I am really struggling to write academically about this trend of developers making up bad excuses for not including women because what I really want to say is that it sucks and it’s adding insult to injury and could you please just be honest and say you don’t wanna.
Oh yeah, I’m sick of it too. And it feels like it just keeps happening and it’s insulting to our intelligence. Like
Ubisoft: We can’t have a female protagonist because they’re too hard to animate!
Logical Retort: What about all those female characters you already animated?
What they should have admitted: We didn’t want to make a woman protagonist.
~~~~~
Konami: Quiet can’t wear clothes because she’s infected by a parasite that makes her breathe through her skin and she’d suffocate!
Logical Retort:Well then how come that other guy with the same parasite was covered head to toe?
What they should have admitted: We wanted her to be eye candy.
~~~~~
Bungie: Cortana is rendered without any clothes because it gives her a psychological advantage over her opponents!
Logical Retort:Then how come the “male” AIs are rendered with clothing?
What they should have admitted: We wanted her to be eye candy.
~~~~~
Nintendo: Link can’t be a woman because no one would relate to them!
Logical Retort: 48% of gamers would probably love to see a character like them. And much of the other 52% may appreciate the novelty.
What they should have admitted: We really like making the exact same concept over and over.
Stop. Your BS excuses are honestly almost more insulting than the truth.
I am really struggling to write academically about this trend of developers making up bad excuses for not including women because what I really want to say is that it sucks and it’s adding insult to injury and could you please just be honest and say you don’t wanna.
Oh yeah, I’m sick of it too. And it feels like it just keeps happening and it’s insulting to our intelligence. Like
Ubisoft: We can’t have a female protagonist because they’re too hard to animate!
Logical Retort: What about all those female characters you already animated?
What they should have admitted: We didn’t want to make a woman protagonist.
~~~~~
Konami: Quiet can’t wear clothes because she’s infected by a parasite that makes her breathe through her skin and she’d suffocate!
Logical Retort:Well then how come that other guy with the same parasite was covered head to toe?
What they should have admitted: We wanted her to be eye candy.
~~~~~
Bungie: Cortana is rendered without any clothes because it gives her a psychological advantage over her opponents!
Logical Retort:Then how come the “male” AIs are rendered with clothing?
What they should have admitted: We wanted her to be eye candy.
~~~~~
Nintendo: Link can’t be a woman because no one would relate to them!
Logical Retort: 48% of gamers would probably love to see a character like them. And much of the other 52% may appreciate the novelty.
What they should have admitted: We really like making the exact same concept over and over.
Stop. Your BS excuses are honestly almost more insulting than the truth.
I really wanted to do a quick redraw of the two characters from “Aurcus Online” (original post here), first the male one in the obviously empowering outfit and then the female one with more appropriate attire for combat.
What amazes me the most about this is that the male outfit is actually pretty gender neutral and doesn’t look weird on the woman, at all. You’d probably just make the collar a little smaller for a more “feminine” look and choose different boots for a lady with her body shape (like I did), but that’s it. So why on earth would you invest more precious time into developing a different version of this outfit? The “male” one even shows cleavage! Game designers never cease to confuse me.
I am honestly as baffled as you for why so many video game developers design separate costumes for the same character/class depending on gender instead of slightly readjusting one outfit. Somehow doing extra work specifically to alienate half of potential audience is good business practice, because… sex sells?
Yet whenever it’s more convenient, a completely opposite rhetoric is used to justify lack of women in a game. So yeah, depending on which way the creators want to keep gaming cootie-free, female characters either have a separate budget for making them explicitly different (i.e. more sexualized) than male ones or they are too hard to render so there won’t be any. Either way, women = deviation from the norm = extra work.
Somebody used this gif to “prove” that Metal Gear sexualises men the same as women:
Do people really think this is equivalent to Quiet (et al.) or are they being disingenuous?
I find it hilarious how dudes will insist that if people really knew about Metal Gear Solid they’d know about Raiden and that he was (allegedly) as objectified as Quiet… despite the fact Raiden and his butt run (very late in the game) were both surprises to the player (and the development team) and Quiet was used heavily as marketing material a year in advance of MGS V being released.
It’s almost like he wasn’t intended to titillate or something.
– wincenworks
#nakedness doesn’t equal sexualisation
Continuing the theme of false equivalence… yes, we have seen (and commented on) people who proudly claim that Raiden’s naked run justifies Quiet’s “breathing through skin” un-costume.
We’re also familiar with the general confusion between sexualization and nudity. Vast majority of the Status Quo Warriors conflate bare skin with being sexual, so by that logic, Conan/Kratos/Zangief are equally, if not more sexualized than their scantily-clad female peers and therefore sexism is “solved”.
(especiallynipples), but also how bare skin itself doesn’t yet guarantee sexyness.
That’s why @partsal‘s female barbarian comparison is still a perfect example of how completely different character premise can be conveyed with the same amount of bare body:
Somebody used this gif to “prove” that Metal Gear sexualises men the same as women:
Do people really think this is equivalent to Quiet (et al.) or are they being disingenuous?
I find it hilarious how dudes will insist that if people really knew about Metal Gear Solid they’d know about Raiden and that he was (allegedly) as objectified as Quiet… despite the fact Raiden and his butt run (very late in the game) were both surprises to the player (and the development team) and Quiet was used heavily as marketing material a year in advance of MGS V being released.
It’s almost like he wasn’t intended to titillate or something.
– wincenworks
#nakedness doesn’t equal sexualisation
Continuing the theme of false equivalence… yes, we have seen (and commented on) people who proudly claim that Raiden’s naked run justifies Quiet’s “breathing through skin” un-costume.
We’re also familiar with the general confusion between sexualization and nudity. Vast majority of the Status Quo Warriors conflate bare skin with being sexual, so by that logic, Conan/Kratos/Zangief are equally, if not more sexualized than their scantily-clad female peers and therefore sexism is “solved”.
(especiallynipples), but also how bare skin itself doesn’t yet guarantee sexyness.
That’s why @partsal‘s female barbarian comparison is still a perfect example of how completely different character premise can be conveyed with the same amount of bare body:
As always with HBomb’s videos, he lays down a pretty in-depth breakdown of the topic at hand, in this case – the supposed male objectification of video game protagonists and general issue of gendered false equivalence in game design.
