Does this design fit the game? Does it fit the character? Does the character have her own reasons for dressing that way? I dont want every game to have every design look like Ivy. That we shouldn't judge every design under the same umbrella. Designs that appeal to sexual urges are not inherently bad if they fit the character (Bayonetta being a better example than Ivy and Quiet being a better example of what not to do than Taki) Taki is an example where her visible nipples design is a huge detriment which doesn't fit the character nor her design. Not saying you have to like it, but thats what the character is and it fits this game. She has her own sense of agency and owns her sexuality. It works well because thats exactly the point. They have toned her down since IV, by a good margin. Lastly I wasn't trying to insinuate that it falls completely on the player/viewer, just that part of it does. You already explained why Ivy's jiggle when you described her outfit (which is kinda false it's a bit more than strings and hers barely jiggle so.?).
Breasts jiggle when a woman moves around suddenly. But they still do it :/ And as far as the bouncing breasts, you're acting like this is DOA1, it isn't. More, not less.Īsk a dominatrix why she dresses in ridiculous BDSM outfits, and you won't get a logical answer there, either. And it's only fair there are more male characters made to be eye-candy straight women and gay men. Over time the better solution would be to just create new female characters that can be less overtly sexual, but that doesn't mean forcing characters with well-realized personalities and designs to change tact just because of issues outside of the game, and it doesn't mean we don't create sexualized female characters in the future, either. I'm just not seeing this scenario where a character like Ivy existing suddenly sets back progress for female representation in games by a decade like some posters are being overly dramatic about. It'd be difficult to create a male version of Ivy in a fighting game that still meets those requirements and can be taken every bit as seriously (i.e not as a joke character), because you're talking about notions on what it means to be male/female that's existed for thousands of years, some of which are just biologically wired into our DNA, since we are after all mammals and members of the animal kingdom, at the end of the day. They may not be as exaggerated in sexuality as the more extreme female counterparts, but that stems back to notions of masculinity in society, i.e for most straight women, a sexy man is is cut, chiseled, serious, maybe sort of stoic and moves in ways that exudes muscular strength. Yes, it's been a lot more recent w/ male eye-candy and they're not all in the same games, but they exist. On the other side of the spectrum, though, you have chars like Urien, Hot Ryu, Cody, Voldo etc. So how exactly is this sexist? Are the girls I know who like her character also sexist?Īlso, how does this apply to fictional characters that literally don't exist in real life? Are our concepts of real world discrimination even applicable to drawings and polygons? Not to mention, she has never been with anyone in her storylines in the games, and comes across as more of an asexual dominatrix, which is not a very traditional gender role either or sexual orientation. Erasing their existence as gamers seems more traditionalist to me, and less inclusive and modern. Is this the claim that Ivy is only designed for the male gaze? That's not compelling for me either, as that completely erases the identity of LGBTQ gamers specifically lesbians and bi women who like her design. This design is clearly only possible in a world post 1960s sexual revolution which empowered women to show more of their bodies without shame and restriction. The attitude that women should cover themselves in a puritanical manner and not own their own sexuality? We're certainly not doing that either. This woman is a fighter on par with anyone in the game. So, like the attitude that women should not work and only stay home and cook? Well we're certainly not doing that here. Attitudes based on traditional gender roles.
There is no behavior that is occurring here, so let's talk about the attitudes. #1 you maybe have a case here, since it's just talking about attitudes. I'm not making any statements about women as a whole, except that they aren't a monolithic block, and that they're diverse, like I said in my first post.
I'm not thinking all women need to wear something like this. #3 seems like a stretch since I'm not pre-judging anything here, and I certainly am not hating anything either, especially not all women. Devaluation? Maybe you could argue that somehow, but I just said I like Ivy so it's not devaluing her in my eyes. I don't see how #2 applies, since this isn't based on any kind of discrimination, especially in terms of job opportunities.
0 kommentar(er)
