But I thought all you wanted was analysis and critique for games? Then you come right out and admit that you want to see female characters in games to look a certain way and be changed to appear less sexually objectified. Can't have it both ways. You either want to change something or you don't. If you want to change something that someone else has an interest in, that could come across to them as censorship, especially when that change comes without their approval or even knowledge.

And female characters in games ARE objects. There's nothing and no one created in a video game that isn't. If you or anyone else actually deludes yourselves into thinking that video game characters are real, then we're on a level of crazy that needs crazy pills and psychiatrist couches.

Did you even watch the videos? The second one explicitly says that it's not about how a female character looks but how they ACT that defines whether they are objectified or not
By that definition, Princess Peach in the original Super Mario is more objectified as a damsel-prize than Ivy is in Soul Calibur as a strong, willful woman with her own addenda, despite how either of them look or are dressed!

Yup, it's the 30 year old shame of gaming. The shame the industry has created via marketing in order to form their loyal customer base.

The shame documented quite well in some DiGRA studies explicitly attacked by some especially stupid gamergate activists this last September.

The shame that is existent in men as well as women, depending on the social group.

It will be interesting to see where we are in five years, because right now, gamergate acts as an extreme catalyst for that damn shame.

After all this clusterfuck, you won't see ME running around going "I'm actually playing video games".

at least he brings up some decent arguments, albeit i don't agree with them all.
I feel men are also objectified, but not as sexual objects. Men are objectified as throw away garbage. You can kill a million men in the cruelest way you can imagine and no one will have even cared. But when a few woman die, its monstrous.

At the same time i feel like the media pushes the idea that all men want is to oppress, abuse and objectify woman as much as possible. like we are all horrible, cruel monsters.


but hey, at least jim used logic and decent arguments and doesn't go on to claim that games that allow the killing of females "promote a culture in which rape and sexual abuse to woman is something acceptable".

Some people may be very surprised to hear this, but most men can make the difference between a virtual character and a real human.

AND YOU KNOW THE FUNNY PART?

that is exactly how gamergate got big as well!

hordes joined when sites started removing all comments giving critique on the reporting around gg, when people started claiming "oh its nothing, just some retards that play games." "yeah those morons culture is dead anyway." "All these people are sexists block them"

exactly mirrored

Ok, final attempt at an actual rational discussion.

Do you truly think the gaming industry is the main party responsible for societal stigma of gaming? Can you detail what the industry did to create that "regulatory capture" of a demographic segment via shame? I mean, no one is disputing the stigma, but it strikes me as completely turnaround to say the actors that are interested in having gaming go mainstream (big corps with the scale to leverage) would instead decide to remain culturally niche...

Just replying quickly since I gotta go to bed..........
The Jimqusition video and the value of its content is subjective at best. Jim argues that women are objectified; while men are idealized; and while both are harmful in the longrun; women get the worst part of it because they're being seen as objects; for males to consider a lifeless goal. And here; we stumble on the most important fact. THE LEVEL AT WHICH A CHARACTER IS CONSIDERED TO BE OBJECTIFIED IS SUBJECTIVE. One cannot argue a character is objectified when the entirety of that character is not fully evident yet. In dead or alive; the only difference between men and women characters are very little. They are equally lifeless; which in turn is a throwback to the 100% objective fact that DoA is admittedly based off such baseless characters. Here; the objectification is not done directly for anti-equality reasons but for the sheer fact that that is in fact what the game is-a shameless representation of some men and women with an insane level SATIRICAL objectification. Also keep in mind the cultural background of the developers. Female sexuality may not be looked down upon and shamed OR alternatively may be discouraged in their culture; hence prompting the developers to make such a game. No-one is intentionally putting in a program to train boys to harm women in these. They are creating a piece of art that is sensible coming from the culture and background they come from. One cannot dismiss this as misogyny just because one does not understand.

NOW; since we're on the topic o f objectification; I kindly ask you to mention 5 female characters from different games who are ''objectified''. Also keep in mind I ask with due respect and that I haven't typed anything offensive to anyone in my post.

PS; completely agree there has been more dealings with sites that bend towards men-only; but I fully trust anyone can recognize the level of insanity on there and take it with a grain of salt.

What exactly are you saying here? There is no corner; although you might to like to think there is one created by the likes of ''feminists'' like Anita. Take it from me here and now as a citizen from a country which has real gender equality issues in rural areas that the so called ''academic'' bigot is not a feminist nor a person who wants to encourage any sort of equality.
NO; the industry did not back itself into a corner 30 years ago; and it certainly isn't in one right now. And the ''corner'' is not a stereotype that applies to less and less gamers. Show me any proof that the ''games'' made by the anti side are getting any number of players. What is happening now is that the social justice minded hipsters want to tap into the hardcore gaming audience as their own audience because there is money there. The few that fall for the read off paper and forget a few seconds later Anita philosophy are in the very very very very very tiny minority; and most of thr ''gamers'' on the anti side are socially minded hipsters who will ''play'' pieces of code like depression quest and gone home. So no; what is happening is that the hipsters are parasiting off hardcore gamers to gather iditos to play their antigames.

Why would they even do that? Financially and personnaly, they have no reason (or obligation) to do so.

What, where, when?! :o) These GG clowns didn't even make a kind of action protest at the GDC while the other side was enjoying toasts and champagne in the VIP room ^o^

Huh appearently Family Guy predicted Anita Sarkeesian, who know?


http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/familyguy/images/3/39/LoisGloria.png/revision/latest?cb=20140704123833

Source:

http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/I_Am_Peter,_Hear_Me_Roar

I like those catchy phrases

"Video games growing up as a medium...", please explain to me what growing up of a 30+ year old billions heavy industry means?

As far as I can tell it means gaming that's meant to be educational, artistic (whatever that means in an industry that that already produces art already with no outside pressure needed) & without fun.

Well, there are also already many educational games and as as you said there are games which are more art than a game. The "games without fun point" is just hilarious, who would play even board games when they are not fun.

So what means "Video games growing up as a medium...."? I like to hear Mr. "I know it all"'s answer.

Games already were growing up naturally. There was already art, and some masterpieces in it. If he's referring to those antigames as games that ''move the medium'' forward; then he's thinking a movie made into game makes a good game.