General gaming discussion

SomeSayKos

Potential-Monke wrote: »

A born male can be multiple genders, but theres something possibly wrong with me for wanting T&A in some games?
.

Also, what point are you trying to make with this?

nix

Id rather the catwoman we have over a baggy butch female looking thing, just like id prefer the batman we have over some fat burger wielding....trucker...

The bodies they have match what their bodies need to be able to do for the role they play, it was always that simple for me.. Anything else would just look wrong..

The catwoman clip above while funny, is dumb to think she should act some other way, in memory, she has always used her sexuality as a weapon, to manipulate or distract, thats the way its been for over 30 years, now its a problem? :rolleyes:

Robert ninja

SomeSayKos wrote: »

Probably whatever the artist,producer or director decides she should wear......

You forgot the ethics department.

SomeSayKos

Robert ninja wrote: »

You forgot the ethics department.

Nice. It's good that they have a department to consider these things

Cordell

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

We clearly haven't evolved as a race if we're normalising casual sexism and misogyny with "just a bit of T&A for the lads".

And I'm so tired of people misusing the word 'woke'. Most people don't even know what it means or where it originated from.

There is no sexism, no misogyny and definitely no normalizing either of them in having a sexy character, man or woman alike. If anything, these games and comics normalize violence and vigilantism. This, if it were to be a real issue, should come first, way before worrying about having some extra skin for the lads and so inclined lassies to enjoy.

Retr0gamer

Robert ninja wrote: »

You forgot the ethics department.

Don't see the issue there? It made sure tifa didn't look comical and wore appropriate attire. I think that's a win. I don't see the issue here when they are stopping potential issues or offense to anyone before a product gets out on the market.

SomeSayKos

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Don't see the issue there? It made sure tifa didn't look comical and wore appropriate attire. I think that's a win. I don't see the issue here when they are stopping potential issues or offense to anyone before a product gets out on the market.

The lads want ethics in games journalism but not in games

Retr0gamer

SomeSayKos wrote: »

The lads want ethics in games journalism but not in games

Don't forget the polygonal T&A

Penn

Regardless of whether the female characters in the next Batman game are dressed appropriately or in needlessly skimpy attire, I shall be adding pictures of them to my totally normal and in no way creepy collage.

For science.

Retr0gamer

Penn wrote: »

Regardless of whether the female characters in the next Batman game are dressed appropriately or in needlessly skimpy attire, I shall be adding pictures of them to my totally normal and in no way creepy collage.

For science.

Your Waifus are thrash compared to mine.

gizmo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

But, and this is not directed straight at you, but at everyone arguing this point in general, why is it that you can have your opinion and demands of what is featured in games (made up things), but my view or wants are wrong in some way?

The problem, should you even want to call it that, is not that you have an opinion which is different than others here, it's that the argument made to support it isn't sound.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

As someone else pointed out, most DC female characters have sexualised origins in either writing or description. People now want this toned down because why?

This is kind of the crux of it. Yes, someone did say this earlier in the thread but they were also rightly corrected soon after when it was pointed out that the designs in the Arkham games were considerably more T&A heavy than those featured in the comics since the inception of these characters. So, the question should not be why do people want the designs featured in the games to be toned down, it's why do people want more sexually exaggerated designs than the source material in the first place.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Tell me, what could Catwoman wear, while being a cat burglar? Loose clothes? Wouldn't work out too well for her.

The argument here is not that her suit is too fitting, it never has been. Notice how there wasn't the same kind of criticism against Michelle Pfeiffer's costume from Burton's original movie or more recently with Anne Hathaway's from The Dark Knight? The DLC skins for her character in Arkham City were also taken from The Long Halloween and the animated series from the 90s with again, no complaints. She even featured in Fortnite last year in a similarly themed skin and no one batted an eyelid. The difference? In none of these examples was said outfit unzipped halfway down her chest.

ERG89 touched on this point in an earlier post but I most definitely disagree with his take. Not only did the article specifically cite the "highly sexualised design and costuming of [the] characters" but the manner in which the character's personality has been portrayed has been almost wholly consistent across each form of media they've appeared in and yet it was only the Arkham City version which was criticised.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just for note, if the next Arkham game had full nudity just for the sake of it, I too would think its too much, but there was nothing in the Arkham games that I hadn't more or less seen in the animated Batman series as a child. Just more realistic looking.

This is objectively untrue and a quick google search for any of the characters in question will show this quite clearly.


Now, all this being said, if you like T&A in your games then that's fine but there's always going to be people who will disagree with their use, or overuse, for a variety of reasons. If you're going to defend it though, maybe just take a leaf out of Yoko Taro's book who, when asked at a panel at PAX East why the protagonist of NieR: Automata, the combat android 2B, wears high heels, he ultimately replied, "But the biggest reason is that I just really like girls." :pac:

Robert ninja

I'd expect an ethics department to make sure their employees are being taken care of or the sales department are not false advertising to their customers. But nah, bras m8.

Cordell wrote: »

This, if it were to be a real issue, should come first, way before worrying about having some extra skin for the lads and so inclined lassies to enjoy.

Time and time again they've shown that they're fine with mutilating women (MK, Tomb Raider) and underage sex scenes (Life Is Strange). It's all ok as long as it's the 'right' kind of game. Anyone who yaps on about representation in video games is a weirdo. Never forget these names

Peter "anime is for pedos" Bright from Ars Technica. Arrested for trying to get sexy with a 7 year old.

Matt "he/him" Conn, ex CEO of Midboss (gaming in color), resigns after his sexual harassment comes to light.

Toni "sex me or you're a bigot" Rocca, fired for using their position at gaymerX to solicit sex under threat of character assassination via accusations of transphobia.

Dustin "gamergate is rape" Marshall, self admitted sexual harasser and trespasser. Literally sneaks into women's beds.

Sam "Anti Misogyny" Kriss from VICE. Publicly apologises to the person he sexually assaulted.

pixelburp

I imagine half the thread are already subscribed to Mark Brown's GMTK channel, but the latest one was fascinating & worth sharing al the same: partly because I love those "behind the curtain" looks at how ad-hoc game dev can be; but also because I recently realised a 3+ month prototyping project was going nowhere, and shifted tracks to a gameplay loop that seemed more "fun". The validation felt timely and dispels the notion that indie development starts with the killer idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMDe7_YwVKI

CastorTroy

Have heard that happening with Nintendo. Or else they discover something while doing 1 game and decide it's a fun mechanic and expand on it in another game.

Potential-Monke

SomeSayKos wrote: »

Probably whatever the artist,producer or director decides she should wear......

Point was, it should be suitable for the character and situation, she's not going to be able to athletics inbetween lasers wearing baggy clothes.

SomeSayKos wrote: »

Also, what point are you trying to make with this?

The point is that some views are acceptable and encouraged (any gender you want) and other views are not (I like T&A in games/in general - misogynist).

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

We clearly haven't evolved as a race if we're normalising casual sexism and misogyny with "just a bit of T&A for the lads".

And I'm so tired of people misusing the word 'woke'. Most people don't even know what it means or where it originated from.

You see casual sexism and misogyny, I see beautiful look (digital and made up) characters wearing sexy attire while trying to do something sexy or use that sexiness to get their way. It happens in real life, but we can't comment on that or we're misogynists. As pointed out, Catwoman always used her allure and looks to get her way. Was it a bit too far to have her top zipped down? To you, yes. To me, no. Doesn't make me a misogynist.

Also, woke: alert to injustice in society, especially racism. So as a society, we're now more "aware" of the injustice caused by sexism and misogyny, so we're more woke, no?

Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. I love women. I have no hatred or contempt for them, and I'm not prejudiced against them. But somehow me liking good looking women (real or digital) wearing sexy outfits means I'm a misogynist or sexist? Really? When fashion still pushes this agenda, especially to young girls? Come off it.

gizmo wrote: »

The problem, should you even want to call it that, is not that you have an opinion which is different than others here, it's that the argument made to support it isn't sound.

The argument to support it being that we like looking at sexy women in sexy outfits? Sex sells, still to this day. Yeah, you have some companies doing ads with all the body shapes, but most are still the supermodel look wearing skimpy, tight or no clothes. But this can't be in games?

gizmo wrote: »

This is kind of the crux of it. Yes, someone did say this earlier in the thread but they were also rightly corrected soon after when it was pointed out that the designs in the Arkham games were considerably more T&A heavy than those featured in the comics since the inception of these characters. So, the question should not be why do people want the designs featured in the games to be toned down, it's why do people want more sexually exaggerated designs than the source material in the first place.

Fashion has moved on. There's a reason Wolverine didn't wear yellow spandex in his films, and even commented on it. Just so happens that these games came out just before/at the beginning of this movement that sexualising women in anything makes you a misogynist. The source material was probably pretty hot under the collar for the time it was produced. Check what was the fashion for women in 1940 and then look at the first look of Catwoman in the comics. Keeps with the style, but tighter than your average clothes. The characters evolved with fashion, as does everything. Some think it went too far, and too far to me would have been full blown nudity.

gizmo wrote: »

The argument here is not that her suit is too fitting, it never has been. Notice how there wasn't the same kind of criticism against Michelle Pfeiffer's costume from Burton's original movie or more recently with Anne Hathaway's from The Dark Knight? The DLC skins for her character in Arkham City were also taken from The Long Halloween and the animated series from the 90s with again, no complaints. She even featured in Fortnite last year in a similarly themed skin and no one batted an eyelid. The difference? In none of these examples was said outfit unzipped halfway down her chest.

So the main issue was the unzipped top? Showing a bit more cleavage?

gizmo wrote: »

ERG89 touched on this point in an earlier post but I most definitely disagree with his take. Not only did the article specifically cite the "highly sexualised design and costuming of [the] characters" but the manner in which the character's personality has been portrayed has been almost wholly consistent across each form of media they've appeared in and yet it was only the Arkham City version which was criticised.

It's been a while since I've played City, but I can't remember her sticking out moreso than the other games due to her look and/or portrayal. She was Catwoman, doing Catwomany things.

gizmo wrote: »

This is objectively untrue and a quick google search for any of the characters in question will show this quite clearly.

Catwoman was wearing skin tight grey lycra with pointy tits in the early 90's. Same with Harley. Poison Ivy had a top which stopped at her cleavage upwards. IIRC, women mostly wore loose clothes in the early 90's. So yes, the Arkham games just moved with the times, and like the comics/cartoons/films, was always that bit more than the current fashion trend of the time.

gizmo wrote: »

Now, all this being said, if you like T&A in your games then that's fine but there's always going to be people who will disagree with their use, or overuse, for a variety of reasons. If you're going to defend it though, maybe just take a leaf out of Yoko Taro's book who, when asked at a panel at PAX East why the protagonist of NieR: Automata, the combat android 2B, wears high heels, he ultimately replied, "But the biggest reason is that I just really like girls." :pac:

I do like women. I don't know a straight male who doesn't tbh. And I like my made up, fantasy women to be sexy and wear clothing that accentuates their sexiness. Especially when they already have a history of said sexiness. Now, I don't agree that characters in TLoU would benefit from that, as they wouldn't due to the nature of the game. Same applies to many, many other games. But not the DC universe. Not superheros. Take Starlight in The Boys for example, they

wanted her to wear a more revealing outfit as that is what sells in 2019

and they got to make a good 'current' story out of it. Although the trailers for Season 2 seem to reverse that iirc.

I don't want my Catwoman to be a oversized sweater wearing woke Karen, because then she's not Catwoman. She can certainly tone down the overt sexualness, but she can't get rid of it because she was built from the ground up on it (see the scene in the first comic in 1940 where Batman is checking her leg/bandage). Feck sake, they even aged Ivy in Gotham to make her sexy because that's how she works, using pheremones and sexiness to get her way.

I'm not saying I want it in every game, but I don't like established characters being rewritten because that's the current "in" thing to do. Create new characters if that's the way people want it, but leave our established characters alone. Catwoman is still a strong, independent female who don't need no man, she doesn't need to dress like an old woman to force the point home.

Edit: Fuk, that's long. Apologies.

gizmo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

The argument to support it being that we like looking at sexy women in sexy outfits? Sex sells, still to this day. Yeah, you have some companies doing ads with all the body shapes, but most are still the supermodel look wearing skimpy, tight or no clothes. But this can't be in games?

No, your argument in favour of having more sexualised character designs in games because you like them. It was your justification for this in the context of the DC characters that was flawed which is why I suggested sticking with the Yoko Taro-esque approach instead.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's been a while since I've played City, but I can't remember her sticking out moreso than the other games due to her look and/or portrayal. She was Catwoman, doing Catwomany things.

To keep things succinct, I'll just quote this bit from the rest of your post as I think it'll help cover nearly everything else. The design of Catwoman in Arkham City absolutely did stick out when compared to the previous incarnations of the character up until that point. This covers the comics, animated series, movies and, since she didn't have any on-screen time in Arkham Asylum, the Arkham series of games. This is exactly why people weren't happy with it, it had been made more overtly sexualised for reasons.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'm not saying I want it in every game, but I don't like established characters being rewritten because that's the current "in" thing to do. Create new characters if that's the way people want it, but leave our established characters alone. Catwoman is still a strong, independent female who don't need no man, she doesn't need to dress like an old woman to force the point home.

But the kicker here is that you don't seem to have a problem with established characters having their designs changed to accommodate your desire for more sexualised ones in games. Catwoman wouldn't have been any less Catwoman if her outfit had been zipped up at the front like in her previous iterations after all. Similarly, if you watch the new Suicide Squad trailer, Harley doesn't look any less Harley with her new design that's moved away from the corset-style of the previous Arkham games. The only thing that will have changed is you may be a slightly less titillated?

Dave_The_Sheep

Battle Brothers is absolutely excellent.

Comparable to a combo of X-Com meets Mount and Blade, with some quality humour in it's random events and a surprisingly deep combat/pawn system. Highly recommended.

Yesterday, I rescued a dude from getting tarred and feathered for ****ing a melon (yes you read that right). He asked to join my company of mercs as a result. His name (generated by the game):



His mood after I recruited him? Good.

Potential-Monke

gizmo wrote: »

No, your argument in favour of having more sexualised character designs in games because you like them. It was your justification for this in the context of the DC characters that was flawed which is why I suggested sticking with the Yoko Taro-esque approach instead.


To keep things succinct, I'll just quote this bit from the rest of your post as I think it'll help cover nearly everything else. The design of Catwoman in Arkham City absolutely did stick out when compared to the previous incarnations of the character up until that point. This covers the comics, animated series, movies and, since she didn't have any on-screen time in Arkham Asylum, the Arkham series of games. This is exactly why people weren't happy with it, it had been made more overtly sexualised for reasons.



But the kicker here is that you don't seem to have a problem with established characters having their designs changed to accommodate your desire for more sexualised ones in games. Catwoman wouldn't have been any less Catwoman if her outfit had been zipped up at the front like in her previous iterations after all. Similarly, if you watch the new Suicide Squad trailer, Harley doesn't look any less Harley with her new design that's moved away from the corset-style of the previous Arkham games. The only thing that will have changed is you may be a slightly less titillated?

I think the difference here is that the change didn't bother me/didn't actually stick out to me. You noticed it. Other people noticed it. I didn't. I was too interested in playing the game to realise that "Oh, she's got her zip down further". I was playing the game, she was already a minx type and having the zip down further didn't cause her to stick out more than usual. Maybe I just don't pick up on these things because they don't bother me as much as they bother others.

Still, it's a two way street, and every male character that could be any way considered "good looking" are all tall, muscled, etc, while the "unattractive" characters are usually obese or disformed or some other feature that isn't your typical male character. Batman wears armor suits at times, and they have abs and muscle definition and pretty obvious cod pieces. It's one thing if he's wearing lycra and the muscles are real, but to put them pointlessly on armor, one could say they're sexualising the character more than they used to.

I just don't let this stuff get to me in a game that is based on characters that always had the sexualisation, just toned for the time. It's the same across every media outlet, fashion demands it, sex sells. Again, showing full nudity would be out of place in a Batman game, showing a bit more cleavage? Nah, I don't think so. Could they have just not done it? Sure! To me it seems like a cheap way to make her look "new" but still the same. Didn't detract from the game at all, considering how little she's in it in the overall scheme of things (maybe I'm the only one who didn't play any unforced missions as her so don't recall the suit as much?).

We'll agree to disagree.

CastorTroy

Seeing the trailer for Suicide Squad makes me wonder what type of contracts do Voice actors have?
Like they did that trailer for a game that isn't out until 2022, which means they'll likely have to do work for that game from now up until it's release with recording and re-recording. Then if any DLC, have more for that

Zero-Cool

CastorTroy wrote: »

Seeing the trailer for Suicide Squad makes me wonder what type of contracts do Voice actors have?
Like they did that trailer for a game that isn't out until 2022, which means they'll likely have to do work for that game from now up until it's release with recording and re-recording. Then if any DLC, have more for that

My friend interviews voice actors in his YouTube channel and recently talked to 4 actors from RDR 2. They talked about working on it 4-6 years but Rockstar is a different beast. Obviously it's not a 9-5, 5 day week but I'm guessing once you're in contract, you can't refuse to show up when they need you for a scene.

CastorTroy

I guess depends on whether they're doing motion capture as well. Like Last of Us mocap and voice actors are the same

Stone Deaf 4evr

CastorTroy wrote: »

Seeing the trailer for Suicide Squad makes me wonder what type of contracts do Voice actors have?
Like they did that trailer for a game that isn't out until 2022, which means they'll likely have to do work for that game from now up until it's release with recording and re-recording. Then if any DLC, have more for that

Dunno, but I saw a clip recently of Lance reddick recording dialogue for destiny 2, from the comfort of his own walk in wardrobe, so as long as they're not motion capturing, I'd imagine its flexible enough.

The Raging Bile Duct

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'm not saying I want it in every game, but I don't like established characters being rewritten because that's the current "in" thing to do. Create new characters if that's the way people want it, but leave our established characters alone. Catwoman is still a strong, independent female who don't need no man, she doesn't need to dress like an old woman to force the point home.

This kind of confuses me a bit. Established comic characters are constantly tinkered with and rewritten as tastes change. If that didn't happen you'd wouldn't have had the evolution of Batman from his pulpy origins to what he is today.

Retr0gamer

They're usually called in during a point during development when the story and dialogue is set in stone and can't be changed to reduce the need to re-recordings which are usually outside the scope of most projects.

Voice actors I've spoken to say that videogames are the worst to do because off all the grunts and reaction sounds they have to record.

The Last of Us 2 would be a very rare game were the voice actors are doing the mo cap as well. In fact voice actors recording their lines together is extremely rare. Usually they are called into the recording booth to record them separately.

Retr0gamer

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

This kind of confuses me a bit. Established comic characters are constantly tinkered with and rewritten as tastes change. If that didn't happen you'd wouldn't have had the evolution of Batman from his pulpy origins to what he is today.

The recent adaptation of Batgirl in the comics being a big one. It's moved away from sexualisation or a bit part sidekick and presented her as a normal young modern, social woman and it's apparently being a huge success. Much better than arkham catwoman with her knockers hanging out.

Zero-Cool

Retr0gamer wrote: »

They're usually called in during a point during development when the story and dialogue is set in stone and can't be changed to reduce the need to re-recordings which are usually outside the scope of most projects.

Voice actors I've spoken to say that videogames are the worst to do because off all the grunts and reaction sounds they have to record.

The Last of Us 2 would be a very rare game were the voice actors are doing the mo cap as well. In fact voice actors recording their lines together is extremely rare. Usually they are called into the recording booth to record them separately.

I thought most story driven games these days use motion capture by the voice actors. Days Gone, Uncharted, God of War... Maybe it's mostly Sony thing?

Grumpypants

I spoke with Dave Fennoy and Melissa Hutchinson a good bit when the walking dead was coming out. I spoke with most of that cast as well as the voice director.

It's a weird business, you don't know the story, you don't really work with others, you have lines to read and some direction. Games with choice you might have to record different variations of the same line. Say it happy, say it angry, say it like you're hungry!!

It's a bit harder than screen acting in the sense that you don't have facial expressions or body language to help. But on the other hand you can sit in a room with a cup of honey tea and record hours of dialogue too.

Sometimes they get a recurring role, Melissa played Clem in the whole series. Other times the role gets recast for sequels, sometimes someone else will record some missing lines.

A lot comes down to the voice director, if you get on with then they tend to use the same people. You will see lots of the same names pop up on projects.

Zero-Cool

Clem and Lee