Sexism, racism and moralization in art criticism

In recent years there has been a trend of moralization in video game criticism, particularly concerning gender inequalities, but also race and sexuality. Dragon’s Crown is only the latest subject of this kind of criticism: before it we've had Tomb Raider, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Bayonetta and so on and so forth. A lot of people are pleased with this, but the truth of the matter is that this is a degenerative and harmful trend – something that becomes most obvious if one imagines applying this kind of criticism to historical works.

Should the Iliad have points docked for being sexist? Would Dracula cease to be a masterpiece if the vampires and Renfield were black, while the rest of the cast remained white? Are we supposed to quit admiring the works of all the great painters throughout history on account of the inequality at display in their art? Would the paintings of Sir Leighton be better if they depicted more black people? Is Rubens' Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus worse because contemporary morality condemns its subject matter? Or Gérôme's Slave Market in Rome?

The notion is absurd. Moralization has no place in art criticism: the only value judgments of relevance are the aesthetic ones. Is it beautiful? – That is the question. Subtracting points in an art review because the work isn't “equal” enough is as ridiculous as subtracting points in a food review because the dish contains meat and therefore required the death of animals. There is nothing wrong with “male gaze” – on the contrary, it is only through the perspective of a man (or a lesbian, I suppose) that female beauty can be fully appreciated and celebrated. Nor is there anything wrong with male power fantasies, weak women in need of help, or any of the other things feminists object to in games. As for the lack of the opposite perspective: as unfortunate as it may be for those who are desperate to see more depictions of helpless, sexualized white men being rescued by strong women or overweight black transsexuals or whatever, artists (whether painters, writers, filmmakers or video game developers) have no collective obligation to provide this, nor indeed much aesthetic motivation, as the introduction of more strong women, blacks etc. has no inherent value and – contrary to what some seem to think – certainly doesn't help an art form advance faster. Classical painting and literature would not have been better or evolved more rapidly if the old masters included more minorities in their works, and neither will video games.

Furthermore, it is absurd to look at an artist’s depiction of a woman or black and claim that it’s representative of his view of women or blacks in general. “He created female characters that need rescuing, so clearly he thinks all women are weak and helpless” and “He created a black character that speaks in a stereotypical manner, so clearly he’s an ignorant and hateful man who thinks all black people are like this” – these are absolutely ridiculous conclusions to draw, and suggesting that developers (or the players who enjoy their works) are misogynists or racists based on depictions (or non-depictions) of women and blacks in games is stupid, disingenuous, or possibly both.

Shinji Mikami put it well in a recent interview: “Games are not really a time for morals, they're entertainment, so if you want more morals, you should go to someplace like a school. We're making entertainment.” Words to live by for any remotely serious critic or developer.

173 Comments
177 Comments
  • 177 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited by Video_Game_King

@icemael said:

Should the Iliad have points docked for being sexist?

Maybe? There's certainly something to dig into when you have Helen calling herself slut of sluts. (I'd grab the quote myself, but it's a pretty big pain in the ass when none of the sources I find have quote marks to tell you when somebody's speaking.)

The notion is absurd. Moralization has no place in art criticism: the only value judgments of relevance are the aesthetic ones. Is it beautiful? – That is the question.

But what is beauty if not a cultural value rooted in the morals and beliefs of that culture?

as unfortunate as it may be for those who are desperate to see more depictions of helpless, sexualized white men being rescued by strong women or overweight black transsexuals or whatever

Edited by CaLe

If one believes that violence in video games does not lead to real world violence, it logically follows that one would also be of the opinion that misogyny in games does not lead to misogynistic attitudes. This is paraphrasing what TB said in a recent video, and I agree with it. I honestly don't feel very strongly about this topic one way or the other, but what you're saying does make sense to me. Then again, I could read a strong rebuttal and also feel that it makes just as much sense. There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so ...

Posted by Icemael

@video_game_king said:

The notion is absurd. Moralization has no place in art criticism: the only value judgments of relevance are the aesthetic ones. Is it beautiful? – That is the question.

But what is beauty if not a cultural value rooted in the morals and beliefs of that culture?

A Muslim will not enjoy the taste of pork less because he thinks it will send him to hell, and a pedophile will not cease being attracted to children even if he finds his sexual orientation so morally objectionable that he contemplates suicide. If you're seriously saying beauty presupposes and is governed by morality, all I have to say is: lol

Edited by fisk0

While I really don't agree with most of your post, I do agree that the video game makers/artists have no obligation to create games the games we want them to, but our obligation to create the games we want to play if they aren't already out there. More people should read stuff like Anna Anthropy's Rise of the Videogame Zinesters and learn how to put our thoughts and ideas into video game form, and create the games we want to be out there ourselves, rather than to complain that someone else isn't making a game catering to our taste or ideology.

Edited by Video_Game_King
Edited by TheHT

You haven't explained why it's degenerative or harmful. You do insist that it's absurd to morally analyze a work multiple times.

Then you go on to talk about sexual attraction being the key to fully appreciating female beauty, particular feminist objections being wrong, how artists have no obligation to anyone else (which is reasonable), that the introduction of strong women or blacks has no inherent value to a work nor advance the form, and finally that determining an artists beliefs from their work is also absurd (also reasonable).

Some explanation as to how looking at art through a moral lens is bad is required. As is an explanation as to why sexuality is central to appreciating beauty, why male power fantasies and depictions of weak women in need of rescue are acceptable, why different perspectives in a work provides no inherent value nor advance the form, and finally why advancing the form is relevant. In fact, why are any of these things relevant to your initial claim?

Edited by joshwent

@icemael said:

Furthermore, it is absurd to look at an artist’s depiction of a woman or black and claim that it’s representative of his view of women or blacks in general. “He created female characters that need rescuing, so clearly he thinks all women are weak and helpless” and “He created a black character that speaks in a stereotypical manner, so clearly he’s an ignorant and hateful man who thinks all black people are like this” – these are absolutely ridiculous conclusions to draw, and suggesting that developers (or the players who enjoy their works) are misogynists or racists based on depictions (or non-depictions) of women and blacks in games is stupid, disingenuous, or possibly both.

Yep. But why do you have to surround this true sentiment with all that nonsense?

Holding art from the past to moral standards of the present is wrong because the artists themselves were ignorant of our present moral revelations. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a great book. The word "Nigger" is also used a whole lot. That doesn't mean the book is racist, or that the characters are racist, or that Mark Twain was racist. In its time, that word was (at least accepted as) not the horribly demeaning insult we take it for today. If it was casually used by an author today writing characters in the present, we should question the intent because the meaning has changed since our morals have advanced.

Intent and content are inseparable. We cannot truly understand a work without understanding the intent, and the morals of the creator are a part of that. The morals of the viewer then come into play in their personal final interpretation. Those viewer's morals are unique to them, so the experience of the work will differ person to person, and thus the experience as a whole will differ. There is no standards of objective "beauty" as you put it, so the morals reflected in the work will come into play in any viewer's ultimate experience.

Consider Serrano's "Piss Christ":

"Beauty's not objective, dude!" - Jesus Christ

At first glance it's a reverent, luminous image of Jesus on the cross. The missing "intent" is that it's in fact a small plastic cross submerged in the artist's urine. While the artist has said that he means no attack on religion, simply the commercialization of it, that intent is important to the experience. The viewer's morals also necessarily come in to play. For me, this is a little figurine and therefore I mainly experience this as the pure intent of the artist. For a devout christian, seeing an image of their loving creator made man to be sacrificed for all humanity, then submerged in piss, that may bring up other emotions. It would be impossible for that person and I to agree on an objective "review" of the photo because our morals are coming from different sources.

One's morals are a part of their experience of the world. To say "Moralization has no place in art criticism" is ultimately saying that criticism has no place in criticism. And I hope you can see where that line of thinking fails.

Posted by Digiwth

i have faith that giantbomb will finish what plato and aristotle started

Edited by rachelepithet

Um, yes, there is no such thing as beauty or aesthetics, and anti-moral ideologies portrayed in art do reflect the deranged beliefs of the spoiled, sheltered, paranoid, retarded "upper class" pretentious douchebags that created and bought classical art.

I understand the hypocrisy of someone who condemns toys that promote abuse but not paintings or books, but not everyone condemning shitty games is that way. The sarcasm in the way you talk about "black trannies" reminds me of when a conservative mom says, "sure... whatever, let gays marry, then marry horses and marry babies, whatever sick thing you desire!" A sneaky way of showing the fear that two men kissing is in the same league as molestation. Your exaggeration makes it seem like there's a wicked lobby desperately trying to destroy ART by forcing every story ever written to star a one-legged-blind-Jew-black-she male.

If you truly view Africans and transsexuals as people, which you should, if you're objective and sane, you shouldn't view a situation like... passing the mashed potatoes to a dark skinned person at thanksgiving dinner as being Moral, Biased, N***** Loving!!! Yeah, morals are just an illusion of the mind, that's the big talking-point in conservative politics these days, I just don't think NOT having a black drinking fountain is a Moral Bias. Objectively, you only need one drinking fountain, and you'd have to be Howie Mandel level of crazy to think you'd inherit some kind of jungle cooties by drinking from it. Objectively it's a waste of tax dollars to have a negro drinking fountain

. In my opinion, my people, my way of thinking, is the one that's truly unbiased, and morally neutral. It's the ones who are obsessed with perfection, whiteness, rape, etc. that I can consider the moralists, albeit sort of anti-moralists.

In other words, in the case of Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism, atheism should be the anti-moral one, as in, neutral. It should be the one thats considred the polar opposite of Jesus, not Satanism. So my people, the ones that wish games starred less boring crew cut white boy bro-skies, who believe there is scientific proof of a correlation between people being raised in a world where they're exposed to nothing but anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-black media and real world consequences (kids believing black people's brains are Homer Simpson sized and medically incapable of becoming doctors just because 100% of movies portray them as servants),

I consider my people to be the atheists, the objectivists, the morally neutral. Where as the rapey, racist Artists of the world are the deranged, obsessive compulsive "satanists" desperately trying to make their subconscious, "conditioned", hateful beliefs Fact by bombarding society with their biased media.

-Andrew

Posted by TheHT

There is an argument to be made here; I just don't have the ability to do so. I will say that beauty is a cultural/moral value or whatever, based on how different cultures have different conceptions of beauty and hold it as some type of ideal. Or something. Again, don't have the skill to make the point that must be made.

Sure. Someone looking at the Venus de' Medici might, influenced by their particular morality, actually find it distasteful. Would they be wrong? Why?

Those are important questions OP needs to answer if he's going to make the argument that morality has no place in critiquing art. Can you seperate your aesthetic appreciation from your own morality? Why should you? If art is purely aesthetic then do works concerned with anything else including morality have no place? Can things not particularly pleasing to the eye never be beautiful?

Posted by Digiwth

team aristotle 4 lyfe

Edited by Video_Game_King

@theht said:

Can things not particularly pleasing to the eye never be beautiful?

An even more piercing question: can they hold value because they are not beautiful? Is not the artist's job to explore the widest range of thoughts and emotions possible (albeit limiting a work to one small set of emotions, lest you bite off more than you can chew)?

Edited by Darji

Mikami is a wise man. If you want change vote with your wallet. If you do not like such games do not buy them. Entertainment is there to serve a market nothing more. IT is not about morals, ideologies or role models. It is about a story the creator wants to tell. No matter in what world is it set in. No matter how racist, sexist or cruel the game is in your opinion.

You have the right to be offended but not to go against it you can share your opinion about such a thing but do not go on a Witchunt and demand that such a media should not exist anymore.

Posted by Demoskinos

Well first off I do enjoy the more thoughtful discourse going on in here so kudos for the OP and reponses so far. Secondly, I don't have a long paragraph to write up rather than just agreeing with the overall sentiment in the OP.

Also....this....

Posted by A_Dog

"Should the Iliad have points docked for being sexist? Would Dracula cease to be a masterpiece if the vampires and Renfield were black, while the rest of the cast remained white?"

You can read numerous criticism of both of these novels for a bunch of moral issues and yet they're still considered classics. A criticism isn't meant to totally devalue something, it can, but the main process of a criticism is just to make people aware of something that is seen as problematic. You can still enjoy something and think it has moral issues.

Dracula is a moral story, by the way. The vampires are a metaphor for Jews.

Posted by davidwitten22

By saying that morals have no place in critiquing art you are disallowing people to use their own thoughts, therefore censoring and limiting their beliefs and opinions. Seems pretty hypocritical of the point that I'm assuming you're trying to make.

Edited by MarkWahlberg

You seem to misunderstand where these objections are coming from. It's not really about a minority character being inherently more valuable than a non-minority, or anything like that. It's that seeing the same fucking story over and over again is INCREDIBLY FUCKING BORING. Why do video games get these complaints more than any other medium? BECAUSE THEY ARE INCREDIBLY FUCKING BORING. You want to make something cool? Do something new. Do anything new. Show me a character I haven't seen a million times already. Don't assume you know how to pander to my tastes and shove some absurd caricature in my face.

No one's docking points from the Iliad for sexism because it's the fucking Iliad. If you 200 other Iliads lying around, and they were all the fucking same and they kept releasing them year after year, then yeah, someone would eventually say 'hey, this is kind of fucking stupid.'

Posted by Video_Game_King

If you 200 other Iliads lying around, and they were all the fucking same and they kept releasing them year after year, then yeah, someone would eventually say 'hey, this is kind of fucking stupid.'

That's actually not the case. Turns out there were a billion versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey floating about in antiquity, along with a billion other versions of other stories we know about from that time. Given how long it continued, I doubt people were getting fed up with it at any point.

Edited by Darji

@a_dog: But this is not normal criticism what the industry right now does. It is a witchunt. And everoyne who does not agree with it is a womenhater, terrible person and immature. And this is when it goes wrong.

Posted by TheHumanDove

I just hate the racism against big boobs these days

Posted by joshwent

@video_game_king: I dig your Hellenistic History lessons, but I think you maaaaaay have missed the point. They're saying what if today, every holiday season, we got "Illiad: The Game". Every year. And it barely, baaarely changed. People might want some mew characters/perspectives. Not because Agamemnon sucks, or Homer was sexist... just because the same thing every year gets dull.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@joshwent said:

People might want some mew characters/perspectives.

I will admit that the Iliad would have been better if half of it was told by Mew.

More to the point, I've never been a fan of the "I don't like it because it's similar" argument.

Edited by Animasta

@boocreepyfootdoctor: i was going to write something but you said most of what I wanted to say anyway so I''ll just say x2 on your post (and you wrote it much better than me D: )

except OP if you are legitimately trying to say that the homeless black lady from DX:HR wasn't racist than I am pretty sure you have legitimately never met any black people

Posted by MarkWahlberg

@markwahlberg said:

If you 200 other Iliads lying around, and they were all the fucking same and they kept releasing them year after year, then yeah, someone would eventually say 'hey, this is kind of fucking stupid.'

That's actually not the case. Turns out there were a billion versions of the Iliad and the Odyssey floating about in antiquity, along with a billion other versions of other stories we know about from that time. Given how long it continued, I doubt people were getting fed up with it at any point.

There's a difference between having variations on a story people tell each other over the years, and 'thing we would like you to buy and spend a lot of time with pretty please'.

Posted by Snail

@theht said:

Can things not particularly pleasing to the eye never be beautiful?

An even more piercing question: can they hold value because they are not beautiful? Is not the artist's job to explore the widest range of thoughts and emotions possible (albeit limiting a work to one small set of emotions, lest you bite off more than you can chew)?

I'd just like to remind everyone here that we're still talking about a video-game.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@snail said:

I'd just like to remind everyone here that we're still talking about a video-game.

And....?

Edited by Elwoodan

@snail: Which, I would remind you, is just as valid a form of art as any other media, and deserving of the same respect and discussion.

Posted by Kjebka

If Homer came back to life, learned English and tried to sit me down so he could recite the Iliad I would tell him not to waste the time. Viewing classic works through the lens of today's standards has more to do with evaluating today's standards than it does with the value of the classic work, but to say that we shouldn't evaluate today's creative works by today's creative standards is just silly. There's nothing wrong with criticizing a game for not being a good example of the values our culture strives for, and games these days very badly need to strive for diversity and inclusion if we want to get anywhere.

Posted by joshwent

To put it in Giant Bomb terms, everyone's favorite Mario Kart is usually the one they grew up with. Jeff loves the SNES version. That's cool. I love the first Wii one, not that I'm much younger, but I didn't play the game until later in life.

Even though I see quality in the newer versions, I also accept Jeff's criticism when he says he's sick of the series because it's all just more of the same.

Not saying that those things shouldn't exist, just that other experiences could be great! And fuck, even not changing that much can still help avoid boring sameyness.

Posted by Darji

@kjebka said:

If Homer came back to life, learned English and tried to sit me down so he could recite the Iliad I would tell him not to waste the time. Viewing classic works through the lens of today's standards has more to do with evaluating today's standards than it does with the value of the classic work, but to say that we shouldn't evaluate today's creative works by today's creative standards is just silly. There's nothing wrong with criticizing a game for not being a good example of the values our culture strives for, and games these days very badly need to strive for diversity and inclusion if we want to get anywhere.

If this game or piece of entertainment wants to make such a claim and wants to tell a message sure but not with mindless fun pieces like a Dragons Crown, Transformers or Twillight.

Posted by Sin4profit

Art is selfish.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@joshwent:

I'm cool with people saying that they don't like a game if it's the same as another game (so long as they played the reference game; otherwise, seems like hating just to hate). I'm not cool with people going the next step and saying that the game is bad because of it. That's the part that annoys me.

Edited by McGhee

I agree with you, and that's all I have to say about that.

Edited by Turkalurch

Um, yes, there is no such thing as beauty or aesthetics, and anti-moral ideologies portrayed in art do reflect the deranged beliefs of the spoiled, sheltered, paranoid, retarded "upper class" pretentious douchebags that created and bought classical art.

I understand the hypocrisy of someone who condemns toys that promote abuse but not paintings or books, but not everyone condemning shitty games is that way. The sarcasm in the way you talk about "black trannies" reminds me of when a conservative mom says, "sure... whatever, let gays marry, then marry horses and marry babies, whatever sick thing you desire!" A sneaky way of showing the fear that two men kissing is in the same league as molestation. Your exaggeration makes it seem like there's a wicked lobby desperately trying to destroy ART by forcing every story ever written to star a one-legged-blind-Jew-black-she male.

If you truly view Africans and transsexuals as people, which you should, if you're objective and sane, you shouldn't view a situation like... passing the mashed potatoes to a dark skinned person at thanksgiving dinner as being Moral, Biased, N***** Loving!!! Yeah, morals are just an illusion of the mind, that's the big talking-point in conservative politics these days, I just don't think NOT having a black drinking fountain is a Moral Bias. Objectively, you only need one drinking fountain, and you'd have to be Howie Mandel level of crazy to think you'd inherit some kind of jungle cooties by drinking from it. Objectively it's a waste of tax dollars to have a negro drinking fountain

. In my opinion, my people, my way of thinking, is the one that's truly unbiased, and morally neutral. It's the ones who are obsessed with perfection, whiteness, rape, etc. that I can consider the moralists, albeit sort of anti-moralists.

In other words, in the case of Christianity, Satanism, and Atheism, atheism should be the anti-moral one, as in, neutral. It should be the one thats considred the polar opposite of Jesus, not Satanism. So my people, the ones that wish games starred less boring crew cut white boy bro-skies, who believe there is scientific proof of a correlation between people being raised in a world where they're exposed to nothing but anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-black media and real world consequences (kids believing black people's brains are Homer Simpson sized and medically incapable of becoming doctors just because 100% of movies portray them as servants),

I consider my people to be the atheists, the objectivists, the morally neutral. Where as the rapey, racist Artists of the world are the deranged, obsessive compulsive "satanists" desperately trying to make their subconscious, "conditioned", hateful beliefs Fact by bombarding society with their biased media.

-Andrew

Thank you for that and well said.

Posted by joshwent

@joshwent:

I'm not cool with people going the next step and saying that the game is bad because of it. That's the part that annoys me.

But it shouldn't. A game can (and usually will) be seen as bad by some and good by others. That's why I disagree with the OP, because it seems clear that one's experience of a game is really quite subjective.

Jeff doesn't like Mario Kart Wii because from his perspective it's a rehash of lots of similar games. So to him, even considering its relative quality, it's kind of bad. I like it because it was pretty new to me, so I'd say it's a great game. And we're both right!

Posted by Giantstalker

History, tradition, and precedent - what came before - all still play important roles in modern works. I'd argue that the "imperfection" (and I'd contest even the use of this term, but for brevity's sake I'll leave it in) of these values can be something that actually makes stories or settings more interesting than they would be otherwise. Modern notions of social justice and equality can even dull down and homogenize such experiences, especially if you judge everything you see by that standard (when it's out of context).

I really strongly agree with the OP, it's a well written post that describes the concept perfectly.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@joshwent said:

@video_game_king said:

@joshwent:

I'm not cool with people going the next step and saying that the game is bad because of it. That's the part that annoys me.

But it shouldn't. A game can (and usually will) be seen as bad by some and good by others.

That's not the part that I'm annoyed with. I'm more annoyed with somebody saying a game's bad because of reasons completely outside the game. That's fine in "like" territory, but not "good" territory.

Posted by Kjebka

@darji said:

@kjebka said:

If Homer came back to life, learned English and tried to sit me down so he could recite the Iliad I would tell him not to waste the time. Viewing classic works through the lens of today's standards has more to do with evaluating today's standards than it does with the value of the classic work, but to say that we shouldn't evaluate today's creative works by today's creative standards is just silly. There's nothing wrong with criticizing a game for not being a good example of the values our culture strives for, and games these days very badly need to strive for diversity and inclusion if we want to get anywhere.

If this game or piece of entertainment wants to make such a claim and wants to tell a message sure but not with mindless fun pieces like a Dragons Crown, Transformers or Twillight.

Mindless fun games have messages just as strong as serious, pointed ones. People have and will continue to look at Twilight, what it says, and what our culture's appetite for it says about us. Dragon's Crown's art sends a very strong message that a lot of people are uncomfortable with or opposed to, and to dismiss those people's arguments because they haven't typically been the loudest voice in the room is the kind of narrow-mindedness that leads to stagnation.

Posted by rachelepithet

Another topic is that pro-equality people saying a smut game has real world implications, yet a violent game doesn't cause people to go out and act on it. Great point, but-

The reason I'd defend games against censors in the case of violence is because scientifically speaking, there is no cause to believe someone immediatly, specifically will copycat the exact violence seen in the game, or that any famous murder case in history has ever truly been caused by exposure to the game (and not just desperate Lawyerin'), or even more so, that even if the game did cause the teen's murder spree, to imply that Game Developers are evil monsters out to intentionally brainwash kids to do their dirty work. That opinion is the fucked up view of career politicians trying to win over parents concerned only with the illusion that their child is an angel snowflake. So of course I'd take the anti-censorship view there.

However, while game dev intentions aren't ill, and direct consequences are made up, I still believe that games have no business being so revolved around violence. On one hand, long term exposure to violence may desensitize-- not to levels in which you become a murderer, but to levels where say, you wouldn't vote against politicians who use your tax $ to fund shady military coups that result in much innocent civilian collateral--

I think its the other way around, society is already obsessed with death, has no good ideas on how to make games fun, so faults back on just killing a bunch of stuff, and the emotion of feeling victorious or better than those bastards you laid waste to. Its immature, cheap, played out, and deserving of constructive criticism. Without criticism or morality, then no veteran poster on Giant Bomb could ever complain about the barrage of new users making threads like "Whats your favorite _____" "The lemmings have been Pwned!" a thousand times per day. To a 13 year old, he thinks the term PWN3D is so groundbreaking and clever and anti-hero and badass and so on. For everyone else, we feel obligated to criticize him, for both our benefit and his, to save us all the embarrassment.

LONG THREAD SHORT: Just because I think Family Guy sucks doesn't mean the reason is because I'm a PRUDE and just can't HANDLE the groundbreaking-take-no-prisoners in-your-face no-pulled-punches race and sex insult comedy! (I was being sarcastic there.) Family Guy isn't shocking, nor is Leisure Suit Larry. To me at least.

Posted by BIGJEFFREY

@thehumandove said:

I just hate the racism against big boobs these days

Online
Posted by Brodehouse

I just want to throw in my usual memento here and remind everyone that art imitates life, rather than life imitating art. We've grown attached to this idea that if someone ingest art that features X concept or X idea, that they then view reality through X lens. That's not how it works, we view art through our understanding of reality, not reality through our understanding of art.

When talking about Dragon's Crown, the usual hand-wringing moralization is "it will make people think of women as giant boobed sexpots". But that's simply not how we work. We will not look at Dragon's Crown and interpret reality through what we know from Dragon's Crown, we will look at reality and interpret Dragon's Crown through what we know from reality. We will look at the Sorceress and go "her boobs and ass are much larger than real life women!" rather than look at women and go "their boobs and asses are much smaller than the Sorceress!"

Edited by groverat

@icemael: "There is nothing wrong with “male gaze” – on the contrary, it is only through the perspective of a man (or a lesbian, I suppose) that female beauty can be fully appreciated and celebrated."

"Your beauty, little girl, is directly correlated with how much sexual desire you illicit in males."

Fucking terrifying.

Posted by Darji

@kjebka: really movies like dodge ball, Or other stupid movies have a message? Not everything like back then should be interpreted in any form. Over analyzing such things is just stupid. But maybe that is what our society does best. Over analyzing shit until they find something negative to cry about. Classic literature is classic because it had these philosophical messages. That is why it is a classic. A Porn movie also has no message or should be interpreted in any form.

Posted by joshwent

@darji: You're watching the wrooong porn, buddy.

Posted by Video_Game_King

@darji said:

@kjebka: really movies like dodge ball, Or other stupid movies have a message?

Yes. Maybe not an explicit message, but it still has messages nonetheless.

Edited by Animasta

@groverat said:

@icemael: "There is nothing wrong with “male gaze” – on the contrary, it is only through the perspective of a man (or a lesbian, I suppose) that female beauty can be fully appreciated and celebrated."

"Your beauty, little girl, is directly correlated with how much sexual desire you illicit in males."

Fucking terrifying.

oh my god I didn't even read that, that's so fucking terrible.

Posted by ervonymous

I want to rescue more fabulous dudes in distress but Spelunky HD is probably the only recent example. More crowds should be catered to, pandered to and represented but not at the expense of artistic vision, however controversial, juvenile, immature, harmful, unnecessary, sexist, misogynistic, unrealistic, disrespectful or post-queer-genderist-feminist it might be viewed as. This rarely applies to mainstream video games where male-centric publishers rule but it's still my sentiment, however naive it might be. The Dragon's Crowns and Analogue: A Hate Stories stand on the same pedestal.

So basically I'm offended by people being offended by something.

Posted by Darji

@joshwent: Yeah I am watching mostly Japanese porn and most of them have kind of a story but still what is the message there? That women likes to be raped on a bus? No it is just a fantasy scenario men and also women have. Even though these are more pornos for men^^

  • 177 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4