fandomsecrets | [ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Except we're not judging the character, we are judging the people that decided to design her that way. She herself isn't hurt by us decrying her outfit-- she's not real. In turn, the design sends a message to a culture that is already neck-deep in objectified female characters and that, as a default, expects women to fit this sexual mold for its benefit, regardless of if real women are comfortable with it or not.

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.

I've been advised to drop this, but I do feel the need to reply, so, yeah...

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.

Fuck. I meant to say E.G Ayumi of XBlades. Mixing up Ie and Eg usually irritates me. sorry.

we're not judging the character, we are judging the people that decided to design her that way. She herself isn't hurt by us decrying her outfit-- she's not real

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.

i think op is trying to say that to be objectified means being downgraded from a fully developed valid character to a sex object or to be treat as nothing but a sex object by the narrative, and that we can't say for sure that a 'sexily' designed character has been devalued as a character until you fully experience the character. i think it's less 'don't be mean to the character' and more 'don't assume sexist writing until you've read the writing'.

No, no I'm aware of that, which is why I said "that (the) 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".

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.

[ SECRET POST #2507 ]

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday

Re: The "Quiet" secret from yesterday