Far too often I see people jump at feminists who criticize sexist designs on female characters with, “They’re just showing how confident they are in their sexuality! We need more sex-positive women!”
Yet, these characters never in the game ever make any hint of their sexuality, whether it be through flirting, being unashamed of their sexual behavior, defending the sexual choices of others, or wearing revealing clothing as casual wear (i.e. not wearing battle armor that exposes their entire chest.)
Instead, anytime there are “sex-positive” women in gaming that are vocal about their sexuality and confidence in such, they are almost always a villain. Yet, I never see these people defend these characters, or take note that the only time that a woman in a game is confident in her sexuality, it’s because she’s an ~evil seductress~, and the game developers use it as an exploit rather than a character trait.
How about instead of shouting at feminists that point out the needlessly and nonsensical revealing clothing on female game characters that it’s supposed to be because they’re “sex-positive”, you instead take the energy and criticize game developers that everytime there is a “sex-positive” women in gaming, she’s evil and it is instead seen as a character flaw?
I’ve alludedbefore that it’s possible to create a female character who dresses skimpily to express how sexually liberated and confident about her own body she is… possible in theory, at least.
Also, as I mentioned in my Stafire-design-through-years article, character’s personal affairs DO NOT excuse what costume she “chooses” to do her job in, particularly when that job is FIGHTING. Especially while warrior men who are equally, if not more, sexually empowered, somehow don’t go around fighting crime in sexy male underwear. And again, a loincloth* on someone like Conan or Kratos is not the same as battle lingerie.
I feel like a large part of the FemShep fandom was that while much of the attire in Mass Effect is questionable – FemShep actually comes pretty close to meeting the “sex positive, not sex toy” criteria. Regardless of the options you pick, she’s competent and complicated.
When she goes into battle she’s kitted with armor, guns, badassery and the potential to be saintly or scary… then when you’re in the safety of your ship you can pick an outfit for her and go talk to your favorite crew member:
Making her vastly more sex positive and personally empowered than pretty much any other female protagonist… even if her outfits are not perfectly equal to BroShep’s and tend more towards hideous than hot.
(For those asking: We have the explanation for Quiet’s ridiculous outfit, and information on how her character is handled… a post will be forthcoming!)
Definitely time that we brought this one back since there’s still way too much of:
Ultimately though there’s, sadly, still a long way to go before there’s the general acceptance that since women are diverse and complicated – female characters should be diverse and complicated.
None of that means we won’t have sexy female characters, it just means there’ll be more sexy female characters who act like people rather than one-dimensional fuckbots, and that means they’ll be more interesting.
Far too often I see people jump at feminists who criticize sexist designs on female characters with, “They’re just showing how confident they are in their sexuality! We need more sex-positive women!”
Yet, these characters never in the game ever make any hint of their sexuality, whether it be through flirting, being unashamed of their sexual behavior, defending the sexual choices of others, or wearing revealing clothing as casual wear (i.e. not wearing battle armor that exposes their entire chest.)
Instead, anytime there are “sex-positive” women in gaming that are vocal about their sexuality and confidence in such, they are almost always a villain. Yet, I never see these people defend these characters, or take note that the only time that a woman in a game is confident in her sexuality, it’s because she’s an ~evil seductress~, and the game developers use it as an exploit rather than a character trait.
How about instead of shouting at feminists that point out the needlessly and nonsensical revealing clothing on female game characters that it’s supposed to be because they’re “sex-positive”, you instead take the energy and criticize game developers that everytime there is a “sex-positive” women in gaming, she’s evil and it is instead seen as a character flaw?
I’ve alludedbefore that it’s possible to create a female character who dresses skimpily to express how sexually liberated and confident about her own body she is… possible in theory, at least.
Also, as I mentioned in my Stafire-design-through-years article, character’s personal affairs DO NOT excuse what costume she “chooses” to do her job in, particularly when that job is FIGHTING. Especially while warrior men who are equally, if not more, sexually empowered, somehow don’t go around fighting crime in sexy male underwear. And again, a loincloth* on someone like Conan or Kratos is not the same as battle lingerie.
I feel like a large part of the FemShep fandom was that while much of the attire in Mass Effect is questionable – FemShep actually comes pretty close to meeting the “sex positive, not sex toy” criteria. Regardless of the options you pick, she’s competent and complicated.
When she goes into battle she’s kitted with armor, guns, badassery and the potential to be saintly or scary… then when you’re in the safety of your ship you can pick an outfit for her and go talk to your favorite crew member:
Making her vastly more sex positive and personally empowered than pretty much any other female protagonist… even if her outfits are not perfectly equal to BroShep’s and tend more towards hideous than hot.
(For those asking: We have the explanation for Quiet’s ridiculous outfit, and information on how her character is handled… a post will be forthcoming!)
Definitely time that we brought this one back since there’s still way too much of:
Ultimately though there’s, sadly, still a long way to go before there’s the general acceptance that since women are diverse and complicated – female characters should be diverse and complicated.
None of that means we won’t have sexy female characters, it just means there’ll be more sexy female characters who act like people rather than one-dimensional fuckbots, and that means they’ll be more interesting.
Hi! (o‿o)ﾉ I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the designs of Sayla, Jayma and Batari from Far Cry Primal (set in Europe around 10,000BCE); Sayla (a gatherer) and Jayma (a hunter) are allies of the protag Takkar while Batari leads the Izila, one of the opposing tribes (Jayma has a high-res cosplay reference along with several other members of the cast). Some of the other cast members: Tensay, Karoosh, Wogah
Far Cry Primal was about what I’ve come to expect from mainstream media producing a game set in the pre-Neolithic eras (basically the end of the hunter/gather dynamic’s dominance) – that is to say it was fairly well researched technically but came with a hefty dose of problematic politics at many levels.
Obviously since fur and plant fibre are biodegradable and it is literally a matter of several millennia – we don’t have much evidence of what kind of clothes people from this era wore. In fact most of the debate over when the earliest clothes were made focuses on the species lice that were in them and the presence or absence of sewing tools.
So that said, the structure of the outfits for Sayla and Jayma are pretty good in that they have a practical purpose and don’t seem to make use of any sophisticated sewing techniques. There’s also really no inherent problem with people in this era running around nude or near nude… the problem is how all these elements were fitted together.
There is, of course, the obvious issue with them once again dipping into the “evil is sexy” trope with the character who goes topless and is heavily decorated being the one who wants to conquer and burn all those from outside their tribe.
Combined with the other outfits and the overall story and characterization: the general modern day politics and problematic tropes start to become visible.
“Good” women keep their decoration modest and subdued, “evil” women decorate themselves and flaunt their sexuality.
The primary male antagonist is a mighty warrior who armors himself (as best he can) and gets a noble end, the female protagonist is a manipulator who decorates herself and gets a pretty terrible end.
And honestly, there was no reason for Batari to be a rarity for decorating herself, because while people of the era didn’t have jewellers or makeup companies they had access to flowers, ochres, and all manner of other things they could apply to themselves and their clothing as they pleased.
There was a lot of potential here and the art team certainly did the technical research, just it seems other priorities got involved.
– wincenworks
Posted on
Posted on
Posted on
Posted on
I can’t help but think that if, in 2009, Marvel had consistently put as much effort into pitching the Supehero/Spy crossover angle and making James Woo look like… well James Woo (instead of the Punisher) as they did in making every one of these covers assure the reader that this issue contains a half naked superhero lady then maybe Agents of Atlas would be memorable title.
After all they mostly did that in the 2006 season and the series got to make a comeback in 2009, but now it’s pretty much forgotten and nobody even bothers to keep the url parked any more.
It’s almost like these ridiculous costumes don’t sell comics or something.
