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

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