If you’re interested in quality game journalism in print form (or PDF, because Australia Post’s shipping costs are intimidating), there’s a week before the campaign closes.
So now and again we get people insist that x title shouldn’t be counted because it’s intended to be viewed as porn (especially if that product is from a country outside the English speaking world… because reasons).
Reasons for this assumption often include:
The presence of explicit fan service or sex scenes
The inclusion of ridiculous double standards
Fans having labelled it as an erotic product on their own wikis
The publisher having actual porn products in their catalog
But generally this just assumes that by shoehorning in some sexualized content a product immediately becomes excluded from criticism. Very few products exclude all content from their own genre (plenty of action movies have a romantic subplot for example).
Generally a lot of the cross genre trends have a pretty basic premise behind them, it helps improve the audience investment:
Comic relief in horror and thriller helps avoid the audience becoming desensitized or burnt out from the tension
Having a love interest can humanize a protagonist (or an antagonist) and increase your ability to get invested in them
Mixing a little mystery with your modern fantasy story reminds the audience of how little we really notice or know about the world around us and makes them more accepting to the idea of secret magic
So, what purpose does having ultrasexualized costumes for female characters and regular arbitrary fan service? Well, mostly it’s because of the general belief that certain demographics need a lot of reassurance that some products are okay for them, and in fact made exclusively for them:
That’s not to say that there aren’t products or stories where including sexual content gives it a boost, but generally you’ll want to do it in a way that makes sense and does actually improve the product and that still doesn’t make it porn.
You can physically eat a lot of things, but just as you wouldn’t call it food unless you buy it specifically to eat it, you shouldn’t call it porn unless you buy it specifically for sexual gratification.
– wincenworks
Given the responses to some recent posts, and the recent responses to some old posts, its probably worth bringing this back – particularly since we’re now more or less out of the “slow season” where companies assume everyone is still broke from Christmas shopping.
The general idea that companies should get a free pass for “its just cheesecake” or “that title/genre/etc has always been like that” is essentially a plea to two well and truly exhausted pieces of rhetoric:
If publishers want to produce porn, then they should be confident enough to own that and to try produce good porn.
So now and again we get people insist that x title shouldn’t be counted because it’s intended to be viewed as porn (especially if that product is from a country outside the English speaking world… because reasons).
Reasons for this assumption often include:
The presence of explicit fan service or sex scenes
The inclusion of ridiculous double standards
Fans having labelled it as an erotic product on their own wikis
The publisher having actual porn products in their catalog
But generally this just assumes that by shoehorning in some sexualized content a product immediately becomes excluded from criticism. Very few products exclude all content from their own genre (plenty of action movies have a romantic subplot for example).
Generally a lot of the cross genre trends have a pretty basic premise behind them, it helps improve the audience investment:
Comic relief in horror and thriller helps avoid the audience becoming desensitized or burnt out from the tension
Having a love interest can humanize a protagonist (or an antagonist) and increase your ability to get invested in them
Mixing a little mystery with your modern fantasy story reminds the audience of how little we really notice or know about the world around us and makes them more accepting to the idea of secret magic
So, what purpose does having ultrasexualized costumes for female characters and regular arbitrary fan service? Well, mostly it’s because of the general belief that certain demographics need a lot of reassurance that some products are okay for them, and in fact made exclusively for them:
That’s not to say that there aren’t products or stories where including sexual content gives it a boost, but generally you’ll want to do it in a way that makes sense and does actually improve the product and that still doesn’t make it porn.
You can physically eat a lot of things, but just as you wouldn’t call it food unless you buy it specifically to eat it, you shouldn’t call it porn unless you buy it specifically for sexual gratification.
– wincenworks
Given the responses to some recent posts, and the recent responses to some old posts, its probably worth bringing this back – particularly since we’re now more or less out of the “slow season” where companies assume everyone is still broke from Christmas shopping.
The general idea that companies should get a free pass for “its just cheesecake” or “that title/genre/etc has always been like that” is essentially a plea to two well and truly exhausted pieces of rhetoric:
If publishers want to produce porn, then they should be confident enough to own that and to try produce good porn.
I remember when Fortnite first came out I had a look and felt that while it was kind of nice they were doing a little body diversity, they had a pretty clear agenda when it came to the Female Constructor design:
Apparently there are still those out there for whom this is not sufficient conformity to traditional pandering, even if this character is also an option in the original game (no PhotoShop required)
Have to say though, I feel pretty proud that “tumblrization” is credited for any sort of deviation from these designs. Another bright side is this has pretty great meme potential (with a few great ones in the Twitter thread already).
– wincenworks
It’s quite telling about attitudes towards beauty standards when a slightly cartoony female character of average human built, with tan skin tone and clad in regular street clothes (and not the “unfeminine” full battle gear) is such an unbearable level of SJW pandering which the status quo warriors find necessary to “fix” with whitewashing, bikini tops and photoshop-based plastic surgery.
Just imagine how they would “un-tumblrize” Constructor if her original design wore a bulletproof vest, had darker skin and hair, zero makeup, fatter body and more detailed, less smooth facial features.
~Ozzie
Credit to icantatricks and mitotic for the discovering of the photoshopped image,
NOPE. Media creators actually keep using some variation of “Once you learn why her being half naked has convenient in-story reasons, you will feel ashamed about your comments” to preemptively shut down criticism they know they gonna get for creepy double standards in costume/character design.
Even before Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle movie came out this winter, its Thermian argument for the “jungle wardrobe” was more or less known: those are video game avatars of the teenage characters sucked into virtual incarnation of Jumanji. Also, Jack Black’s character’s a girl.
Does that explain Karen Gillan’s stereotypical “sexy action girl” look? Yeah, sure.
Does that justify it? Is recreating the problems of the video game industry in a comedy that takes place inside of a magical video game a good commentary on those problems? Not necessarily. Doing satireis veryhard.
Did that explanation really warrant a Kojima-style “Wait till you know the plot before criticizing” social media post?
nope.gif
~Ozzie
So naturally when we first posted this a bunch of people rushed to tell us this was a reference to Lara Croft (as though we’d never heard of her). Now, Lara has had many looks in her long career… but literally none of them have included a faux holster that is made exclusively to function as a “lifts and separates” cupless cincher.
