Tag: threwback

Posted on

“Sex-positive” women in gaming (or lack thereof)

the-midnight-doe:

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 alluded before 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. 

I mean, everyone and their grandmother brings up Bayonetta and/or Emma Frost as heroic examples of this trope that actually work. Somehow, they’re basically the only two widely recognized heroines like that. And their depictions of empowerment still reek of male gaze all over (and no, unsolicited reminders that Bayo was co-designed by a woman don’t automatically make her impervious to critique).

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.

* unless it’s this semi-translucent loincloth

~Ozzie

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:

image

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.

I also feel it’s worth mentioning here that there is this very strange perception that we receive messages over that suggests by criticizing the outfits we “downgrade” these characters and somehow think less of them.  This is absolutely not true, the problem as we see it is that they characters are not being given their due.

– wincenworks

Femshep image source (as immature as you’d expect)

(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!)

Posted on

“Sex-positive” women in gaming (or lack thereof)

the-midnight-doe:

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 alluded before 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. 

I mean, everyone and their grandmother brings up Bayonetta and/or Emma Frost as heroic examples of this trope that actually work. Somehow, they’re basically the only two widely recognized heroines like that. And their depictions of empowerment still reek of male gaze all over (and no, unsolicited reminders that Bayo was co-designed by a woman don’t automatically make her impervious to critique).

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.

* unless it’s this semi-translucent loincloth

~Ozzie

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:

image

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.

I also feel it’s worth mentioning here that there is this very strange perception that we receive messages over that suggests by criticizing the outfits we “downgrade” these characters and somehow think less of them.  This is absolutely not true, the problem as we see it is that they characters are not being given their due.

– wincenworks

Femshep image source (as immature as you’d expect)

(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!)

Posted on

pixelcut:

WOOO I did a redesign of this hot monstrosity. The screen shots used in this post were provided by doctorsanity, who submitted them to bikiniarmorbattledamage

Look, I’ve been employed as a designer for two years now, and maybe that’s not that long; I’m at least sure I don’t have the same kind of industry experience that the designers in charge of this train wreck probably do, but I do know one thing: 

Design that fails to communicate its intended message is bad design. 

It is, in my opinion, the chore element that separates what we do from Fine Art – fine art is a personal expression. Someone can argue with the conclusions that you came to in fine art but ultimately, it’s your territory, your message, your composition, your voice, your story.

When you’re a hired designer, everything changes. It’s their story, their character, their message, their voice.

Putting aside the obvious pandering and intent to profit off of misogynistic ideals in female video game characters for just an instant, let’s talk about Charlotte.

Charlotte [evidently, from what I’ve admittedly heard through the grapevine; this game is not yet out in my country] uses a masquerade of charm and innocence to seduce men for their wealth. When I heard this, I was shocked, because from the moment I saw her outfit, she never looked like someone I could trust.

If she’s supposed to look demure, make her look demure, goddammit. You shouldn’t need a greenhorn like me to tell you these things. Learn to treat your female characters with more respect.

Awesome redesign accompanied by an awesome writeup, thank you, pixelcut!

One more thing I’d add about the difference between design (hired or not) and fine art, is that design is supposed to serve the same purpose for everyone who sees it. To communicate an intended message, as pixelcut puts it.

The problem with how Charlotte looks basically boils down to the whole issue our blog concerns: that a lot of female character designs, particularly female warrior costumes, do not tell us who we’re dealing with. Lingerie models, maybe, but not warriors, especially not if male characters of the same or similar class establish a completely different aesthetic.

~Ozzie

Posted on

ottolla:

Text post got me thinking. Now, I want a world, or whatever, where the female “bikini armor” really is as strong as normal. Protects with magic or something, I don’t much care. And pretty much every woman wears them. I mean, same protection, but loads less weight? Sign me up! And then over the bikini armor, you wear whatever you want. Cute sundress? Fully protected. Tee and jeans? Fully protected. Leather armor? Double protected? Idk. 

Just a verse full of ladies in bikinis with normal clothes on top, so you never know who is a secret badass. It’d be great.

That sounds like the only acceptable reason to excuse the existence of magical bikini armor.

It’s still laughable how a simple logical question like “if the bikini gives her total protection, why wouldn’t she wear it over or under more comfortable clothes?” is always handwaved. Usually with something akin to “but she needs to wear bikini and only bikini for the magic to work”, which translates to “fanservice is mandatory!”.
Dear writers, if you can’t explain that in another way than “cause that makes me (and my presumed audience) horny” (and believe me, you can’t), please stop pretending that your story is something else than dramatized softcore porn.

~Ozzie

Posted on

ottolla:

Text post got me thinking. Now, I want a world, or whatever, where the female “bikini armor” really is as strong as normal. Protects with magic or something, I don’t much care. And pretty much every woman wears them. I mean, same protection, but loads less weight? Sign me up! And then over the bikini armor, you wear whatever you want. Cute sundress? Fully protected. Tee and jeans? Fully protected. Leather armor? Double protected? Idk. 

Just a verse full of ladies in bikinis with normal clothes on top, so you never know who is a secret badass. It’d be great.

That sounds like the only acceptable reason to excuse the existence of magical bikini armor.

It’s still laughable how a simple logical question like “if the bikini gives her total protection, why wouldn’t she wear it over or under more comfortable clothes?” is always handwaved. Usually with something akin to “but she needs to wear bikini and only bikini for the magic to work”, which translates to “fanservice is mandatory!”.
Dear writers, if you can’t explain that in another way than “cause that makes me (and my presumed audience) horny” (and believe me, you can’t), please stop pretending that your story is something else than dramatized softcore porn.

~Ozzie

Posted on

So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?

It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so.  Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal. 

Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields.  So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter.  Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.

In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock.  It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.

Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day.  When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.

The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.

At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.

TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor.  There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.

– wincenworks

Posted on

meishuu:

So, I have been having this discussion in my fandom, and people defend the bikini armour as being “historical accurate” since some cultures “went naked into battle”. How true is this, actually?

It is certainly true some people went naked or near naked into battle, but not alongside warriors in proper armor and not in battle bikinis. There are some other important factors involved in their choice to do so.  Firstly it usually only in cases where they didn’t have access to armor and/or the battles were largely ceremonial or otherwise non-lethal. 

Armor is developed in response to weapons and usually the first forms of defense were shields.  So if you had no nudity taboo and hadn’t developed armor due to lack of resources or lack of regular conflict, you didn’t really have much choice in the matter.  Particularly since your weapons are usually tools that are made for hunting or other work.

In areas where this happened, usually the battles were no war in the sense of systematic killing of the enemy but more demonstrations of strength to intimidate others – usually over a piece of farm land or livestock.  It was used to resolve grievances and sometimes even as a regular sport.

Usually this happened where people needed everyone to work together in order to provide essential, which means you also don’t need any more land than you already control and work every day.  When you have an argument with your neighbours, you settle it to both sides satisfaction so you can resume living next to one another.

The ability to make sophisticated items like bikini armor (which is surprisingly complicated) comes from civilizations where they have sufficient surplus of resources and people they can have specialists who can trade goods and ideas. By the time you reach this level you also a real incentive to try to obtain more and more land.

At that point civilizations can start developing dedicated weapons, training dedicated soldiers (to expand your nation or defend against invaders) and their battles start to involve countless fatalities. Then it becomes worthwhile to begin the cycle of making armor to protect against the enemies weapons, and weapons to beat your enemies armor.

TL;DR: If you’re in a society that has warriors and the know-how and resources to make bikini armor, you’re in a society where your warriors wear actual armor.  There were civilizations that fought nude or near nude, but they didn’t have bikini armor, fancy swords, professional warriors or sophisticated combat techniques.

– wincenworks