Support NeoGAF

[Lime]

Llyrwenne, you seriously need to put the "Both Sides" argument into your OP, because if there's one thing that's frustrating, it's the so-called moderates who falsely equate bigots to voices who criticize the status quo with their 'both sides' narrative of willfully ignoring oppression and intolerance.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

I appreciate ya'll having patience with me since I'm late to these discussions, but another thing that's been bugging me in threads on this topic is that you often have people saying "[example of sexualized character] is bad and wrong and needs to stop" in one post, then in another post express frustration and derision that people think they want to remove sexy characters from videogames.

How do you square away those two posts?

 

[Solid Raiden]

I am all for equality not only in games but also in all facets of life. I don't even put any thought into the race or gender of my heroes. I buy and enjoy games starring all kinds of protagonists from white male, to empowered woman to African American. In fact, when given the choice I usually opt to play as a female when given the opportunity and many of my favorite protagonists in recent years have been female.
However, what I do not agree with is that all games should have the option of playing as any specific race/sex. I'm not complaining about having to play as Aloy in Horizon: Zero Dawn (so hyped) and neither will I complain about having to play as Nathan Drake in Uncharted.
Specifically, I think it is sometimes rediculous when these arguments come up about games not giving the option to play as a minority. It is crazy to me to make a fuss about link not being a female in Legend of Zelda. I'd be fine with a game where you play or can play as Zelda but to make a long standing character female just to meet some guideline of equality and to attack the game for it is where I draw the line. If anything, the argument should be why Link is not black. It seems like sex and not race has been the hot topic lately, though. Is it just me or are there more games with a female protagonist as opposed to games with a black protagonist? Why is race taking a backseat to gender in most of these talks?

 

[GLAMr]

Great original post, I wish I could somehow fit it on a shirt.

I would love to see a female Link... But then I just really enjoy it when people put a gender/race/sexuality twist on an existing character. I'm still in love with the idea of Donald Glover as Spiderman. I don't even like Spiderman, but I would watch the shit out of that movie.

 

[Zakalwe]

I appreciate ya'll having patience with me since I'm late to these discussions, but another thing that's been bugging me in threads on this topic is that you often have people saying "[example of sexualized character] is bad and wrong and needs to stop" in one post, then in another post express frustration and derision that people think they want to remove sexy characters from videogames.

How do you square away those two posts?

It's really simple: Sexy isn't bad, but objectifying is. Skimpy outfits can be suitable but fan-service to the point it's just for titillation is childish.

We can create sexy characters without falling into the obvious pitfalls like Kojima's Quiet.

 

[Not]

It is crazy to me to make a fuss about link not being a female in Legend of Zelda. I'd be fine with a game where you play or can play as Zelda but to make a long standing character female just to meet some guideline of equality and to attack the game for it is where I draw the line.

You understand the reincarnation conceit, right? Similar to regeneration in Doctor Who. Link's appearance actually varies often. He's never always had blonde hair, or been left-handed, or had the same personality, etc.

Why is race taking a backseat to gender in most of these talks?

And vice-versa. That's the age-old question. People tend to always find one more important the other at any given time.

It's really simple: Sexy isn't bad, but objectifying is. Skimpy outfits can be suitable but fan-service to the point it's just for titillation is childish.

We can create sexy characters without falling into the obvious pitfalls like Kojima's Quiet.

I'd argue that if Kojima made a character named Loud with Josh Holloway-looks, zero body fat, massive junk constantly pushing against his board shorts and flopping around, while everybody around him took him seriously, I'd be totally fine with Quiet.

 

[Not]

DP

 

[Lime]

Another dumb argument is "if you don't like it, don't buy it" as if the only way for any human being to express themselves is through money, thereby entirely dismissing any form of qualitative input in the history of mankind from oral dialogue to literary criticism to focus tests to play tests. It's an extremely cynical and capitalist reduction of what it means to be human and it only serves to silence and shut down criticism.

The same with the "the market wants what it wants", as if the market is some divine and benevolent force without any moral status at all. It reeks of Adam Smith's fallacious Invisible Hand that tries to justify a market free from any external input as intrinsically good and just. Not only that, such a view implicitly justifies any form of bigoted and hate-filled games, because 'if that's what consumers want, then that's what consumers shall get'.

 

[MoonFrog]

I want Link to be female+it is possible for Link to be female+there should be more female protagonists |= Link should be female. It equals I want Link to be female+it does something worthwhile. Perfectly understandable position.

It isn't an argument against wanting Link to remain a male. It doesn't undercut the various reasons people want him as a man, in much the same way taking certain lines on Hyrule Lore+wanting Link to be a man |= Link should be a man. It is I want Link to be a man+ I like certain Zelda traditions and stories. Again, Perfectly understandable position.

The debate is dumb and relies on taking arguments to mean more than they do.

 

[HammerFace]

I'd be fine with a game where you play or can play as Zelda but to make a long standing character female just to meet some guideline of equality and to attack the game for it is where I draw the line. If anything, the argument should be why Link is not black. It seems like sex and not race has been the hot topic lately, though. Is it just me or are there more games with a female protagonist as opposed to games with a black protagonist? Why is race taking a backseat to gender in most of these talks?

It's not to meet some equality standard. The point is so girls, which are a huge part of the fan base, could play a character that they can map onto a bit more easily. And this is a character that doesnt have too many character traits outside of his physical ones that define him, and other traits like being a hero or courageous could easily be mapped onto a girl version of Link.
And there were talks of a gerudo Link at one point in another thread, which would actually be cool, Turning the dynamic around having the Gerudo story explained.

 

[Gattsu25]

That was a meaty OP that covers a lot of the arguments that tend to crop up whenever diversity is discussed here.

 

[mafuchi]

Well written post. I think it has some good points overall, though I think the 'attack the source' section is conflating two things: ad-hominin attacks and source data criticism. While I don't think ad-hominin attacks are ever a good way to support your argument (person X believes Y so you can never trust any argument they make), being critical of source material is a integral part of good productive criticism. Sometimes data is lacking in good context, some times it's incomplete and sometimes it's just made-up. If you use bad data to support your claim, you got problems.

 

[eyeball_kid]

Another point for the ‘status quo’-category: the comments about how we’re already doing well and should ‘let the developers do their work’. These comments often point to a limited amount of positive examples to claim that the issue is not that bad. For example; saying ‘look at Horizon: Zero Dawn and the Last of Us Part II; they have female protagonists, we’re doing fine!’ while completely ignoring that we are only just now getting these AAA titles with female protagonists. Generally, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out and championing positive examples. The problem lies in that a lot of these comments use these positive examples to excuse negative examples or to attempt to dismiss the existence of an issue entirely. ‘There is no issue, because good examples exist.’ / ‘This issue isn’t that big, because some progress is being made’. This takes away from the discussion on the issue by trying to ‘mask’ the issue, by trying to argue that the issue ‘isn’t really that bad’. Instead of acknowledging the issue and discussing it, it becomes about trying to negotiate how bad the issue is.

While I agree with this point, I'd also say it's very important to highlight the companies that are trying hard to change.

Sony's biggest AAA title of 2017, Horizon: Zero Dawn, features a strong, heroic female protagonist. That's amazing! They have also put a lot of marketing effort behind Gravity Rush 2. And as you mentioned, one of their biggest IPs The Last of Us will feature a female protagonist. They should be commended for increasing gender diversity in their titles. There's much more to be done of course, but too often threads here are only made to call out companies and it's so important to also give accolades to companies that make progress.

And to avoid being too positive here, I'll say that on the flipside Nintendo continues to disappoint, with a new Zelda game with no female playable character, and a Mario game where he again rescues a princess.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Yes, and that's not the issue I'm raising, nor something I have any problem with whatsoever.

The point is that you cannot expect the Japanese industry to change at anything like the same rate as the American one. Expecting say, Nintendo, to react to commentary and adapt in the same way that Sony's first party studios in the US and Europe are doing is unrealistic.

Why? They are selling a global product. If they can't be dynamic to the shape of the market why shouldn't we be just as critical? This isn't charity, they want you to spend money on their product. Why shouldn't they be challenged to adapt?

Just saying, there are truly positive steps being taken, but patience and understanding is required due to the specificity of culture, and I hate reading people lumping everything together and talking like things aren't getting better generally when they are. It just diminishes the gains being made.

I don't think anyone is saying today in gaming is worse than 20 years ago. But there is always a rush to jump and defend darling games. As a customer I truly don't give a shit if Witcher 3 won over a hundred awards and explored some portion of lore in a different part of Europe, if they want my money it's valid for me to question where the minorities are. That's my issue with your post.

 

[Not]

While I agree with this point, I'd also say it's very important to highlight the companies that are trying hard to change.

Sony's biggest AAA title of 2017, Horizon: Zero Dawn, features a strong, heroic female protagonist. That's amazing! They have also put a lot of marketing effort behind Gravity Rush 2. And as you mentioned, one of their biggest IPs The Last of Us will feature a female protagonist. They should be commended for increasing gender diversity in their titles. There's much more to be done of course, but too often threads here are only made to call out companies and it's so important to also give accolades to companies that make progress.

And to avoid being too positive here, I'll say that on the flipside Nintendo continues to disappoint, with a new Zelda game with no female playable character, and a Mario game where he again rescues a princess.

Sony was actively taking a risk by supporting Guerilla here, they've said as much. Risks are usually right up Nintendo's alley. Not in this case I guess.

 

[Speely]

Amazing, insightful, informative, and well-presented OP.

And important. I just want to thank you for making this thread, Llyrwenne. It's a beautiful thing both in form and function.

 

[LionPride]

I would just like to remind people that when The Order came out and people were asking why there weren't any black characters, the responses tended to be "There were no black people in England in the 1860s" which was false, but also, it's a game about Werewolves and a weird steampunk motif as well, that ain't an excuse bruhs

 

[Funyarinpa]

The entire industry is not American, and thus does not share the same cultural experience and politics as contemporary America. This absolutely needs to be factored in because you cannot expect a global industry to change in lockstep when the voices lobbying for change are simply not going to be heard or given great import due to barriers of culture and language.

Culture of origin influences all art and entertainment, no matter how benign the intent you cannot expect every work to conform to your native socio-political norms.

I agree with this post, especially the bolded part.

If a game's culturally based on a place that is not very diverse ethnically, then I don't think it to be a point of criticism that it isn't diverse. It's perfectly fine if people do decide to have people of color in very European-centric settings, of course. It's just that, in my opinion, a non-diverse game based on a non-diverse culture is perfectly fine and isn't deserving of critique in that regard.

But I disagree with the notion that *every* game has to strive for diversity; depending on the culture it is inspired by, I think a game can be without diversity in a perfectly moral and non-harmful way. But it's never a bad thing if a game *is* diverse. Example: I'm Turkish, and if I made a game about the last decades of the Ottoman Empire, it would not feature very many people of color; because people of color were not a very wide demographic then. I don't need to strive to include representation of people from Africa or the Far East in such a game, they aren't a big part of the ethnic makeup of my setting and cultural inspiration.

 

[Zakalwe]

I am all for equality not only in games but also in all facets of life. I don't even put any thought into the race or gender of my heroes. I buy and enjoy games starring all kinds of protagonists from white male, to empowered woman to African American. In fact, when given the choice I usually opt to play as a female when given the opportunity and many of my favorite protagonists in recent years have been female.
However, what I do not agree with is that all games should have the option of playing as any specific race/sex. I'm not complaining about having to play as Aloy in Horizon: Zero Dawn (so hyped) and neither will I complain about having to play as Nathan Drake in Uncharted.
Specifically, I think it is sometimes rediculous when these arguments come up about games not giving the option to play as a minority. It is crazy to me to make a fuss about link not being a female in Legend of Zelda. I'd be fine with a game where you play or can play as Zelda but to make a long standing character female just to meet some guideline of equality and to attack the game for it is where I draw the line. If anything, the argument should be why Link is not black. It seems like sex and not race has been the hot topic lately, though. Is it just me or are there more games with a female protagonist as opposed to games with a black protagonist? Why is race taking a backseat to gender in most of these talks?

If they made the next Link female it would be wonderful. There would literally be no negative to it. You've already got every other Zelda game with a male link, and the gesture it would make toward diversity in the industry would be huge.

There's literally no downside to the idea.

Now, no one is suggesting every character need to be switched like this, nor even that it absolutely /should/ happen, but the argument that it /shouldn't/ happen is a weak one from a selfish perspective.

-

As for the focus of the talk, I think because we have a prominent figurehead with Zoe and FemFreq it might be a focused conversation we have more often, but I've also had plenty of debates here regarding all aspects of diversity but you might be right...

I'm curious if others have a similar opinion or any further insight here?

 

[Platy]

Awesome OP !
I am full of work but I will get back to comment more about the discussion.

I just want to add my favorite that is something like :

"Sex don't sell"
"prove it"
"link to article proving it"
"no but this don't work because X"
"ok but prove that sex sell"
"well everyone KNOWS that sex sells"

 

[HammerFace]

I would just like to remind people that when The Order came out and people were asking why there weren't any black characters, the responses tended to be "There were no black people in England in the 1860s" which was false, but also, it's a game about Werewolves and a weird steampunk motif as well, that ain't an excuse bruhs

Nah what're you talking about. Werewolves and Steampunk can't exist in the same reality as black characters.

Yeah seriously that dismissive tone is straight disgraceful.

 

[Solid Raiden]

You understand the reincarnation conceit, right? Similar to regeneration in Doctor Who. Link's appearance actually varies often. He's never always had blonde hair, or been left-handed, or had the same personality, etc.



And vice-versa. That's the age-old question. People tend to always find one more important the other at any given time.

As far as I'm aware, Link has always been a blonde male and it has never been suggested anywhere otherwise. Fiction is not held to the same rules as non-fiction. It's a product of human design and while the designers could certainly decide to change the sex/race of Link, and I would be perfectly fine with that, to ask them to change the sex/race of a long standing character who has been established as a certain way for thirty years is somewhat unreasonable. Why is there no backlash against Mario for the same thing? I'd argue that Link is every bit a mascot as Mario.
But I don't want to derail this thread. I agree with the message the OP aims to deliver and I agree that we need more diversity in our games even if I don't agree with every game being targeted for their lack of diversity.

 

[Clear]

I don't think anyone is saying today in gaming is worse than 20 years ago. But there is always a rush to jump and defend darling games. As a customer I truly don't give a shit if Witcher 3 won over a hundred awards and explored some portion of lore in a different part of Europe, if they want my money it's valid for me to question where the minorities are. That's my issue with your post.

Question away. No complaints here, my point was just that you can't expect the same level of impact and response globally because we are all to some degree prisoners of our own culture.

 

[HammerFace]

Why is there no backlash against Mario for the same thing? I'd argue that Link is every bit a mascot as Mario.

I remember in the old Link should be a girl threads people kept making the dumb comparison of "why don't you complain that "X character" isn't a female in the next game." And they just refused to understand that the character they're arguing doesn't become another person or maybe refused to acknowledge how that made them wrong.

Has already been addressed

 

[Zakalwe]

I'd argue that if Kojima made a character named Loud with Josh Holloway-looks, zero body fat, massive junk constantly pushing against his board shorts and flopping around, while everybody around him took him seriously, I'd be totally fine with Quiet.

I don't think that's what anyone means by balance.

Quiet could have been designed with the same back story without putting her in a bra and panties/stockings.The tech in the MGS world could incorporate a suit that breaths, for example, or even a suit with exposed areas of skin. They didn't have to go as far as putting her in the outfit they did, titillation itself isn't an evil but they really did take it too far with her.

Especially considering how objectification /is/ a problem in the industry in terms of character design, and knowing this we can clearly see how Quiet's design is pretty damn backwards.

 

[SomTervo]

Thank you, OP.

I appreciate ya'll having patience with me since I'm late to these discussions, but another thing that's been bugging me in threads on this topic is that you often have people saying "[example of sexualized character] is bad and wrong and needs to stop" in one post, then in another post express frustration and derision that people think they want to remove sexy characters from videogames.

How do you square away those two posts?

there are several fairly simple answers. It's great that you're engaging with this.

1. A key thing is that being sex positive means treating sexiness, sex and the body with total respect and even handedness. If your game has all-clothed non-sexy men but every woman is a sex goddess, that's not sex positive, that's reductive and paints an uneven (potentially harmful) picture of sex politics.

2. Usually the problem is that the characters are being objectified, rather than them being sexualised. For instance, say I think Lara from RotR is sexy - and she is definitely sexualised - that doesn't mean she's objectified. The game's narrative, camera and design don't go out of their way to focus just on how sexy she is (reducing get character to visual stimuli, a "simulation object" rather than a person) and 90% of her on screen time is pushing her personal adventure/story forward. She is sexy, but not focused on as a sexual object and not developed only as a sexual object. Again, she's developed as a person. She just happens to be a sexy person - but if she wasn't sexy, it wouldn't make a difference.

Then look at Quiet. Her back story, camera work and design go out of their way to focus just on how sexy she is - literally in every scene she's in. What's worse, she barely has a scene about her own autonomous story or decisions - and the 2/3 she does have constantly focus on her T&A or are narratives revolving around the male protagonist. She's sexy - which itself is great - but she's flat. She's just a sexy object pushed around the game's board and ogled at even during serious "character development" scenes.

3. Similar to point 1, whenever there are complaints about a sexualised character, a massive issue and often focal point is that the character is being treated differently to other characters (eg the one woman is sexy while all the men are "normal"). This happens all the time and shows how women are being thought about differently. I love how sexy Quiet is and she's brilliantly modelled but i literally become livid whenever i think about how all the men in the game are humdrum dullos that never get sexy.

The simple answer is that if you're going to sexualise women in a game, sexualise the men, too. Even if you're going to objectify them - Make it a two way street.

Games like God Hand are great for this. There are plenty of sexy women enemies in this comedy/cartoon wild west, but there are plenty of ripped, hench men in thongs too. It's fantastic.

While I agree with this point, I'd also say it's very important to highlight the companies that are trying hard to change.

Sony's biggest AAA title of 2017, Horizon: Zero Dawn, features a strong, heroic female protagonist. That's amazing! They have also put a lot of marketing effort behind Gravity Rush 2. And as you mentioned, one of their biggest IPs The Last of Us will feature a female protagonist. They should be commended for increasing gender diversity in their titles. There's much more to be done of course, but too often threads here are only made to call out companies and it's so important to also give accolades to companies that make progress.

And to avoid being too positive here, I'll say that on the flipside Nintendo continues to disappoint, with a new Zelda game with no female playable character, and a Mario game where he again rescues a princess.

Ubisoft have been killing it. A woman protagonist, a PoC protagonist, several prominent trans characters. Totally killing it.

 

[LotusHD]

Has already been addressed

It's like clockwork at this point lol

 

[MoonFrog]

Llyrwenne, you seriously need to put the "Both Sides" argument into your OP, because if there's one thing that's frustrating, it's the so-called moderates who falsely equate bigots to voices who criticize the status quo with their 'both sides' narrative of willfully ignoring oppression and intolerance.

There are times when "both sides" applies.

Only a zealot is unwilling to look at arguments they're making and try and make them better and fit what they want to do better. I don't know if you're referencing my post on the first page, but if you seriously don't think that there are plenty of bad arguments on both sides that result in argumentative mismatch and trash fire threads, you aren't looking closely enough.

Moreover, as conversations in this thread go on to show, it is quite unclear what actually is this good side. What is the place we should get to with respect to, say, sexual content in games? I don't think there is the side of justice and the side of the sexist. It isn't that simple. There are people who see it as a problem of equal opportunity and representation. There are people who see it as a problem that there is sexual content period. There are plenty of people who weave between the two positions, doing an uncomfortable argumentative dance.

There are serious questions here, to which no service is done by saying "don't interrogate us, interrogate them."

Moreover, if people want to actually get their own thoughts and arguments in order, they need to actually look at them instead of just assuming that because they're on the right side of the war, they're right.

I get that doing so opens yourself up to charges of hypocrisy and makes for shakier arguments, but I believe intellectual honesty is important to beginning to figure this thorny shit out.

...

This is different from the phenomenon of false equivalency, which by its nature benefits the falsehood and/or the status quo rather than the truth and/or that which isn't. It does, however, tie into it, because doubt makes room for false equivalency to flourish even as it makes room for the move beyond sophistry.

 

[Solid Raiden]

If they made the next Link female it would be wonderful. There would literally be no negative to it. You've already got every other Zelda game with a male link, and the gesture it would make toward diversity in the industry would be huge.

There's literally no downside to the idea.

Now, no one is suggesting every character need to be switched like this, nor even that it absolutely /should/ happen, but the argument that it /shouldn't/ happen is a weak one from a selfish perspective.

-

As for the focus of the talk, I think because we have a prominent figurehead with Zoe and FemFreq it might be a focused conversation we have more often, but I've also had plenty of debates here regarding all aspects of diversity but you might be right...

I'm curious if others have a similar opinion or any further insight here?

Again, if the developers were to make Link a female or of another race I'd absolutely support it. My argument isn't that Nintendo SHOULDN'T change Link. My argument is that of all the games to attack for being sexist, Zelda doesn't make sense to me. It's certainly in the developers ability to change Link, and if they made that creative decision I would support it the best way I know how, with my money.

 

[Gin-Shiio]

There is no need for a female link. All they have to do is to provide a playable female character from the Zelda universe.
Having the ability to switch between Link and Zelda by the press of a button for instance, a duo adventure. Breath of the Wild would have been perfect for that. It's no rocket science.

 

[Frozenprince]

It's like clockwork at this point lol

Thread had a nice run.

 

[mafuchi]

As far as I'm aware, Link has always been a blonde male and it has never been suggested anywhere otherwise. Fiction is not held to the same rules as non-fiction. It's a product of human design and while the designers could certainly decide to change the sex/race of Link, and I would be perfectly fine with that, to ask them to change the sex/race of a long standing character who has been established as a certain way for thirty years is somewhat unreasonable. Why is there no backlash against Mario for the same thing? I'd argue that Link is every bit a mascot as Mario.
But I don't want to derail this thread. I agree with the message the OP aims to deliver and I agree that we need more diversity in our games even if I don't agree with every game being targeted for their lack of diversity.

I think of lot of the current zelda criticism revolves around their reasoning. They don't even entertain the notion that link and zelda's role could be reversed.

 

[LotusHD]

Again, if the developers were to make Link a female or of another race I'd absolutely support it. My argument isn't that Nintendo SHOULDN'T change Link. My argument is that of all the games to attack for being sexist, Zelda doesn't make sense to me. It's certainly in the developers ability to change Link, and if they made that creative decision I would support it the best way I know how, with my money.

Did someone actually say not making Link female is sexist? The only charges of sexism I recall hearing about are the developer's poor excuses for not making one, or why Zelda isn't playable already. Like if they don't want, then just say so, don't try to placate people with a dumb excuse. That's where the issue lies.

 

[SmokedMeat]

because the world's game has been created in a certain way from the beginning. It's about a myth, a legend. The Triforce is what it is. Myths aren't really supposed to change over time for the sake of "this time the protagonist in the mainline series should be a female".
It would be better if Nintendo created something else instead then, or a spinoff. You can play as Zelda in Hyrule Warriors for example.
I've discussed this with my wife when the article came out (without telling her about it at first) because I was curious to see her reaction. I asked her if she would have liked to play as a female in Zelda, and the first answer was "but isn't the protagonist always the same green guy?" (lol).

The "what would Link do" seems to me "what would be his role in the game then since he's always been the hero". I don't see anything there.

I doubt Aonuma has anything against a female protagonist per se. But it doesn't make sense to put it suddenly in a 20 years old saga that has a certain core structure. Link has always been male. "For once I'd like to play as a female", I mean, no? Otherwise it goes for every game.

I think you take your Zelda videogames a little too seriously. It doesn't hurt anything by having two female characters (or three) representing the Tri-Force.

Especially for a series where the hero is often a different person. No reason why we can't have a female kicking Gannon's ass in a green tunic.

 

[Lime]

I would also like to remind people that when women are chased out of the games industry and thrown under the bus by game publishers, and face massive misogyny and online terrorism from simply speaking out or being a woman in games culture, many people here on GAF and elsewhere are quick to ignore their harassment and the terrorism they experience. We have the cases off the top of my head:

Jennifer Hepler
Jade Raymond
Samantha Allen
Leigh Alexander
Mattie Brice
Anita Sarkeesian
Zoe Quinn
Allison Rapp
Ashley Judd

In so many of these instances, people somehow think that it's entirely okay to dismiss the person's own experiences of sexism and question their legitimacy while completely ignoring the sexism and harassment that these people face for simply being outspoken women in video games. It isn't important that they faced the brunt of the cesspool of bigoted video games culture, but what is important was that these women were wrong about a specific topic. You can go to the Ashley Judd thread and see clear examples of this complete lack of perspective and lack of empathy, where instead people just resort to some bullshit silencing tactic to allow them to keep sticking their heads in the sand. This is seen over and over and over again with all the names of the above.

Instead of listening and empathizing to personal testimonies and accounts, people would rather have women in the games industry suffer alone and without support than face the bigotry within video games culture. And it's been this way for years if not decades.

 

[Solid Raiden]

Has already been addressed

I agree that this particular criticism by me is weak, and I retract the statement.
Despite reincarnation allowing some amount of freedom with Link as a character and the idea of Link as we know him as a mascot figure itself is a weak argument, I maintain my stance that Zelda is the least deserving of the criticism given to it.

 

[Not]

As far as I'm aware, Link has always been a blonde male and it has never been suggested anywhere otherwise.

The Aryan thing (forgive me, but if he's intended to be featureless, most humans aren't born with blonde hair and blue eyes) started with OoT.

As for the rest of your post, yeah, it's up to the developers 100%. Still waiting for them to come up with decent reasoning though.

 

[Zakalwe]

Nah what're you talking about. Werewolves and Steampunk can't exist in the same reality as black characters.

Yeah seriously that dismissive tone is straight disgraceful.

It's a weak argument however you run it.

In an ideal world everyone would be free to write the characters and stories and lore they wanted, and there would be enough diversity that it would be fine to do so.

However, that's not reality. There is a huge imbalance, and it's always a shame when a creator doesn't take an opportunity to include more diversity.

"Inclusion for inclusions sake" is such a stupid idea as a counter argument, we should absolutely be including more for the sake of diversity!

This doesn't mean a white male writer should sit down with a checklist before he writes his story, but it does mean if he's writing a story about a straight white male he should probably put some thought into a few things before he begins: why is his story going to be about a white male protagonist, why would it be good to try to expand his perspective and write outside of his immediate experience, what kind of responsibility do we all have to push diversity, and so on...

These questions being asked in good faith and a healthy dose of self-awareness are what's going to move us forward. And if these questions are asked this way we'll see things naturally become more diverse.

We all need to break down our own prejudices and default ideals, we all have them to a degree.

Again, if the developers were to make Link a female or of another race I'd absolutely support it. My argument isn't that Nintendo SHOULDN'T change Link. My argument is that of all the games to attack for being sexist, Zelda doesn't make sense to me. It's certainly in the developers ability to change Link, and if they made that creative decision I would support it the best way I know how, with my money.

People are only focusing on Zelda because it was in the OP, it's a prominent IP, and the switch would be really easy from a lore point of view with all the timeline/alt-reality stuff the series already includes.

I wouldn't worry so much about the focus on Zelda, it's just an example. There are plenty of others.

 

[HammerFace]

I agree that this particular criticism by me is weak, and I retract the statement.
Despite reincarnation allowing some amount of freedom with Link as a character and the idea of Link as we know him as a mascot figure itself is a weak argument, I maintain my stance that Zelda is the least deserving of the criticism given to it.

As mentioned before, at least in this thread, most people aren't yelling "sexism" at the zelda series, they're yelling "yo fuck that stupid excuse" to Aonuma.

 

[potatohead]

Eventually you will find everyone who disagrees with you will also tell you your argument is flawed in some way.

It's not fair but be prepared.

 

[LotusHD]

I agree that this particular criticism by me is weak, and I retract the statement.
Despite reincarnation allowing some amount of freedom with Link as a character and the idea of Link as we know him as a mascot figure itself is a weak argument, I maintain my stance that Zelda is the least deserving of the criticism given to it.

Doesn't matter if it's the "least deserving", if there's something to criticize (the poor excuses), or stuff that the series could plainly improve on (giving Zelda a more active role), then people have every right to call it out.

 

[Solid Raiden]

I think of lot of the current zelda criticism revolves around their reasoning. They don't even entertain the notion that link and zelda's role could be reversed.

Did someone actually say not making Link female is sexist? The only charges of sexism I recall hearing about are the developer's poor excuses for not making one, or why Zelda isn't playable already. Like if they don't want, then just say so, don't try to placate people with a dumb excuse. That's where the issue lies.

Fair enough. I must have been misinformed or speaking from misinterpretations. I've seen Link brought up in these discussions before and without knowing the origins was working on assumptions. I certainly agree that their response itself is weak and even sexist in its implying that men have to save the damsel in distress.

 

[4 is a cutie]

The simple answer is that if you're going to sexualise women in a game, sexualise the men, too. Even if you're going to objectify them - Make it a two way street.

I agree with your post except for the bolded. Two wrongs dont make a right nor are they "equal" when it comes to how it feeds into harmful practices against the marginalized. I'm all for equal opportunity sexy, though

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

It's really simple: Sexy isn't bad, but objectifying is. Skimpy outfits can be suitable but fan-service to the point it's just for titillation is childish.

We can create sexy characters without falling into the obvious pitfalls like Kojima's Quiet.

But should we not have those kinds of games at all? That's where my problem lies. A lot of people say "of course we shouldn't censor developers", then later post about how "MGSV should never have been shipped with that version of Quiet in it".

Which one is it? I, for one, found Quiet a silly addition to the MGS5, but I know some people who enjoyed it. Heck, I'm currently enjoying playing through DOAX3. It's very relaxing and yes, I'm partially motivated by being able to unlock new animations and stuff to watch in VR mode. This is definitely sexual objectification. Is it wrong? If you think these kinds of games shouldn't be on shelves, then isn't the only solution to ban them, effectively censoring developers?

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

I am all for equality not only in games but also in all facets of life. I don't even put any thought into the race or gender of my heroes. I buy and enjoy games starring all kinds of protagonists from white male, to empowered woman to African American. In fact, when given the choice I usually opt to play as a female when given the opportunity and many of my favorite protagonists in recent years have been female.
However, what I do not agree with is that all games should have the option of playing as any specific race/sex. I'm not complaining about having to play as Aloy in Horizon: Zero Dawn (so hyped) and neither will I complain about having to play as Nathan Drake in Uncharted.
Specifically, I think it is sometimes rediculous when these arguments come up about games not giving the option to play as a minority. It is crazy to me to make a fuss about link not being a female in Legend of Zelda. I'd be fine with a game where you play or can play as Zelda but to make a long standing character female just to meet some guideline of equality and to attack the game for it is where I draw the line. If anything, the argument should be why Link is not black. It seems like sex and not race has been the hot topic lately, though. Is it just me or are there more games with a female protagonist as opposed to games with a black protagonist? Why is race taking a backseat to gender in most of these talks?

Yep. No one cares when you ask about a black link. Join me in the silent protest.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Not immediately villainizing designers/artists for sexy designs = "objectification is A-OK/feminism is dumb lol"

Silent approval is still approval.

No need to actually try and refute arguments and address perspectives that differ from your own. Smug shitposts are all we need since everything apparently boils down to "human rights and feminism 101." It's not at all like feminism is itself many schools of thought or anything.

I'm a male, i'm the target audience when a designer designs something like Juliet from Lolipop Chainsaw or an artist designs a character as an amalgamation of his fetishes, however, the "different perspectives" typically boil down to all the arguments outlined in the OP, which are really basic trains of thought that myself and others are tired of refuting already.

I too look forward to future disingenuousness and bad faith arguments on your part.

Ok.jpg or gif, you pick

 

[Playsage]

Awesome OP !
I am full of work but I will get back to comment more about the discussion.

I just want to add my favorite that is something like :

"Sex don't sell"
"prove it"
"link to article proving it"
"no but this don't work because X"
"ok but prove that sex sell"
"well everyone KNOWS that sex sells"

Someone challenged an article that gets reposted repeatedly about this here on GAF

 

[Not]

Yep. No one cares when you ask about a black link. Join me in the silent protest.

Shadow Link was even a villain!

 

[wamberz1]

Good shit OP. Don't have time right now but this is what I'll read before I got to bead tonight. Love the section banners, nice touch.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Who has ever used the term "Diversitypocalypse"?

The literal implication whenever someone complains that oh no, devs will have to be more inclusive in the future as if they're being forced to create and normalize people who aren't straight and white, when quite literally the opposite is true.