Anyone feel weird about playing this game after the GOTY discussions?

@frostyryan: absolutely 100% agree. Not everything needs to "make sense" or have a reason behind it. Let sexy be sexy for fuck sake.

Seems more like an example of "PC run amok" again. Some people nowadays are too sensitive or pick the wrong fights. I haven't seen anything in Nier that was very inappropriate, especially considering it is a Japanese game and they have their own culture and different kinds of sexual situations. Abby, and even Vinny who I like a lot, are probably coming at it from their own perspective... a white American, which can be far more prudish than other places/demographics.

Honestly, I might be more inclined be on Abby's side here if she didn't insist that the game forced her to look up 2B's skirt in combat and in other parts of the game. I can get on the side of some well reasoned discussion about objectifying in games because its a thing, but her argument was almost entirely hyperbole. That's not a debate approach that I care to engage with seriously.

It would be hard not to notice even without the podcasts making a whole thing out of it. I suppose it's something one would have to at least acknowledge if you are in fact a human being, but these are characters in a video game, they just happen to be designed by an openly pervy artist from a very specific cultural upbringing. At that point it's up to you if you want to put his feet to the fire over such a mild piece of a much larger game narrative being told. It starts to dip into censorship territory, which will be based on your own sense of morality with regards to art assets in game development. With the rendering tech peaking in recent years we shouldn't be surprised that directors of all sorts would take full advantage of that.

I always took these characters as harbingers of death or grim reaper analogues in this world which is why I like the all black look. The weird part to me is making her underpants stark white and there's no good answer to that design choice other than the aforementioned artist's proclivities. Let's be honest though, if you want titillation in your action games then PC modders exist for that very purpose. As well toned as 2B's model looks she would need a bit more junk in the trunk if she's expected to titillate me. Ultimately it's just some crazy impractical anime-looking clothing, and not even close to the worst looking clothes within several decades of JRPGs. Heck look at just some of the outfits in the past 20 years of Final Fantasy games.

I don't want to call out anyone specifically, but this thread is really starting to baffle me. The idea that anyone would fall back on the 'its just a video game' or 'let entertainment be entertainment' or 'not everything has to engage with critical sociology' or 'lets not pick everything apart' type of arguments in this thread is genuinely absurd. Not because they're necessarily bad arguments in general, though I disagree with them most of the time, but rather because we're specifically talking about Nier: Automata.

Seriously, Nier...

• A game lauded for the ways it uses gameplay to convey ideas and experiences in a way no other medium could.
• A game that explores on a fundamental level not just what makes machines human, but what makes humans human.
• A game that is actually deeply critical of conventional thought on gender, sexuality, societal relations and social hierarchies.
• A game that demands to be picked apart and finished 26 times to even understand all of its layers, side stories and how they fit into the larger themes.

All of this is to say that the good doesn't wash out the bad nor does the bad wash out the good. Its ok to just talk about Nier. And its 100% valid to bounce of the bad parts of the game and say as much publicly. Being critical of something doesn't make you a puritan or sex-negative, just look at Waypoint, the horniest game site ever. Being critical just means you appreciate a work enough to engage with its ideas and examine them on a deeper level.

I'm not saying you can't be a true fan of Nier if you don't hate on this game at least a little. But if you think that there shouldn't be this kind discussion of the ways Nier is critical of society (and by extension the ways Nier is not critical) then you need to play it again because I'm not sure you actually understood it.

Unless you're just a Platinum action fan with zero interest in the story whatsoever, in which case fine.

100% this. The 2B outfit stuff came at the end of a discussion about why people bounced off the game - for her, a woman with particular tolerances for pervy shit in a 2017 game, this was (along with the gameplay and graphics) an additional turnoff for her. Which is fine! You don't have to agree (I certainly didn't about the Dragon's Crown stuff at the time that was all happening) and you're free to explain how you thought about it, but to say someone's experience was wrong or is "too PC" (ew) or they're prudish or sex-negative is really childish.

So far the only argument presented of it not being a sex-negative criticism is literally just to restate that it's not sex-negative. That's not particularly convincing, nor is resorting to reducing any examination of that criticism to an insult ("childish").

Please explain how being unconformable with a sexualized fictional depiction of a person isn't ultimately driven by being uncomfortable with the very notion that people experience basic physical lust and that sometimes that's all they are interested in - particularly in pure fantasy.

The reason for them being girls was, 'cause he likes them, what is weird about it? Not like they pose sexually or do anything sexually weird in any of the scenes as far as I can remember, the female androids that is. So I mean, would you rather he designed characters that he found repulsive, would that be less weird? I think your sensitivities are a bit off, just like how I think Abby's are, in oh so many ways but that's just me.

Fact of the matter is, something is sexual for someone, so it doesn't really matter how you design stuff. There is probably someone, somewhere, jerking off to pictures of Jabba De Hutt right now.

Right??

People talk about this game as if the game itself showcases 2B in pervy ways. It doesn't.

She is literally just wearing a skirt.

Ok. Because that's a really bad strawman? Like if you're in an all-or-nothing kind of mindset in this whereby everything is permitted because we're all sexual beings than I don't know what to tell you that'll make you happy.

Also! A little context is needed. The perv factor was brought up in context of the game sending mixed messages to Abby. She thought it didn't serve what type of game it was trying to be and so it distracted her. That doesn't mean she or anyone who agrees with her is sex negative - just means their threshold for this stuff in the media they consume is at a different level to you. That could be for any number of reasons but particularly for a woman I can at least attempt to empathise with why their threshold might be different to my own.

The end of Route A and B when she climbs on top of 9S to choke him out came across as sexually weird to me. She looked like she was getting on top of him to have sex. I can't think of many other times I've seen two people in that position who weren't either being romantic or sexual with each other. That's what I got out of it anyway. But it's about the only instance I can think of.

The spread eagle thing that happens if you fall from too high a height, which pushes her skirt right out of the way so you can see her ass is also dumb. After that happened the first time and I figured out I could use the Pod to float I always used the Pod.

As are the optional DLC costumes - but those are optional so I won't bother talking about them.

I'd like to add to this the following. The sex-positive movement was based on the idea that individuals sexual orientations can be a positive thing no matter what shape that orientation takes as long as its based in choice and consent. Its a response to past attitudes by a bad aspect of culture that rigidly tried to define when and how the sexual lifestyles of individuals can be acceptable. To reiterate the above, its not designed to silence dissenters from questioning anybody that tries to make as much mass-media art as infinitely pervy as they like. Yoko Taro can and should live whatever lifestyle suits him. As should anyone. Criticizing the use of the character 2B isn't spreading the message that being into butts is not ok.

Nobody is saying that its not ok.

What is problematic is that bad culture of the past that treated women as more like servants at the disposal of men than as people with a right to vote, or run for office, or make sexual choices or any number of things beyond their role in those rigidly defined sexual lifestyles. When you make a game starring a sexy maid, (maybe its not a maid by intention, but it still looks very much like one), and then include numerous game design choices based on enjoying the sexiness of that character without regard to the agency of that character, you're not smashing boundaries of repression. You're lazily leaning into a stereotype that reinforces the very notions sex-positivity is trying so hard to destroy.

Its especially lazy in a game that is not pure fantasy or porn or an art-piece in which Yoko Taro explores his sexuality but rather a very engaging story about the failures of the human race in their efforts to live together and have meaningful lives and how a future society of machines is grappling with these very-same past mistakes at creating culture.

Haven't listened to the GotY stuff yet, but picked up on what this thread might be about from some of the other GotY threads.

The answer's no. I never much cared for the character designs in the first place, but their curvy parts don't bother me on any personal or ideological level. I take it all as a silly stylish action game that's apparently got some neat sci-fi stuff in it (which I haven't gotten to yet).

I don't dehumanize sexualized/sexy characters (or people for that matter), so seeing hot guys/gals is a non-issue in that sense for me. It can be trite, but that's another issue. If you're prone to dehumanizing people, well, you should work on changing that. Like, immediately. Ain't Nier's problem though, and I'd be hard-pressed to find any sense in diagnosing it as a work of being guilty of such, but to be fair I haven't beaten the game yet (meaning beat it again and again, or however the big picture thing works out). I doubt it'd receive such emotional praise if it had embedded in its narrative any kind of promotion of the dehumanization of others, so if it's just dat ass (and such) that people are scrutinizing, then yeah, not guilty.

But if that stuff bothers you, don't play it--or play it and don't like that stuff. No shame in that. Doesn't necessarily make you a prune or anything. Like folks are keen to regurgitate: you can be critical of something while enjoying other aspects of it. You can even disagree with other people's criticisms, it's amazing.

And nobody talks about the 9S short shorts option... Mmmmmmm short shorts.

Seriously though 2B is supposed to look that way because of a deliberate 9S scene we get later, which was directed not only at 9S but the player him/herself (Though probably more orientated towards a male player). I won't spoil it here, but I definitely felt guilty after a certain dialogue.

There is a reason why characters like 9S and A2 who get a lot of screen time later don't invoke this discussion. It was a deliberate decision to make 2B look that way and the fact that we are having talks like this means it is working as intended.

Most players who didn't finish, or didn't finish all the endings will not know how much 9S perspective is at play in Nier Automata is all I can say without spoilers.

I just wanna point something out real quick.

2B kinda looks like a maid. 9S kinda looks like a butler. They're also blindfolded.

Their roles in the story are blind servants. Just saying.

A reminder that the Jackass sidequests makes it clear that YorHa androids are literally built to cause acts of violence to elicit a pleasurable response in their brain. The conflation of violence and romance, death and sex, is purposeful. The multiple interpretations of the visuals of that scene is no doubt as intentional as both the "You want to **** 2B, don't you?" line and the visuals of a later scene of 9S straddling a 2B clone, repeatedly stabbing her in the chest

Yoko Taro did the exact same thing in a scene in the original Nier where Kaine beats the shit out of Nier following Emil's death, and called it the most romantic moment in the game.

My last post put a thought in my head. I don't have access to my PS4, so I need others to answer it for me.

Is 2B's outfit the standard uniform for B-type and S-type YorHa androids on the surface? I know that Operators have their bodysuit-esque uniform, but none of the screenshots I'm finding of the game has any clear shots of other combat units.

As it is already clear that 2B is unique in her declaration of "emotions are forbidden" (No other members of YoRHa says it) and how her relationship with 9S directly causes her to feel the need to say the line, I wonder to what extent her attire is similarly unique to her and reflects her relationship with 9S.

I completely agree that the scene was intentionally done that way. I only bring it up as a point to people saying that she's never, ever put in any sort of scenario that could be seen as sexualized or perverted. Same for the spoiler text you have. Austin Walker's interpretation of what that could mean was very well thought out.

As so your other point. My understanding is that #S units are all male, while S# units are female. I don't remember seeing any female scanners in the game though I think one is mentioned.

As for the B units that you encounter, 64, 22 and 8 - they all have the more "storm trooper" combat outfit from Route C on as opposed to 2B's outfit for Route A and B.

I don't get the logic behind anyone who gets offended by sexual things (assuming violence or a lack of consent is not involved...just regular ol' sexualization). It's human nature and there are a million better things to denounce in this world.

It's a total non-issue for me; I'm not having a wank to 2B nor am I up in arms because she dared to expose an ankle. My gut reaction to anyone being uncomfortable about these things is that they aren't quite comfortable with their own sexuality and they are projecting that insecurity on to a harmless video game.

@jesus_phish: I think there is a difference between 2B being depicted in a sexual manner and her being depicted in a horny manner. I don't think anyone would dispute the former as it is part of the game's themes, but the latter is not going to draw consensus.

My feeling on 2B's outfit has always been that if Yoko Taro was actually wanting to design something to fulfill his horniness, Drakengard 3 has shown how little restraint he was going to place on himself. And given how detailed the characterization of the main cast of characters were in Automata, I find it far more believable that there is actual meaning behind her dress due to its uniqueness within YoRHa than just wank fantasy for the player. My personal feeling is basically she's dressing for 9S, another turn in their very twisted relationship.

Consent also comes into play when people invoke the lack of character agency in their, well, everything. So not in-world in-narrative consent of sexual acts, but rather the lack of consent in a character being... created (particularly when created in a fashion that an individual finds personally distasteful). These imagined character's don't control themselves (as if any ever can), therefore the creator is furthering oppressive power structures when they make them however they imagine them (which definitionally would be always).

In that sense the very concept of fiction itself is immoral through and through. How perfectly sensible.

@theht Who is even making that argument? I don't think I've seen it here so I feel like you're irritated by something you're inventing.

Yes, the conversation around fictional characters is complicated, because they are not people. But to pretend that if an artist designed to have a popular fictional character mutilated and brutally raped in a public forum that it wouldn't have any real impact on any of the people who witness that act is sort of silly, too. We are all affected by literature and media to varying degrees, hence the argument. You seem to not be affected by it and that's fine. Some people are.

Mind you, I say all of this as someone who isn't offended by Nier. I just don't think there's anything that harmful about sympathetically listening to people who were.

It's not a question of whether or not fiction can have an impact, nor am I advocating not listening with a sympathetic ear to people who found Nier: Automata offensive. None of that has anything to do with what I said.

On that point I'll at least say that sympathy doesn't help to rationalize a problematic philosophy, and in tandem with empathetic undertakings we're still capable of recognizing that problematicness and its overwhelming import.

I've seen the argument concerning agency touched upon here and also made more completely in other threads of similar ilk. You could've at least done a quick keyword search in this very thread before framing my irritation as the result of invention (is that a pun? I think that's a pun). The main comment thread I found is quoted below.

Following the argument's rationale leads to fiction itself becoming a horific construct of vulnerable entities perpetually and inescapably dominated by a (mayhap unintentionally) malicious creator (or multiple), who is presumed to be almost wholly separate from his/her creation. The only way I can see to avoid that consequence while maintaining the belief is to thoroughly undermine it, because you sure as shit couldn't argue that any fictional characters do ultimately have agency. To say only some creations are bad for a lack of agency, but these other creations that are also without agency are not. However, in doing so you'll have illustrated that agency is not a determining factor in a creation being good or bad.

Whether misguided or made in bad faith, it's a line of thinking that's problématique to its core.

Something occurred to me after seeing this thread after watching the SFV:AE QL (specifically after pausing and getting the image below) - why has this talking point become so attached to Nier? It's certainly a valid critique, but women being portrayed in non-practical and/or revealing combat attire is extremely common, yet seems to have become inextricably linked to discussion of Nier whilst not being raised or being shrugged off elsewhere.

@theht: That's not what people mean when they talk about the agency of fictional characters. You're speaking of it like the strong AI problem but this agency refers to the how the characters' fictional actions relate to the narrative around them. Do they make sense in context?

If they don't, it doesn't make a work bad automatically but for better or worse fiction brings a world view. The difference between your imagination and fiction is the choice to publish something to the world at large. You're putting out an untold number of internalised views back into the world where people in their formative years are going to read and be influenced by it. This is just part of the way society and culture propagates.

It's a subtle discussion that really doesn't warrant slippery slope arguments, or else you've just fired hundreds of thousands of academics (maybe they had it coming, I'm in science anyway).

Though it's 100% ok to defend Nier if you like it and it doesn't cross your personal line.

I was getting confused when people were saying you can see her underwear. It looks like she's wearing a leotard, I don't think it's her underwear. But there are weird things around the periphery where like if you "look under her skirt" she brushes the camera away. You sort of have to go out of your way to get it to do some of that stuff though it seemed to me. The only reason I even figured out the camera brushing thing was I put the controller down to look at my phone for a second and I guess the camera was too low and it triggered her animation. It took me a second to figure out wtf even happened.

EDIT: I saw someone bring up the 9S part about his subconscious talking about wanting to bang 2B which I'd forgotten about... that was pretty cringey. I mean, it was contextualized in a certain way but still...

@nietzschecookie: That's a different issue from agency. Quiet's whole photosynthesis shtick strikes me as silly, and that's a response to an in-narrative contextualization of her garb (or lack thereof).

If you just wanna talk context that's one thing, but granting for the moment that 2B's dress doesn't have any would seem to me to necessitate out-of-context considerations if we want to know the "why." That naturally brings up the relationship between the creator and the creation. Invoking the question of agency at this level and considering the (quite inescapable) imbalance of such between the two as bad is where things fall into the trap of unintentionally making all fiction immoral. It's not so much a slippery slope argument as it is taking an assessment and applying it in accordance to its own internal logic, if granted to be true.

Assuming the reason for 2B's look is that Yoko Taro just likes it doesn't make me like her getups any more than I do (and I don't really care for the character designs, although the operators look pretty cool), but this dynamic that exists when he as a creator arbitrarily decides what his creation wears (presumably in adherence to his imagination, if not taste) is not inherently bad by virtue of the creation not having a say. It can be bad because you just don't like the look, and that's one thing (one perfectly fine thing). And if you're just someone who really hates no context for things in fiction, that's also totally fine, I get that. It's not catastrophic to want some internal context for stuff. But utilizing agency in a circumstance like 2B not having the agency to choose her outfit--a circumstance where the creator/creation dynamic comes into focus--as a basis for condemnation, also serves as a basis for the condemnation of all fiction. Maybe that's an exaggeration. Maybe if you make a story about a rock drifting through space you'll be good.

Two distinct outlooks (though an individual could certainly hold both simultaneously). One where the perceived problem is a lack of context, and the other where the perceived problem is a power dynamic. If you're of the former, then I'm sorry for bringing you into this.

But challenging the rational consistency of a criticism of that dynamic isn't a commentary on the consumption and influence of fiction. I'm not questioning its impact, if anything that's why I'm so spirited in advocating for it. In any case, I'm sure those academics'll be just fine.

@theht: I really appreciate the well detailed response. And I agree on a number of key points. One that invoking an agency argument can be very difficult with regard to author intention and the other that 2B's outfit alone is not worthy of condemnation. (Though I would also add that I'm not condemning or calling anything immoral, I actually love Nier).

But I don't think it's fair to say that this concept of agency (which is wrapped up in associated context) can never be relevant to the discussion of whether a work of fiction is problematic. In the case of Nier it's the combination of 2B's outfit with the upskirts, clothing self destructs and combat poses that paints a picture the outfit alone (or character designs alone in general) fails to do.

This also becomes more complicated in a game versus other media where the player is encouraged to take ownership over the player avatar rather than that character being the sole plaything of the author. There's a baton pass there that's in the game design doc. With this work in particular we are encouraged to do things to 2B's body that serve no purpose for the story or even the gameplay and that really break the 4th wall in a few ways. It's impossible for me to ignore the underlying implications for this.

@nietzschecookie: And I appreciate your patience! I know I can be a bit awkward with my words ⁽ᵃᶰᵈ ᵐᶦᶫᵈᶫʸ ˢᵃˢˢʸ⁾.

It's more author control than intent. Not to imply that you and anyone here is explicitly arguing against artistic freedom, but there is a moral imperative that's intrinsic to a discussion about the potential propagation of sexism and dehumanization. But then identifying whether propagation is the case and determining what should be done about it is the domain of this very topic of conversation, so, you know, as we were I suppose.

I think it's certainly a fair criticism that there are pervy elements to Nier, and whether that's something an individual can overlook or feels differently about is all fine. I think agency as it pertains to the creator is a fairly locked down relationship--and again, it's okay to criticise an author's decisions--but you're right, when it comes to players it's a bit murkier a relationship, and within the context of story the agency of characters can of course come into question as a narrative conceit.

I disagree with the characterization of taking ownership of a main character though. We inhabit characters, and in cases where there are choices (both physically or narratively) I think ownership of parts or of the whole of an avatar is fair to claim, as there are aspects of their identity that we have directly contributed to (ex. MMO characters, the way people say "my Shepard,"). The extent of this varies from game to game of course. But as such I don't think story-driven games with pre-defined characters ever quite undergo that baton pass, and I don't think controlling a pre-defined character through gameplay alone is sufficient to say it has. Perhaps "inhabiting" and "owning" at this level of discussion is a difference without a distinction, but it may matter down the line, I don't know.

As far as players in control of 2B doing things to her clothing or engaging in saucy camera behaviour, I don't see what's actually problematic about it. I can look at that kinda behaviour and roll my eyes and think "damn, son," but I couldn't if pressed articulate any actual problem I'd have with it other than it maybe being 2lewd4me. Questions of dehumanization stand apart from that sort of ogling of digital characters, much like hypersexualization of comic book characters or objectification in pornography, whereby enjoying one does not necessitate the other (the other being dehumanization).

When you try to bring agency into the picture when considering costumes and creative camerawork, I don't understand how that works, as in I fail to see what actual transgression has taken place, and how it would be any different from an individual controlling their eyesight rather than an in-game camera to glimpse a character's bulge or cleavage in a comic for instance. Player encouragement is one thing, and as I understand it there's a trophy in this game for looking up someone's skirt, or shorts? Although that's easily the sort of thing that could be seen as encouragement to someone looking at a list of trophies and conversely an embarrassing and cheeky "gotcha" moment for someone who's playing the game and getting curious with the camera angles--in which case the trophy is hardly encouragement--when a game does dabble explicitly in sexual or pervy business, it's just that: pervy, sexual.

Where and how it could become more than that and extend beyond my own tastes and limits I can imagine, but I don't see that being the case here. If it does and it rubs me the wrong way I'll certainly come back and lay into it, but with what I've played so far and heard from others (and some of the stuff I've seen discussed here), I'm skeptical I'll find anything of the sort.

@theht:

I appreciate the thoughts, and I think they're well written! I very much agree that its a murky relationship in how the player relates to fictional characters. And I am by no means an expert on analyzing this area of video games. To me the agency question comes back around to the way a film critic would use the word, as you say in relation to narrative conceits and the role characters have in the story. Except that with games we have to re-establish why film critics would think to use this critique in stories and examine whether these reasons for critiquing story character agency imply similar arguments ought to extend beyond the simplest definition of what constitutes the narrative of a game.

You're right that ownership over characters probably isn't the right word. Inhabit is a good word in relation to something like The Last of Us, where empathizing with the character we control and their viewpoint is part of the narrative focus. But inhabit doesn't at all capture why someone would want to blow up 2B's skirt. In that regard, objectification and dehumanization might be concepts that can be separated in theory and in other works but in the moment, when we're supposed to care about these characters and their views, one aspect of design encourages a third person relationship of objectification, and the other a first person 'inhabiting'. Dehumanization may be too strong a word to use, rather, in this sense, its more that it undercuts the attempts at humanization.

It also calls into question what the purpose of this avatar in this world is, much like the agency of characters in a film. Its important to remember that almost nothing happens in a game without designers working hard to make it possible. If a game designer works at modelling something or allowing pervy 'victories' over the character, its not equivalent to leaving the moral imperative up to the player. In some sense, the player and the author share a level of control over the avatar during play in which the author says 'look at all these things you can do to these female characters'. The issue with agency isn't a literal one about 2B and her plight as a fictional character but rather a question about representation.

When we make media that places the focus of enjoying the sexuality of women on the ways in which that sexual enjoyment can be obtained through means that sidestep entirely what said women want sexually, or sidestep the context of that character's situation or awareness, it is problematic, not in the sense that it shouldn't ever be done or transgresses some boundary, but in the sense that the designer might not have thought about these issues and critics are bringing it to their attention. Basically by making otherwise serious fiction that disconnects entirely the sexual enjoyment of a character's design from the context of what that character is doing or stands for, we contribute to a society that normalizes the idea that its ok minimize the role of the objectified in how you derive pleasure from them. Some people won't see it that way because its just fiction, but this kind of representation does matter.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to Hollywood and the entire world lately, but these systemic issues run real deep. Which is part of why I'm spirited about the influence of fiction, and also the way we talk about the analysis of fiction.

As a tangential note, Yoko Taro has expressed his desire to make porn, and I would strongly encourage him to do that. But I do think he could learn from these concerns over Nier: Automata to make better porn. For a better tomorrow.

I'll just weigh in that, regardless of the justifications you can make for the look of the B-Units/2B in particular, her weird out-of-place skimpy outfit is a complete and utter roadblock to me getting anyone who isn't super into anime and/or video-games to give that story the time of day. It's just kind of embarrassing, especially when the game's narrative itself is very mature and even-handed.

The entire point of that line is that it is not actually "You're thinking of how much you want to fuck 2B." Due to everything we find out about the characters and their relationships, we realize their relationship is one far more twisted than simple attraction to each other.

As I have said above, the conflation of pleasure and violence is both something specifically stated about the nature of YoRHa androids, and is a theme Yoko Taro has brought up in other games.

Hm, that's tricky, though thought provoking.

An analysis of agency within a narrative as I understand it comes down to determining the type and/or quality of characterization, or whether there's a thematic reason for a lack of it (if anything at all), stuff like that. Metrics firmly within the context of the narrative. When you try to bring that notion of agency outside of the narrative you separate it from its only actual source of having meaning. I cannot discern how the question of how changing 2B's gear might reflect back on her agency has any actual substance behind it, when the question is cut off from the very thing that sustains it.

Obviously that isn't to say that stuff can't be criticized. An analysis of a character's in-narrative lack of agency as reflective of a broader context of people in similar circumstances or what-have-you is completely fair, as is a criticism that the lack of agency in-and-of-itself results in poor storytelling. But the how in this case--stretching the concept of agency beyond the domain of its meaningfulness--is incoherent.

I can appreciate that dehumanization may perhaps sound a tad too severe, but saying that some of the gameplay elements undercut humanization doesn't quite get far enough away from that I think, nor encapsulate the nature of the discord there (between the gameplay element and the feeling of something being off). Or, at the very least it doesn't sufficiently move beyond a discussion of the narrative to justify those gameplay elements being bad because of ideologically-derived agency concerns. Also, you might say that the problematic feature is a dehumanizing element, even if it isn't completely successful in dehumanization.

I totally understand how someone could think that the gameplay conceit of changing her costume (specifically blowing off her skirt; technically more within the space of the toy-like aspects of games insofar as costumes and equipment seldom interact with the narrative) undercuts the dignity of the character as contextualized by a narrative (or grates against tone, or simply what was envisioned aesthetically, and so on). "Ludonarrative dissonance" is most definitely a thing. This is where I believe an interpretation that blowing off 2B's skirt is in contention with her agency within the narrative experience fits, but I understand that through that the concept of a gameplay/narrative disconnect, not through a conceptualization of her imagined agency extended across and subsequently affronted by the gameplay. That's well within the scope of an individual's interpretive wheelhouse, just as the same is true for someone who doesn't have any issue with those gameplay conceits and their intersection with the story.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm merely regurgitating disclaimers on subjectivity here. I suspect there are two conversations at play to this: one concerning subjectivity and tolerance of differing interpretations, and the other concerning the potential for social harm. It's well and good for a spirited dialogue to transpire over the game's features and their relationship to the narrative (or any similar discussion regarding the work), and that ultimately never tries to leave the realm of tastes and sensibility, though it may of course still approach consensus. Whether costumes for instance enhance, interrupt, or remain irrelevant to the narrative experience is still a question of personal standards, and obviously a case-by-case thing. When the discussion shifts to whether it's actually negatively affective to humanity in some sense, I think we've entered a place where there can (or ought to) be a more clear cut answer. When one personal experience suggests that the game has conditions that engender negative qualities in a person or society, there's obviously some problem there that should be addressed. Not necessarily a problem with the person who feels that way, but that there's a larger question that's been posed and is of such significance that demands a conclusive answer, and that is of sufficient import to have an intrinsic moral imperative for the potential for action.

Maybe that answer isn't exactly clear cut, and maybe what action the position might imply be taken isn't exactly good for a litany of other reasons, but certainly one position would be better than the other. Not quite objectively objectively (as in conclusively and literally universal), but as I'm not prone to an absolutely relativistic approach to morality, I'd say to some degree it's not entirely subjective either. I don't want to infer that you personally think this stuff is all bad though. Calling something problematic doesn't have to mean you think something's bad, just that something seems off in a way that warrants attention/analysis in the form of The Conversation™, I get that. Maybe the end result of that analysis is that the thing in question is bad, or that the impression that spurred it is a mistake, but morality does come into play when we ask the question of whether a game is objectively causing social harm (i.e. when inhumane behaviour is being normalized regardless of an individual's personal interpretation).

And the presented analysis to that question I think is a bit incomplete.

Suppose someone is fawning over a pin-up of Solid Snake. What further role should Solid Snake have in that experience? If that fawning and that pin-up isn't something that shouldn't not ever be done, and isn't transgressive in any way, how do you reconcile that disclaimer with the assertion that we're in essence normalizing objectification through the continued engagement of such relationships (bizarre as it may be to consider a person and a pin-up to be in a relationship)? And not "objectify" in a kind of distinct grammatical sense, but in an all-consuming dehumanizing sense. Unless you maintain (as I do) that dehumanization is a separate procedure (or a lack of one) that exists in parallel to a sense of objectification that's less reflective of your actual regard for another person's personhood (real or imagined), but I won't assume that's the case. And I say real or imagined because we've now apparently broadened out to questioning whether how we regard fictional characters is in this case undistinguished from our treatment of real people, if not outright presuming that they're not.

Obviously I think fiction can influence an individual. It can introduce you to new concepts, simulate experiences beyond your own, provide an avenue for escape from reality, or validation of it. The benefits are monumental and the danger miniscule. I think the majority of individuals can exercise user discretion and discern the difference between taking a moment out of punching robots to death/destruction--because you've decided that you're not gonna equip 2B with any weapons because you think punching robots is fucking rad, whether she does or not--in order to have a glimpse at 2B's butt, and looking at a real person and thinking they're nothing.

And I think it's a safe assumption (all things considered) that someone who does look at someone else and think they're nothing, isn't that way because of a video game experience like that. It's far more complicated, and the concern (couched within the problematicness of the potential normalization of what's essentially objectification) that we might get to that point via enjoying things like 2B's costumes and having free control of the game camera despite the lewd opportunities it allows for (or even merely accepting others' enjoyment and the existence of said opportunities), I think might technically be a "slippery slope."

I think my initial reaction was that the japanese have different cultural standards when it comes to sex. There is nothing wrong with appreciating it in that context and it is very imperical to put our cultures hang ups and standards on another. That being said the people who are defensive about taking their sexy fames away are usually not sex positive and open minded.

After GOTY i wondered if the character design was a way to on board the type of people that could use more exposure to philosophy and the deeper ideology hidden in the game. Maybe, maybe not.

I will say that brad misquoted yoko taro about the female character design. When i looked it up, it was more innocent and less pervy than brad made it sound

The super bunnyhop goty video had some great points why it was hus game of 2017. The bigger problem is not the medium or the expression of it, it is the audience. One of the reasons it is so well regarded is the way it trojan horses deeper thinking on the back of a game that seemed like it was designed as fan service

@theht:

Insightful as always!

I think we're just applying different meanings to the word agency here. Part of games being a new media is there being a severely limited vocabulary for how we talk about these issues. And clearly we agree that there's a whole host of things that can be critiqued beyond a lack of story context. If you prefer to call it a 'dehumanizing element' or a 'gameplay/narrative disconnect over character use', that's fine with me.

The idea of trusting user experience of media and requiring a litmus test for engaging with a work sort of misses the purpose of art. The thing is, problematic or not problematic isn't actually a binary issue. All work is problematic by degrees, existing on spectrum because the truth is, Society is problematic. Its a chaotically constructed mess of norms, beliefs and customs. Art can't transcend that, it can only try. The thing that makes Nier:Automata great is that it fundamentally understands this about social construction and engages with it. Its a rare thing, and its done really well for the most part. Which is why its also a work that invites 'The Conversation'.

Part of the point of art as a human endeavour is to explore the human experience and hold a mirror up to the world. In this sense art can never go too far in how problematic it is, because its just the Artist's vision, but at the same time its up to all of us to engage with all art and fulfil that art's destiny in saying something by responding to what is says, and indeed the ways it displays our society in a new light and shapes future ones. Art in a vacuum is worthless.

Discussions of censorship and whether a specific work objectively crosses a line into causing societal harm is a completely false narrative.

All works are on the spectrum and some create more discussion. If we don't engage with fiction, then its just raw entertainment and we may as well watch the Mark Wahlberg Transformers films forever.

To act as such a critic is never a slippery slope because there's just no reason to ever run to the extremes of classifying things. Its also vital in that our discussion of art is itself a discussion of society. The relevance to real people doesn't just come from limiting disbelief and substituting real people with fictional ones, it comes from the ways our idea of what a person is, as imaginative creators, originates in our experiences with real people. The Conversation is always larger than just this one work, the work is just the centre piece to talk about ourselves and our civilization.

Again, its not objectifying that's the issue, its the idea that objectification can always be compatible with all scenarios, situations and contexts. The poster example falls onto that spectrum somewhere. There is no test and we don't need to run to extremes to save objectification from being synonymous with dehumanization. We can rather rely on the subjective experiences of people to discuss an art work in its context and how it uses objectification. We can also rely on people to subjectively not be concerned or inspired by anything they experience and not show up to the discussion. To put it another way, displaying an otherwise ordinary sexy pin-up poster of snake that, does nothing else but titillate, at an art gallery would of course encourage criticism.

I just don't understand how we have gotten to this place where sexuality is somehow oppressive and unethical. We have celebrated the human form in art since art has existed, is the David pervy?

If some people want to project their insecurities on to video game characters they are welcome to, but claiming that it is some ethical high ground that drives their distaste is silly.

Despite reading the paragraphs surrounding this sentence, I'm still not sure of your intent. Did you mean there is a false narrative when people discuss media as something creating a societal harm, and therefore it should be censored? Or did you mean that it's disingenuous to suggest that those claiming certain media is causing societal harm are actually advocating for censorship?

Are you saying that critics are not advocating for censorship, and to suggest otherwise is pushing a false narrative? Or are you saying that when critics do advocate for censorship, those people are pushing a false narrative?

Example A: If I were to challenge the latter view using Abby as an example, I would suggest that just because she was offended by the content of an artistic work doesn't mean that she's suggesting it shouldn't exist. Whether a game offends her opinion of good gameplay control or it offends her specific moral standards, she has the right to be offended and speak her mind.

Example B: If I were to challenge the former view using Abby as an example, I would argue that there is a difference between criticizing gameplay and criticizing art based on moral standards. And when you seek to punish a game for not properly adhering to your ideological beliefs--in this case advocating for a lower place in a top ten list--you're ultimately viewing your moral standards as superior, rather than a difference of opinion that should be acknowledged and noted by the developer as a particular demographic that they should avoid offending.

Personally, I think both examples can be true, which just adds to the subjectivity surrounding the issue. It's ridiculous to suggest that someone can even set aside their personal moral objections and somehow give an "unbiased" review of art. At the same time, if art offending moral sensibilities or ideology causes a reviewer to publicly chastise a developer, and imply or directly state that their art is harmful to society, there's a considerable difference between doing that and criticizing a game for not being very fun.

The other thing is that I'm old enough to remember the attacks on "inappropriate" and "harmful" video game content surrounding Moral Kombat, Night Trap, Doom, etc. Perhaps because of this, despite whatever good intentions they may have, I often have flashbacks to these times whenever a reviewer or critic decides to frame their personal taste as an issue of right and wrong. After decades of game journalists pretty much universally denouncing attacks like this, there's a real "The phone calls are coming from inside the house! Get out of the house!" type of feeling when I hear similar criticism coming FROM game journalists these days.

So while some critics are made to feel uncomfortable while playing a game that contains a short skirt and highly noticeable underwear, I'm made to feel uncomfortable by the suggestion that the developers were "wrong" for including such content. It's a zero sum game, I'm afraid.

I suppose the good news for people on the "leave creators alone" side of the argument is that in most circumstances, "any publicity is good publicity" is very much a true statement. Loads of people now know about Neir thanks to everyone from respectful critics responsibly voicing their concerns, to sanctimonious assholes on twitter making sweeping generalizations about anyone who could possibly enjoy such a pervy game. It's all free promotion for Neir, like it or not. The same goes for the idiots review-bombing Dream Daddy on Steam. Guess what? You anti-"pushing the gay agenda" people just gave game journalists a reason to write another article about Dream Daddy.

Factor in those game journalists, where politely worded criticism that respectfully views opposing thought isn't going to get the clicks that "us vs them" attacks will, and creators will happily continue to court controversy. While doing so might cost them a few points on their metacritic score, there's definitely an advantage to journalists, bloggers, and twitter discussing how "wrong" your game is. Maybe more game fans should realize this and just let the angry "SJWs" do their thing. Everyone is benefited by the actions of everyone else. In some ways, it's a perfect system.

A difference in meanings might be the case. I define agency as the quality of being able to enact self-control and self-determination. In a video game this is squarely within the purview of the narrative when it comes to pre-defined characters, as any time the player is with agency, the character is not, though the player can certainly role-play (whether deliberately or because the game has lulled them in, emotionally). In these sorts of video games the player is an invisible ghost that inhabits a character during gameplay--technically apart from the narrative, wherein a character's agency in granted to exist. Things like Max Payne might blur that barrier on occasion, or something like BioShock might play with that relationship, but despite these explorations, gameplay in these kinds of games is still separate from the narrative, with agency of the player relevant to the former, and agency of the character relevant to the latter.

So when the two spheres clash rather than align or play off of each other, the experience can feel disrupted. But I source that disruption with the clashing of the spheres, rather than what I view as an illogical exaggeration and overemphasis of a pre-defined character's agency's role in a video game. If I went in for the latter I'd have fundamental issues with the medium itself, as all elements of gameplay (saucy costumes or otherwise) would be an indignity with respect to that character's agency, as opposed to more passive media like books and film (unless I then went on to apply that logic to creators as well, instead of just users, in which case I'd find books and film problematic in that very same sense). If it's the very act of clashing between the gameplay and narrative that you're referring to, rather than an idea that concerns over the character's agency should extend to and supercede arbitrarily isolated gameplay elements (in this case referring to costumes and camera control), then I think we're on the same page there.

I definitely don't want any kind of litmus test required for engaging with any of these mediums, and I hope I didn't somehow give off the impression that I did. Art is for everyone, though the desires and tastes of everyone may not be instantiated in every individual work. Whether someone wants to engage with a work on a deeper analytical level is up to them, and you certainly cannot force an unwilling participant to engage in or with analysis (let alone the game itself), nor should we explicitly or passively implore their abstention in conversations around art. Art shouldn't have gatekeepers, and neither should The Conversation™ around it.

And it's not that every work in-and-of-itself is either problematic or not, as a whole. Works are complicated as fuck, quite like you describe, given that they're testaments to worlds unto themselves. Not just fictionally, but in the sense that they're reflections of reality as filtered through an individual's (or team of individuals') existence. However, relative between people can an aspect of a work be problematic ornot. Person R might think 2B's booty is problematic, and Person S might think it's perfectly fine (and also not problematic; sorry, I really like puns). Both are valid. But every opinion is "valid," and every work is filtered through the world of the individual who's using it. An interpretation of art in a vacuum literally cannot exist, or at least I cannot imagine how it would. And yet, the scope of which an individual understands and chooses to interpret a work may differ from others, and that's for them to decide. Discussion is how we weed out which opinions and which interpretive ranges are better, if there's even a qualitative disparity to be observed at all. That's case-by-case of course.

To that end, the question of a social regression is, to my eye, vitally important. If we're to eventually fall into misogyny, misandry, or a kind of interpersonal nihilism (and not the wispy cutesy kind of nihilism) via the enjoyment of a fictional character's physicality, we should investigate the veracity of the insinuation.

As I've laid out, I'm not an absolute moral relativist. I do adhere to there being a right and a wrong (to be consistently further sussed out by thoughtful life), including when it comes to determining what's best for society and for individuals. If someone is concerned about normalizing the minimization of a fictional person's role in their objectification (which either is or isn't a dehumanizing process), I think it's fair to assume (unless otherwise informed) that they think such a thing could be bad. The "why" and the "how" and the "what if" are the next steps in determining whether that concern is justified or much ado, and what measures, if any, ought be taken either way.

I think we're in broad agreement here then.

I'm using agency to refer to a vastly complicated array of artistic techniques that can contribute towards the subjective ideation of what we would typically think of as a person, ranging from the ideation of the most slightly anthropomorphic chair to the most believable of characters. It's a usage that's long been applied to narratives as well as games as simple as Asteroids, sculptures, biographies, surrealist art, chairs themselves or just about anything. It has a passing resemblance to the literal definition you use and a similar origin, but otherwise not exactly one-to-one.

I would add that the difference in opinions, for me, comes down to what I mentioned before about being concerned or inspired.

If what inspires you concerns me, or vice versa, that's a spark for the best of conversations about where we're heading as a society and where we should be heading. But when one side is concerned by something, and the other side is merely not, or is just less concerned, it makes for conversations that seem far less vital to me than they will to you and others.

I suspect that merely originates from a different view on just how problematic the society we live in today already is. We may not agree on that front but I'd like to thank you for the respectful exchanges.

@spaceinsomniac: All it means is that narratives that suggest that modern game criticism must be a stealth continuation of night trap panic are false. Whatever your opinion of most game journalists, there can exist good commentators.

Here's how I'd best explain it: this game really just offers the opportunity for perversion rather than shoving it in your face, like quite a few games do in terms of camera controls. Never are you forced to look up 2B's skirt to complete the core game. I guess achievement/trophy hunters will, but that also weighs to how much you value fake game nods (I love them).

My best example that I could think up was comparing this to say... the Senran Kagura titles. Those games SHOVE perversion in your face, often stopping gameplay entirely to show women spinning around with clothing being ripped off or, at times, slow panning to their teary-eyed face as they realize they are completely naked. In these titles the perversion isn't really an option: it's mandatory. Their argument would have weight against these titles, but I'd say not against NieR: Automata.

The final best takeaway I can give you is this: if you're uncomfortable playing the game due to 2B's outfit, please don't force yourself. I may not see the harm, whereas I love the default outfit like some have mentioned for the Harajuku-esque fashion, but my roadmap to enjoy a game should not always be yours. You also may have options on PC to mod her outfit, which I'd look into. Otherwise please enjoy what I hope to be some healthy, thought out cases in the rest of the thread.

@nietzschecookie: Likewise, good speaking with you!

I remember the good old days when moral panic about sex and nudity came from religious fundamentalists and right wing "family first" types. If you think what a fictional character is wearing in a fictional world is gross then don't play the game. Simple as that.

What I don't like is when people act like its part of some "problematic" thing that needs to be fixed. Objectification happens in all media to both genders. You see more objectified men in media that is geared more towards women and vice versa. Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you automatically devalue them as a person.

People need to stop being so sensitive about every little thing. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go make a salad.

It always fascinates me that it is always the aesthetics that people feel gross about, not violence. In America at least you can cause a nation wide panic over a pasty covered breast, but they show people being blown up by missiles on 24 hour news and nobody bats an eye. That being said, to each their own, if it bothers you and you enjoy the game I hope you have the ability to separate the two, especially since your bother came in part from someone else's limited assessment of the game.

Not entirely sure what actually even made GB game of the year top 10. I used to have time to listen to the podcasts but not now after my new born. I've only time for quick looks and the odd "live" event. Shame as I feel they put in a tonne of effort in for individual lists. Unless I missed it.. no actual site wide list was published...?

But yes, the community here and odd mentions of the game (while keeping the holy GBGOTY list secret) has made me interested in picking this up, seems great from what I've heard/seen.

Thinking about it... GOTY needed to be less time consuming and more informative overall. Free the wasted, staff stressed, precious man/lady hours for December 2018!!!