't believe me when I said that the percentage of male victims of being "forced to penetrate" matched the percentage of female victims of rape.
If you already have the tab for the CDC report open, go to pages 18 and 19 then have a look at the 12 month period stats for female rape victims as well as male victims of being "made to penetrate".
If not, here's the link again:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

"There are several Federal Offices for Women's Health and none for Men's Health, despite men having on average 5 years shorter lifespans."
You're seriously demanding sources for this? This shit is common fucking knowledge that a 10-second google search will easily confirm.

"Significant government funding goes into making the job-market more woman friendly and safe for women, meanwhile 95% of all workplace deaths are men."
Affirmative action isn't about hiring the most qualified person. It's about purposely advantaging people who are not the most qualified.
Oh, and I'm terribly sorry about reciting statistics off the top of my head and getting them wrong by a whopping 2%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality
Look under "Risk Factors".
Funny how getting women into more leadership positions is seen as one of the main ways of achieving equality, but getting more women into, shitty, hard and unhealthy lines of work isn't.

Next up we have my sources for sex disparities in criminal sentencing.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf
You're welcome.

Suicide took the lives of 30,622 people in 2001 (CDC 2004).
Suicide is the eighth leading cause of death for all U.S. men (Anderson and Smith 2003).
24,672 suicide deaths reported among men in 2001.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/suifacts.htm
24,672 / 30,622 = .8056952
In other words, over 80% of all suicide deaths in 2001 were male.
Now... this is where I will admit to having made a mistake.
A divorced man is not ten times more likely to commit suicide than a married man... he's only three times more likely to commit suicide. He is however ten times more likely to commit suicide than a divorced woman. I got those two factoids mixed up.
And as always, my source: http://www.glennsacks.com/distraught_fathers_courthouse.htm
Maybe you've heard of this man: http://thomasjamesball.com/

But hey, you don't have to listen to me. You can just accuse me of hating women and be done with it, like most other people do.

Cool beans, thanks for that, you have given me info which will take time for me too look at and digest. So i may or may not reply in a timely manner pending time restraints (Assignments and stuff). I will read that info and if appropriate will comment.

Thanks again. Ta

Why every developer steps in the same trap when designing characters?
Sexy and revealing can work
BUT
only when designing light/no armor versions of characters
You're following?
If you want to have more revealing characters in game like this, fine you can
But only if is a one version of character and options are available for both genders
How could it work?
Lets take sniper as example.
What we have right now is lightly-armored male and unarmored female
Now lets make both options for both genders
Lightly armored female would look similarly to male counterpart (with vest, pouches, etc.)
While unarmored male could look closer to female counterpart (no armor, less pouches, etc.)
One option would provide higher armor rating, a bit more ammo, one more special item slot (if there is a thing like that in that in Warface), but at a cost of lower movement speed and bigger frame.
While another would allow for higher speed and smaller frame, but at a cost of decreased armor, ammo and equipment
I'm sure both options would be realistic and used by players

CHUD:

Res Plus:
I have a right to do stuff no matter how much real or imagined offense is taken.

Actually, no - you don't. And no matter how many times you claim so, it still won't be true. If you had made a game that portrayed the Nazis as being right, or a game that claimed that slavery was a good thing, or that portrayed people of any ethnic group as completely sub-human - you would likely be charged based on some kind of hate-crime law. And you should be.

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such. That was the point of my analogy, but this seems to have been lost on you. So here I'm spelling it out. Perhaps for now, one can get away with straight out sexism. However, I'm hoping this will change - and that sexism WILL be treated as serious as racism and other hate-crimes in the future.

Maybe you HAVE the right to portray women as a sexualized joke, at present, but that does not MAKE it right... and in the end, maybe that right should be taken away. That is MY opinion, and it is part of what is discussed.

You see. Objectifying women is not just "NOT OK" - it is bad, evil, degrading... whatever negative term you prefer. And in the end, excuses made by chauvinists are just that - excuses - made because they enjoy seeing women reduced to objects for their own amusement and pleasure.

To continue my example of racism; it would not be acceptable to portray black people in a horrible dergatory manner just because it happened to amuse the people buying games. And it is unacceptable to do the same to women. Now, seeing that the gaming industry will keep pandering to these "brotards" if it can. Then yes, in the end - if they will not change, they should be MADE to change - by law. The same way laws were used to battle racism in the past.

And you are correct, that is the true face of us "evil feminazis" (well, OK, THIS feminazi, at least) - to challenge anyones "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

You know it that is not all that ironic for a person to refer to themselves as a Nazi when they go on to show themselves to be a blatant, unrepentant totalitarian who is willing and eager to quash the concept of free speech and legislate their moral outlook into law.

Paradoxrifts:
You know it that is not all that ironic for a person to refer to themselves as a Nazi when they go on to show themselves to be a blatant, unrepentant totalitarian who is willing and eager to quash the concept of free speech and legislate their moral outlook into law.

Actually, both sides seem to want to "legislate their moral outlook into law".

The person I'm arguing with wants legal protection of the "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

I want legal protection for women to not be portrayed this way. To make dehumanization of women illegal.

Basically: We BOTH want the law to support our way of seeing things. So I am no more a fascist than he is - hence I can safely label myself "femiNAZI" ironically. If I am a totalitarean, then so is he.

CHUD:

Res Plus:
I have a right to do stuff no matter how much real or imagined offense is taken.

Actually, no - you don't. And no matter how many times you claim so, it still won't be true. If you had made a game that portrayed the Nazis as being right, or a game that claimed that slavery was a good thing, or that portrayed people of any ethnic group as completely sub-human - you would likely be charged based on some kind of hate-crime law. And you should be.

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such. That was the point of my analogy, but this seems to have been lost on you. So here I'm spelling it out. Perhaps for now, one can get away with straight out sexism. However, I'm hoping this will change - and that sexism WILL be treated as serious as racism and other hate-crimes in the future.

Maybe you HAVE the right to portray women as a sexualized joke, at present, but that does not MAKE it right... and in the end, maybe that right should be taken away. That is MY opinion, and it is part of what is discussed.

You see. Objectifying women is not just "NOT OK" - it is bad, evil, degrading... whatever negative term you prefer. And in the end, excuses made by chauvinists are just that - excuses - made because they enjoy seeing women reduced to objects for their own amusement and pleasure.

To continue my example of racism; it would not be acceptable to portray black people in a horrible dergatory manner just because it happened to amuse the people buying games. And it is unacceptable to do the same to women. Now, seeing that the gaming industry will keep pandering to these "brotards" if it can. Then yes, in the end - if they will not change, they should be MADE to change - by law. The same way laws were used to battle racism in the past.

And you are correct, that is the true face of us "evil feminazis" (well, OK, THIS feminazi, at least) - to challenge anyones "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

Fair enough, frankly, I think you are terrifying. I think you describe a world where art and speech can be censored by angry, self righteous people claiming offence at the drop of a hat. I think your belief the law should be there only to shore up you worldview alone is wrong and dangerous. I think every totalitarian regime started off convinced of its own moral and intellectual superiority.. I think you are well on the way to becoming what you purport to despise.

CHUD:

Paradoxrifts:
You know it that is not all that ironic for a person to refer to themselves as a Nazi when they go on to show themselves to be a blatant, unrepentant totalitarian who is willing and eager to quash the concept of free speech and legislate their moral outlook into law.

Actually, both sides seem to want to "legislate their moral outlook into law".

The person I'm arguing with wants legal protection of the "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

I want legal protection for women to not be portrayed this way. To make dehumanization of women illegal.

Basically: We BOTH want the law to support our way of seeing things. So I am no more a fascist than he is - hence I can safely label myself "femiNAZI" ironically. If I am a totalitarean, then so is he.

Sorry for double post, can't get phone to work, but this is incorrect too, the law works (in common law systems) by permitting everything that isn't proscribed by law. There is no "right to portray women as second-class humans", there is merely no prohibition. You have a tonne of rights if you feel something is sexist, as I discussed above, including the right to ignore it or protest it. You are left with an ability to express yourself and to control what you watch and consume. What you want to do is something completely different, you want to prohibit people from expressing themselves entirely unless you have agreed their expression is acceptable. That is the nature of totalitarianism. If you cannot see this simple dichotomy you are even more worrying than I previously thought.

I am not sure why I am continuing this but I wonder how you'd even enforce this law on a practical level? Would be have the CHUD Boobs Act 2013, which decrees the acceptable anatomical dimensions of female computer sprites? Would there be a CHUD panel, where the arbiter of all that is moral and good, the benevolent CHUD, decrees things "sexist" or "not sexist"? Does all art have to go before the might CHUD? Would an inner circle be granted CHUD permits and allowed to perform? Once you have established your revolutionary "right not to be offended" and the warm glow fades, what do you see as the next step in our journey toward CHUDtopia? Perhaps, this right could be expanded? The law could dictate acceptable speech volumes in the street so house dwellers and other street users are not offend by loud, raucous conversations? Maybe pets could be banned because some people find animals in their vicinity offensive? Perhaps the various religious groups could be moved to their own penitentiaries so they do not offend each other?

Actually that last one sounds pretty cool, all hail the mighty CHUD!

Screw the Sexism thing, I want to know who the fuck came up with the name "Warface", that's even worse than "Warfighter", because at least the latter makes some sort of sense (It's called Warfighter because you Fight Wars)

It sounds like some sort of War-themed Zynga game you'd play on Facebook.

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such.

Yeah, sorry, but to me a game with unrealisticly revealing cloths for females is not as serious as a game that, say, promotes the holocaust.

b.w.irenicus:

Yeah, sorry, but to me a game with unrealisticly revealing cloths for females is not as serious as a game that, say, promotes the holocaust.

Well, obviously those two are not to scale. I suppose maybe the Indian/Chinese "gendercide" of girl babies might be closer to the Holocaust. Displaying women in unrealistic revealing clothing is closer to "casual racism" in severity - as I see it.

MCerberus:
Nothing we can do is wrong! Someone approves somewhere! - people who do ethical relativism wrong

I didn't know ethical relativism could be done right!

Well you could say it is indicative of our culture. The culture that tend judges woman by how pretty a piece of meat they are to fuck and everything else is secondary at best." But it's culture!" is not defense of anything on its own. If you going to use your female characters as fanservece despite the guys being sensible at least be honest about it.

As someone who actually read the original article and not the badly edited version here (funny how you cut out the question calling the company's Russian consumer base misogynistic) I found that the company gathered feedback from their user base and made concessions without ignoring it but it's inherently bad because of the outcome of doing so.

Yes, if Crytek wanted total realism then they would have the women as similar design to the men but slightly different models. But you can't scream "the developers/publishers aren't listening to us!" then when they finally do scream "they're wrong for listening to us!"

It does boil down the old argument: vote with your wallet. If you were going to play it but this turned you off (though I recommend you wait until the NA models are done, you might find different results) then go to Crytek's forums and let them know politely that you won't because of it and walk away. If you had no intention of playing it anyways then it's bust to silently disregard it as your opinions mean nothing to them anyways. In any case, screaming "this offends me!" on a forum that devs/publishers largely ignore as an easily offended circle-jerk (and this place can be described as no less than that) is a waste of time and effort.

Do I care for the female avatars? not really. But I didn't care for the game in the first place so I'm largely unaffected by what Russian teens want and my ranting will fall on deaf ears.

Aeshi:
Screw the Sexism thing, I want to know who the fuck came up with the name "Warface", that's even worse than "Warfighter", because at least the latter makes some sort of sense (It's called Warfighter because you Fight Wars)

It sounds like some sort of War-themed Zynga game you'd play on Facebook.

It's probably a reference to the whole "Let me see your warface!" quote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nn7JtYbyj4M

CHUD:

Paradoxrifts:
You know it that is not all that ironic for a person to refer to themselves as a Nazi when they go on to show themselves to be a blatant, unrepentant totalitarian who is willing and eager to quash the concept of free speech and legislate their moral outlook into law.

Actually, both sides seem to want to "legislate their moral outlook into law".

The person I'm arguing with wants legal protection of the "right" to portray women as second-class humans.

I want legal protection for women to not be portrayed this way. To make dehumanization of women illegal.

Basically: We BOTH want the law to support our way of seeing things. So I am no more a fascist than he is - hence I can safely label myself "femiNAZI" ironically. If I am a totalitarean, then so is he.

But that isn't true at all.

So far as I can tell he supports letting companies and the people who run them make whatever creative decisions they want. That's a libertarian position. On the other hand you want to make it illegal for people to create and share media that is contrary to your own moral belief structure. You have expressly laid out that you do not the government to allow individuals the choice of whether or not they want to view and engage in content that you do not approve of. Why you've taken that position is irrelevant to the fact that it is a totalitarian position.

I am immediately wary and suspicious of anyone who comes to me claiming to speak on behalf of approximately 3.38 billion individuals. In fact, I think whatever small degree of 'dehumanizing' women this game is guilty of is in comparison completely benign, to the way that you would need to strip women of their individuality so that you can decide what is best for them on their behalf.

The Plunk:
The fuck is this guy babbling about? Will female soldiers in Muslim regions be wearing burkas?

It's another attempt to claim sexism by pointing to the fact that the basic female models represent a degree of physical perfection, much like the male models do, but given that this makes the ladies attractive to guys it must be sexist and thus wrong. The gist of the article is that while the models are tweaked slightly for each nation/area they are supposed to be from, all of them are busty.

As I've pointed out many times it's a non-argument since this is pretty much the kind of look/character female creators tend to make for themselves, even when writing primarily for a female audience. As such it does what it's supposed to rather well. There is however attention to be gained from taking a fantasy game (even one trying to claim a degree of realism) and picking on the female models, so you see it. It's sort of like how nearly every male model in the game is probably drawn with at least above average muscle definition and where that if they were to drop their gear they would all probably not be out of place on the cover of muscle and fitness.

As far as what female muslim "soldiers" wear, that's a touchy subject even within the Muslim world. For the most part in regions where Burkas are common women are not allowed in the military. Women who join terrorist groups actively are fairly rare, but when it does happen they tend to wear whatever is appropriate to blend in or what is on hand. Simply allowing this kind of thing is something of a divide. As much as people might want to see "Muslims" as one particular culture, there are actually many different varieties (going beyond the well known Sunnis and Shiites) and they all tend to hate each other, even if they often prioritize outsiders first. Almost all of these cultures are effectively opposed to the US and progressive living when you get down to it, and thus can be generally defined as "enemies" from a US perspective, internally there are a lot of divides. This is one of the big reasons why so many Middle Eastern leaders like to call the US and it's allies "Crusaders" and call for "Jihad", which is a call for all Muslims to put aside their differences and attack a common enemy before returning to their own conflicts. It's met with mixed results. Saddam and Bin Ladin themselves oftentimes tried to liken themselves to modern day versions of "Saladin" who was perhaps the most successful Muslim leader during the crusades due to him getting the various tribes, cults, and sects to temporarily put aside their internal business and fight against foreign invaders. Albiet in the case of Saddam and Bin Ladin it was effectively a call for offensive warfare and terrorism. To be honest a game like this might be unusually divisive (War On Terror aside) in the Muslim world, as opinions on whether or not having women in the military to begin with can be a source of substantial tension. To one group (a relative minority0 that allows it it might be no big deal, to others it might be seen as being obscene. It all depends on whether your dealing with one of those beautiful indigenous cultures that gets all butthurt when female foreign leaders don't wear Burkas and at least pretend to submit to men during meetings. In such cases there wouldn't be anything like "women in the military" after all, just showing their hands enough to properly hold a gun would be a reason for a
firm beating at the very least.

I kinda wish they'd just shut up. The more they try to "defend" what is obviously sexual pandering, the more retarded they sound.

I'd have a whole lotta more respect if they just came up and said, yes, we made a pointless boob window, because our intel says most of our playerbase wants to see that. It's still awful, but a whole lot better than making up these excuses to justify it.

Let's be honest nobody who complains about this kind of thing is going to play their game anyway, so why should they listen to you?

The people who cry "as a proud feminist this is an outrage I will picket your studio" must make up about 0.5% of the entire market.

I'd like to know how many artists on that team honestly thought that was a great idea and were honestly behind it. These people should consider themselves fortunate that the fashion police aren't actually real.

Also, how can I vote with my wallet if it's free to play???? Dear God, it's the perfect crime.

Meanwhile, on Planetside 2, not a bare boob in sight. In fact, most of the time you can't even clearly see their faces! Only the Infiltrators wear something enticing and their male counterparts also have the same skintight catsuit.

b.w.irenicus:

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such.

Yeah, sorry, but to me a game with unrealisticly revealing cloths for females is not as serious as a game that, say, promotes the holocaust.

No one is currently perpetrating a holocaust against the Jews, though I'm certain some people would like to. Discrimination against women is very very alive and well in many parts of the world. MINOR EDIT! PLEASE DON'T THINK I'M TRYING TO SNEAK THIS IN!

What they are doing here isn't as extreme as supporting the holocaust, I never would say that, but it does support the certain belief that a women's worth is tied to her appearance. These ladies look like they carefully chose what they would wear based on how they looked rather than any practical purpose. The men are made out of pockets because that's a bit more sensible to wear on a battlefield than a shirt that shows off the chest a bit. It's the idea that even when women are doing something that doesn't require beauty, they still must be beautiful. That's utter nonsense.

Discriminating against someone for physical characteristics they absolutely can't control is the same issue regardless of if it's done for race or gender. People might be more often killed for differences of race, it's easier to argue(propagandize) a wholly different group of people aren't really people deserving the right to live rather than approximately half the population of everywhere, but the issues are the same at heart.

WouldYouKindly:
Meanwhile, on Planetside 2, not a bare boob in sight. In fact, most of the time you can't even clearly see their faces! Only the Infiltrators wear something enticing and their male counterparts also have the same skintight catsuit.

b.w.irenicus:

My claim is that sexism is no less serious than racism, and should be not be treated as such.

Yeah, sorry, but to me a game with unrealisticly revealing cloths for females is not as serious as a game that, say, promotes the holocaust.

No one is currently perpetrating a holocaust against the Jews, though I'm certain some people would like to. Discrimination against women is very very alive and well in many parts of the world. MINOR EDIT! PLEASE DON'T THINK I'M TRYING TO SNEAK THIS IN!

What they are doing here isn't as extreme as supporting the holocaust, I never would say that, but it does support the certain belief that a women's worth is tied to her appearance. These ladies look like they carefully chose what they would wear based on how they looked rather than any practical purpose. The men are made out of pockets because that's a bit more sensible to wear on a battlefield than a shirt that shows off the chest a bit. It's the idea that even when women are doing something that doesn't require beauty, they still must be beautiful. That's utter nonsense.

Discriminating against someone for physical characteristics they absolutely can't control is the same issue regardless of if it's done for race or gender. People might be more often killed for differences of race, it's easier to argue(propagandize) a wholly different group of people aren't really people deserving the right to live rather than approximately half the population of everywhere, but the issues are the same at heart.

If you're so worried about the welfare of women around the world, why not focus your time and attention on more important issues like female circumcision in Africa, arranged marriage, women's rights in the Arab world, human trafficking in Eastern Europe, domestic violence, people being stoned for adultery, birth control rights, little girls being shot by the Taliban for attending schools?

You, and everyone like you, seem to think that the biggest problem facing women is the size of their breasts in video games, which betrays your actual concerns which are not anything to do with the welfare of women, but with enforcing your hangups and socio-political ideas on non-consenting people through brow-beating and name calling.
You want to influence a medium and force it to conform to your extremist, minority views and you use feminism as a tool to accomplish that goal, in opposition of all freedom of expression.

You're no more a feminist than anti-abortion advocates are pro-Christian, it's just a means to an end.

While you're right Dansrage, it doesn't take away that the portrayal of women in video games and the attitude towards women in the gaming community and industry is problematic and needs fixing. That said~

Chemical Alia:
I'd like to know how many artists on that team honestly thought that was a great idea and were honestly behind it. These people should consider themselves fortunate that the fashion police aren't actually real.

Also, how can I vote with my wallet if it's free to play???? Dear God, it's the perfect crime.

Could try to play and regularly download the game without making a single microtransaction, you'd be taxing their servers without giving them any money, effectively costing them, if very little. :p

Pedro The Hutt:
While you're right Dansrage, it doesn't take away that the portrayal of women in video games and the attitude towards women in the gaming community and industry is problematic and needs fixing. That said~

Chemical Alia:
I'd like to know how many artists on that team honestly thought that was a great idea and were honestly behind it. These people should consider themselves fortunate that the fashion police aren't actually real.

Also, how can I vote with my wallet if it's free to play???? Dear God, it's the perfect crime.

Could try to play and regularly download the game without making a single microtransaction, you'd be taxing their servers without giving them any money, effectively costing them, if very little. :p

You mean like how the portrayal of violence in video games and the attitude towards violence in the gaming community and industry needs fixing? Cause we all know how much games and their depictions of violence is affecting our impressionable youth.

Why can't they just put the female characters in bikini's? It would look less stupid than designing full battle gear with a boob window installed, and it would give their target audience more of what they want.

In fact, since I'm assuming the game will get an M rating anyway why not just go for strait up nudity?

Dansrage:

WouldYouKindly:
Meanwhile, on Planetside 2, not a bare boob in sight. In fact, most of the time you can't even clearly see their faces! Only the Infiltrators wear something enticing and their male counterparts also have the same skintight catsuit.

b.w.irenicus:

Yeah, sorry, but to me a game with unrealisticly revealing cloths for females is not as serious as a game that, say, promotes the holocaust.

No one is currently perpetrating a holocaust against the Jews, though I'm certain some people would like to. Discrimination against women is very very alive and well in many parts of the world. MINOR EDIT! PLEASE DON'T THINK I'M TRYING TO SNEAK THIS IN!

What they are doing here isn't as extreme as supporting the holocaust, I never would say that, but it does support the certain belief that a women's worth is tied to her appearance. These ladies look like they carefully chose what they would wear based on how they looked rather than any practical purpose. The men are made out of pockets because that's a bit more sensible to wear on a battlefield than a shirt that shows off the chest a bit. It's the idea that even when women are doing something that doesn't require beauty, they still must be beautiful. That's utter nonsense.

Discriminating against someone for physical characteristics they absolutely can't control is the same issue regardless of if it's done for race or gender. People might be more often killed for differences of race, it's easier to argue(propagandize) a wholly different group of people aren't really people deserving the right to live rather than approximately half the population of everywhere, but the issues are the same at heart.

If you're so worried about the welfare of women around the world, why not focus your time and attention on more important issues like female circumcision in Africa, arranged marriage, women's rights in the Arab world, human trafficking in Eastern Europe, domestic violence, people being stoned for adultery, birth control rights, little girls being shot by the Taliban for attending schools?

You, and everyone like you, seem to think that the biggest problem facing women is the size of their breasts in video games, which betrays your actual concerns which are not anything to do with the welfare of women, but with enforcing your hangups and socio-political ideas on non-consenting people through brow-beating and name calling.
You want to influence a medium and force it to conform to your extremist, minority views and you use feminism as a tool to accomplish that goal, in opposition of all freedom of expression.

You're no more a feminist than anti-abortion advocates are pro-Christian, it's just a means to an end.

Yup, not painting with a broad brush at all there are we? I'd say no larger than a push broom.

Oh, and I'd like to know, what precisely is the endgame here? What's my agenda?

You take one hell of a leap on one post, assuming you know anything about my beliefs. The guy I originally posted said something I consider stupid. Saying, Well, at least it's not supporting the holocaust, is a shitty justification for any action. I tried to politely and intelligently say this was full of shit, because it is.

If asserting social pressure is wrong, what are you currently doing differently? Oh, is it because it's your opinion and therefore, it's correct? Another point is one of my personal philosophies, you don't have to be like me, you're always free, but that doesn't mean I don't have the freedom to call you out on it. You've still got the freedom to ignore me entirely, I believe you could have exercised it.

Finally, I'm sure you've got some cause you support, like say, democracy or freedom of expression, that you don't strive to aid the people most bereft of these things because it's wholly out of your ability to influence these things. I'm a passive supporter of many things. Few things I can actually effect are worth going out and doing something about them. I am always willing to talk though, mostly because arguing is fun. Could I do more? Certainly. I'm sure we all could.

Stop stealing anthropology buzzwords to justify your lazy character design. (Not that this is a common phenomenon. It's the first time I've seen a company actually try -however lazily- to justify their stupid, sexist character designs.

thehorror2:
Stop stealing anthropology buzzwords to justify your lazy character design. (Not that this is a common phenomenon. It's the first time I've seen a company actually try -however lazily- to justify their stupid, sexist character designs.

To be honest, if anyone is guilty of using meaningless buzz words, it's the proliferation of half digested, first year gender studies buzz words employed by this rather tedious modern trend for "feminist" computer game opinion pieces. It does help you choose which one to ignore, I suppose, though "male gaze" was a new one on me and drew me in. Thought I'd check out the "debate" and it's the same as ever: a minority of posturing totalitarian keyboard activists loudly trying to censor and bully under the guise of altruism, in an attempt to underline how wonderfully open minded they are, and then... everyone else just trying to enjoy their games.

Res Plus:

thehorror2:
Stop stealing anthropology buzzwords to justify your lazy character design. (Not that this is a common phenomenon. It's the first time I've seen a company actually try -however lazily- to justify their stupid, sexist character designs.

To be honest, if anyone is guilty of using meaningless buzz words, it's the proliferation of half digested, first year gender studies buzz words employed by this rather tedious modern trend for "feminist" computer game opinion pieces. It does help you choose which one to ignore, I suppose, though "male gaze" was a new one on me and drew me in. Thought I'd check out the "debate" and it's the same as ever: a minority of posturing totalitarian keyboard activists loudly trying to censor and bully under the guise of altruism, in an attempt to underline how wonderfully open minded they are, and then... everyone else just trying to enjoy their games.

Sometimes I really wish there was some kind of up-voting system on these forums.
Oh but didn't you know that male eyes and their male gaze have the power to violently traumatize the poor womenz? That's why they have laws against making women feel uncomfortable in France.

Grey Carter:

FieryTrainwreck:

So yeah. We should eventually take the hint and knock it off with these news reports and the predictably smug responses. It's getting to be a little embarrassing. Meet their drivel with your own ideas (backed by your own investments) or acknowledge the fact that your voices mean precisely fucking nothing in the face of economic factors larger than just about any one person can fathom.

An asinine observation that can be made of pretty much any criticism, regardless of its validity or scope. To use your logic; if you don't like the content of this site or its forums, you're free to start your own.

Not only is it a dull, and often hypocritical (I often see "free market" arguments when it comes to gender representation in games, but rarely when it comes to the ubiquity of military shooters, or regenerating health, or whatever overused mechanic is deemed "necessary" for a successful game), argument, it's one that essentially excuses artists for being shitty artists. It also fails to recognize the role successful products play in defining what's popular.

So what's the plan? We can't force them to legislate against tasteless depictions of women in media because media is, for the most part, an artistic endeavor. Creators make whatever they want to make, and they frequently allow market research to guide them (especially where corporate investment is involved). The solution has always been, and still remains, for affected individuals to put their fucking money where their mouths are and either purchase or develop the games they want to see. This crusade on the part of the "enlightened" gaming media to shame developers into idiotically not following their own market research (where tens of millions of dollars of investor money is concerned) is useless.

If they want to make a difference, keep giving overrated non-games like Gone Home perfect scores. Draw attention to the projects that will actually grow the industry. The other stuff, the stuff they don't like? Yeah, that's not going anywhere. And it shouldn't have to. Because we live in a free society where people can sorta do whatever the fuck they want with regard to artistic expression. Don't like it? Fine. Don't buy it. But the constant harping, while entirely valid, is making these outlets BORING. They're like christian protesters outside an abortion clinic, running the exact same argument into the ground again and again, to literally no effect.

I guess I just think we're well beyond the saturation point with respect to this topic. Minds that can be changed have been changed. What can be altered through sheer bull-horning has been altered. Time to roll up sleeves and do some heavy lifting or move on. If "move on" isn't on the menu for these writers, I'll be moving on from their websites - and this coming from someone who mostly agrees with what they're saying.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.