Sirnak the Wild Car
Harri wrote:I'm only giving small examples to a vast field of information. If you're concerned with sexism try supporting games that promote females in a positive way.
I'm not saying that enjoying a woman’s breasts makes you a sexist pig. What makes you an asshole is when you purposely place women as inferior; only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification to your teenage wet dreams.
Jake wrote:Harri wrote:I'm only giving small examples to a vast field of information. If you're concerned with sexism try supporting games that promote females in a positive way.
I'm not saying that enjoying a woman’s breasts makes you a sexist pig. What makes you an asshole is when you purposely place women as inferior; only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification to your teenage wet dreams.
Sexually gratifying =/= inferior.
That statement is on par with the thought that a woman should be married before she has sex with a man.
Developers cater towards their target market. Female characters with features that could be seen as objectifying is often simply a smart business move. Just like the lack of giant breasts in Farmville is a smart move.
Admiral Ackybur wrote:Is that because I'm a female or because I just like to only play good games?
Sirnak the Wild CarJake wrote:Harri wrote:I'm only giving small examples to a vast field of information. If you're concerned with sexism try supporting games that promote females in a positive way.
I'm not saying that enjoying a woman’s breasts makes you a sexist pig. What makes you an asshole is when you purposely place women as inferior; only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification to your teenage wet dreams.
Sexually gratifying =/= inferior.
That statement is on par with the thought that a woman should be married before she has sex with a man.
Developers cater towards their target market. Female characters with features that could be seen as objectifying is often simply a smart business move. Just like the lack of giant breasts in Farmville is a smart move.
Admiral Ackybur wrote:I've never played a game based on what the people look like. Is that because I'm a female or because I just like to only play good games?
Harri wrote:I never indicated that Sexually gratifying = inferior. Learn to read, and add objectifying to your vocab. If a woman is portrayed only as valuable as her body parts then she is not being allowed opportunity to be human. If she is sexually gratifying great! But, is her only purpose in the game bouncing her over-sized breasts around? Do you see my point. There is sexy, awesome girl, and then there is useless fan service girl. The useless, soul-less fan service girl is a form of sexism.
I have never played a game where a male was there, overtly sexual, with a huge penis and abs (or whatever is considered to be "preferred' in men), for the purpose of fan service for a female. You can't tell me it's because there is not enough females in the industry. There are more 'female' gamers than you think.
The only solution, as already stated, is to play good games.
Sorry if I got snap-ish. You can file me away as the bitch. I'm fine with that. I'm not arguing in some attempt to alter your thinking. It just frustrated me that you misread my post. Maybe it's the stereotype that women are not sex-driven beings. I do not see sexual gratification as bad or bad for women. I only see the limitation of identity of a woman to her body parts as bad.
Harri wrote:What makes you an asshole is when you purposely place women as inferior; only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification to your teenage wet dreams.
Jake wrote:You defined purposely placing a woman in an inferior position as only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification. Your mistake is to think that sexual gratification is superficial. It is what it is and you derive its merit based on your feelings on the matter and not its intrinsic value. Sex holds no value on its own, it's value is derived from those exposed to it.
Women certainly get "fan service" but just not using the same methods. A woman's sexuality is very different from a man's and it's often not used or catered to within this genre of entertainment. If we were to switch to movies, it would be a different argument entirely. Women comprise 40% of all video game users with 33% of the gross total over the age of 18, I'm quite aware of how many female gamers there are.
It's no coincidence that these shapes and sizes show up all around the world; it's a modern fertility statue if you will allow the comparison. Accentuated curves and features meant to appeal to men's biological imperatives. It doesn't matter if you're smart or enjoy poetry or you're great at video games, at a glance your purpose is evident on the lowest of instinctual levels, that is why these features that you feel are demeaning are used.
I don't really think you're a bitch, you're probably just someone who values herself beyond what you believe the world does or at least in these specific cases. The identity that you assign yourself and the identity that others give you are two different things. I have a few copies(electronic) of some Alan Watts books on the philosophy of self that I'd be more than happy to host if you'd be interested in reading them.
My last thought is really that there's nothing more human than the roles of our biology. We are not the great leaders, we are not space explorers, not scientists, not businessmen, not philosophers or great poets, we are chimpanzee. We are animals alive, here on this rock being flung through space, doing our animal things. You feel like a woman is dehumanized when her value is reduced to her sexual-physical role. As animals I feel like there is no role more valuable to the human species.
edit: for clarity
Sirnak the Wild CarSexuality can be mixed with art, of course, but it has to have an intelligent or symbolic use for it to be still called art.
Sirnak wrote:Lol wtf? Where are you from, Jake? Do you have some university years behind you? xD...
Again, I'm not saying sexuality mixed with art (or anything you are trying to sell) is bad. But it lessens the final value of your product if you use sex as a way to get buyers and not as a part of the product itself.
(Of course, if sexual content is directly the target of your product, like in porno movies, it's another thing entirely...)
Jake wrote:You defined purposely placing a woman in an inferior position as only present to show skin and provide sexual gratification. Your mistake is to think that sexual gratification is superficial. It is what it is and you derive its merit based on your feelings on the matter and not its intrinsic value. Sex holds no value on its own, it's value is derived from those exposed to it.
Women certainly get "fan service" but just not using the same methods. A woman's sexuality is very different from a man's and it's often not used or catered to within this genre of entertainment. If we were to switch to movies, it would be a different argument entirely. Women comprise 40% of all video game users with 33% of the gross total over the age of 18, I'm quite aware of how many female gamers there are.
Jake wrote:It's no coincidence that these shapes and sizes show up all around the world; it's a modern fertility statue if you will allow the comparison. Accentuated curves and features meant to appeal to men's biological imperatives.
Jake wrote:My last thought is really that there's nothing more human than the roles of our biology. We are not the great leaders, we are not space explorers, not scientists, not businessmen, not philosophers or great poets, we are chimpanzee. We are animals alive, here on this rock being flung through space, doing our animal things. You feel like a woman is dehumanized when her value is reduced to her sexual-physical role. As animals I feel like there is no role more valuable to the human species.
GoDM1N wrote:Sexuality can be mixed with art, of course, but it has to have an intelligent or symbolic use for it to be still called art.
Games are not art works, they're products.
Sirnak the Wild CarSirnak wrote:GoDM1N wrote:Sexuality can be mixed with art, of course, but it has to have an intelligent or symbolic use for it to be still called art.
Games are not art works, they're products.
Games are art. If it's true that some games can hardly be called art, the same can be said about some books and some movies (heck, I went to a film festival today and I swear I saw some real bullshit movies that I'd never associate with art in no way...). In video games, you need drawings to elaborate the first concept and characters of the game, then you need 3d models. Created maps need to represent the ambiance you want your game to have (Dante's Inferno is a great exemple of good mapping choices...). The music needs to suit the mood of the game or of the actual scene. You need to determine the kind of shots you want to show the viewers. You need a scenario (Xenosaga has a bigger script than any Star Wars movie, I can swear...).
Also, to me, art IS a product (books, paints, music, etc.). So I consider video games as both art and product. Seriously, even if you wouldn't agree with me that video games can be called art, you must at least admit the importance of artistic choices in video games. See the "artistic decisions" part of video game credits. There are dozens of people working on that and they all mostly had artistic classes. Don't got tell them that their final product cannnot be compared to art. You'd hurt their feelings. o.o
BUT, more importantly than anything, I have to say this: this topic was originaly born under my random feeling to post boobs in the Spam fest. Crazy.
Harri wrote:Women (outside of sex work) who surgically alter themselves to fit some demented image of female perfection obviously do not value themselves. They do it because they (we) are judged everyday by how we look. A girl, uncertain of herself, will make the conclusion that altering her looks will score her a relationship or her boyfriend’s approval. Superficial images are destructive, and we have been absorbing this superficiality since birth.
Admiral Ackybur wrote:Harri wrote:Women (outside of sex work) who surgically alter themselves to fit some demented image of female perfection obviously do not value themselves. They do it because they (we) are judged everyday by how we look. A girl, uncertain of herself, will make the conclusion that altering her looks will score her a relationship or her boyfriend’s approval. Superficial images are destructive, and we have been absorbing this superficiality since birth.
I am against this. Plastic surgery can be the confidence boost some women need. Not so much to get a guy, but to make them feel absolutely beautiful. I see it this way, as long as they are happy with the results what harm is there? None. I'm for putting oneself first and that does include self image.
Edit: My stance is as long as the woman is making the decision on her own. Not from an outside influence. If they want to perfect themselves then go for it. Im only against plastic surgery when it's moms doing it to their 12 year old kids or when an overbearing boyfriend pressures his girlfriend into it.
Harri wrote:Admiral Ackybur wrote:Harri wrote:Women (outside of sex work) who surgically alter themselves to fit some demented image of female perfection obviously do not value themselves. They do it because they (we) are judged everyday by how we look. A girl, uncertain of herself, will make the conclusion that altering her looks will score her a relationship or her boyfriend’s approval. Superficial images are destructive, and we have been absorbing this superficiality since birth.
I am against this. Plastic surgery can be the confidence boost some women need. Not so much to get a guy, but to make them feel absolutely beautiful. I see it this way, as long as they are happy with the results what harm is there? None. I'm for putting oneself first and that does include self image.
Edit: My stance is as long as the woman is making the decision on her own. Not from an outside influence. If they want to perfect themselves then go for it. Im only against plastic surgery when it's moms doing it to their 12 year old kids or when an overbearing boyfriend pressures his girlfriend into it.
Yes, Acky. I apologize. You have rephrased the sentence perfectly. I sound like a terrible hypocrite. I dye my hair, use make-up etc,. All of that is a form of self alteration.
). Harri wrote:Jake wrote:It's no coincidence that these shapes and sizes show up all around the world; it's a modern fertility statue if you will allow the comparison. Accentuated curves and features meant to appeal to men's biological imperatives.
I think you have misunderstood the purpose of fertility symbols. Your wording is very irksome.
Fertility symbols are often signs of female power. I assume you mean media images around the world emphasizing female body parts (dissecting, and minimalizing a female to her body parts) in order to sale a product. In which case please respond to the question below.
Harri wrote:We operate under two vastly different spheres of philosophy. Maybe explaining my personal beliefs will help you see why I think the way I do. I am a Marxist, forth-wave feminist, and an avid existentialist. We are what we promote ourselves to be. I am my body, but I am beyond my body. Simon de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Kafka, Karl Marx- these amazing people believe that we are only evolved when we step up from our biological inclinations (if they exist at all). Our decisions create our existence, and nothing is beyond that. Truly (in my heart, maybe not yours), there is no such thing as uncontrollable inclinations. If there is, then you are not an evolved creature. EDIT: I mean sexual. Not a physical or mental disability.
I hope this provides some clarity. If you do not mind my asking, what education do you have?
Yes, even some movies aren't Art. For example, Star wars is Art, Justin Beaver never say never is a product. Dennis, the video I linked is art, Saw 2-8 (or however many Saws there are out) are products. Now I'm not saying you cant like them because they're products but simply making something thats in a genre thats usually meant to be taken as art, doesn't mean its art.Sirnak wrote:Games are art. If it's true that some games can hardly be called art, the same can be said about some books and some movies (heck, I went to a film festival today and I swear I saw some real bullshit movies that I'd never associate with art in no way...). In video games, you need drawings to elaborate the first concept and characters of the game, then you need 3d models. Created maps need to represent the ambiance you want your game to have (Dante's Inferno is a great exemple of good mapping choices...). The music needs to suit the mood of the game or of the actual scene. You need to determine the kind of shots you want to show the viewers. You need a scenario (Xenosaga has a bigger script than any Star Wars movie, I can swear...).
Video games CAN be art, but that doesn't mean all video games are art. Again some examples are, Half life 2 and Heavy rain are art works imo, however Call of duty and TF2, products. Also imo art can be sold as a product but its still art, were as things like CoD are products and don't even try to be art, that said some games to use art to sell their product. Their reason for existing is simply to make money. One more thing, don't confuse concept art for a game, as the game itself or the purpose of the game. Art might be needed to make a finishing product, but 99% of the time devs don't even include their actual art into the game.Also, to me, art IS a product (books, paints, music, etc.). So I consider video games as both art and product. Seriously, even if you wouldn't agree with me that video games can be called art, you must at least admit the importance of artistic choices in video games. See the "artistic decisions" part of video game credits. There are dozens of people working on that and they all mostly had artistic classes. Don't got tell them that their final product cannnot be compared to art. You'd hurt their feelings. o.o
Video games CAN be art, but that doesn't mean all video games are art. Again some examples are, Half life 2 and Heavy rain are art works imo, however Call of duty and TF2, products. Also imo art can be sold as a product but its still art, were as things like CoD are products and don't even try to be art, that said some games to use art to sell their product. Their reason for existing is simply to make money. One more thing, don't confuse concept art for a game, as the game itself or the purpose of the game. Art might be needed to make a finishing product, but 99% of the time devs don't even include their actual art into the game.
Sirnak the Wild CarSirnak wrote:Now let's rest on this topic that was only supposed to be a spam topic with lots of boobies.
GoDM1N wrote:Sirnak wrote:Now let's rest on this topic that was only supposed to be a spam topic with lots of boobies.
Thats what Bush and Obama would say
Harri wrote:GoDM1N wrote:Sirnak wrote:Now let's rest on this topic that was only supposed to be a spam topic with lots of boobies.
Thats what Bush and Obama would say
I love Obama. I wish people would stop blaming him for Bush's errors.
GoDM1N wrote:Well they BOTH suck, and both are to blame.
Harri wrote:GoDM1N wrote:Well they BOTH suck, and both are to blame.
How does Obama suck? This is outrageous.
Video games CAN be art, but that doesn't mean all video games are art. Again some examples are, Half life 2 and Heavy rain are art works imo, however Call of duty and TF2, products. Also imo art can be sold as a product but its still art, were as things like CoD are products and don't even try to be art, that said some games to use art to sell their product. Their reason for existing is simply to make money. One more thing, don't confuse concept art for a game, as the game itself or the purpose of the game. Art might be needed to make a finishing product, but 99% of the time devs don't even include their actual art into the game.
doppelganger wrote:I think people value their bodies too much... the human body is just flesh and bones in true impermanence. Some day it will rot in the ground just like everything else and serve no purpose other than to feed the bacteria that grows on deceased flesh and the worms in the dirt. It is the consciousness that individualizes the being, the body is but a vessel for the mind that cannot be defined.
VoltySquirrel wrote:Uhhh, no. Personally, I think that anything can be art, it just depends on the quality of the art. Just because Call of Duty's form of expression (or lack thereof) is not as "artlike" as say, Child of Eden's, doesn't make it not art. Let me provide a perfect example of this.
.
stanley the manley wrote:lets not start this...
GoDM1N wrote:VoltySquirrel wrote:Uhhh, no. Personally, I think that anything can be art, it just depends on the quality of the art. Just because Call of Duty's form of expression (or lack thereof) is not as "artlike" as say, Child of Eden's, doesn't make it not art. Let me provide a perfect example of this.
Cod isn't trying to be art though, Its treated as something to sell, a lot like fast food, and fast food isn't art.
VoltySquirrel wrote: B) Since when do you have to try to be art to be a piece of art?
just because Kotick sees CoD as a cash cow does not mean that the designers do.
Are you suggesting since they get paid it makes it better art?They get a small portion of the profits of that game, so I doubt they treat the game as such.
VoltySquirrel wrote:I never said profit = art. I said that the devs probably would find another game to work on if they didn't feel some sort of artistic attachment to the project.
GoDM1N wrote:VoltySquirrel wrote:I never said profit = art. I said that the devs probably would find another game to work on if they didn't feel some sort of artistic attachment to the project.
Or keep working on it because its a job that their boss told them to do and they need money to pay for things in life
It doesn't pay as much eitherVoltySquirrel wrote:It probably isn't too hard to find a new position at another studio if you worked on the largest franchise of the past 5 years.
Yes, they are, thats why the call it a job If they didn't care about the money they'd just make their owns.I doubt that a large part of the dev team is there solely for the paycheck.
VoltySquirrel wrote:Look, all I was saying was that in my mind, everything can be considered art, it just depended on if it were good art. I never said CoD was High art, or even low art for that matter. However, even if none of the people at IW or Treyarch give two shits about the artistic expression in their game and they only care about the paycheck, that still doesn't dispute its chance at being perceived as art, good or otherwise.
GoDM1N wrote:Video games CAN be art, but that doesn't mean all video games are art.
GoDM1N wrote:VoltySquirrel wrote:Look, all I was saying was that in my mind, everything can be considered art, it just depended on if it were good art. I never said CoD was High art, or even low art for that matter. However, even if none of the people at IW or Treyarch give two shits about the artistic expression in their game and they only care about the paycheck, that still doesn't dispute its chance at being perceived as art, good or otherwise.
Lol when have I said otherwise?GoDM1N wrote:Video games CAN be art, but that doesn't mean all video games are art.
VoltySquirrel wrote:Look, if you disagree, fine. I disagree with you. Let's just cop out and agree to disagree.
Harri wrote:
Let us get back to the topic at hand!
Sirnak the Wild CarGoDM1N wrote:
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
