I've been playing through Mass Effect 2 and have definitely noticed the parts you mention (so to speak). I don't have a problem with Miranda's beauty being written into her genetically-engineered character -- that makes sense and contributes to her personality. No, it's the camera direction, as you say, that thrusts her shapeliness into unnecessary focus at unexpected times. (By the way, this is true of Shepard as well if you play as a female, which I am.)

It's one thing to accentuate those things when it serves a narrative purpose (say, if Miranda were seducing someone -- or the way Chloe's sexuality is accented in Uncharted 2 as she seduces Drake). It's entirely another to be discussing upgrades to the Normandy and suddenly get a shot of FemShep's rack.

That said, I don't know that Alyx Vance is as great an example as people make her out to be sometimes. Her strength and capability are admirable. But the fact that she has any interest in the entirely mute and personality-bereft Gordon Freeman is too big a leap in believability for me. Gordon's not a character -- he's a tabula rasa, built for the player to project himself onto. Which means Alyx is hinting at a romantic interest in ME. I'm not buying that. :)

Anyway, good stuff, Patrick!

Thanks for the comment, Layton!

I see what you mean about Alyx, and I agree that the romance is entirely forced. I guess what I'm trying to point out is that Alyx's attractive features are more of her personality than her appearance - though I think you're right in that the romance is forced. At least in Mass Effect you have to try a little.

You're right -- at least Alyx is attractive because of her strength and personality and not just her babe-itude. It's a step in the right direction.

Worst case of this I've seen recently was Vanquish. I can't even remember the female character's name in that—Elena, was it? All I remember was that pretty much every shot of her was either looking down her top or up her skirt.

This was Platinum Games, of course, but Vanquish didn't have hyper-sexuality as part of its aesthetic design—it was completely gratuitous. In Bayonetta, the ridiculous camera angles were part of the experience. I believe I described it at the time as "so sexy it's not sexy any more"—it was just incredibly stylised. In Vanquish, it just came off as tacky.

Complain all you like about JRPGs, but they're home to some of the medium's great female characters.

Eh, I don't buy that explanation about Bayonetta, Pete. You're telling me that [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEEuX52Y2DQ&t=0m35s]this[/url] isn't completely gratuitous? What's so "stylized" about tracking the camera between the main character's legs from back to front?

Regarding the article, Metal Gear Solid 4 comes to mind, too. I'm thinking of the completely unnecessary, zoomed-in shot of Meryl's ass when the game introduces her character. I immediately thought the same as Patrick, "What's the point, here?"

I thought Bayonetta was much more gratuitous than Vanquish (if we're talking solely about comparing Platinum Games' titles).

I agree, James. Sure, Vanquish has problems because of its adherence to traditional gender roles, but hypersexualization is not among its faults. (Also, Elena's top half is fully covered, so you can't really look down her shirt....)

I would point out (just to stay little more on target with regard to Patrick's specific topic) that one could argue that Bayonetta's and Vanquish's portrayal of female characters can't really interfere with the stories the creators were trying to tell...because those games have barely any story, anyway. (Again, I think Patrick was trying to set aside a moral debate to talk about how this stuff affects stories. I think this is very smart because it seems to me that it could be a good, alternate way to approach male gamers who refuse to see the endemic sexism in the medium. Think of it as an alternate plan of attack.)

That said, I find Rob's Meryl example and Patrick's Miranda example much more interesting. Those two games are very much narrative-focused experiences, and I find their portrayals of women quite distracting. 

This is a really great article and it completely resonates with me as a female gamer. It also reinforces my belief that this sexualizationnot only hinders many women from becoming "hard-core" gamers, it also can keep us from being taken seriously even if we try. I need only think about all the times I've gone into GameStop and the condescending attitudes I've received from the sales clerks, many of whom - if we're being stereotypical - tend to be the same younger males you mentioned for which these games were designed. (Obviously, not everyone thinks this way, as you clearly demonstrate, but enough people do that it’s become a noticeable problem.)

I also want to agree with Pete above - JRPGs have some absolutely fantastic female characters! I hope we can look forward to many more of them in the future.

Thank you for such a wonderful discussion of this issue!

In referance to Metal Gear Solid 4, the zoomed in shot of Meryls ass was actually a call back to the first metal gear solid. Where snake checking out her ass was the way he noticed she wasn't a clone trooper. It was basically reaffirming the fact that snake, the main character, was still attracted to her. Which actually helps snake's characterization because now that he is severely old and quickly dieing, Meryl (a former love intrest) is just one more thing he has to watch move on without him.

The entire metal gear solid series has pretty overt referances to sexuality but in my opinion actually handles them fairly well, as all the female characters are self aware and intelligent and the sexuality is almost a self parody, often times the main character being potrayed as a slack jawed sex starved idiot to make fun of the developers for putting in the smut and the player for enjoying it.

For example (spoilers for metal gear solid 3.)

Eva is a sex symbol throughout the game, with the main character and the camera both regularly checking out her ass and ample cleavage. Later on you learn that she was actually a spy and was manipulating Snake, and by proxy you, with her sex appeal. This is hinted at by numerous points in the story where Snake is obviously dumbfounded and not keeping up with the conversation because he's busy being a horn dog.

Contrast this with the boss, the other prominent female character in the game, an older woman who is never treated in a sexual manner until the very end of the game when she zips down her suit to show what amounts to a stylized c section scar, the skin she shows then only used to underline a new characterization as a mother.

Metal Gear as a series may assume a male demographic to a certain extent, but it uses that assumption to suprisingly good effect in manipulating the male psyche to tell a more rich story, and when it does it gratuitisly, it's usually plain to see that it's more to make fun of themselves then to sell more games.

I agree with the article above to a certain extent, but speaking as a feminist myself I think that everyone should be careful not to make a direct correlation between sexuality and exploitation, because even the most seemingly exploitative tricks can actually be used to artistic effect by clever writers. Just because a character is overly sexy doesn't mean they are poorly written. Just like making a woman basically sexless doesn't automatically make them a good character either.

If anything, I found Bayonetta rather intimidating as opposed to sexy. I thought the hypersexualisation of her appearance took the piss rather than acted as fanservice.

I do agree with the article, though. Too much shoddy writing and female characters who are two dimensional. The icing on the cake was Samus' portrayal in Metroid: Other M. What a horrible game that turned out to be.

Ah, thanks Jeffery. I take that example back, then. I just tracked down the scene on YouTube, and you're right. I'd argue, though, that the reference is obscured in MGS4's convoluted narrative, especially considering we're asked to remember events three games prior.

Metal Gear solid 4 is not a casual metal gear player's game, i'll give you that. Almost the entire purpose of the game is to provide deep nostalgia to players who have a long history with the series and take the story very seriously, then use that nostalgia to emotionally manipulate the player for hours to provide a very emotionally gripping narrative. To be fair what you might not have seen in that video is during points like that where they directly refrance a previous game, you can mash on the x button and it will show still frames of the moment in the previous game along with dreamlike replays of related dialog from that game. So they were saying in no uncertain terms 'this moment, is directly related to this moment!'

Still Metal Gear solid has never been a series for the inattentive, and metal gear solid 4 embraces that whole heartedly. The game was basically not made for anyone who complained that previous metal gear games had too much story and not enough action. I'm not claiming it's the perfect game or even the perfect story, it just knows who it's telling it's story too and is really unapoligetic about it.....and I personally think it's female characters are spiffy. I just wish they would actually let one be a player character one of these days, but it's hard to see them doing that, unfortunately.

I hope someone can explain to me why John Marston is a well written character. His background is completely told, not shown. His demeanor do not reflect his past. He just seems like a pretty average guy with good manners.

I agree with Jeffrey about MGS and would actually go so far as to say that the series is quite reverential to women.  I have not played MGS3, but from what I do know about it, The Boss is portrayed in a very positive way as the ultimate soldier who not only gives her life for her country, but makes a sacrifice that to her would have been even bigger: her honor as a warrior.  She is one of the most noble characters I know of in any medium.  In MGS4 too, almost all of the most powerful enemies are females -- the FROGs, the Beauty and The Best Corps, even the GEKKOs have a somwhat feminine appearance to their distinctive legs.

The series storyline literally begins and ends with women, as well.  **Caution: Spoilers Ahead**  It's been awhile since I've played them, but as I recall, The Boss was the inspiration for both the Patriots and Outer Heaven (along with being the mentor of Big Boss), and the ultimate victory over the Patriots was delivered via a computer virus written by Naomi and Sunny.  **End Spoilers**  I would argue that the most important characters in the whole series are women.

I certainly agree that sexuality can be used to great effect with the right writer, but the vast majority of games use it in a bad way.  It generally detracts from the character.  I think Morrigan from Dragon Age: Origins would have been a bit more interesting had she not worn so much eye makeup and an outfit that was more than essentially just a bra and a scarf -- Though perhaps even that could be argued as her way of calling out for attention from a society she has been outside of for her entire life (hmm, something to ponder.  Perhaps she is more interesting than I thought).

I think this is an issue that is very ingrained in our society, though.  After all, a male can be considered very sexy wearing a suit and still be taken seriously, whereas a female would have a difficult time being taken seriously and being sexy simultaneously.

Thank you for all the comments, it's a great discussion.

I think the problem here isn't that female characters needn't ever be sexy, but that they need to be sexy during appropriate times. Half the battle gear women wear in games is so inappropriate. As Layton points out, shooting Miranda in a sexy way when she's seducing someone is fine, but everywhere else? It's pretty insulting to the intelligence of most gamers.

This is a good aticle, however, God of War 3 is based on Greek stories and characters. Anyone who knows even a little about the Greek god stories will be able to tell you that God of War 3 is actually NOTHING compared to those stories. The way I see it is that God of War is being exactly how it should be and that is why it doesn't try to hide the sexualization. If it wasn't gory and sexual, then it wouldn't be a real Greek story. That's just how the Greeks were with the original stories, so it should continue.

Really? You believe those shots of Miranda had no relation to her character? The character that was bred to be "genetically perfect"? A character that spents a portion of her life being molded into that role? The fact that so much of her inherent sexuality is subconscious is both realistic and shapes your view on her, skewing it until you realize just how much depth she actually has. Such a delicious surprise.

In the end it comes down to the fact that women are inherently sexual creatures (as are men!) You're trying to work against thousands of years of genetic and cultural history. The notion that every female has to be a strong, commanding presence actually gets pretty tiresome after awhile. What is wrong with female character that are just female, a person like any other? Why do they have to be "strong" for them to be successful?

Miranda as a femme fatale is not bullshit, as you say. Her sexuality is meant to lull you into forgetting that although she's on your "team", she's still the right-hand woman of a man heading up a very unscrupulous organization. I think shots like the one you mentioned above actually go a long way towards making you less aware of that fact, possibly influencing in-game decisions. It enhances the story, it doesn't ruin it at all.

And I haven't even played God of war, but I take issue with your point about that title, as well. The scantily clad women and quick-time sex events aren't for no reason at all, but for comical purpose - you said so yourself. That kind of raunchy attitude towards sex is reflective of the same attitude the game takes towards violence.

Also, you've completely neglected portrayals of male characters, as well. Rippling muscles, badass armor and huge, phallic guns? Sometimes it's as bad as action figures from our childhoods. It's all one big fantasy - it's not just about the sexualized women.

Sometimes, the best way to sell a game is to sell some of the standards of the game. Look at DOA and what happened to the fighting game.. All I can say is Volleyball and by god.. It is GOOD. (Least for my favorite fighter Helena.)

I also disagree with your article, because half the time most of the games don't have scant clad lead females in the role but sometimes do have.. Questionable clothings (IE: Valkyria Chronicles..But then again..Alicia could destroy an entire continent..)

At the same time, the games that do have are meant to be something to relax your eyes on.  Its also a perspective of what violence is best combined with.. Sex, hence "Eye Candy". The games you have listed that have  no "character" built in is exactly how the designers expect it to be.

Of course, the counter side would be of what the female gamers get.

My question is, is it really okay to split the gaming community in half and have different games appealing to different genders like bathroom stalls soon?

I mean, if the girls want seductive men and turn playboy into playgirl. What would happen to us male gamers who dont want to be staring at some guys butt?

As long as the gaming community is mostly held by males, there will always be a way to satisfy both sides of the pipeline: Murder, Death Sex.

@Matthew Arguments about big muscles and phallic guns don't have parity with arguments about the objectification of the female form. Why? Because guys with big muscles and guns aren't inserted into the game to titillate the opposite sex. They are inserted to titillate male players looking to act out power fantasies.

The difference is that male developers create characters of both genders to entertain male gamers, not the other way around. If a hegemonically matriarchal society were creating the male characters you indicate solely to sate female sexual fantasies, then your argument (that male depections should be part of this discussion) would be sound.

As we're all well aware, the power structure of this society isn't organized that way, so arguments that men are sexually objectified aren't really workable. But if we assume for a moment that they are objectified in any capacity, it’s as a means of fulfilling and propagating male agency, and any such objectification would have to be perpetrated intrasexually (i.e. man on man, as opposed to the purposed domination of men over women). Such a lapse in moral consideration -- if it even exists -- seems far less egregious than the objectification of one gender by another.

Also, BIG NOTE here: I added that "I call bullshit" remark. Patrick's article was well written, but it got a bit circuitous at parts, so I had to make some pretty heavy edits to prep it for the front page. If his article had been sent to me internally from one of our writers, I would have sent back notes and let him make the edits himself. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles we promote and the number of community members we have, such a system would be a logistical nightmare if we used it with every community article. Would the community member have the story prepped in time for our rigorous deadlines? Would they listen to our edits? Are they even interested in revising their work?

As such, we (the editors) have to implement edits ourselves. This often involves a lot of condensing and cutting for the sake of brevity and cogency (which together amount to overall readability, especially on the Internet, where attention spans are short). Patrick's argumentative thrust seemed to indicate that he wasn't buying such explanations, and that's how I ended up with that line. They are three clear, easy-to-read words that get the point across. (Also, "crap" sounds really hokey.)

Anyway! I take full responsibility for that edit, and I apologize if I ever accidentally put words into the mouth of any community member in this or any future edit. And direct apologies to Patrick if I changed the intent of his article. Unfortunately, it isn't an exact science, and the pragmatic aspects of revising community articles means that the editing process doesn't necessarily mirror exactly what would happen at...say...a magazine like EGM. I would also ask for your appreciation and understanding that it is quite a difficult task to make heavy edits to an article while maintaining the original intent. The only alternative is to promote nothing, which means less exposure for your guys' work!

Cheers!

I totally understand the need for those changes. Being a journalist by trade I'm well aware of the editing process! I felt you got my point across accurately.

@Patrick I scoped your website. I think it's really neat that you're dedicating yourself to working with one (particularly important) aspect of the video-game experience. I look forward to more critcism on the topic of storytelling and narrative!

Thanks James, it's a topic I'm very passionate about and I'm glad you think so as well.

@James you sounded like such a consummate professional in your reply that it made me smile. i totally agree with the points you made and retract my statements re: male depictions. I do, however, completely stand by my statements re: Miranda.

also, discussions like this make me miss my film studies classes dearly. thank you all.

Your points are well taken, Matthew. Especially in regards to male characters being subject to this type of portrayal. However, I would argue it happens to female characters far more often.

I do agree with you that it happens, however. No doubt of that.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the article as a whole, I would personally disagree with the use of Wet as an example of sexism - or at least, argue that your use is a bit misleading. You criticise her character right off the bat, and fail to justify it, which leaves someone who's played through the game confused, since Rubi was clearly in charge during that game's story.

While I will gladly agree with the cover art playing on , the game itself never actually treats Rubi this way, and it's a mistake to lump the Rubi we see in-game in the same category as the Rubi on the boxart. The shots and motions of her in-game don't play on assets or sexual charm to make her seem charismatic, but instead focus on an almost suave and confident attitude.

Just because she's attractive doesn't make her a sex object. To say that would mean that every last muscle-bound hero in male fantasies are sexist against men. Personally, I'd put her attractiveness down to her demeanor and fashion sense - and the point for the artists was to make a stylish character. It's also important to keep in mind that Wet is a deliberate tribute to the grindhouse film genre, which is evident throughout the game.

But I agree with Mass Effect 2 as an example - I would support the argument that Miranda's appeal was thrown in for thematic reasons, but that argument loses water in the case of a female Shepard - but I haven't played enough of Red Dead Redemption to argue (even if the introduction does show us a woman single-handedly running an entire ranch).