Tag: LONG POST

Posted on

So my brother claims that the only games that have oversexualized girls are free to play games or just generally bad games. Overwatch apparently doesn’t count because “it’s overrated” so any examples for good games with skimpy armour? Thanks a lot!

Well, like so many explanations, this creates some obvious issues.

Firstly it’s dependent upon arbitrary divisions that mostly serve to try to pretend various parts of media just don’t exist or somehow don’t matter regardless of who  consumes them.

For example: only free to play?

League of Legends is a free to play game that generates millions in revenues, has a professional esports scene and pretty much launched the rise of MOBAs as a gaming genre.  While it does have some characters who are positive examples, and the occasional sexy man, it’s in fact so problematic it has a whole blog trying to keep track of it all (ie @leagueofsexism)

Long time offender World of Warcraft is basically the MMORPG that got away with not being a free to play game for years and years (and the free part available today is super stingy). 
Ultimately, Free To Play is just a business model – there are good games that use it well and terrible games that try desperately to exploit it. 

As for the statement of generally bad games, well it’s certainly true that many games that rely upon the skimpy armor are terrible.  It’s also true their poor reception tells you everything you need to know about the myth that “sex sells”. However, there’s certainly also celebrated AAA titles that feature all kinds of terrible female attire:

Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain has a massively critically successful creation of game development superstar Hideo Kojima.  It was a massive financial success and brought us so, so many wonderful breathing through your skin jokes.

The Witcher 3 collected a slew of awards, critical praise and is still getting massive sales of the game itself and it’s hefty DLC expansion packs after resorting to trying to blame a female character for her questionable battle attire choices and pretend the rest of the problems weren’t there.

As for overrated… well by who?

Every game has people who feel it’s overrated and most games have people who think it’s underrated.  No opinion though changes that Overwatch has sold millions of copies, gotten massive amounts of media attention, generated tons of vocal fans and made millions of dollars for Blizzard.

Really the arguments above aren’t really a useful statements, they’re just an excuse to dismiss literally any game as not being worthy of valid concern.

– wincenworks

Continuing from your brother’s logic, here’s an extended list of arbitrary things a game can’t be if we want to judge its treatment of women:

  • it’s free to play
  • it’s freemium/pay to play/any other technically free

    gameplay model

    that involves microtransactions for the full experience

  • it’s popular
  • it never became popular
  • it’s overrated
  • it’s underrated
  • its core demographic are horny men
  • its core demographic are children
  • it’s made in America and therefore immune to criticism under freedom of speech 
  • it’s made outside of America and therefore comes from a magical land of porn and fairy dust 
  • the title contains letters of some sort in it 

  • it has graphics of some kind

Well that suuure leaves us with a fair and totally unbiased choice of games to talk about.

~Ozzie

Posted on

ilovetoomanydifferentthings:

So my brother claims that the only games that have oversexualized girls are free to play games or just generally bad games. Overwatch apparently doesn’t count because “it’s overrated” so any examples for good games with skimpy armour? Thanks a lot!

Well, like so many explanations, this creates some obvious issues.

Firstly it’s dependent upon arbitrary divisions that mostly serve to try to pretend various parts of media just don’t exist or somehow don’t matter regardless of who  consumes them.

For example: only free to play?

League of Legends is a free to play game that generates millions in revenues, has a professional esports scene and pretty much launched the rise of MOBAs as a gaming genre.  While it does have some characters who are positive examples, and the occasional sexy man, it’s in fact so problematic it has a whole blog trying to keep track of it all (ie @leagueofsexism)

Long time offender World of Warcraft is basically the MMORPG that got away with not being a free to play game for years and years (and the free part available today is super stingy). 
Ultimately, Free To Play is just a business model – there are good games that use it well and terrible games that try desperately to exploit it. 

As for the statement of generally bad games, well it’s certainly true that many games that rely upon the skimpy armor are terrible.  It’s also true their poor reception tells you everything you need to know about the myth that “sex sells”. However, there’s certainly also celebrated AAA titles that feature all kinds of terrible female attire:

Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain has a massively critically successful creation of game development superstar Hideo Kojima.  It was a massive financial success and brought us so, so many wonderful breathing through your skin jokes.

The Witcher 3 collected a slew of awards, critical praise and is still getting massive sales of the game itself and it’s hefty DLC expansion packs after resorting to trying to blame a female character for her questionable battle attire choices and pretend the rest of the problems weren’t there.

As for overrated… well by who?

Every game has people who feel it’s overrated and most games have people who think it’s underrated.  No opinion though changes that Overwatch has sold millions of copies, gotten massive amounts of media attention, generated tons of vocal fans and made millions of dollars for Blizzard.

Really the arguments above aren’t really a useful statements, they’re just an excuse to dismiss literally any game as not being worthy of valid concern.

– wincenworks

Continuing from your brother’s logic, here’s an extended list of arbitrary things a game can’t be if we want to judge its treatment of women:

  • it’s free to play
  • it’s freemium/pay to play/any other technically free

    gameplay model

    that involves microtransactions for the full experience

  • it’s popular
  • it never became popular
  • it’s overrated
  • it’s underrated
  • its core demographic are horny men
  • its core demographic are children
  • it’s made in America and therefore immune to criticism under freedom of speech 
  • it’s made outside of America and therefore comes from a magical land of porn and fairy dust 
  • the title contains letters of some sort in it 

  • it has graphics of some kind

Well that suuure leaves us with a fair and totally unbiased choice of games to talk about.

~Ozzie

Posted on

feministgamingmatters:

I’ve been thinking more lately about the narrow standards of
attractiveness that video game characters of all genders are forced to fit
into. This
anon is correct when they say that “every main male character in every game
is mid 30s white guy with brown hair.”

image

I suppose they
are also correct that “the typical male characters are also all incredibly
fit and attractive looking as well.” (I think Nathan Drake is reasonably
attractive and since they all look the same I guess that means I think they’re
all reasonably attractive…whelp.) But in all seriousness, they almost all fit a
generic idea of conventional attractiveness, as do most female characters.

That doesn’t mean that it’s the same.

The kind of attractive that these male characters are
expected to be is not the same kind that female characters are expected to be.
This is common across many mediums, not just games, and it’s why things like The Hawkeye Initiative exist, and @bikiniarmorbattledamage has a “sexy
male armor” tag that looks ridiculous. We expect to see women contorting
themselves and wearing few clothes, and we simply don’t expect the same for
men. It looks strange. But it should look strange on anyone – these women do look ridiculous, you’re just used to
it.

Both male and female characters have a spectrum of possible
representations. In the centre, with overlap, is the generic face, with the
male version presented above. Nathan Drake has his equivalent in Elena Fisher,
who is the same kind of generic attractive. Joel has Tess. Male Shep has Fem
Shep.

But Shep also has Samara (source):

image

And throughout games there are oversexualised female
characters like this. I don’t think that anyone would argue with that, even if
they don’t see it as a problem. There is no equivalent for male characters on
this end of the spectrum. Oversexualised male characters simply don’t occur,
primarily because we have no model for creating them. Decades of media have
honed contorted spines and barely there clothes for women, but the tropes
simply aren’t there for men. Much virtual ink has been spilled about the
sexualisation implied by Overwatch’s Hanzo’s exposed pec, but it neither
invites objectification nor has the same media history behind it as
Widowmaker’s open catsuit.

With mention of Overwatch, we can return to the
aforementioned spectrum. In the generically attractive middle, you have
characters like Hanzo and Symmetra. We see gendered differences here too,
though – both show skin but Symmetra’s is designed to draw the eye to legs and
hips and serves no purpose beyond this, whereas Hanzo’s brings the attention to
the power of his bow arm and significant tattoo.

A quick aside: this power demonstrated by Hanzo and other
generically attractive male characters like the white dudes shown at the top
isn’t “sexualisation for women’s benefit,” it’s supposed to be aspirational for
men, as best demonstrated by this
juxtaposition of Hugh Jackman marketed to men vs. women.

To return to Overwatch, we can move down the spectrum to
more sexualised characters like Widowmaker, and there is no equivalent
sexualised male characters (mostly since this is impossible, as they would look
ridiculous due to our expectations, like I said). Then we can move towards less
conventionally attractive characters.

Probably the least conventionally attractive female hero is
Zarya, who was created specifically to counter concerns about all the earlier
female heroes looking the same. But she serves to show how limited the options
are for female characters, with people citing to me her “strong jaw” and
“facial scar” as making her completely unattractive. Yet she doesn’t vary that
strongly from the norm, with a standard, youthful face, and even manages to have tropes like the boobplate incorporated into her armour.

Then you have the conventionally unattractive male heroes. Roadhog
is a great character and representation for fat men, but we so rarely see
any female characters who look like that. Because they can only fall
closer to the centre on the spectrum. This is easily demonstrable by comparing
Roadhog to the chubby Mei, who adheres more closely to “acceptable” standards,
being completely covered in thick fabric that obscures her actual size, and
being shown as flat stomached and large breasted in her concept art. Roadhog,
on the other hand, is unapologetically and obviously large and round.

To put it shortly, in Overwatch, the men get to be anything and everything, whereas the women fit into a series of similar archetypes (source).

image

And this isn’t just about Overwatch, it applies across
games. Male characters get vastly wider options, whereas female characters are
stuck in the same rut of conventional attractiveness. And even when male
characters fall into these same standards, which they often do, they are still
more likely to look realistic and not to be outright sexualised. Those are the
main differences.

Despite what some assume, we don’t deny that male characters have their own share of common design tropes (which, paired with characterization cliches, make up their own bingo game), we just ask not to claim they’re equivalent to the issues female characters have. 

It is really important to not conflate problems of generic male hero design with problems of sexualized heroine design. They come from completely different places and it’s dishonest to treat them as interchangeable. 

As @feministgamingmatters​ says, not only Overwatch (or Blizzard) is at fault, but I’d note it makes a great case study material. As a vastly popular mainstream game with a very big cast, it allows us to make comparisons across the characters and to point out reoccurring patterns. 

And yes, even with the existence of generically attractive male character, both in this game and media as a whole, male heroes still have more moulds to fill than their female counterparts.

~Ozzie

more on the subject of false equivalence

Posted on

feministgamingmatters:

I’ve been thinking more lately about the narrow standards of
attractiveness that video game characters of all genders are forced to fit
into. This
anon is correct when they say that “every main male character in every game
is mid 30s white guy with brown hair.”

image

I suppose they
are also correct that “the typical male characters are also all incredibly
fit and attractive looking as well.” (I think Nathan Drake is reasonably
attractive and since they all look the same I guess that means I think they’re
all reasonably attractive…whelp.) But in all seriousness, they almost all fit a
generic idea of conventional attractiveness, as do most female characters.

That doesn’t mean that it’s the same.

The kind of attractive that these male characters are
expected to be is not the same kind that female characters are expected to be.
This is common across many mediums, not just games, and it’s why things like The Hawkeye Initiative exist, and @bikiniarmorbattledamage has a “sexy
male armor” tag that looks ridiculous. We expect to see women contorting
themselves and wearing few clothes, and we simply don’t expect the same for
men. It looks strange. But it should look strange on anyone – these women do look ridiculous, you’re just used to
it.

Both male and female characters have a spectrum of possible
representations. In the centre, with overlap, is the generic face, with the
male version presented above. Nathan Drake has his equivalent in Elena Fisher,
who is the same kind of generic attractive. Joel has Tess. Male Shep has Fem
Shep.

But Shep also has Samara (source):

image

And throughout games there are oversexualised female
characters like this. I don’t think that anyone would argue with that, even if
they don’t see it as a problem. There is no equivalent for male characters on
this end of the spectrum. Oversexualised male characters simply don’t occur,
primarily because we have no model for creating them. Decades of media have
honed contorted spines and barely there clothes for women, but the tropes
simply aren’t there for men. Much virtual ink has been spilled about the
sexualisation implied by Overwatch’s Hanzo’s exposed pec, but it neither
invites objectification nor has the same media history behind it as
Widowmaker’s open catsuit.

With mention of Overwatch, we can return to the
aforementioned spectrum. In the generically attractive middle, you have
characters like Hanzo and Symmetra. We see gendered differences here too,
though – both show skin but Symmetra’s is designed to draw the eye to legs and
hips and serves no purpose beyond this, whereas Hanzo’s brings the attention to
the power of his bow arm and significant tattoo.

A quick aside: this power demonstrated by Hanzo and other
generically attractive male characters like the white dudes shown at the top
isn’t “sexualisation for women’s benefit,” it’s supposed to be aspirational for
men, as best demonstrated by this
juxtaposition of Hugh Jackman marketed to men vs. women.

To return to Overwatch, we can move down the spectrum to
more sexualised characters like Widowmaker, and there is no equivalent
sexualised male characters (mostly since this is impossible, as they would look
ridiculous due to our expectations, like I said). Then we can move towards less
conventionally attractive characters.

Probably the least conventionally attractive female hero is
Zarya, who was created specifically to counter concerns about all the earlier
female heroes looking the same. But she serves to show how limited the options
are for female characters, with people citing to me her “strong jaw” and
“facial scar” as making her completely unattractive. Yet she doesn’t vary that
strongly from the norm, with a standard, youthful face, and even manages to have tropes like the boobplate incorporated into her armour.

Then you have the conventionally unattractive male heroes. Roadhog
is a great character and representation for fat men, but we so rarely see
any female characters who look like that. Because they can only fall
closer to the centre on the spectrum. This is easily demonstrable by comparing
Roadhog to the chubby Mei, who adheres more closely to “acceptable” standards,
being completely covered in thick fabric that obscures her actual size, and
being shown as flat stomached and large breasted in her concept art. Roadhog,
on the other hand, is unapologetically and obviously large and round.

To put it shortly, in Overwatch, the men get to be anything and everything, whereas the women fit into a series of similar archetypes (source).

image

And this isn’t just about Overwatch, it applies across
games. Male characters get vastly wider options, whereas female characters are
stuck in the same rut of conventional attractiveness. And even when male
characters fall into these same standards, which they often do, they are still
more likely to look realistic and not to be outright sexualised. Those are the
main differences.

Despite what some assume, we don’t deny that male characters have their own share of common design tropes (which, paired with characterization cliches, make up their own bingo game), we just ask not to claim they’re equivalent to the issues female characters have. 

It is really important to not conflate problems of generic male hero design with problems of sexualized heroine design. They come from completely different places and it’s dishonest to treat them as interchangeable. 

As @feministgamingmatters​ says, not only Overwatch (or Blizzard) is at fault, but I’d note it makes a great case study material. As a vastly popular mainstream game with a very big cast, it allows us to make comparisons across the characters and to point out reoccurring patterns. 

And yes, even with the existence of generically attractive male character, both in this game and media as a whole, male heroes still have more moulds to fill than their female counterparts.

~Ozzie

more on the subject of false equivalence

Posted on

The Nerdwriter’s video is primarily about the infamous ShirtGate incident, but the same analysis applies to so many people who smugly post familiar rhetoric regarding the depictions of female characters, declaring themselves right and others wrong often based off nothing more than that declaration.

Innuendo Studios (Ian Danskin) also did an in depth video series about those who are angry at the existence of criticism, specifically about the harassment that Anita Sarkeesian has endured since Tropes vs Women in Video Games took off.  If you haven’t seen it, here’s the whole series.

Please feel free to direct Angry Jacks to any of our posts or tags (eg agency, double standards, rhetoric, etc) and to seek help and resources if you’re being harassed. These are all resources we encourage people to share if you find someone posting, tweeting, etc in a misguided manner. 

There’s also an interesting TED Talk by James Flynn on one of the reasons you may have trouble talking to people from particular backgrounds.  But for now I want to talk about dealing with those who are less confused, less angry and are more smug.

Sadly, plenty of people either just don’t care what’s right and are more interested in maintaining dominance by default than they are about anything that’s ever going to be said. These people are largely the ones who try to seek out and weaponise Angry Jacks, and the ones who manufacture misinformation for their “cause”.

Attempting to engage in meaningful conversation with them, especially in their communities rarely does anything but make them feel that they’ve expanded their platform and hence gotten more “wins”.  This is why you often see people like this desperately craving “debates” (winner to be decided by them or their friends, based off what they wanted to be true from the start).

So, if you’ve tagged us in to a conversation and hoped we’d join in – please understand that we haven’t got anything to say that wouldn’t be wasted on that audience.  Everything we could say to them has been said, usually many times. This is the Internet after all.

image

If anything, they will simply interpret a specific response from us as an opportunity to try to hijack our platform and boost their audience, or simply assert that they’re our nemesis and thus instantly important.  

Ultimately, that’s what’s feeding their habit – the search for bigger audiences, bigger wins and more validation.  If they can’t get that, they take joy in knowing they’re wasting time that could be spent working on problems in a more general, helpful sense (especially if they have nothing else to do).

They won’t be getting a direct answer from us.Though we’re going to continue building commentary, resources and information on all the general issues around today and new ones as they arise and to call out key figures who actually already have high profiles and big influence.

We’re also going to continue to support others who do the same and hope that eventually social media platforms like Tumblr, Twitter, etc will start taking harassment seriously.

The important thing to understand about these people though is, that not only can’t they be persuaded (without having a deep personal change of their own), but they can’t advance or provide anything useful either. 

By declaring victory for simply existing and refusing to consider any hypothetical or viewpoint other than their own, they’re inherently limiting their thinking, their contributions and themselves.  By not even taking the time to understand before responding, they’re creating a no benefit scenario:

On top of all this, they are incredibly prone to giving their money away to people who either just don’t deliver, or discover there was never anything to deliver. They also tend to find themselves limited to a very small range of supporters and options in terms of projects.

This is what happens when you choose harassment as your primary means of communication and dive deep into the No True Scotsman Fallacy. 

So, while we do encourage you to call out people you see spreading harmful misinformation, if their response to that is to smugly reply with claims of victory and nonsense – remember what they’re seeking is equal parts maintaining the status quo and personal validation.

They’re also seeking to antagonize others simply because without some sort of scandal (or more commonly a faux scandal based on misinformation) to expand their audience, their default status is well…

image

Actually that’s not fair, Abraham Simpson III is far too good a person to be in that crowd.  Sorry about that, Abe.

– wincenworks

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)