Gamer Girls 😍😍😍
If you've played video games for a while, you'll notice trends in the way games are made, the cliches, the quality of game play, the mechanics, the graphics, and overall level of fun. You'll also notice that in many realistic video games, there are trends in the representation of characters that you can play as. Specifically, the difference in gender representation between males and females is staggering. Take a look at these two images of characters in the game League of Legends:
On the one hand, you have "Garen, the Might of Dematia", who "is a warrior of Demacia who has devoted his life to defending his kingdom and its ideals." On the other hand, you have "Miss Fortune, the Bounty Hunter" who is "a bounty hunter, and used her feminine charms and expert skills to get her own crew and ship at the young age of 16." Clearly, there's a discrepancy in how these two characters are portrayed as. Their costumes alone are enough to tell you that the male is the big hulking strongman and the female is the damsel, the "Southern belle". Her "tight or revealing" clothing is "sexy". Her very label, "Miss" Fortune, marks her as an individual that is either "liberated or rebellious".
In fact, the graph below gathered data about exposed skin on all the characters or champions in League of Legends and the difference is huge.
The recent movie, Jumanji (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QKg5SZ_35I), parodies the industry and criticizes how women are portrayed by having a character ask the question "Why am I wearing half a shirt and short-shorts in the JUNGLE?"
The data speaks for itself. The video gaming industry has perpetuated the objectification of women.
I like the inclusion of the Jumanji example. There is even a line that is ironic. And makes fun of the classic trope of females being not correctly dressed in a dangerous situation.
ReplyDeleteHey Marvin! Great insight!
ReplyDeleteFor some fun I'm going to counter you :p
You referenced League of Legends portraying their female characters as "sexy", and ended your blog with how the video game industry objectifies woman. Well, to that I would counter how about the "big hulking strongman" as you mentioned? Is that not objectifying men? The characters are shown in what is considered "perfect". I mean, come on, if we know that firms want to make the most money, why would they make a weak looking character? No one wants to play as that, and it would bring in less money via micro transactions. Continuing with firms wanting to make the most money possible,
90% of League of Legends players are male . So although it might not be politically correct, guys generally like "sexy" or good looking women just as most women like "hulking" or good looking men. Once you look at the demographics, its quite obvious why the game makers chose to portray the women in this way.
You also gave the example of Jumanji. The response to this is the exact same as the other example you gave. Just as the girl is shown wearing "short shorts and a crop-top", Dwayne Johnson is shown with a tight, parted shirt. There's even a couple close up shots of his muscles and of him flexing. The emphasis is on his physique, as is it on the girls. Why? Because naturally, girls like looking at hot guys and guys like looking at hot girls. Since this is all just from the trailer, we know its a marketing tactic.
Hi Eric! Thanks for bringing up your points. I think our viewpoints are differing based on our fundamental beliefs in what's right on a socioeconomic standpoint. I will admit this is America and capitalism leads firms to maximize profits, but i am more criticizing how firms have to resort to this objectification to make more money. We should live in a society where interests are not separated by gender or race and firms don't have to exploit people based on those qualities. But until then, I agree: firms will always market to the largest demographic. However, I also focused on how the video game industry has primarily characterized women as weaker than men-in their backstory, in their physiques, in their costumes. Relating it back to Tannen's argument, she also mentions how men have the option to be marked, whereas women don't have that option. The big hulking strong man is not supposed to be sexy, his body is literally just covered in armor, therefore he is unmarked as a basic video game character with basic abilities, but still looking much stronger than the woman. The producers of Jumanji took the liberty to flex The Rock's muscles as a marketing strategy like you said, therefore he is marked. On the other hand, the women in both examples are half naked, and they are made sexy to get more money. You admitted that "game makers chose to portray the women in this way", meaning sexifying and marking women based on their physiques and how much skin was shown. At the end of the day, it is just a game, but how the video game industry goes about creating the game says volumes about society's status quo.
DeleteAlright, I'll respond to you on a quote to quote format
DeleteA small preface, you said " I think our viewpoints are differing based on our fundamental beliefs in what's right on a socioeconomic standpoint". This isn't a difference in beliefs in right and wrong, I simply stated why marketers target certain things, such as physical appearance.
"firms have to resort to this objectification to make more money"
They don't have to resort to it, but its effective because it plays on human nature. To deny human nature is to deny reality. Marketers study human behaviors and patterns and exploit them.
You also said "interests are not separated by gender or race".
To this I would then again say, to deny human nature is to deny reality. The marketers are not inducing this behavior, they are simply exploiting the innate weaknesses that humans have, with this one being an attraction to physical appearance.
"I also focused on how the video game industry has primarily characterized women as weaker than men-in their backstory, in their physiques, in their costumes".
Also, according to the games own wiki, Miss Fortune is described as having "no shortage of blood on [her] hands" and "killing a man within minutes". Doesn't sound very weak to me. Miss Fortune is one of the most powerful characters in the game... Also she is holding 2 massive guns. That is not weak. So then again, we have a battle between confirmation bias and actuality.
Okay, you then go on with the whole marked and unmarked bit, which is really a matter of opinion. In my opinion, men can be marked just as much as woman and vice versa. I personally think that for the most part, both men and women are unmarked, unless if they go out of their way to really make it obvious. Changes in hairstyle, clothing, anything extra to their physical appearance really doesn't resonate with me as a "marking".
"The Rock's muscles as a marketing strategy like you said, therefore he is marked. On the other hand, the women in both examples are half naked, and they are made sexy to get more money".
Girls who see The Rock's muscles will perceive him as sexy
Guys who see the girls flat stomach and exposed legs will perceive her as sexy
" You admitted that "game makers chose to portray the women in this way", meaning sexifying and marking women based on their physiques and how much skin was shown".
Yes, just as they did do The Rock. The reason I responded this way was because of your original claim "The video gaming industry has perpetuated the objectification of women". That really makes it seem like it doesn't happen to male characters as well.
Well you asked me to respond, so here it is
I remember agreeing with the Jumanji person's comment she made in the movie.
ReplyDeleteNice post! I never thought of this concept in the Jumanji movie as well. Really interesting perspective.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the content in this blog - the chart was especially insightful. However, I have to bring up the nature of the gaming and entertainment industry. The sole purpose of a company is to make profit, and if they are PC or socially responsible it may be partially because of morals, but the underlying purpose is to make more moeny. Keeping this in mind, it makes total sense for entertainment companies to leverage human's irresistible lust and implement it in their products. Would you rather watch a Baywatch with woman that are generally considered attractive or a Baywatch with woman of the same acting skill but less attractive? Would you rather play a League with buff men and sexy women or a League where every character is "average?"
ReplyDeleteExactly my thoughts Jahow!
DeleteThanks for the insightful comment Jahow! As I mentioned to Eric, I agree with you that firms will always act in their best interest to make as much money as possible. I am purely criticizing that this is the current condition society has led to. Wouldn't you agree that the exploitation by firms of people's superficial attractiveness and the perpetuation of the ideal body image for both male and females is sickening? What I talk about in my post that the video game industry is a reflection of society's values and interests. The fact that they have to rely on "human's irresistible lust" tells us that society has made it acceptable to give in to our sinful nature and our inner indulgences. For the sake of my argument I won't talk about Baywatch since I only mention Jumanji for its parody of the gaming industry. Simply put, League is a game purely about strategy. It shouldn't rely on cheap and objectifying marketing tactics like making women sexy in order to get more people to play. Specifically in League, a character's skin or outfit makes literally no difference in gameplay, so in an ideal world, yes, it shouldn't matter if they are sexy or not.
DeleteSide note-To again relay Tannen's argument, the "buff men" you mention are generally accepted as the "unmarked" standards of the game; they don't stand out. The armor that protects them, the muscles that ripple, and the glorious backstories are pretty uniform throughout the game. On the other hand, if a woman in the game is half naked, which is a vast majority of the skins in the game, they are objectified to be sexy and are therefore "marked", and the minority that aren't showing cleavage or skin are not humanoid or clearly do not share the sexy human-like qualities of America's ideal body image.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI enjoy discussing this Eric! Nowhere in my argument did I say that the video game industry has "caused" society to lead to this exploitation. I said they "perpetuated" something that was already there. It really is just a game, not a determining factor of a country's social well-being. So yes I agree that we should attack the fundamental cause and not the result.
Delete*accidentally deleted*
ReplyDeleteWell I don’t want to type out again, so i’ll explain this in class if it even comes up