Home
"I can’t realistically propose that we approach how we design female characters more tastefully. If I could, I would. But Dead or Alive 5 is clearly on its way, and early indications reveal that its women are still trying to fight as sexily as ever."
I will realistically propose this. We should approach how we design female characters more tastefully, thoughtfully, respectfully, and all the other ullys. It will benefit the medium by reducing its reinforcement of a culture of objectification, and it will benefit the gaming community by creating games that can be appreciated for their mechanics without the distraction of sexualized elements.
I firmly believe that a game like Skullgirls, with similar gameplay innovations and an identifiable cartoon aesthetic, but without the sex-centered female charicatures, could be just as successful, possibly moreso.
"I don't want outside media or young girls to see the hypersexualized women portrayed in video games and get the wrong idea."
What do you see as "the wrong idea"? When people see hypersexualized portrayals of women in videogames, they are seeing the results of a system that actively endorses the hypersexualization of women. That's not the wrong idea; it's wholly accurate.
"Some counter that (at least for Skullgirls, specifically), hypersexualized women are designed in parody. It certainly isn't a far-fetched idea, as the characters' bodies are never specifically oogled. ... But the women of Skullgirls have very specific aspirations when it comes to their goal of obtaining the Skullheart, a monkey's-paw-like relic that's at the center of the game's story. Despite their outward designs, the characters aren't actually objectified and are empowered by their unique backgrounds."
Ms. Fortune's underboob isn't parody. Ms. Fortune is an undead catgirl thief. There's not a history of thief portrayals being spoofed by her cleavage. There's no satire of catgirls in her clothing. In fact, in a commentary by the designers, she's described as "a normal catgirl character, except a zombie catgirl." No parody implied, just a design that falls in line with the expected catgirl appearance. She IS an undead Felicia, not a parody of one.
Commentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLQW19UDR9g&t=3m05s
Parasoul's biography is about defending her family honor and doesn't mention anything about her sexuality or her nearly non-existent skirt. It's not that short because of anything in her unique background, and her move set doesn't show off her underwear because of a logical depiction of women's underwear during a street brawl. Her skirt is short because the art direction of the game favors sexualized women.
"Even Street Fighter is just a bunch of racial caricatures with weak underlying reasons as to why the characters are fighting. Chun-Li is a cop and Sakura strives to emulate Ryu, but so what?"
I'm not sure why you brought this up. Are you saying that Skull Girls should be given a pass for its sexism because at least it isn't racist like Street Fighter? If so, that isn't really relevant to the question of sexism. Are you saying that we shouldn't care that Street Fighter is hella racist? If so, that's an impressively ballsy standpoint that probably deserves its own article.
"But is it wrong for me to say this? Is it wrong for a game to be judged solely on the merits of its gameplay? To ignore the issue of how characters are designed in sexually suggestive ways?"
It's not wrong for you to enjoy Skull Girls, but it would be somewhat irresponsible to pretend that nothing is wrong with its depiction of women. If you're conflicted about liking it, just acknowledge what's good and reject what's not. If you're conflicted about showing it to other people, be upfront about it: "Here's a game that dramatically advances the mechanics of the fighting game genre. Admittedly, it has overly sexualized depictions of women, so you may have to put up with that to enjoy it."
We sometimes feel the need to be defensive when people attack gaming in general or call out specific games for their regrettable elements. But we don't need to be apologists; we can be honest. We can say, "I like most of this. I think there's more good here than bad. I can admit to what's wrong without accepting a condemnation of the whole." Skullgirls is a good game at its core; it just has an embarrassingly sexist wrapper. If we can say that, then one day, we'll get a fighting game that advances the genre inside and out."
One of the oft cited examples of content locking is Beautiful Katamari, which sold for $20 but allowed you to unlock more content that was on the disc through DLC. I LOVED this release because I didn't have to pay $60 for the game and then I could pick and choose which levels I wanted to add to my experience. The idea that I shouldn't have had to pay for that additional content because it was already on the disc is bizarre. I didn't pay $20 thinking I'd get access to 20 levels, I paid $20 thinking I'd get access to 13 levels, and the option to unlock more was nice to have.
The alternative, as I see it, is for the developer to keep that content off the disc. That way, people who complain about purchasing crippled content will be able to access everything they paid for and not a lick more, no matter how many hacks they perform. The problem with this is that anyone purchasing additional content (which will surely be offered) will have to waste bandwidth and harddrive space to accommodate content that could have easily been burned to a disc.
No one seemed to have a problem when different editions of games were pressed and sold for different amounts, only when companies started pressing a single version and offering different levels of access. It's perplexing to me that, instead of graciously permitting companies to save themselves money and their customers bandwidth, time, and harddrive space, consumers want to see the whole system made more complex because they feel entitled to everything that is physically in their possession. Personally, I'd rather see my money for a game go to the developer rather than to my ISP (screw you, Comcast), the hardware manufacturer (Microsoft harddrives are overpriced already), or the disc manufacturer, which are exactly the places the money would go if we reverted to burning multiple, stripped-down editions."
"
"Of course she's dressed like that. This fight takes place in a strip club, after all."
Doesn't make it any less unnecessary. On top of which, watching the trailer, there is another person in swim gear; he's a man and isn't unzipped. So the developers didn't dress Jill down for any reason other than titilation."
It would be wonderful if television had a niche channel for every subculture. I'm sure there are at least a handful of people who would like a television channel devoted entirely to male bodybuilder birdwatchers, but the viewership would be unsuportably tiny. In the marketplace, programmers are going to do whatever they can to ensure large numbers of viewers. That may sometimes mean catering to a subculture, but only until they figure out a way to expand the audience.
Your editorial boils down to: "I want a television channel that is about my interests and doesn't use sexuality to pander to people who aren't as hardcore about my interests as I am." I get that. We all get that. It is a completely understandable feeling. But it's not realistic, and it's a poor justification for name calling and reducing female entertainers to "ignorant 'babes.'""
You remember Screen Savers from the G4 period. That's after the merger with TechTV, when they stripped out the hardcore tech hosts, subbing in more attractive personalities. G4 was able to capture your attention by merging nerdy+hot in their programming. You clearly weren't watching the shows back when they were just nerdy, either because you won't watch a show with attractive people or attractive people were the key to gaining wider distribution. It's strange for you to denigrate a number of recent female G4 personalities for being "unintelligent and completely ignorant 'babes'"—which discounts their worth for anything other than appearance as and ignores their educational achievements—when it was bringing in more "babes" that put the show in front of your nose in the first place.
Now that G4 has realized that they can improve viewership even further by shaving off some of the nerdy from the nerdy+hot equation, it's upsetting because they're catering to a broader audience instead of you. How would you have responded to someone who, in 2004, had said, "Why does G4 have to ruin TechTV shows by dumbing them down and filling them up with eye candy? I liked them better when they were full of jargon and everyday nerds"? As nerd culture merges with the mainstream, it will bend and warp, rendering unrecognizable previously key elements. It can be upsetting, but there's no sense being overwrought, and there's nothing to be gained by belittling these women who are just keeping up with the times."
Instead of giving you glowing blue lights that paint a path to the correct path through this door—something that seems to me to inspire lazy gameplay—you should have encountered numerous situations where looking up was important before this point. Bring on the snipers, the security cameras, the signs above doors that indicate whether they're locked, the lightbulbs to shoot out, etc. Teach the player that looking up is valuable and then they won't be "stuck" behind a door that requires them to do something they've done a dozen times before."
It's a train level, complete with an in-game bomb-defusing puzzle, a Bond-style poison-gas trap to discover your way out of, a boss fight with Khallos in a fire-spewing jetpack, and a side-by-side train section that highlights one of my favorite parts of this game: time travel. Each level of the game features a moment where you see yourself playing on the other side of some obstacle. Then later in the level, you time travel and end up playing from that other side while protecting or helping the version of you that's involved in past events. In this case, you snipe baddies away from your future self who then mans a mounted turret to help with your current situation. Later, the roles are reversed.
It's an inspired moment in a game that was a charming send off for the series. (Dear Crytek, let Crytek UK finish TimeSplitters 4!)"
I was trying to think of other games that really opened my eyes to a type of music, but I'm coming up empty. I was reminded of the surge in appreciation I had for classical music after seeing the film Amadeus. Having the world to fit the music definitely made a difference for me then.
Oh, and if someone makes an opera-themed video game that can have the same effect, I'll eagerly give it a try. Still waiting for that stuff to make any impact on me at all."
May as well rethink the whole package instead of just the mechanics."