Guaranteed the word "woke" will be thrown around left and right
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2024
587 points (90.4% liked)
Gaming
3242 readers
148 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The thing is though, they don't care about women in video games, they just care about "ugly" women in video games. as long as they can look at an hourglass shaped woman with massive curves in a skinsuit they don't mind.
don't go down the rabbit hole of "fixing female characters"...
There is a very good Shaun video on this exact thing .
yes I really liked it. Even the analysis/hypothesis that it really is the moment of „not getting pandered to“ that enrages that demographic. Any moment they do not feel like the target audience they take grave offense.
Who the fuck finds game Ciri to be unattractive? She was specifically made prettier for the new medium. The books describe her as a tomboy with ashen hair, huge green eyes, young face, tall and slim. Later on, "losing on her charm" by being fed meals for what basically amounts to supersoldiers, despite being a kid and putting on weight. Even in the trailer for W4 she is depicted as the game version - no babyface, no "tomboyishness" etc. She literally is an hourglass shaped woman in a skinsuit.
What's annoying as fuck is her being a mutant, not her being a woman. Witchers were successful because they had gone through mutations, which had like a 30% success rate for boys in the optimal moment in their life - pre puberty.
At the end of Witcher 3, she is a 20 year old woman. Post puberty, hasn't been brought up preparing for the trials, quite the opposite - she had a relatively normal life. It's like comparing a chess prodigy that has played the game since they were 4, and a random dude starting chess at 30 yo. Multiply that by 300x - since the mixtures were specifically made with human physiology in mind - with Ciri basically being a demigod in the universe past Witcher 3. Add in the fact that passing the trials basically slows down aging to a crawl, but she looks way older in the trailer.
The reality is, it doesn't make sense from a lore perspective. But someone who doesn't care about the lore made a decision that Ciri is now a Witcher, so she somehow has to be one. In reality - the trailer basically made her a Mary Sue of the universe (if she wasn't that already). She is both a witcher and a mage and has unique bloodlines that give her additional powers.
What they could have done, is a million other things. Prequel to where witchers were created / early days of the cataclysm - conflicts between the original occupants of the universe and humans and monsters. They could've done a prequel with Vesemir. They could have continued wirh Ciri, but with her actual powers, instead of making her a witcher. They could've made a character creator letting everyone design their own witcher - with whatever characteristics they want.
People are pisses off for the same reason why the Netflix show quickly started sucking and why Cavill left it behind. Writers not caring about previous lore at all, pulling their own out of their ass because they think they know better than the author of the universe (who granted is a fucking asshole, but still).
this wasn't even about witcher specifically... and sure, CDPR could have done all that, but they can also do what they showed in the trailer because it's their game 🤠
Their game but not their universe. Consistency needs to exist.
The two were always inconsistent. It's not the same universe. They're two separate but related universes. CDPR takes pieces of the books to make the games that they want to make, and change pieces that don't work. This has been the case since The Witcher 1. They are not consistent with each other, never have been, and never will be.
This is true for most series inspired by books. For example, the current Dune cinematic universe is inconsistent with the books. That's fine. Sure, us book fans complain that the books were better, but we don't complain that they can't diverge and be their own thing. They must or they'd be bad adaptations because they're different mediums.
it really doesn't tbh
You're judging a made up story. CDPR obviously does care about the lore. We've seen that. Sure, they break from the books in order to make the games they think are best. They still care about the lore though. Wait for the game to come out and I'm sure it'll all be explained. They've said she takes the trial of the grasses somehow. I'm sure it's not just handwaved away like your made up story implies.
If they cared about the lore she wouldn't be a witcher at all.
Again, it's a separate universe to the books. Established bookore isn't established game lore. Wait for the game to come out, then you can judge the story that's actually there, rather than making something up and judging it.
Welcome to 2024, where preferring art ~~to not be~~ that is not ugly is despicable behavior.
I know most left leaning people aren't this extreme, but this really gives them a bad image and puts off a lot of people. Especially when the non extreme people jump to the defense out of the feeling that opposing extremes is the same as promoting the right.
EDIT: Change wording for clarity.
You conveniently ignored the quotes around "ugly" to go on your little rant there. These people already flip their shit when the woman is a mere mortal normal looking woman and not the perfectly shaped ridiculously curvy imperfection-free woman that incels think is the gold standard of attractiveness. Point in case: Star Wars Outlaws bad, Stellar Blade good
So they like their art to not be average looking, big deal. Different people have different preferences. If you prefer more average looking women, than say so and leave it at that. No need to belittle other peoples preferences or push your preferences onto others.
Yeah I guess we should just let people keep over analyzing the women in video games, pointing out every single imperfection, every pimple, every asymetry because thats what incels do. I'm sure the women in the real world love that behaviour 🤠 maybe you try talking to a women and see how she likes the portrayal of women in video games, and the coomers consuming said games
Yes, you should let other people analyze whatever they feel like analyzing.
What does that have to do with you? If they want to stay incels, that is their problem.
I'm not gonna keep arguing because you're clearly not interested in thinking about how the portrayal of women in media affects societies perception of women in real life. I urge you to take my advice and talk to women 🤠
About as much as seeing violence in games is causing real life violence? Sane people can distinguish a game from reality.
Shock and horror, they don't bring this topic up. Those that talk about political topics with me have real issues they care about.
Clearly only one bad thing exists, sorry my bad.
One last try of getting you to understand this: when you go around and point out every single flaw in a female characters design you are setting a beauty standard for what a woman should look like (one that is most likely completely unrealistic anyways). letting people keep bullying game studios into designing their characters that way just reinforces that image. you're essentially saying "a woman isn't worth being in my art unless she adheres to these unrealistic standards". women have imperfection, news flash.
it makes even less sense because male characters usually aren't held to the same standards. it's because gamers (mostly men themselves) don't care about male characters because they're not trying to satisfy their sexual frustration through them.
and it makes even less sense when the female character in question is living in a literal wasteland or on a dangerous quest. Senua has better things to do than perfecting her outfit, makeup and getting a plastic surgery to appease some lonely men in front of the screens.
the "art" as you call it is just gooning material for lonely men
Who said only one topic was brought up?
If anyone is determining their self worth by comparing themselves to video game characters, they should probably seek out help, regardless of if it is Seuna or what's her name from Stellar Blade.
To be clear, I am against bullying game developers in either direction. Seuna fits well in her setting and I don't think anyone bullied them into her looks. Ciri is even better example of well made character overall.
I oppose things like Sony forcing censorship on Stellar Blade. I oppose DEI "consultancy firms" lobbying and even extorting game companies to make their characters uglier. Let game devs create their art as they see fit. And let gamers vote with their wallets on whether they like the games.
Most people including me did not complain about "ugly" characters in games until the above came to light. And since it is difficult to say which games are affected, there are innocent games caught in the crossfire.
I mean, yes. You are correct that we care less about male characters. I don't follow why that would not make sense. Especially, since there was no push to make male characters uglier as far as I know.
Idk how to react to you fixation on how you imagine some gamers reach sexual gratification.
I guess I can only add that IRL I know two people who oppose this push for uglier game characters, and both are happily married.
Dude, a lot of the most highly praised art in this world is weird and usually "ugly." Art has nothing to do with being something you can masturbate to.
And this kind of shit is what I was talking about in the first place. Now it can't even be art because it looks too lewd to you. Art is subjective, if you prefer
art, that is perfectly fine. But you don't get to dictate what art other people like or what other people consider art.
What? It can be lewd too. Wtf? Art can be anything. You are the one that implied it has to be "beautiful." Hell no. You don't get to both act like you're the dictator of art and that other people are actually being too strict with art. Art is whatever the creator wants it to be. You don't get to decide that just because you can't masturbate to the character that it isn't art.
I did not intend to imply anything of the sorts.
I intended to say it is perfectly fine to like and dislike any art you want. And it is your right to voice criticism of the art you dislike.
I kind of see how it could be interpreted that way and will edit the comment.
I also misunderstood this to mean something you masturbate to can't be art. :(
Yeah, that's correct. You can like or dislike any art. The people arguing it must only have sexy women or it's bad are in the wrong. You can like sexy women, but that's not a requirement and has a totally different set of goals to The Witcher 4 presumably.
Yes, you are correct. But that is a small minority of trolls.
What most people protest against is that publishers like Sony force censorship on developers and that self proclaimed "DEI consultancy" firms, "game journalists", and other people lobby, pressure and extort developers to make characters uglier.
I highly doubt it. You're pulling shit out of your ass, or listening to other people pulling shit out of their ass.
Just to be safe, which part? Those things being what most people are protesting or those things being true?
That they're being forced to make characters ugly. In the case of The Witcher 4, she looks how you'd expect given her age, physical abilities, what she's gone through, and also the book descriptions. (The books basically say she looses her physical appeal.)
They're making games primarily to make money. The companies are trying to maximize that. If they're telling them anything about character design, it's to make characters that sell the game. I think it's significantly more likely games with the ridiculous clean, skimpy, sexy characters are having that dictated from above. The Witcher 4 is designing the character that they think works with the game they're making.
Complaining when art isn't being made to appeal to you specifically is the most entitled thing you can do. Play the game or don't. I don't care. If it doesn't look appealing to you, then fine. You don't get to have every game made for you. If you only want to play games with sexy women, there's plenty of those. Go play them and stop complaining when anything else is made.
The Mona Lisa isn't a particularly attractive woman, but it's one of the most famous and renowned pieces of art. Personally, I think it's highly overrated, but that's just my opinion and doesn't change the fact other people love it and DaVinci chose to make it on purpose.
What even is this? It looks like a mix of putting things in my mouth and making straw-man arguments.
I have no issue with Ciri and am looking forward to Witcher 4. Never said anything to the contrary.
I gave an easy to verify example in Sony and Stellar Blade, when the game developers publicly spoke out about their intentions to not censor.
It is difficult to verify what effect the pressure from "game journalists" like Kotaku had, but the articles are public so you can see them advocating for "less sexualized" characters and giving bad reviews to games that don't comply.
There is also plenty more evidence like deleted tweets. But if this isn't enough to protest against, then nothing is. So the question is, do you really believe that developers should not be put under pressure in either direction? Or do you believe it is only entitled when we demand "more beautiful" characters but perfectly fine when other demand "uglier" characters?
Exactly what I was saying I want as well. Doubly so if you are not even the intended audience and are just pushing your religious/moral beliefs.
What does that have to do with anything. DaVinci was not pressured into drawing Mona Lisa the way he did.
Thats what this thread is about. Why are you even commenting this kind of stuff if you don't care?
Marketing. Hell, even still the incels complained that it was censored because a few outfits were slightly different, a few with a tiny bit more cloth. The Witcher has been far less "uncensored" than Stellar Blade, with full nudity. What does it even mean when their game with no nudity is "uncensored" when no one was trying to censor them?
Which includes the belief that all the characters need to look attractive, right? You're angry at them too, right?
The point was that art can be whatever the artist desires. It doesn't have to look attractive. Substitute it for any unattractive art made for profit if it's not a good enough example. There's plenty of them.
I was replying to a comment that was general. In the first place, the few complaints about Ciri I saw was about playing as a female, not her looks.
Yes. Not all characters need to look attractive. Ciri is an excellent example of a character whose looks fit her setting and story.
I am even more angry about them, since they muddle the argument I am trying to make and make me look bad.
On the other hand, I 100% support putting pressure on Games to not cave in to the outside demands for "uglier" characters in all games. This creates an awkward dynamic where there is no way to verify the original intent of the artist so we just have to guess based on how well the art fits the game. There may be some Games being falsely accused, but I find this less problematic than doing nothing and having the pressure in both directions not be balanced.
This point we seem to agree on.
I chose this example because it is easy to verify it was not the devs choice. Yeah, the difference is small, but the principle is the same.
This is the entire issue. You're assuming there's some horrible outside pressure to make characters ugly, so you're in favor of outside pressure to make them attractive. Isn't outside pressure the issue you're arguing about, not them being ugly? How is the outside pressure you're in favor of better than the outside pressure you're arguing against (and making up without any evidence of it even existing)?
First of all, modern games are not made by a single person. Second, how can you verify it was their choice? It's marketing. They were making a product to make money, as all studios are doing. They saw a market and made up stuff about "not censoring" to sell their product. That doesn't mean they weren't forced to make a product they didn't want to make. I'd bet on it being the opposite in fact. They saw they could put a sexy woman in the game and people would buy it, so they forced the devs to do so. (I'm pretty confident this is at least partially true, because the game doesn't seem to do anything unique or interesting. It only copies other things. There's no creativity or passion from what I've seen of it. There's no reason for the character to be hot given, unlike Nier Automata for example.)
I am not assuming there is outside pressure. Among other things, the articles criticizing games for unrealistic body standards and the negative reviews of otherwise good games from "game journalists" are public. (note that reviews are recommendation for which games to buy, so giving bad review as a journalist is the same as saying not to buy a game)
Ok, so in your interpretation, the Game producer/developer I am criticizing tricked me into criticizing them. Then fuck them. They reap what they sow and I still want to express I am opposed to what they pretended happened.
That's totally unrelated to being ugly. Can people with normal shaped bodies not be attractive to you? Do you only get off to hentai?
You can find a games journist saying practically anything. Who cares? Don't give the ones you don't like views.
Maybe, but that's not what I meant. I meant the people behind Stellar Blade were saying they weren't censoring was pure marketing. It was stupid bullshit. No one was trying to censor them. It's like yelling out "I'm going to eat this burger" and acting like you're standing up to something, when no one was asking you to stop. Sure, it worked to make the stupid incels buy it, but it didn't mean anything. They were going to make the sexy character regardless, because they knew those people would buy it, and the "not censoring" thing was just icing on the cake.
There are games that try to rage-bait too though. The incels yelling about it is free PR. Most people don't give a shit, as long as the game is good. They wouldn't even know some of these games existed without the rage though. The people angry about it were never the target market anyway, so it doesn't cost anything.
I just explained why I believe we shouldn't let pressure from one direction be unopposed. So no, I will not ignore them. And yes, it absolutely is pressure, when bad reviews from several large sites try to lower sales and deprive devs of money they earned.
So do you care about people putting pressure on game devs or not? You can't have it both ways where we should just ignore one group but the other one is an issue.
What people get off to or what you find attractive is completely unrelated to whether it is what the devs wanted to make.
Also, you bringing this up and throwing around words like hentai and incel really makes me doubt that you want no pressure on artists in general, rather than just being opposed specifically to more "over-sexualized characters" or "beautiful characters" or whatever you want to call it.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. What does that have to do with anything?
So the last minute changes appeared themselves? Or the devs voluntarily made them, for some reason after already shipping some physical copies and after saying they would not make those changes? (whether for marketing or other reason) Consistently across multiple outfits? Together with other censorship-like changes, such as blood splatter reduction/removal? Unlikely.