To think I was hesitant to make that post, but now I have no regrets. No regrets at all. Behold Loony BoB's bulge, EoFF!
To think I was hesitant to make that post, but now I have no regrets. No regrets at all. Behold Loony BoB's bulge, EoFF!
She looks like someone out of Borderlands. It kinda clashes with the style they've had going so far
I don't mind there being a female Cid, or her being well endowed. But I've always had a problem with ridculous outfits just for the sake of having ridiculous outfits. Tidus
And she fits that. But at least with Tidus, it was really simply for the sake of having a ridiculous outfit
This one isn't even that ridiculous in comparison. The ridiculousness comes in when you know for a fact that there is an ulterior motive. To sexualize her. And why?
I mean what's his face having his shirt open is questionable, but he's not presented as a sex object. Sure, girls can drool over him if they want, and that's a nice side effect of course. But that's not the intention
With this, you can tell very clearly what the intention is. A ridiculous outfit, stripped into a revealing nature, because its a woman who in order to hang with the boys has to also be a sex object
A lot of the examples of past FF girls being in weird revealing outfits were generally tomboys or in generally male oriented roles. Celes was a badass knight. Rikku was a huge tomboy mechanic thing. So yeah. I agree with the problems. Not because they've never existed before. But because they've existed too much, for no good reason other than fan service (which isn't really a good reason, it's just a reason), and I'd like it to stop
Just have awesome characters. No need to sexualize them. People will like them or dislike them regardless. You're still going to get nudey fanart of them regardless. No real justifiable reason to expedite the issue and make it easier to for artists to photoshop them out of their clothes
But it's not a turn-off. It's just disappointment. Like the original quote that started this whole argument. They are progressive putting a female in a traditionally male role, and even so far as a traditionally male character (if this does turn out to be Cid, and not just Cid's daughter or niece or something). But they completely ruin it with primitive motivations of boobage for no reason
I would be interested in knowing the intention if it's not to sexualise him. If I wear an open shirt (or no shirt) in a game, it's because I know that sexualises my character. I can understand people saying "Oh, this sexualises the female and it's ridiculous because most men don't get that" but if a guy DOES get that, suddenly it's not sexualising them... how? Sorry, just a little confused. I personally don't mind characters being sexualised (I don't mind them not, either, but to me sexualising a character isn't a great evil, regardless of gender, and it's worth noting that in some cultures boobs ain't nothin' but a thing... this is culture and tradition dictating what is and is not allowed, when really boobs just aren't any more a sex thing on girls than incredible abs are on guys as far as I'm concerned) but I'm not going to pretend it's not happening altogether.Originally Posted by Vyk
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Gladiolus' thing has more to do with male power fantasy than sexual fantasy. It's the same reason why all those old action movie stars fought with their shirts off.
Perhaps the feeling of power stems from the fact that the ladies tend to find a nicely chiseled man to be sexually attractive. I'm just sayin', from experience, the ladies do have a habit of admiring a man with that look. I know, because I have nothing like that look irl and I hear girls going on about dudes with that look all the time. It used to get to me a little, but I got over it because confidence as ever remains king. The other argument I have towards the power fantasy thing is that many of the characters in FFXIV who choose to show off their chest in FFXIV don't choose the Roegadyn race, which is (as demonstrated by The Bulge) the most physically powerful character in appearance. However you see Lalafell, Miqo'te, Hyur and Elezen males all showing off their chest, so... See also: Wolverine. Small guy. Shows off abs. Girls go gaga for Hugh Jackman.
I would certainly say it has a lot to do with sex appeal. It's possible that you're only looking at it from the perspective of someone who just doesn't find that kind of thing sexually attractive. In the end, I've found that girls do most certainly like a nice chiseled man's chest, arms, buttocks and legs. Some might like other things, but I hear about these things a lot. I'm not including faces in this because both genders find it apparently completely okay to be intoxicated by the face of someone else as if that's somehow less shallow than other parts of their body. *dunno*
In the end, it's important that a person can distinguish between appearance and personality. I can appreciate these things seperately pretty well. If a girl is physically attractive but an absolute horrible personality (that sounds so harsh, honestly) then I would not be very attracted to them overall.
I do still see the sexualising going on in games (and film!), but for me it's all down to whether or not you think someone is capable of enjoying a sexy looking character without it somehow damaging their ability to appreciate other people for who they actually are in the real world. The problem is in the individual if they can not do that. If they can't do that, then... well... yeah.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
I'm looking at it from the perspective of a game by male developers making a male oriented game aimed at male audiences, hence there being more intent at sexualizing Cid on the part of the developers than any intent to sexualize Gladiolus. It's the same reason Quiet from MGS5 was designed the way she was. We know what the intent was, that's why people get pissed off/annoyed when it happens.
It could certainly be interpreted as that, but I have my doubts if its ever intended that way. I never got the impression Vaan was meant as a sex object. I think for men, the sexualization comes from having "the bulge". Women comes from large boobs in revealing clothes
The movie Commando was not made with the intent of any women seeing it besides those forced to watch it by their boyfriends. And Arnold doesn't spend half the movie killing folks with his shirt off because women want a bodybuilder sexually. Men wanted to be Arnold. Most women don't want a guy that jacked.
Just saying.
That's kind of a smurfed up way to be dismissive of other's concerns, BoB. No one has said women should cover up.
It never ceases to amaze me when a guy (or girl, though I don't think I personally have seen this argument from a girl) comes back with the argument "Well, treating women as sex objects is just 'doing what they do.'" Like, yes, tell me that the problem is also a reason why the problem isn't a problem--sexualizing female characters is the status quo, therefore it's okay to do. And you say it with a straight face. OMG BoB.
No, you don't wonder. You are fully aware that 1) a human being expressing their own sexuality makes them a sexual subject, not object. Though using an object (your character) as a non-realistic representation of your sexuality is kind of questionable, if you think about it. 2) Men don't have the market cornered on sexual objectification. Women are trained from birth to "be pretty" and "if someone cat-calls you on the street, you should take it as a compliment." It's not a male problem, it's a society problem, so you can take your "well if women are doing it too then it couldn't possibly be a problem" card and stow it.
A person sexualizing themselves is a nuanced issue. It's why some people argue that stripping is a demeaning job, while others argue it's an empowering job. Cidney, however, isn't a real person--she was created by someone with an obvious purpose to be eye candy. She is literally a sexual object. She could be a cool character, but let's not do this "well, it's just how it is," and "well, women do it too" bulltrout like that makes her outfit less stupid.
Also, I'm sure you personally play with a lot of females in FFXIV, but keep in mind that a lot of the female characters are played by males. When you see me playing Guild Wars 2 with my guild, you'll see six females (and a male--I don't think my brother-in-law has a female character), all played by men except for me, and all dressed as skimpy as possible except for probably me.
Seriously. I wasn't even going to comment on it, but as soon as someone said "boob" we had to have people coming out of the woodwork defending it. Do you all seriously think the fact that 96% of sexualized imagery is of female bodies, and that the first female Cid is the only hyper-sexualized Cid are not relevant at all? Does context mean nothing to you people? For heavens sake.
Here, perky-ass Laci Green will break this trout down for you:
Last edited by Shlup; 12-21-2014 at 09:15 PM.
As for Fassbender, Jackman, Efron...?The movie Commando was not made with the intent of any women seeing it besides those forced to watch it by their boyfriends. And Arnold doesn't spend half the movie killing folks with his shirt off because women want a bodybuilder sexually. Men wanted to be Arnold. Most women don't want a guy that jacked.
Just saying.
There appears to be a massively different stance between guys and girls with all of this. I mean, girls love Tomb Raider. Girls love Final Fantasy girls. There will probably be a lot of girls that will love Cidney just like there were a lot of girls that loved Rikku, loved Tifa, loved Vanille, loved... you get the idea. And often that is appearances kicking into it rather than just personality.
What I'm getting out of this is that guys are unable to be sexualised, while girls are able to be sexualised. It quite possibly stems from the fact that there seem to be more guys in this world who do sexualise people rather than the fact that girls or guys are being sexualised. The problem exists in the audience rather than the developer. What does a developer have to do? Make everyone ugly just for the sake of making them ugly? Dress everyone approriately at all times? Whatever happened to fantasy?
In the end, I just think that it's not a problem to sexualise fictional people. So long as you're not going around insisting that real people dress in skimpy clothing, I just don't a problem on a personal level. It's hard to really put into words, I suppose, but if the only people to watch an action film were females I don't think we'd suddenly be seeing any fewer men with their shirts off. Girls like a bit of eye candy just like guys do.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
I think if it were more clear that they were interested in aiming the game at female audiences, there would be a different vibe coming from the male characters (and likely the female characters)
Sexualized males represented in dating sims aimed at females would be a better example of a counter-argument, than trying to twist the male characters of a game into an argument about the sexualization of female characters from a game obviously aimed at males
Edit: In fact, I think that's part of my problem with this. Just more proof that the male gamer means more to developers in general, and they see no reason to be more progressive. While I, for one, prefer more progressive minded games with higher thought process than just jumping on every opportunity to create fantasies derived from primitive urges. I think if you get to that point, then your writing capabilities are probably better than average. And there's a higher chance I'll enjoy your stories AND characters. But if you're just making a dude-bro roadtrip male power fantasy. Then (at least so far), there's not a good argument for really compelling and thought-provoking characters and story. They're just not representing themselves very well is all
I'm just going with the names that women typically go on about, dude. Film industry, game industry, it doesn't matter - if anything, the fact that it's an real person in live-action film should be even more important, if anything. To say girls don't watch film would be absurd. Fewer girls play games than guys, but that gap is lessening. Girls definitely watch films.
Again, I don't mind that the likes of Jackman and co are sexualised, I have no issue with that. I know a number of girls that fancy other girls, too, and they often find the same girls attractive as I do.
I don't know how women think in general other than that they tell me, of course. I get that a lot of them get really annoyed at the portrayal of women in games, but at the same time, a lot of girls are more than happy to pick up the games that have a hot female girl leading the way, and when they are able to customise their own character, they often make 'em sexy. This is just... normal. Guys do it too. Girls don't look like insane buff freaks, but honestly I don't think guys always go down that route either. I don't imagine there are too many that intentionally go out of their way to create characters they don't find attractive on some level. I don't see a problem with this. I think there is a problem if it means the person then starts to treat real people like sex objects.
Is it okay to have sexy characters in a video game? Even if it's just for the sake of making them sexy? Sure, I don't see why not. Guy or girl. Just don't care, really. Will it make me more or less likely to buy a game? Depends on the game, I suppose. FFXV - it's gonna have a female Cid who has her boobs out. Pretty much the entire game is going to feature dudes who are designed to be attractive in all different kinds of ways. It's a brofest, we all know it. I would say that there is more eye candy in this game for those interested in men.
If you want equal treatment when it comes to attire in games, I'd say equal treatment is being given as one of each gender is goin' down the chestway. If you want to change how people react to that, you need to change the people, not the characters.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
I don't think that's an accurate interpretation of what we've seen at all. Too many people have jumped to this dude-bro conclusion based purely on the fact that it's four guys in a car and I think you're doing both yourself and the game a disservice by parroting that.
They didn't hop into the car to go on a roadtrip for spring break, they got in the car to escape genocide. They are survivors of a war and fugitives from the victors. They're not looking to pick up some hotties and do a keg stand, they're living in the wilderness to survive and are being hunted. He's a prince who has lost his home, his family, everything, and now lives in poverty. He doesn't even have a home, he lives in his car! That sounds compelling to me, if a little Disney. Well, not the living out of your car thing. Substitute car for the jungle Simba went to live in I guess.
This isn't some subtle subtext, by the way. If you've seen all of the trailers you will have seen some lovely footage of their home being utterly smashed.
Either I haven't watched enough trailers to actually get that, or I didn't catch that while watching them. That definitely does put a different spin on it. Though yes, my actual intent for that statement was to parrot the original feelings most people got when we originally found out that your party was nothing but guys driving across country, because that was simply what had been revealed. But I concede. It's a dated point of view, and therefore a dated argument. Thanks for the spin on the perspective though. None of this was really turning me off to the game, just a little disappointment here and there. But your synopsis does make it sound legitimately compelling. KudosI don't think that's an accurate interpretation of what we've seen at all. Too many people have jumped to this dude-bro conclusion based purely on the fact that it's four guys in a car and I think you're doing both yourself and the game a disservice by parroting that.
They didn't hop into the car to go on a roadtrip for spring break, they got in the car to escape genocide. They are survivors of a war and fugitives from the victors. They're not looking to pick up some hotties and do a keg stand, they're living in the wilderness to survive and are being hunted. He's a prince who has lost his home, his family, everything, and now lives in poverty. He doesn't even have a home, he lives in his car! That sounds compelling to me, if a little Disney.
This isn't some subtle subtext, by the way. If you've seen all of the trailers you will have seen some lovely footage of their home being utterly smashed.
Your rebuttal is to name some men who aren't body builders and none of whom look like the stereotypical super hero body type? You missed the point BoB. Completely missed it actually.As for Fassbender, Jackman, Efron...?The movie Commando was not made with the intent of any women seeing it besides those forced to watch it by their boyfriends. And Arnold doesn't spend half the movie killing folks with his shirt off because women want a bodybuilder sexually. Men wanted to be Arnold. Most women don't want a guy that jacked.
Just saying.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand that a man having his shirt open or off, particularly a playable character who's meant to be a hero and is significantly muscular isn't equal to a woman mechanic with giant tits hanging out of her top because she's a female character in a video game so of course she does. With the former it's meant to make him look tough. Like he can handle himself in a fight because they're showing off his muscles, and it's intended in exactly the same fashion as someone like Arnold or characters like Superman being built like a tank. Because men frequently enjoy watching/playing the tough guy. But why are Cidney's tits hanging out? Because regardless of whatever qualities she may have as a character, guys like tits. So they're going to throw in some eye candy, even when it makes no sense. Like legitimately makes no sense at all.
Your problem is you're trying to look at depictions of men and women as being equal based on the amount of skin that's shown while ignoring hundreds of years of history and societal norms which dictated that men and women aren't equal, and still continue to do so to a much greater extent than you seem to realize today (take a trip to any beach in an english speaking first world nation and tell me how many men have no shirt on and how many women have their boobs showing and tell me that men and women aren't still treated differently. I dare you).
So it's not a problem to take female characters who may very well be strong, well written characters in their own right, and sexualize them for absolutely no reason? To turn them into sexual objects even when doing so is not only unnecessary, but actually undermines their other attributes as a character by turning them into nothing but eye candy from a visual perspective? You don't think that that, and people being okay with it happening all of the time, demonstrates that we have a problem in society right now with how people view men and women differently? Never even mind that people frequently take social cues from what they are exposed to in their life. And before anyone gets into the idea that it's hypocritical to believe that sexualizing women in games might impact people's behaviour in the real world but not believe that violence in games does the same thing, let's remember that violence is much, much different than how people view other people. Most people can figure out that murder is bad because, if nothing else, we have some very strict laws against it and most people don't want to be murdered themselves. But how the different genders are portrayed in media is a much greyer area, and infinitely more subversive in that it takes some degree of actual thought to realize that treating women as objects is bad when you don't have anyone telling you it is save for people who tend to get written off as being lunatics, feminist extremists, social justice warriors, or any other derisive moniker people choose to use these days.In the end, I just think that it's not a problem to sexualise fictional people.
So yes, I firmly believe that many of the male characters in action movies aren't being sexualized, and that sexualizing female characters for no other reason than they have breasts is a bad thing. As Shlup said, that does not mean that sex and sexy are bad things. But this isn't a case of that. Sex and sexy used well will benefit the story and the characters in some way. It will be an element that helps drive things forward in a way that makes sense and isn't just some cheap titillation for the sake of titillation. Cidney's clothes, however, are the exact opposite of that. They serve no practical purpose (and as I said before, are actually counter productive to her profession in so many ways she's probably dying of cancer) aside from showing off her boobs. Why are her boobs being shown off? Do we need to see them for her to be sexy? That arguments already been addressed and is a resounding no. Does she need those clothes to engage in an actual well used sex scene or demonstrate some sexual tension with another character? Also no. So why is she dressed that way? If the only answer anyone can come up with is because boners then she probably shouldn't be dressed that way.
Posting Permissions
