Forum - View topicThe X Button - All Day Long
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Lavnovice9
Posts: 276 |
|
|||||||||
uhh, what about all the women who love moe and sexy characters? Do they not count for anything? K-ON was a huge hit with girls of all ages in Japan. What makes them liking those girls different than Bayonetta? You don't get to say what is or isnt a step up. Considering the massive amount of cosplay of these characters, it's pretty clear girls like all kinds of character types. Tomb Raider selling well has nothing to do with her not being sexualized. It has more to do with them rebooting it as a generic third person cover-based shooter. Shooters sell, big dela, that proves nothing. The older Tomb Raider had games which sold more than it, and she was sexualzied in those, so what does that mean? It's more impressive a puzzle platform game sold that amount compared to a shooter, so maybe the sexualized icon Lara was to US gamers back then helped push for those sales.
What proof do you got of this? Plenty of games that Shonen Jump Weekly doesn't complain about sell worse in America than Japan, like Okami, and plenty of games they rage about can sell more in America, like Dragon's Crown. Both Japanese and American made games. Most games which are Shonen Jump Weekly oriented are no-name indie games from no-name indie developers, probably because most people generally prefer gameplay over what skin color or sexual orientation the main character is, and that's generally all those indie games have going for them.
So this isn't about social issues, it's just a rant about mobile gaming in Japan I take it and looking for a scapegoat  Social issues have nothing to do with shifts in gaming preferences in Japan.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
toddc
 Posts: 164 |
|
|||||||||
Sure, sure. I won't even ban 2014's winners from entering this; I just suggested that they let others have a shot. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Rahxephon91
 Posts: 1859 Location: Park Forest IL. |
|
|||||||||
|
This is pathetic. We get it Lavnovice9, you have an extreme Japanese bias. To the point that everything else is terrible. You can't stand any criticism of them and you can't deal with any attack on your precious fanservice. So here you are basically throwing a sense less temper tantum. Could you please stop?
I mean lets just go over what you've been talking about here. First you claim that Japan is'nt pandering to "Shonen Jump Weekly". It's a good thing to you. What you mean is "Japan still makes tna games and how dare other people attempt to question and move away from that". That's honestly your problem. You are hilariously upset that people are even talking about this. So you claim that any developer that entertains the idea that "hey lets make things that aren't about objectifying female characters" as just pandering. What a terrible attempt to discredit this approach, because of course it couldn't be that these people came to this conclusion out of thier own free will. No it has to be either they were forced for this fictional Shonen Jump Weekly enemy you've created or they are apparently pandering to this audience that must be in the millions so that they can actually impact what these huge publishers and developers do. Then when these developers actually do say "yeah lets have a female character who's boobs don't bounce" you attempt to yell "CREATIVE FREEDOM IS UNDER ATTACK". Jesus, how narrow minded, how bias can you get here? Then you try so hard to wrap what is developers thinking about thier greater audeicne and the implications of thier creative choices as something that is so wrong. It's insulting that you even try to put this under some issue of creative freedom, but you do this in such a malicious way. How dare people be more cognitive what thier art means and how dare the audience say anything about. Of course I have to add that it's only bad when that audience doesn't line up with what you want the status quo to be. But to say "Japan is the last bastion of creative freedom". Jesus how much of a deranged fanboy can you get? Please, tell us all how Japan is the bastion of creative freedom? Because thier games allow sexual elements? Which most of the time isn't done for any true artful expression, but rather money signs. Yes, sounds like the land of creative freedom. What games are supposedly pandering to Shonen Jump Weekly? What big games have changed themselves just to appease these Shonen Jump Weekly and then tell me how this is bad. Please tell us how that is a thing beyond something you made up? What you really mean is in regards to Japan and creative freedom though. creative freedom=my precious tna. As if Japanese games aren't beholden to the social norms and expectation of thier Japanese audience. But since you have cherry picked thier culture and know little about it, you ignore that. Better to fetishize Japan. Either way that is really what it's all about. You don't like anything western, so you're already going to discount anything they do as creative, but because western game developers may be a bit more aware of the variety of thier audience and thus not pander to YOU(WHO"S TASTE ARE MOST IMPORTANT APPARENTLY) that means they don't have creative freedom. Yes, because Japanese developers being forced to put things so that otaku buy them is the definition of creative freedom. These games are commercial products everywhere, Japan is no different. Please spare me this ridiculous idea that you only have because of your insane Japanese bias. It's almost embarrassing at this point. You are honestly arguing that anyone who dosen't conform to your warped views and attempts to do anything that you've wrapped into some Shonen Jump Weekly agenda (ie not exploit women, have a variety of races) as something to be demonized. Jesus, you sound like a real winner frankly. And because you lack any actual knowledge of Japanese culture and society beyond a small warped view that you've created merely because you like this otaku stuff, you've deemed that as something superior. Something that must in face have complete creative freedom merely because you like it and it's not questioning what you like, unlike those terrible western things that dare to say "hey maybe we could do something with female characters beyond being sex objects". How dare they. It's almost sickening what you're doing here. Then instead of actually arguing with the poster Lili-Hime-because honestly you can't- you attempt to misdirect her points with such a weak argument. "Oh other people like this, so who are you to question it". So when people discuss if somethings raciest, do you defend it with "oh but some blacks like it". Of course you're the type to use that argument who am I kidding. Who care's if some females happen to like you're moe stuff. I'm sure you'r happy they do as it gives you ammo for are a defense, but it dosen't change the Lili's point. Plenty of little girls like Barbie. Did'nt change the argument over her being a positive role model or not. Lili brought up a point and instead of actually arguing it you just attempted to whine and say "NO YOU". Please, could you actually tell us how those are postive female characters beyond the entirely pointless point of "some girls like it". I like plenty of things that aren't positive male images. We all do. So that at all says nothing. So could you please stop using the completely pointless and meaningless defense of "well girls like it so it's not sexualized". Because in the end, it's just a jerking off action for you. You don't actually care or know why these girls in fact like these things you are defending. You just bring it up to justify your viewpoint and nothing more beyond that. And then you're entire point about Tomb Raider is such an obvious attempt to misdirect why that poster brought it up. Yes we get it, you don't like it because it's western and a shooter and thus bad to you. We all know your bias. The poster's point was that the game sold well and it didn't need to have a sexualized/fetishiszed female to do so. Is that why it sold? Who knows, but that was'nt the posters point at all. It sold without having that element. That was her point. Proving that you don't have to completely sexualize a female character in that way to sell a game as TR sold well despite not having that. The older more sexifed TR's sold? Ok whats your point? Yes TR was more popular then, but that died down despite still having that sex appeal. The game that wasn't selling on sex appeal was the one that brought the series back anyway. Honestly at this point, Shonen Jump Weekly needs to be banned from this forum. Well it shouldn't because the people who use it in a serious matter are marked. So you can safety disregard anything they say. Lav uses Shonen Jump Weekly for anyone who dosen't share his/her opinion on the matter and actually wants to question how games depict things. Because anything that questions what he likes is bad and thus needs to quickly be categorized and quickly discredited. Thats what it's become with you people. It's hard to even understand anymore as anything that dosen't fit with your views is quickly thrown in the trash and singled out as having some sort of agenda. I mean listen to you. You're really saying anything that attempts to have positive women characters without TNA is actually just made that way to appease this group you've made up. As if that group is actually in the millions. This all sounds like someone attempting to play the victim card. "Oh we're a minority under attack". Thats the core of your whining. Then any game that does that like TR for instance, you attempt to discredit as much as possible. "oh it's just a generic shooter". "oh but the other games sold better so see they were wrong". Also what are Shonen Jump Weekly orientated games? When did this Shonen Jump Weekly audience become something that game developers are targeting? Oh wait this never happen and this is an enemy that's all in your head. You'll claim something like Gone Home probably which just speaks to your narrow minded view here. Yes, because any game that attempts to do something different and tackle what you have deemed as "progressive" which here is of course a negative is in fact just pandering to Shonen Jump Weekly. As if a developer couldn't just make something like that without an agenda. As if people couldn't praise something like that without an agenda. Yep, according to you anyone who likes those games is a Shonen Jump Weekly and they only like it because it's attempting things like "more positive female characters" and thats a bad thing. "Also whats a positive female character? How dare you decide that. I know plenty of females who like Senran Kagura games so you don't get to decide that a female character dealing with some actual substance and without throwing her tna in your face is a positive female" There, that's basically how you post. Also then throw in a very narrow minded comment about how these indie games (that you've never played) are bad anyway and should be ignored because you dont like them. Whatever discredits them and puts them out of the discussion. You make this forum a terrible place Lavnovice9. Last edited by Rahxephon91 on Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
|
At this point there is no real pretense, Gamergate is nothing less than a culture war launched by the current generation's extremist right wing of angry reactionaries to the growing diversity and progress in gaming. It has done literally nothing to address "corruption" because it is not about corruption. Unless of course you consider "people saying or discussing things Gamergate doesn't like" to be corruption, which they do. It isn't though, obviously. It's just another bullshit tactic to legitimize their war on "Social Justice Warriors". A classic conservative rhetoric wherein their privileged, self-serving worldview is the "unbaised" natural state and everyone seeking to challenge that status quo is some kind of external corrupting force. It's the same crap that has been used for decades to defend inequality and bigotry.
Agree completely. Look, I'm certainly not going to claim one can't be critical of Bayonetta. There may well be an argument to be made there. But at the very least, you do the game and the discussion surrounding feminist issues in games a massive disservice by simply dismissing it out of hand because she is very sexual. At the very least, one needs to acknowledge and address the fact that the execution and presentation of that sexuality is distinctly different from how female sexuality is usually portrayed. There's a definite discussion to be had there in regards to sexual agency and power. Again, that's not to say you can't still claim Bayonetta is problematic. There are other points that bear discussion ie. the male gaze and the ultimate agency and motives of the game's creators. But if you simply take the stance that "sexually provocative female character" = sexist, you end up inadvertently taking a very unfortunate, sex negative attitude. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Suzy J Webber
Posts: 10 |
|
|||||||||
|
I'm sorry, but If you don't see the glaring problem with Bayonetta I don't know what to tell you. It represents everything wrong with how women are depicted in video games, let alone media in general. We are not sex objects for you to oogle, sorry if this disappoints you. I don't expect you to understand as a man and you don't know what it's like for a woman to live in a society that looks at you for you. I'm not surprised you would try to defend her though. She is a walking sex toy made solely for male amusement.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rahxephon91
Posts: 1859 Location: Park Forest IL. |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Stuart Smith
 Posts: 1298 |
|
|||||||||
We went from calling people I disagree with politically nothing but neckbearded, overweight, virgin white males, which was already one of the most stereotypical insults to be used on the internet, short of calling someone a certain German party from World War 2, but now that people of all sorts of ethnicities and genders have admitted to being apart of it, we now go to political views which can't be easily identified based on physical appearance? I supported GamerGate's goals and I consider myself a liberal. Is this going to lead to another response where people take selfies with their ballot stub which shows them voting for Obama and Prop 8? I hope not, because that was just silly and embarrassing to see literal public shaming of women in gaming from people who claimed to be doing this for women in gaming. It's even more odd because you also admit to acknowledging different branches of feminism, which I've always agreed with and why using feminism as a reason to denounce something like sexuality in gaming is always a flawed reasoning. Surely you can also admit there's different branches of liberal views as well and it's not a simple liberal VS conservative debate.
As ikillchicken mentioned, there are different segregations of feminism. One group might find revealing outfits a sign of objectification, and another can see it as a sign of empowerment. Male gaze for example. Some would say it's bad because it objectifies a woman, but others argue it can represent the control and power a woman can have over the opposite gender, or the strengths she has compared to her peers. It's all dependent on your views. The problem is when certain voices cry out against any branch which does not agree with their views, and instead seeks to censor or publicly shame them into submitting to their views, which is never okay, and something only bullies resort to. -Stuart Smith |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
You can call yourself a liberal all you want. Words mean things. When you, and the group you throw in with, pathologically, dogmatically declare yourself in opposition to social progress you're not liberal in any meaningful sense. Better make peace with it. It's only gonna get more pronounced from here as the world moves on without you.
Yep, there are different branches. You're not one one of them. Or rather, not one of the liberal ones. Actually, I think this is my line. The fact that you disagree with the traditional religious conservative movement in America doesn't make you non-conservative by default. Angry male nerds are just the new branch of right wing extremism, even if they don't seem to realize it.
No. You don't get to pretend agree with me. I'm trying to foster healthy, sex positive debate. You are a dishonest apologist willing to use every rhetoric trick in the book to shut down criticism. I refuse to allow you to co-opt my point in service of your goals.
Holy shit. How utterly intellectually bankrupt and/or completely divorced from reality does a person have to be to say this of feminist critics while supporting Gamergate!? This is literally the opposite of reality. You might as well be claiming the sky is orange.
Well that's the question though. Being overtly sexual or provocative doesn't automatically make a woman a sex object. To say otherwise is to subscribe to a very negative, regressive view of female sexuality as something bad that needs to be covered up. Rather, what makes a character an object is the lack of agency. Their sexuality is presented as something outside their control. They are, as the term suggests, not a person but an object of sexual gratification for the viewer. Now, is that the case with Bayonetta? Is she presented to the viewer merely as a "sex object"? Or is she presented as a strong, dominant person who controls her own sexuality? I don't know. I can respect people of either stance. But this is a very important point to address. And it requires a much more nuanced analysis than just observing the overt sexuality of the character and declaring her problematic. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
thenix
 Posts: 265 |
|
|||||||||
|
ikillchicken gets to decide who gets to join his Liberal political party. If you don't pass his muster than you can't claim yourself to be one. Words do mean something and you aren't the person who makes up the meaning of those words. You just decided that everything you like is Liberal and everything you don't like is Conservative and will tell everyone else they are wrong if they disagree with you
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
AnimeMaine
Posts: 123 |
|
|||||||||
|
Not being a gamer, I didn't read the Breitbart article on GamerGate. However, I just saw that today the New York Times has an article on this issue (which I also will not read, for the same reason.) But I put it out there for people who are interested.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||
And neither are you. Gamergate is a reactionary movement that speaks and acts contrary to progressives, rejects the very concept of social change and defends the status quo. If you support that, if that's you, well then guess what? By the most basic and accepted definition, you are a conservative. If this bothers you...well all I can say is maybe you need to take a hard look at who you are as a person. This whole labeling yourself as a liberal while acting for all intents and purposes as a conservative just smacks of a cheap way to duck cognitive dissonance and rationalize behavior you kinda know deep down is shitty. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Pleinair92
Posts: 50 |
|
|||||||||
|
@ikillchickens: I really detest people who think that they know more about a person than that person does, to the point where they can tell with absolute certainty that the person is lying to themselves. Given how "liberal" and "conservative" can mean a huge variety of things, some of them contradictory, this is especially useless.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Rahxephon91
Posts: 1859 Location: Park Forest IL. |
|
|||||||||
|
In this argument: No one says why they think they are liberal. Only argues with chicken about him/her calling them out.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
thenix
Posts: 265 |
|
|||||||||
So you are saying that Conservatives always take the side of status quo and Liberals always take the position of change? (Or as you call it progress) In that case take for example Obamacare. Now that it's been enacted Liberals should want to change it back right? And Conservatives should want to keep it in place now. Or say the war on terrorism, the status quo is to sit here and keep taking attacks without trying to prevent it so that would be the conservative approach right? And sending troops to other countries would be change so that would be the Liberal stance correct? (Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong the point is applying your definition to real political stances)
Maybe this is your honest opinion based on what you believe is conservative and liberal but you aren't paying attention to both what those political labels are doing in the real world and what they are doing related in relation to gamergate. I've seen more articles about gamergate in Liberal newspapers, and seen more tv coverage on Liberal news channels so regardless of what you think the ideals should stand for the reality is Conservatives aren't something that should just be a go to scapegoat for everything wrong in the world or gamergate |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Fedora-san
 Posts: 464 |
|
|||||||||
Given the letter indicated the individual dislikes feminists in general, you don't have to know who Anita is to threaten her if they simply saw that a feminist was going to talk at their school. Assuming the letter isn't just some stupid joke to begin with. As I said, ignoring the absense of evidence for one argument simply because you can use it as fuel for your views but then turning around and trying to decry the use when it's against you is a real scummy behavior. It should either be okay in both instances or deplorable in both.
You speak of social change, but the social change you rally for is not the social change I want, which is the amazing thing about progressivism and the different values of it. I support gay marriage in the real world and voted for it, but I do not support the public shaming and attempted career assassination of companies who don't effortlessly put gay marriage in their games no matter if it fits or not like websites did for Nintendo when they saw Tomodachi Life dared to focus on the aspect of having children as a gameplay mechanic, which would be impossible with gay marriage. When that storm dropped, suddenly Nintendo was worse than Westboro Baptist Church in the eyes of gaming media. Luckily, Nintendo is so massive they can write it off with a stock PR response and just drop a new Pokemon game and everyone will move on, but you got some of the smaller developers scared out of their minds that they're put in an assimilate-or-be--destroyed position for their work. And you seemingly perfectly fine with that is what I personally find truly disturbing. If the status quo is "people are free to make whatever game they want without fear", then maybe conservatives aren't all that bad as you're trying to make them out to be.
If you're going to accuse people of and labeling themselves as progressive for the sake of dodging cognitive dissonance, siding with other side probably isn't the smartest choice either. Need we bring up the massive amounts of hypocrisy websites have done for the sole sake of public image and page views? The example I find most deplorable is that one guy who raised a big stink about Dragon's Crown objectifying women was outed as being a paid member of a porn site and was found to be in the hobby of paying women to perform for him on webcam. Sort of makes all his cries of being against objectification of women seem more like a grab for page views and credibility with certain gaming subcultures than an actual honest personal belief. Using the same money you made from defending women from being objectified to pay them to objectify themselves is the what I would personally classify as "shitty", myself. Last edited by Fedora-san on Thu Oct 16, 2014 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group