Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2013-11-13 06:38 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-11-13 06:38 pm
[ SECRET POST #2507 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2507 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10. [WARNING FOR: shota/underage stuff]
__________________________________________________
11.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 038 secrets from Secret Submission Post #358.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 01:25 am (UTC)(link)Over Sexualizing (as far as I'm concerned) = Highlight / emphasizing sexual characteristics beyond what is necessary.
Objectifying (as far as I'm concerned) = Reducing a person or a character to nothing but an object.
Sexualizing is about how a character looks. Objectifying is about how a character acts and fits within the story.
We do not know how she acts and fits within the story. We can say that she has been sexualized or over sexualized, but until we know how much the sexualizing affects her as a character we cannot, in my mind, say she has been reduced to nothing but an object.
I have a problem with looking at a person or character and then deciding the merits of their character based on those looks.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 01:42 am (UTC)(link)Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 02:32 am (UTC)(link)I disagree.
I think a character can have the look of a sex object, and still be more than just a sex object, look at... Almost any Angelina Jolie character. Look at Linda Carters Wonder Woman.
On the flip side, look at raiden. When Kojima pitched the idea of raiden, his wording was something like (Forgive me I this isn't 100% correct it's been years) I want a beautiful fragile looking man as the new main character. Then the game comes out and he's a fucking badass... Who occasionally does naked cartwheels. Do the naked cartwheels diminish him as a character? No. Fuck no. He's wearing less clothes than Quite, and yet, look at that: not an object.
It's the whole thing about not judging a book by it's cover. I don't think you can say a character is being reduced to the status of an object based on how they look. Shit, look at lollipop chainsaw. The objectified character in that was not the girl in the cheerleading uniform. She was sexualized, ofcourse, and I'me sure you'd argue that her character design looked like it was objectifying, but then you play the game and follow the story, and you see that the looks do not dictate the character's strength.
TL;DR. I respectfully disagree.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 01:56 am (UTC)(link)Complaining about objectification/sexualisation isn't a critique on a character itself. It's a criticism on the idea that we have to have this image shoved in our faces time and time again and have to keep being skeptical of every female character and whether they'll do her justice because the way she is presented to us is the most cookie-cutter design possible.
I don't want to have to be "well, I'll wait for the game's release and then PAY this company and THEN I'll be able to see if her character is good or not." I don't want to have to waste my money on something that may, again, be a disappointment.
Also, in and on itself, the design is atrocious.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 02:54 am (UTC)(link)Two points to bring up "the design sends a message to a culture that is already neck-deep in objectified female characters" "It's a criticism on the idea that we have to have this image shoved in our faces time and time again" I continue to say that the design is sexualized, and we cant say she's been reduced to an object until we find out about her character, but I do agree it can be very sickening to see only women sexualized, but I maintain the issue is one of balance, that it's almost only women who get sexualized is the problem and I think this is a goose and gander situation. More sexualized men, not less sexualized women. If you think this wont work, look at supernatural, and wonder how well received if Dean was played by steve buscemi. Supernatural needs better writing in my opinion (this would be the part where I really earn those brass balls Noodly gave me) but there is no reason for them to have less sexualized men. People, men and women, like sexy people, this is not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is that sexualisation often leads to objectification, and that IS a terrible thing that needs to stop, but judging weather they've "done a female character justice" based on how she looks, while understandable, is doing no-one any good. There is an old axiom about judging books by their covers, and it stands up, Judging by twilights cover it is a classy book about apples.
"I don't want to have to waste my money on something that may, again, be a disappointment"
Welcome to the life of a consumer. this is true of every purchase of everything. Fortunatly we live in an age of the internet, if she really doesn't hold up as a character, you WILL find out about it, but based on the current internet attitude, you could be forgiven for thinking that she doesn't hold up as a character even before anyone's had a chance to play the game.
"Also, in and on itself, the design is atrocious."
I respectfully disagree. Ok, yes it's HIGHLY sexualized, but funnily enough I am ok with this. I like her design. If her design is as deep as her character goes (I.E Ayumi of XBlades) I will have a problem, but so far, I like it.
Actually, TL;DR for this whole thing: I respectfully disagree.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 02:59 am (UTC)(link)Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
This needs to be printed off and plastered all over the monitors of everyone taking part in a conversation about female characters in games.
She's not real. "She" doesn't have a "backstory". "She" has a design team, who decided to write a story that justified that appearance (in order to, openly, pander to the audience and encourage more sexy cosplay). Saying that "well you can't judge her until you know how she ending up that way" is BALLS OUT LUDICROUS because "she" IS NOT REAL. She "ended up that way" because a group of writers and designers decided to make her end up that way. She didn't just blunder into a captive/torture situation in Afghanistan because SHE'S NEVER BEEN TO AFGHANISTAN. She can't go to Afghanistan. Because she's NOT REAL. She's never been tortured. She can't have been tortured. She's a collection of pixels.
No one is criticizing "her". They can't. She doesn't exist outside of an idea and a digital painting of that idea. They're criticizing the people who chose to make her that way, however they felt the need to justify or rationalize it. They could have chosen to give her a different backstory and present that idea/picture a different way. They did not. That's what at issue.
That said, pointing out that MGS as a series has a lot of equal-opportunity pandering and a good track record of attributing deep, three-dimensional, humanizing characteristics to scantily-clad pictures of women in the past are completely fair arguments. "But we don't know her backstory yet!" is not.
Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
(Anonymous) 2013-11-14 02:10 pm (UTC)(link)Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday
I've played almost the entire series, I'm well aware of Eva's badassery, the equal opportunity fanservice, etc., etc. Those are fair points.
But the design staff still chose to design her like that, amongst all the other possible designs they could have chosen, and even admitted that it was for sexy cosplay/fanservicey pandering. So even if she turns out to be a badass, well-developed character, it's still entirely fair to criticize them for that design choice.