The Quiet Justification. SPOILERS

I dare say you've watched entirely too much pornography.

@jadegl: well said as usual.

It's always extremely annoying when this conversation jumps to "oh, you sexually repressed Americans are the worst", especially when it's about something as stupid as this. Not that there isn't problems with sexuality in American culture, like just about every other culture in the world. (If you want to talk about problems with female sexuality in Japanese society, there's A LOT we could talk about.)

I don't think a single person here has said that Quiet is ruining the game for them and I can speak for myself when I say I'm liking the game a lot. But it's fine to like a game and still call a dumb thing in the game dumb. You don't care? Fine, no one's making you care. But I can say that personally (and clearly for a lot of other people too), it takes me out of the character and makes it harder to take seriously. It's certainly not the first time I've felt like this about a MGS character so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised. And it probably would have bothered me less if Kojima had just been up front about it instead of getting this indignant "you don't know my true genius" attitude when he was initially called out.

It doesn't bug me but I get why someone would think this is all justification. Regardless, Quiet is pretty awesome in the game and I enjoy the character.

But I mean lets be real she is sunbathing and taking off her bra and showering in front of you in the base. It is what it is. I don't feel comfortable saying this was all design and written afterwards because I really don't know but I get the criticism. Like @willin mentions even the Boss had her boobs hanging out in this series.

In the end most games do stuff like this either way so I do like that at least there's some reasoning. I just like crazy characters in my Metal Gear games and she's pretty nuts. Vamp level crazy. Using her as a buddy is pretty crazy and drastically changes the game for me.

Just for the record, the "photosynthesis" isn't really what Kojima was talking about when he said you'd feel "ashamed". After saying that part, Kojima went on to explain that the story of MGSV "touches the misunderstanding, prejudice, hatred, conflict caused by the difference of language, race, custom, culture, and preference. The response of "Quiet" disclosure few days ago incited by the net is exactly what "MGSV" itself is."

That doesn't make the costume any less stupid, or the character any less sexualised (and it doesn't mean Kojima was necessarily successful with this idea). It's still a pretty interesting way to try and make people feel crappy for judging a book by its cover-- and maybe not targeted at the audience you'd expect a message like that to be targeted at.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, perhaps "criticism" isn't the right word. He might have just been trying to point out how individual ideals can completely change how a character is recieved, and on which levels the understandings differ. He also totally just wanted a pair of hot boobies in his game though, so I could be totally off base with all of this.

I went on my first mission with her and so far I think she's an interesting character, or at least has the potential to be. But I disagree that she's in line with the rest of Metal Gear mythos. Even Vamp was explained (or ret conned) to be immortal cuz nanomachines. Fortune is the closest that Metal Gear gets to magic, and even that was in service of a metaphor. Quiet, on the other hand, is a fucking alien. I enjoy the conversations you overhear on Mother Base because my dudes are just as befuddled as to what the hell she is.

I've only got the primer on her from Ocelot, so maybe it'll get more fleshed out, but as of this moment Metal Gear has become something else entirely.

PS The gratuitous boob shots and bikini tanning in a dark dungeon are a bit much. I do enjoy her humming though; reminiscent of Transistor.

That dismissive comment does little to push back against the statement I made. You basically called me crazy.

The description I just gave we see on commercials during the super bowl-we see it in our movies-we see it in other video games. I am trying to figure out the source of the selective outrage. Since it seems that the noise that is produced for this character and those like her has never been enough to make the changes necessary to eliminate stereotypes such as what we see here. If you think I watch too much porn then so have you, because I am seeing every day people dressed like Quiet.

I think it is tacky then as it is tacky now, but this fake indignation at another pale faced woman showing her breasts is played out. Act upset but continue to throw money at the problem.

okay.

Quiet is awesome. Most of her costumes are stupid but the explanation is fine. Its not the first stupid justification for something in a MGS game and its not even the only one in MGSV. People have been getting way to bent out of shape about this.

Sorry, what? There isn't a pale faced woman showing her breasts.

There's a model of a woman showing her breasts. There's animations for that model of the woman happily displaying her breasts. There's a story that explains why the model exists. There's lines of dialogue recorded in that story. There's a boob physics engine for the model's breasts. There's carefully choreographed scenes with the camera carefully focused on the model's breasts. There's animations that are only triggered if the player's camera is focused on the model's breast.

There is no woman here. There's a bunch of artists and programmers coming together to make the illusion of a woman showing her breasts. And the only reason is to reward players who want to see a woman in a too small bikini, a thong, and leggings shake her breasts at them. To turn the character into a peep show for the player.

This isn't Metal Gear weird story. It's just plain old objectification of a female character. Again. And it's stupid. And it's gross.

It takes away from the game for me every time the camera lingers on her butt or breasts. It takes me out of it. Because a game as amazing as this is pandering to 14 year old boys when it doesn't have to.

But anyway, it's not selective outrage. It's for the most part not even outrage. It's just disappointing. Games of this caliber shouldn't be doing this shit anymore. The industry needs to grow past using female characters as eye candy or motivation. It's lazy.

And, quite frankly in this particular instance it's even more disappointing because if it wasn't for the character design, the really fucking insulting "look at my ass and breasts" animations, and the camera deciding that Quiet's breasts are the most important thing in frame, Quiet would have been an awesome example of a strong woman in an action game. Instead all the really strong character work for her is undercut by her bending over and shoving her breasts in my face every time I'm taking to long organizing my platforms on the ACC or her upgrade icons being a close up of her breasts.

Do you think Quiet is a well-written character with a strong narrative presence and an active role in the game?

Do you think Quiet's design is oversexualized and pandering, and the way the camera focuses on her is creepy and demeaning?

These are two completely separate and unrelated questions. Don't reduce the subject-object dynamic to a single question and context.

Well then. How's that for some context.

Taking issue with the practicality of her outfit, I think, is pretty silly considering it's Metal Gear Solid. But that's still a valid criticism. Claiming it objectifies her while either acknowledging or dismissing the personality and arc of the character, however, is a mistake. I think that in particular is where an individual's views on sexuality may accidentally come into play.

A character being "sexy" is not automatic objectification. Speaking of a character, within the context of the work, objectification occurs in either their portrayal or their reception. If the character is presented as nothing more than an object of sexuality, for example, then the character is objectified by the work itself. If they aren't, but that's all an individual sees, then the objectifying comes from the individual.

There's nothing wrong with simply disliking her outfit though. I think it's fair for people to say they'd like the character better, as a whole, if she was dressed differently. Her aesthetic design is a part of the character. THE character, not HER character. I'm using "character" there to refer to someone in a story, rather than that someone's personality in the story, to be clear. Disliking her clothing says nothing about the less superficial aspects of her portrayal.

I think both. However I think the latter does hurt the former, from the stand point of "she's a strong and fairly well written character. Try to remember that when we objectify her every time the camera comes near her".

so you are aware that what she is as a subject, and how the players' viewpoint (camera, etc.) portrays her as an object, are separate ideas, from separate perspectives.

and in a game all about how the way we view, judge, and think about things is not representative of what they actually are, it seems disingenuous to conflate the two ideas.

getting pissed at the way the game portrays her is fine ( and I agree with you), and that might have even been Kojima's intention; to create a character that is portrayed in a way that people find problematic. but that has nothing to do with what the character actually is as a subject, or how you should view or judge them.

Movies have a thing called "the male gaze" you might have noticed the way women are "viewed" in a scene how the camera pans and where attention is brought to. So your first and second paragraph are not new. This has all been done before. I don't see the difference from when we see a live woman doing the same. What you call a peep show in this game has become western culture. How many games have half nude suggesting posturing or outright underwear shots just for peep show. I really fail to see what makes this so dramatic.

I was accused of being a porn fanatic but the point I was trying to make is that the dress of this character is nothing new, nothing more than what is on cable television, or outside apartment doors. You are off putt by the character-okay. Others are not. I look at it shrug my shoulders. I just saw that in Chinatown DC, a man was wearing that outfit. Big deal. Reality tv does everything you just described the problem people complain about is all around them-and yet it continues. It is selective outrage.

If one doesn't like it the most powerful way to voice decent is with dollars. I don't care for the appearance of her no-way but I do think it is hypocritical to pretend that this character was created in a vacum. She is a reflection of western culture. No more no less. She is just another white woman sex symbol who breasts are being used to sell something.

MGSV: a Critique of Western Culture.

hello, thesis.

also, "selective outrage" implies that the person isn't also criticizing the culture at large, and you don't know that.

@jadegl said:

So Quiet is basically a Rob Liefeld character? ...Yeah, that's not a bad analogy.

I judge the character by what the game designers has them do. Obviously people oogling her are bringing that to the game.

However I'm not able to escape the game encouraging oogling her. sit too long on the acc on the idroid and she starts posing for you, you don't have to do anything, to bring anything to it. It's just there. The objectification is just there whether you engage or not.

And what am I suppose to ascribe that to? The character, the designers, me?

@ddi_kazal_st_drebin: some things I want to bring up:

1) something being common in arts and entertainment does not make it immune to criticism. Many things worth criticising are things that has become common (a simpler example in games is bad microtransactions in free to play games. Who doesn't hate them?) And just because some things had been criticised for the same thing, doesn't mean we should stop.

2) most people who dress like this in real life aren't made by character designers to literally suffocate to death by clothing. They probably just wanted to. Real people have implied agency by nature, fictional characters do not.

3) as was once explained in a front page article on this very site, to your point of "act upset but continue to throw money at the problem," we can criticise things we like. I think most of us agree that she's not a bad character, just that this part of her is perplexing. So to answer the question on what makes her unique as far as our discussion goes, we like the game and the character so we want to talk about it. There's certainly outrage against it out there, but not really that much in this thread. Boycotting isn't the only way to express concerns over something.

4) she's not just a "pale faced anorexic woman with D sized breasts" or a "white woman sex symbol". Come on. She's a cool character.

revealing outfit,stupid poses, lingering camera shots, all from the perspective of the person looking at her

that person is not necessarily you (insert MGS2 here). which is why you can call it bullshit, and it's not the character. since they sacrifice no characterization or agency in being portrayed that way.

ascribe it to the designers, or Snake, if you're feeling postmodern, but it is the perspective itself that is problematic and should be criticized, not whose perspective it is.

This criticism would make more sense if this wasn't the same game where you could have a topless Big Boss slowly crawl across the ground and press his chest against the scorching hot sands of the Afghani deserts. You can criticize nearly any aspect of fictional stories if you pry and pick at them long enough. You're looking into dissecting the choices that Kojima made against how effective something would be in real life, when the real answer is that it was done because it looks cool. No one complained when we had a ridiculous over sexualized topless vampire in MGS2 and 4, or when Raiden ran around naked for a good chunk of the final chapters of MGS2. Place Quiet in those same situations and suddenly people lose their shit. There is a double standard that exists and there is in fact a weird sense of shame associated with depictions of sexy females especially in games.

Another issue is just aesthetics. I think the design is ugly looking.

Opinions. You can dismiss my comment if you so choose just because I'm a male, but I do like her design, and I'm not ashamed in revealing that. Yeah, it's sexy, but it's also really cool seeing a ghost lady sniper dashing around the desert looking the way she does. It's also the reason that she doesn't really NEED armor. Like I said prior, there are a number of design choices that Kojima could have made, and he wouldn't need to justify them at all beyond, "hey I think this looks cool" but the fact that he actually tried is a big plus in my books. Especially since it makes sense in universe lore.

Bringing up Until Dawn is interesting. Until Dawn, in my view, is aware of what it is. The tone in consistent. It is a schlocky, campy horror movie, and so far it has delivered on that in spades.

If you're going to argue with me that the tone of MGS is inconsistent then we have a huge difference of opinions here and it may be irreconcilable. Whatever you think of Kojima, he has a very consistent world and design language to his games. The craziness is all of the same mold. The comparison between Quiet and Until Dawn that I brought up was to highlight how sexuality is lambasted where as extreme violence in games isn't even looked at funny. Not because I think there is an issue with violence in games, but that in this specific example, the violence is a response teenagers showing an interest in sex. It's a big no no to see a badass character like Quiet dress the way she does, but fucking who cares if a band saw slices a teenager clean in half just because they were interested in exploring their sexuality.

And let's just forget in universe reasons, they're just silly and carry no weight with me.

Let's be honest here, to the people looking to bash Quiet's design right from the beginning, there is absolutely no answer that Kojima could have given that would have satisfied them.

@itsthat01guy said:

That's... probably a lot closer to the truth than I'm comfortable admitting. A lot of the late game stuff looks at the global impact of, well, I won't spoil it.

Actually they do sacrifice characterization and agency by doing so. Is Quiet portrayed as a character who would pose for BB in the back of a helicopter? As early as mission 15? No? Because she does. And that's part of her characterization now. But it conflicts with how she's portrayed elsewhere.

And the only real argument that it doesn't damage her characterization is that it's just an easter egg. Which... Well, would mean the character is doing out of character things to please the player, treating her like an object. The character lose their agency by making it not a choice of the character or a choice that character would make.

So it either hurts her characterization or her agency.

yes

and that's a part of her character.

because she does it.

then we can judge whether it makes the character worse.

@valjean9430: that's a really good point, even from the first MGS, even though it's always about America and Russia and nukes, there's always been some underlying Japanese culture subtext (it's like one of my Japanese animes...)

Thank you for making this comment so I wouldn't have to stumble through making it myself.

Quiet's awesome, she doesn't need to be justified. People are just looking for something to complain about.

It's a lazy justification but it is one. It just wasn't a 'metal gear' enough a justification for me.

It helps that she doesn't start like this by wearing appropriate combat gear in the prologue. I will be spending time fast tracking the unlockable costumes for her.

Shame about her design because the chemistry between V-Snake and her was something I liked. I become attached to her character over the course of the game. That rain scene should have been a sweet moment, but was ruined =/

@jadegl said:

100% with you on this. I would have a million times more respect for Kojima if he had just been honest about (what I perceive to be the real) reasons behind why Quiet is designed like she is. There are other games that have this level of leering or more - take Dead or Alive as a very obvious example. But when interviewed, people like Itagaki don't try to make some grand point about why the character is like that and how those people who criticise it are so wrong and they'll be ashamed. No, they say "I like tits, I wanted them in my game". I have much more time for that. There is a (fairly big) niche for that, and that's fine. I don't like it, so I'll avoid it where I can and get over it where I can't (example - I am loving MGS V right now; something can have bits that people don't like and still be a great overall package). That's it; I feel like most people who agree would do the same.

I'm think your assessment of Kojima is pretty spot-on as well. It feels like he is a person who doesn't know what editing is. He has an idea, he puts it in the games and it never goes away. And lots of them are really stupid (and I ain't talking about the stupid of "there's a character who has one trait; he shits himself all the time", I'm talking the stupid of "let me tell you about the Patriots for 15 minutes")

Here's the thing I don't get about these conversations though. There are people here and elsewhere who seem to take criticism of something as an attack on them or their favourite games. Maybe I'm pissing in the wind here, but do we have to take everything so personally? If you think the story of MGS is a masterpiece - I disagree but that's fine. If you think Quiet is an example of an amazing character with an amazing design - I disagree but that's fine. Why are we getting so "if you don't agree then I'm going to have to make some weird pseudo-assertion about you/your beliefs"? People have different tastes and beliefs, and that's fine. I think it's fine to be uncomfortable by the way Quiet looks, it's fine to love it, it's fine to think it's stupid, it's fine to say it's an example of the male gaze in design, it's fine to think it's empowering, it's fine to just simply not care for it.

I think this video will be able to resolve the question whether Quiet design was based on the "erotic" aspects or for the "story" reasons.

My guess; because it has become so culturally ingrained to constantly apologize because sure enough someone is going to feel offended. Some people only wake up in the mornings in their relentless pursuit to be offended by something.
I find Quiet as a character great but I'm not a fan of her attire, but never would I be offended or take offense on behalf of someone else (because that would, in my mind, be demeaning as well if I thought they couldn't speak up for themselves or simply a delusion of grandeur to assume that one is able to speak for others - this is different if they weren't allowed to or couldn't speak for themselves, obviously).

I agree that it is alright to criticize (constructively) something and that this criticism doesn't automatically mean that I'm asking for it to be changed. This is how the author created/imagined the character and that's it - I may disagree with many other designs of characters within the MGS universe or other games but that doesn't mean a thing.

People seem to forget that The End also lived via photosynthesis and yet didn't run around in his underwear

Not criticizing, but let's not fool ourselves, either. The designers made her the way she was because they want a sexy lady in their game first and after that gave it a narrative justification. Or why else wasn't Quite a man?

i haven't played the game, and while i'm certain there's depth to her character-

at surface level, she really does look like she was designed by a 12 year-old who's really into boobs, butts, and snipers. and you're kidding yourself if you're convinced the stretching stuff exists for any other reason but to titillate. there's nothing implicitly wrong with that- but how god damned pandering can you be?

Everything about Quiet is awesome. I won't judge, nor am I easily triggered. There's enough of that going around.

Even if Kojima just told everyone she's fanservice, he would still get all of this but like a boss he said fuck it.

And everyone played and praised his game and this subject was left to be forgotten and lost in the shuffle.

He'd still get some criticism if he said it was just fanservice, for sure - some of it hyperbolic, some of it well thought-out, most of it in-between. But he most certainly didn't say "fuck it", he said we'd be ashamed because the reason would be so compelling. It wasn't - at least not to me (and many others).

If you like Quiet 100% how she is, fine. Some of us don't, and there's nothing wrong with saying that.

It is good to criticize be critical, comment on, and debate and argue. These are all wonderful things. But to be critical and then have no action is like complaining about how hot it is outside but not going indoors. Complaints without action is nagging. Majority of entertainment has the same problem that has already been criticized here in this thread. And yet it continues. Why because money talks and critics walk. Before video games it was comic books, before them it was movies. Complaining about an issue while still supporting it in its various forms is wasteful. Speak on how disgusted you are with XYZ and then take a stand. Stop supporting activities-art-that offends you in such way. Game after game people complain about this or that and then go out and buy the next addition. How many big breasted white woman is it going to take before change actually happens and people don't just complain for self righteous posturing?

The point of acknowledging that real people dress similar to Quiet says that her dress is no more provocative than one will see anywhere else. It is the same exploitation that sells us cars, jewelry, clothes etc. Why do we act shocked to see it now? No doubt that character is a sex symbol and she looks and dresses just like all our other sex symbols. We gawk at this but see no problem with having under age girls in spandex shooting free t-shirts to drunk middle aged men. The issue is bigger than video games and art-to focus on this character and the next AAA game to have big white breasts is missing the point.

I think boycotting is the only effective way to express concern. "I do not like how you portray women in GTA, Rockstar but I really like your games. Here is $60, but you heard what I said about the women right?"

She is a white woman sex symbol. Are you offended that I made note of her race? Or that I called her what she is, a sex symbol. You have comic relief characters and then you have sex symbols. She is one, no more outrages than the next.

After learning more about MGS 5's themes and remembering that Kojima is FUCKING CRAZY, I actually do believe Kojima on this one. I really do think that he knows exactly what he was doing with Quiet and he knew exactly how people would react. Kojima has the habit of being strangely meta (for lack of a better, fancier word) with his storytelling. In many ways, he used the anticipation for MGS2 as a vehicle to tell a story where he wanted the player to experience unease not JUST because the game itself was going bonkers, but also at a very primal level because the player did not get to play as Snake.

I think he is trying something similar here, by knowing how many would react to Quiet, he is playing into some of the game's themes with how folks can react with prejudice to Quiet's design. Do I think this is a GOOD idea? Is it worth it when you consider it would alienate a lot of players and be kinda embarrassing for the medium? Am I "ashamed of my words and deeds"? Ehhhhh... probably not? But I really do think it is more... interesting... then many are giving it credit for and I think it gives further evidence that Kojima is some kind of mad genius.

@koolaid: It also gives further evidence that the guy hasn't had an editor for like 3 decades now.

@jadegl: I more or less agree with this, I think.

This reminds me of people who think a creator is a horrible person because the villain they designed is doing villainous things.

An inability or decision not to discriminate real-world context from in-work context. The nature of a fictional character does not dispell the implied attributes granted to them within the context of the story.

@theht: You should listen to the bombcast this week. Jeff makes some great points about the whole Quiet thing. I personnaly beat MGSV and I think Quiet is a great character. A great character constantly being undercut by obvious "fanservice".

I'm not talking about cloths here (even though their justification for that is paper thin). I'm talking about the constant nonsensical boob shots, dumb jiggle physics and ass shots. There is no justification for those aside from Kojima/the expected player base must really like T&A so let's show a bunch of that. It's not good story telling, it's just baseless objectification.

This is demonstrably not true. It's by discussing stuff like this that you change the minds of some people or put a spotlight on an issue you feel is important. That way the next time someone designs a character they'll have more perspective to make a more interesting decision. People at blizzard literally said the current tenure of discussion influenced them in the design of certain characters in their next shooter moba game:

@koolaid: I think you're right for the most part but at the end of the day, Kojima has Quiet sunbathing topless and in the helicopter straight up pushing her chest out in front of you and bending over and looking back at you. I think he did do something interesting but all the shallow sexualization is still there too. Yes some of it is justified but not those parts. Those are just there.

She ties into the story and is pretty interesting on her own but there's still pervy stuff common to the series going on with her no matter how you slice it.

@pyrodactyl: I hear you, but I stand by my belief that they only way to change things in this capitalistic society is through funds. It is criticism with the threat of action that is most effective.

One can complain about white privilege all day- show examples-huff and puff-but without action without doing what needs to be done. The audience will get defensive and brush you off and no change will occur. From one cop shooting to the next-complain and the forget-complain and then forget. Go from one AAA game to the next complain and then forget-complain and then forget.

As I write this the ad for street fighter 5 "roster adds rainbow mika" sits below. Yet another big breasted white woman. And the world turns. Nothing will happen until dollars replace words.

All the sexual shit aside, I think Quiet was a pretty cool and interesting character. Definitely one bad ass chick during her final mission.

@ddi_kazal_st_drebin: You can't see everything so black and white. Sure, exposed boobs in entertainment are not going anywhere. That's not a realistic or beneficial goal to have anyway. But I showed you how people, just by talking about "SJW" issues changed something in a major game coming from a big developer. You can encourage slow progressive change by just talking about that stuff.

I think of Kojima as a smart man, so what I was getting at is that I'm sure he knew, at the very least those helicopter animations, he was gonna get backlash because of Quiet. Yet he still put them in the game.

I like his made-up reasoning for Quiet's look (its as outlandish as the game is & I think it should be apparent he did his best to justify it story-wise. Not trying would be to just stick her in there with nothing), but I'm going to assume he knew that alone was not gonna cover his ass for some of the more sexualized things she does during the game. Tho, I'd argue those helicopter scenes were also meant to show Quiet gaining romantic interest in the boss. You can see someone from reality being in love/crushing trying to grab someones attention like that in a slightly intimate setting as that (I mean they're in a battlfield. Can't be picky where you do these things, suspension of disbelief, video games, blah blah blah.) Just looking from the outside in.

Regardless, Kojima in the end green-lit everything. Thus, "FUCK IT!"