[FrikgFeek]

The only way to really talk about games apolitically is to only talk about games-as-toys and games-as-sport. And you really can't get very far with that. As soon as you start talking about games as art you're going to get political because art is inherently political. It might not be political in the very narrow space of "current US political hot topics" but it's still political.

You can talk about guns "apolitically" because guns aren't political. All the politics surrounding guns are tangential to the tools themselves. You can't do that with 'art' because politics aren't tangential here.

If you insist on games being apolitical then you're basically saying that games shouldn't make any statements aside from those so completely uncontroversial that they don't ever need to be made. Basically, toys for adults, press some buttons to "have fun" and turn your brain off. Which is fine sometimes but if all games were like that hey wouldn't warrant all that much discussion.

[Spoon]

Ah, but you did reply to me.  If you don't want to discuss it fine - then don't reply.  Don't give the discussion some utterly pointless sarcastic **** that contributes nothing to the actual discussion going on except extra scrolling space, especially if you're going to continue to double-down on arguments you've already made, which you've continued to do on this page, that were addressed earlier.

What is it with people trying to tell me what I can and cannot do in this thread?
I'll do whatever I want, Ryan. Stay salty.

[Colonol Dekker]

Spoon.   I'm telling you to do whatever you want.    Haha,  your move now


-  quick note, I bloody love cammy.

[Spoon]

Spoon.   I'm telling you to do whatever you want.    Haha,  your move now


-  quick note, I bloody love cammy.

Give me your postal adress, I swear on me mom I'm going to send you a very long complaint letter on why you cannot tell me what I can do! 

[Colonol Dekker]

You can do whatever you want to 

[Iain Baker]

I should clarify. I said Nomad's Reviews will stay a-political since it is right there in its mission statement. I prefer to remain a-political - or at the very least keep clear of the highly controversial subjects. Since I own the site I can keep it that way.

Take a look at this post to see the sort of content I like to create: https://www.nomadsreviews.co.uk/blog/terrifying-insecurity-how-developers-use-mechanics-to-make-games-consistently-scary

NB - I didn't say I would always be a-political however. How politicised my writing will be for other sites and publications will be up to the editor of the publication / site in question at the time. Being a freelancer means sometimes having to write about things you would prefer not to. Just like any job, there are parts you will like and parts that you will not. There will be days you may have to do things you do not personally approve of, but being a professional who is being paid to do it you just get on with it.

hope that clears things up a tad :-)

[666maslo666]

Portraying women as oversexualized in games that otherwise aim for realism or consistency can be out of place. This is a very valid point.

But there is also a lot of prudish nonsense in the article otherwise.

1. There is nothing wrong with sexual objectification per se. Indeed, it is much better to be objectified than to not be desired. Women are the "privileged" gender in this aspect. Objectification can lead to some negative things, but as a whole, it is very much what is called a "first world problem".

2. Your kid will not be harmed by seeing nudity or mild sexual content. It is a myth and it just does not happen in real world. And worrying about sexual content while the kid plays a violent video game is doubly ridiculous (note link between violent video games and real world violence is questionable at best, too).

At least the author admits to being a prude right at the beginning..

[Det. Bullock]

Portraying women as oversexualized in games that otherwise aim for realism or consistency can be out of place. This is a very valid point.

But there is also a lot of prudish nonsense in the article otherwise.

1. There is nothing wrong with sexual objectification per se. Indeed, it is much better to be objectified than to not be desired. Women are the "privileged" gender in this aspect. Objectification can lead to some negative things, but as a whole, it is very much what is called a "first world problem".

2. Your kid will not be harmed by seeing nudity or mild sexual content. It is a myth and it just does not happen in real world. And worrying about sexual content while the kid plays a violent video game is doubly ridiculous (note link between violent video games and real world violence is questionable at best, too).

At least the author admits to being a prude right at the beginning..

Keep in mind that games have this problem tenfold compared to other media, only comics come somewhat close and in that case it's mostly superheroes. It's not even just about realism per se, there are plenty of unrealistic games where that kind of objectification feels very out of place and I've always found weird that stuff that would normally relegated to a 70s sex comedy is the norm in games across multiple tones and genres.

[Grizzly]

Take a look at this post to see the sort of content I like to create: https://www.nomadsreviews.co.uk/blog/terrifying-insecurity-how-developers-use-mechanics-to-make-games-consistently-scary

Empowerment itself is a political term.

The term empowerment originates from American community psychology and is associated with the social scientist Julian Rappaport. However, the roots of empowerment theory extend further into history and are linked to Marxist sociological theory. These sociological ideas have continued to be developed and refined through Neo-Marxist Theory (also known as Critical Theory).

By bringing in these terms, you are invariably bringing politics into games - or more appropriately, discussing the politics of the games you are discussing becuase what is politics if not the mechanics of power?

[FrikgFeek]

Keep in mind that games have this problem tenfold compared to other media, only comics come somewhat close and in that case it's mostly superheroes. It's not even just about realism per se, there are plenty of unrealistic games where that kind of objectification feels very out of place and I've always found weird that stuff that would normally relegated to a 70s sex comedy is the norm in games across multiple tones and genres.

Mind naming some examples from the last decade? Because seriously, it's nowhere near as much of a thing as you're implying it is. Fighting games mostly use the same ridiculously overstylizied and sexualised design that superhero comics do. And they do it for men too.

Because I really can't think of that many examples that would be out of place in a Michael Bay-style summer blockbuster. Or any anime, really. So this "problem" has almost nothing to do with games as a medium. I think it comes from this weird desperate need for your medium to be taken seriously by old people who don't care about it. That and people being massive prudes.

So every game needs to be super serious to compare with other "serious" media even though almost nothing you'd find in games would be uncommon in either summer blockbuster or schlocky B movies.
And some people seem to confuse "sexualised" with just plain "sexy". Because even if your character is sensibly dressed for the situation god forbid she's actually attractive because that's just objectification.

If you're constantly blasted by sexualisation in your games then stop playing cheap "double A" Japanese games because that's pretty much the only place where you'll find it nowadays. And that's thankfully not changing any time soon.

Unless you think showing some leg or midriff with clothes that normal people normally wear in the summer is "oversexualisation" and that we should all go back to the Victorian dress code.

[Grizzly]

Mind naming some examples from the last decade?

God of War even has a wiki page dedicated entirely to them!

[FrikgFeek]

Considering the greek mythology influence... not at all out of place. God of War is also about excess, you murderate hundreds or even thousands in the most brutal ways possible. So doubly not out of place. And since GoW 3 released in 2010 it just barely qualifies as being "in the last decade". If this is the best you can do then it's really not a widespread "problem" with videogames.

[Grizzly]

Well I was going to bring up the Witcher sex cards but nevermind that.

Let's look at the box art for graphics cards. Just google "Ati Radeon Box". I mean look at it!

[FrikgFeek]

Witcher sex cards are bad sexualisation and generally just stupid but considering that in the books the franchise is based on Geralt has random sex all the time it's not something videogame specific(well, the stupid card implementation is).

2 and 3 removed the stupid cards and replaced them with rendered sex scenes(which is even more sexual than naughty cards). And since the first one is from 2007 it doesn't qualify.

And you also link me a picture of the girl Ati used to use for their cards which isn't even all that sexual(it's a not very revealing paladin-style fantasy armour) and hasn't been used for like 10 years or more, ever since the AMD buyout.

[Grizzly]

Has it occured to you that we might be seeing less of these in the last decade because the depictions in The Witcher and God of War were widely critiqued?

[FrikgFeek]

If you can't even come up with plenty of examples from the last decade then that conversation doesn't need to happen. "Oh 11 years ago The Witcher had stupid sex cards" says NOTHING about the current state of the industry and doesn't signify any sort of problem with sexualisation in videogames. It's history now.

[Grizzly]

I suppose this is what I get for playing racing and strategy games for these past 10 years

Haven't even played GTA V! How's that game doing?

And you also link me a picture of the girl Ati used to use for their cards which isn't even all that sexual(it's a not very revealing paladin-style fantasy armour)

I mean, I freely admit I'm always a few years behind on the mainstream but c'mon. Don't tell me that isn't blatant titillation.

[Turambar]

I never get mad at Witcher because of the massive progress they made in their maturity going from witcher 1 to witcher 2, and then from witcher 2 to witcher 3 they still improved but not as much as the 1->2 jump. 


I tried to get into the GTA V campaign again but i didn't feel like vicariously living through the devs midlife crisis again.

[Grizzly]

I just opened up the article again and I got reminded that Quiet exists and why did I do this

How did I even forget

[FrikgFeek]

I mean, I freely admit I'm always a few years behind on the mainstream but c'mon. Don't tell me that isn't blatant titillation.

If an attractive looking but otherwise almost entirely covered up woman is your definition of oversexualisation then you're on a level of prudeness that I will never be able to reach or understand.

Because you're pretty much saying "any attractiveness is bad, you can't use good looking people in your products or marketing, my prudeness can't handle it".