I don't know, but that's how it looks like in reviews I read.

For example, newest The Walking Dead episode review I read, the reviewers whined "why those women needed a MAN to help them? WHY OH WHY"

He totally ignored the fact there are plenty of self capable women in this show, in fact, most of them get along much much better in zombie apocalypse than males.

But there were two women who needed a help from a man. So let's rant.
Sorry for responding to only a small partion of your post, but I just wanted to say this:

this is not a trend. People were responding to violence with violence since the dawn of any communities. Blood vengeance was a law a thousand years ago. Video games did not cause that, it's our primitive instincts to kick back. I don't know if video games reinforce that instinct or not, though... But is it impossible for women in games to be sexy and strong at the same time? In this particular case, MOBA games, I guess every single one of those women ARE KICK ASS. In her newest Tropes vs Women video, Anita gave examples of good female, non sexualized characters. They were all tomboys, pretty much.

Is it really that bad for Lara Croft to have big boobs? She's still one of the most badass female characters of all time. But somehow, she's used so often as an evidence of video game sexism.

Many people consider being sexy with being stupid and immature. Many feminists say "why women can't be intelligent in commercials?!" - they automatically assume if a woman is sexy (and blonde), she can't be intelligent.

I have to disagree with you on this.

I agree that they don't seem to care about videogames, but I disagree that they seem to care about politics. It's worse than that, all they care about is the hits and the resulting advertising money they get from them.

They're worse than misogynists, they're opportunists.

I usually hate "quoted for truth" posts, but I don't think I made one this year so far, so I'll do it with yours. It's certainly worth it.

So: Quoted for truth. :)

See, that's what I completely disagree with. Because that's everything but an impossible goal if you really wanted to aim for it. And I'm also talking about the whole of videogaming, not necessarily about a single game. Both concepts (and many in between) could co-exist in the culture, and much would be gained already by acknowleding that there are different audiences and not just one type of gamer (so kudos at least for acknowledging this here, monkeydelarge, even if painted in extremes). But sadly your post and metaphors also exemplify what is so frustrating about these discussions, all that black and white thinking and talking past each other for fear of compromises and unwillingness to see beyond one's one nose. I don't think that this would really be an issue if it weren't for the fact that those set on waging "war" are always the ones "fighting" the hardest.

No no, it is cultural : different societies had different ways to settle scores, and different institutions (such as our modern legal system) to moderate conflicts and break out of -for instance- perpetual vendetta cycles. Blood feuds are not a universal. Different values uphold and legitimate different approaches of the matter.

Edit : missed the update. And gotta go. Just quickly - "being sexy" as you use it means something different when it comes to ladies, as if "being sexy" required huge boobs and tits out. The issue is that standard girls can be sexy just by being clever - basically a privilege that tends to be reserved for men. See a bit the point ?

How wonderful you polarize things, you should try politics. The main issue for the majority of feminists (aka. not those who want a world full of lesbian and sperm taps) and their "white knights" is that sexed up representations of females is WAY MORE present than the opposite in games. Its possible for the developers to reach a middle ground, to actually create realistic armors for females characters, to create more female protagonists that are self-sufficient, that have some dignity and aren't just sexual objects.

Personally I like both kind of representations, that just depends on the context and the mood of the game imho. Both should be allowed to exist, but if people pretends to make realistic/serious games or aim for a wider audience like 100% of Blizzard games, MMOs and AAAs, then the poor representation of women needs to go.

So does the press needs to poke developers about that subject like RPS did ? I think they should, otherwise there's no hope for any change, but they are completely over-exaggerating.

The problem with Lara is that her boobs are, literally, tacked-on. ;) Does she need them to be kick-ass? No. She'd be no less kick-ass with cup A. For the things that she does, her massive boobs are actually just dead weight, which makes it more difficult for her to keep her balance. Talk to some female acrobats. ;) At the very least, Lara would choose a very tight sports bra to make that weight manageable, but it'd still pose a major problem.

I'm not thinking that Lara's depiction is sexist, but I do think that it's sad that the designers (for a long time) put more attention on her curves than on her character. Particularly _because_ I think she was kick-ass enough to not need such a silly depiction.

So you're a political gamer. ;)

Mind you, as I've said before, I don't really disagree with you in that regard, I just see your position as a little too defensive. I think a liberal person should allow opposing opinions and preferences, as long as they don't interfere with other people's freedom. And IMO talking about these topics does not, because unlike you I don't believe they lead to censorship, only to more (self-)awareness. The spokesperson from Blizzard should have been able to talk about their artistic vision and defend it instead of cutting the discussion short. The way that PR person aborted that interview made it seem like they were caught totally unaware and hadn't even thought about that topic before.

This is really a ping pong debate. For me, Lara can be a badass character with a big boobs, for you, she can be with small ones.

We both agree, her boobs size does not affect her character's personality. So it doesn't really matter that the authors decided to make her with big boobs (although we all know Lara's initial boob size was an modelling accident). It was still in their freedom to choose her an E cup instead of A cup.

Realism isn't really a topic to discuss when we talk about Tomb Raider games. If they were realistic in any way, they would be pretty boring, imho. You know, archeologist's jobs are not that exciting :D

Also, Lara's backstory is much more interesting than her boobs genetics, but maybe you missed that :P

No, it's not possible for developers to reach a middle ground and trying to is a waste of time. I highly doubt you speak for most feminists and even if you do, there will still be those who are not satisfied with just realistic armors for female characters, more female protagonists that are self-sufficient. And why settle for a mediocre shit middle ground when victory is so much sweeter?

I don't know if that's any indicator, but most of my 14 year old female friends who were gamers at this time absolutely loved Tomb Raider and were delighted to play her.

But maybe they were too young and naive to know boobs are evil :P It was still the 90s, after all.

For me, the solution is not to influence male video game developers, but to encourage more women to develop video games. There are many great female developers in the industry but it's still a minority.

If there were more women in video game industry, we'd get a better representation of women in gaming.

So, women all over the world! Make more games! :P

---

I get your point, but I don't blame Eidos for not risking their money and trying to break ground for female protagonists. It's their money and their risk.

Here is the character they complained about in the questions, Roller Derby Nova. That doesn't look far off from a normal roller derby outfit. To complain about that seems petty, but I guess the interviewer's desire to push an agenda was too much to not make a big deal out of it.

With any luck these people will keep this up until they have boycotted or been blackballed from every company out there. Then people won't have to hear of their publicity stunts anymore.

Let's see if I'm going to regret this, but there are some nuances I'd like to ask you :)
Since you yourself are not directly expressing an opinion on the mysogynism, etc... topic let's stick to media and journalism and societal progress roles.

I have no beef with your a) but the bolded part of b) I find perhaps revealing.

Do you have the same expectation from politicians? I often find it interesting how many individuals have higher demands and entitled requests directed at other free individuals or groups of people, rather than so called public servants. Do you agree or disagree than in media and /or society this is a large bias, likely related to some submission to authority sociological reality?

Why should any person be expected to address/answer a concern of yours? Apart from decency/rudeness considerations, where do you put the line when someone requests afirmation that you are not willing to give? Do you agree that if the "violence" in a situation is not physical, a minority is not entitled to force a status change through physical means? Do you consider creators/givers' omissions to be somehow more morally reprehensible than consumers/takers' demands?

The polarization I see at root in these debates is between radicalism and conservatism in social politics. It is not a debate about ends, but about means. It almost never gets explored, because ... well because of many different distractions.

Since I asked quite a lot, let me put out there in advance my first impression on this specific topic.
This is the interview excerpt in full for context:

RPS: You have some interesting alternate outfits for heroes. Roller Derby Nova, especially, caught my eye. On its own, that’s totally fine – just a silly, goofy thing. A one-off. But it got me thinking about how often MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters to a generally preposterous degree – that is to say, make it the norm, not a one-off at all – and StarCraft’s own, um, interesting focus choices as of late. How are you planning to approach all of that in Heroes?
Browder: Well, I mean, some of these characters, I would argue, are already hyper-sexualized in a sense. I mean, Kerrigan is wearing heels, right? We’re not sending a message to anybody. We’re just making characters who look cool. Our sensibilities are more comic book than anything else. That’s sort of where we’re at. But I’ll take the feedback. I think it’s very fair feedback.
RPS: I have to add, though, that comics might not be the best point of reference for this sort of thing. I mean, it’s a medium that’s notorious – often in a not-good way – for sexing up female characters and putting them in some fairly gross situations.
Browder: We’re not running for President. We’re not sending a message. No one should look to our game for that.
RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.
Browder: Uh-huh. Cool. Totally.
[PR says we've run over, tells me I have to leave]
RPS: Thank you for your time.

1st QnA - quite nice question if agenda driven (recall I have no problem with that - kill by the sword, die by the sword and all that), answer seems perfectly fair without any disrespect, to me atleast.
2nd QnA - here it starts, is there even a question? :) starts by criticising the previous answer and ends with what could easily be seen as a moral indictment through proxy. To me this is not journalism. Answer is curt, but looks to me to make again a valid point, which to me seems to be, that these presentation choices do not carry a conscious political statement (here I used political in the group dynamics context).
3rd QnA - again criticizes the answer, becomes clearly confrontational, the question is both a strawman and begs the answer. In fact the "journalist" answers himself. The real aswer is agreement, which aligns with the authorial intent implied previously (of no conscious disempowerement message) and is also a clear defusing attempt at what in person has obviously become a tense situation.

Bottom line, without taking sides in the broader cultural war, 2nd and 3rd "questions" are not journalism, at least by what I consider to be the pure ideal.
And to go back to your b). What do you see here, specifically in the 1st answer (because after the 2nd Q, the train was already off track imo) that strikes you as being irrelevant or dismissive? Looks to me the guy understood perfectly what the "journalist" was after and gave an honest answer, was it what the taker/asker wanted to receive? Obviously not, but then, what entitles anyone to get a different answer?


Edited for clarity, the italics for the interview not workign for some reason.

In my opinion, it is deeper than refusing any discussion. Many gamers think they know it all and are right, as comments like "not again", "here we go again" suggest. I want video-games to be more mature than that.