#1 Edited by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

The Fan Service concept seems ill-defined; the article text even makes reference to multiple other concepts with more solid definition than what the Fan Service concept page seems capable of providing on its own. It seems redundant and unnecessary, given that.

#2 Posted by Demoskinos (15009 posts) -

I'm not sure I agree about deleting it. I think the better idea would to be an overhaul of the page if anything.

#3 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

That was oddly quick after my edit to it. That's all I have to say on the matter.

#4 Posted by ThePickle (4186 posts) -

It should be a little better defined, but I don't think it should be outright deleted. Or there should just be a page for "Company Referential/Nostalgia"

#5 Posted by Veektarius (4920 posts) -

The main thing I think of when I hear 'fan service' is the softcore sexualization, and the second thing I think of is the more general notion of pandering to things that fans want to see for no purpose other than to please them. For example: "I'm the juggernaut, bitch!" and "I'm am getting sick and tired of these motherfucking snakes..." and the Mass Effect 3 Citadel DLC. The sexualized women page is a disaster and I don't see how the other concept is captured by anything else, though it isn't captured by the existing page either.

#6 Edited by lord_canti (1517 posts) -

i think that page deals with exactly what fan service is, its something that happens with mediums more than video games and is defined in this exact way. "sexual fan service" is a common trope in anime, crossovers are common in western cartoons and films often have styles and flairs that refer to other works. it is supposed to be a wink and a nod to its fans and doing something for them i would call smash brothers, dead or alive beach volleyball and the citadel dlc for mass effect 3 prime examples of fan service in games.

#7 Posted by Wolfgame (814 posts) -

I am not sure how these topics are considered, I have only dabbled in the wiki around here ,but after checking that page, I think it adds content to the site and shouldn't be outright deleted based on what I am seeing.

#8 Edited by joshwent (2289 posts) -

Well, this is some overkill!

Fan Service is an acknowledged concept, and is important throughout the history of games, especially of the Japanese variety. It's an actual term on it's own, so while it can encompass many things, it's certainly not "ill-defined". It does reference other concepts, but those concepts are distinct from the core idea of what fan service is.

Sure, that page should be edited, as some stuff is certainly up for argument. (for example, I wouldn't consider easter eggs fan service)

But it's a totally valid concept, and it needs to stay.

#9 Posted by ryanwhom (290 posts) -

There's a distinction between pandering to fans of the series (hey a reference to the character from the novelization of the first game omg) and pandering to baser things (hey boobs, hey blood, hey blood on boobs). A distinction could be made. 2 different pages.

#10 Edited by StarvingGamer (8370 posts) -

@veektarius said:

The sexualized women page is a disaster.

Fuck, you're right. Here let me show you these sexualized women in games by posting fanart!?

Fuck this fuck in the fuck.

EDIT: Sorry this is a major pet peeve of mine. Every time I see bullshit like this it drives me up the fucking wall.

#11 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2412 posts) -

Yeah, I can't see any good reason for its existence beyond the "Company Referential/Nostalgia" part. The pages linked at every other section prove that it's otherwise redundant, since every one of those associations would require an association to Fan Service as well, and any association to Fan Service would require at least one of the others (except Nostalgia as that isn't a discrete page).

But realistically, nothing is going to change. Status quo conquers all in these situations.

#12 Posted by Wolfgame (814 posts) -

@veektarius said:

The sexualized women page is a disaster.

Fuck, you're right. Here let me show you these sexualized women in games by posting fanart!?

Fuck this fuck in the fuck.

EDIT: Sorry this is a major pet peeve of mine. Every time I see bullshit like this it drives me up the fucking wall.

I am no expert, but many of those pics are from licensed video games, I bet there is some fan art thrown in, but many of those pics are just from obscure games.

#13 Edited by Demoskinos (15009 posts) -

@veektarius said:

The sexualized women page is a disaster.

Fuck, you're right. Here let me show you these sexualized women in games by posting fanart!?

Fuck this fuck in the fuck.

EDIT: Sorry this is a major pet peeve of mine. Every time I see bullshit like this it drives me up the fucking wall.

SO MOE

#14 Posted by joshwent (2289 posts) -

The pages linked at every other section prove that it's otherwise redundant, since every one of those associations would require an association to Fan Service as well, and any association to Fan Service would require at least one of the others (except Nostalgia as that isn't a discrete page).

Then couldn't that mean that the linked pages are the redundant ones? "Sexualized Woman/Man" is a WAY more abstract concept than Fan Service.

#15 Posted by StarvingGamer (8370 posts) -

@wolfgame said:

@starvinggamer said:

@veektarius said:

The sexualized women page is a disaster.

Fuck, you're right. Here let me show you these sexualized women in games by posting fanart!?

Fuck this fuck in the fuck.

EDIT: Sorry this is a major pet peeve of mine. Every time I see bullshit like this it drives me up the fucking wall.

I am no expert, but many of those pics are from licensed video games, I bet there is some fan art thrown in, but many of those pics are just from obscure games.

I'm talking about the doujin artwork of Mai and the fan-made wallpaper of Miranda featured in the actual wiki article.

#16 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2412 posts) -

@joshwent said:

@saturdaynightspecials said:

The pages linked at every other section prove that it's otherwise redundant, since every one of those associations would require an association to Fan Service as well, and any association to Fan Service would require at least one of the others (except Nostalgia as that isn't a discrete page).

Then couldn't that mean that the linked pages are the redundant ones? "Sexualized Woman/Man" is a WAY more abstract concept than Fan Service.

No, because the linked pages are specific. They give more information while accomplishing everything the Fan Service association does (minus Nostalgia).

I don't see how sexualization is any more "abstract" than Fan Service. Subjective, yes, but that's inescapable in what we're doing here, and the Fan Service page as it stands is just a conglomeration of concepts that are all subjective to various degrees, so doesn't that make it more subjective?

#17 Posted by Veektarius (4920 posts) -

@saturdaynightspecials: Sexualization does not explain what people mean when they talk about 'fan service', which is a term that people use, which I feel the database should explain. Also, that'd be a way stronger argument if the page for sexualization was better.

#18 Edited by Brodehouse (10067 posts) -

Fanservice exists as a term to denote parts of the experience there to pander to or flatter the audience. Whether it needs to be a concept here or not I don't know, but it is a concept.

Sexualized women or men though ... That seems odd. I don't know if promiscuity or sexual permissiveness is really a thing on its own, at very least 'sexualization' is odd. 'Promiscuity' is a character trait that is written into a character; 'sexualization' only exists where the audience sees it. Eye of the beholder et al.

#19 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2412 posts) -

@veektarius said:

@saturdaynightspecials: Sexualization does not explain what people mean when they talk about 'fan service', which is a term that people use, which I feel the database should explain. Also, that'd be a way stronger argument if the page for sexualization was better.

Sexual fan service is a type of sexualization that doesn't bear much distinction in the context of video games. In that usage it's primarily a term for things that happen in anime and manga. A case could be made for a very limited concept page that deals with onsen scenes and such that are clearly imitating anime fan service, but sexual themes in games go much beyond that. Not to mention that shaping general gaming concepts around an audience that is familiar with anime/manga tropes and fan terminology is pretty insular.

The quality of the sexualization pages is not pivotal here because they can always be improved. In fact, they don't need a great write-up to be a useful and worthwhile association. The important question is whether pages about sexualization and/or fan service should exist, not which one is better right now.

#20 Edited by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@brodehouse:

Games can still heavily encourage such views from the audience, though. Male gaze and all that.

#21 Edited by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

Judging by this conversation, I'm leaning toward suggesting getting rid of the Sexualized Women and Sexualized Men pages. Or maybe just the creation of one blanket sexualization concept page, but how would the determination of what is sexualized versus what isn't is made? Different people find different things sexual in nature. Sure, you have overt ideas like bouncing breasts, suggestive posing, and so on, and a character may be designed in such a way to emphasize certain physical aspects, but again, not everyone finds sexuality in the same things. For example, the fact that a female character might have big breasts doesn't mean it's sexualization. Some women just have big breasts.

#22 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2412 posts) -

@hailinel said:

Judging by this conversation, I'm leaning toward suggesting getting rid of the Sexualized Women and Sexualized Men pages. Or maybe just the creation of one blanket sexualization concept page, but how would the determination of what is sexualized versus what isn't is made? Different people find different things sexual in nature. Sure, you have overt ideas like bouncing breasts, suggestive posing, and so on, and a character may be designed in such a way to emphasize certain physical aspects, but again, not everyone finds sexuality in the same things. For example, the fact that a female character might have big breasts doesn't mean it's sexualization. Some women just have big breasts.

It all hinges in intent, which is partially subjective because we don't usually have a record of the character designer saying "I made her all sexy!", but where there is intent then you will be able to detect it easily, even if it appeals to tastes that are not your own (furry stuff, for example). They're trying to make people notice it. If they're not, a critical examination of the character/game will reveal that she just has big breasts, or whatever.

And if sexualization doesn't get a page anymore, then pages like Dark Humor should also have to be removed. A person could look at tons of examples of dark humor and not find any of it dark, or humorous, or either one. Ditto Whiner, Cowardly Enemies, others I could find.

#23 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

So, mods looking at this? Anyone?

#24 Posted by Wolfgame (814 posts) -

@hailinel: I thought the community gave this reasonable consideration and decided that the term has enough prevalence in gaming culture to warrant maintaining the page. It doesn't sound like a lost cause, I say we work together to make edits to it which it does look like has been taking place and carry on to make that page better.

#25 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2412 posts) -

@wolfgame said:

@hailinel: I thought the community gave this reasonable consideration and decided that the term has enough prevalence in gaming culture to warrant maintaining the page. It doesn't sound like a lost cause, I say we work together to make edits to it which it does look like has been taking place and carry on to make that page better.

"The community" didn't reach a consensus by any stretch (not even this 11-person sample did). I think the page is redundant too, and I felt I made a pretty good case for it.

A moderator or staff should at least give an explanation if it's not happening.