| the_dengle said: How does the developer "make it possible" to sexualize a character? This isn't like GTA where characters are blatantly having sex and such. Does Smash Bros make it possible to sexualize characters because you can pause the game and look up the girls' skirts? There are trophies of Peach and Daisy in their Mario Tennis outfits, you can basically see their underwear, are they being sexualized? In any game that gives you a decent level of camera control, you can zoom in on whatever you like. People can sexualize anything they want with or without help from the developer. If outfits alone can sexualize a character than explain how full-frontal nudity is not a "sexualized" outfit (or lack thereof). There are no sexualized poses in either of the games I'm discussing, so that's all you're going on here. Bravely Default is an interesting case. The bikini is actually plot-relevant. The fact that it is 'sexy' is important. Anyway, consider the graphical style and resolution of the title -- does this really look more objectionable to you than visible male genitalia? I was actually referring to Xenoblade X, the target of the recent criticisms. Characters can wear revealing outfits. This is a problem because one of the characters is a thirteen-year-old girl. But she can also wear any of the dozens if not hundreds of not-revealing outfits. It's not like you can strip her naked or put her in a sexual situation or position. Again, for the majority of the gameplay she would be obscured by her weapon anyway. This is far from an ecchi game, it just has some revealing outfits in addition to normal-looking military armor, ridiculous anime armor, classic sci-fi inspired stuff, etc. |
I agree that people can sexualize anything, but that doesn't mean a developer should encourage the behavior. Outfits and poses that have a sexual nature only feed into the idea of women (or men) as sex objects. You were saying that The "sexualization" of the character -- determined by camera angles, focus, lingering -- is in the hands of the player. While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that developers can limit such experiences if they choose - hence they 'make it possible'.
I didn't play Bravely Default, but the article I read said the ages were changed to 18, sexual innuendos were removed, and sexual outfits were toned down for a western release. They clearly agree that it was sexual in nature or they wouldn't have felt the need to make these changes. I feel the outfit is more similar to lingerie than it is to a simple bathing suit. I've never seen anyone wear a similar outfit to the beach or pool, but I have seen similar outfits in the bedroom (and porn). The article also states that these changes were made without affacting the story or game. So why sexualize a child in the first place?
I think the outfit in the link that you posted has a sexual intent (regardless of the resolution). I honestly think the graphical style only makes it worse. It looks like a 10yr old with an adult body in lingerie. Visible male genitalia CAN be sexual, but isn't necessarily sexual by nature. That was the whole point of my original comment 'nude =/= lewd'. I can understand how someone might think they are the same thing but they are not synonymous. There is a tremendous difference between nudism and porn for example. I don't think the scene of Bart Simpson naked had any sexual intent at all.
