Orb Candy, Diablo 3, and Sending a Message

[Removed by Admin]

Wow, just. This whole thread sure is a thing. It feels like agreeing with the OP shouldn't need any sort of justification; "this thing is offensive and here is why" shouldn't warrant eight pages of horribly demeaning "debate" (ugh) with a dismissive non-response from an admin.

Then again... you really wouldn't know it's 2013 by reading some of the responses here. And so I guess that for some reason the internet still requires us to justify agreeing with a pretty reasonable position.

But... Art!

Yes, art is sometimes offensive to various communities. Consider a famous contemporary example: Piss Christ. On the surface - the material fact of the work itself - Piss Christ is a picture of a crucifix submerged in urine.

Shocking! Offensive! Blasphemous! But Piss Christ is far more than the material level; it has a message, because it's a work of art. Piss Christ says: theologically, this man died on this cross for the sins of humanity, for love, for tolerance, for the poor and the meek and the oppressed. But for two thousand years, Christians have waged wars, have conquered, raped, pillaged and oppressed in his name. Piss Christ doesn't say "I have submerged jesus in my urine," it says "you have submerged him in yours."**

What does Path of Exile say? What does having naked women chained to the UI say? If it's art, what is the message? Even if you want to go full Post-Modernist ("art is the end result of any creative process!"), you should still be able to deconstruct this for me. Calling something "art" isn't enough to justify it as good art - and if it isn't good art, why would you want to keep it around in your "art game"?

It's just a game!!1
Casual sexism exists everywhere - some (okay, a lot) of the responses in this thread absolutely reek of sexism. Even the notion that men can't care about casual sexism without being somehow commanded to by a woman is demeaning, and that seems to be one of the major arguments on display in this "debate."

Violence serves a narrative purpose in the game: these things are zombies, those things are angry spitting dog things, this thing is a guy with a sword who wants you dead, everyone else is evil, etc. It makes sense to kill bad guys in the manichaean world of videogame logic. Sexy things - and yes, even sexism - can be justified by in-game narrative. Have you ever played Dragon Age: Origins' city elf start? That's some heavy violence against women, but it's not unjustified in the setting.

But chaining women to the UI? What narrative exists in the world to justify that? When you wash up on shore and start beating the undead back to death with a stick, what character is there to tell you "oh by the way, our cosmology rests on the notion that naked women are the bringers of life and magical energy! Oh gods this zombie just ate my eyeballs!"

If you're willing to accept casual sexism here, where else will you accept it? "Other things are worse" is a position which has no end. Today you accept casual sexism in a videogame because television is worse, tomorrow you accept it on television because movies are worse. Movies? What about real life. Real life? Well, we can't do anything about real life because it's worse in some places than other places. And anyway, people are all bad, so what's the point?

Or you could stop accepting that everything needs to be awful, stop believing that the world needs to be a terrible and oppressive place, and stop pretending that "growing up" means joining in instead of fighting against.

Stop being offended/yr a dumb girl lol/other stuff is worse
Suppose that it isn't such a big deal to be offended by what is, by a reasonable standard, a small part of the overall game UI. What's the point, then, in such dehumanizing responses to the mere suggestion that it be changed? That's what this sort of "debate" is: "your opinions don't matter because you don't matter." Are we supposed to simply accept that dissenting voices - the voices of progressive and, gasp, even women gamers - don't matter? Why, because reasons?

"[...] the developers will consider changes for the future if needed" is a pretty odd response, all things considered, for something that seems to be a pretty heated topic. What does "will consider... if needed" mean? Because it sounds a lot like "go away, we don't care," and I for one would like a full and level response - even if it's one that I don't agree with.




**Full disclosure: I am not Christian, but a friend did give me a bible as a joke. I read some of Acts, once.

On the topic of the "sex slaves" or whaterver you want to call it, make one male and one female - problem solved. Not that there is a problem to begin with. Grow a hide please :P

Stop dictating us about your political views, this isn't a game that tries to portray the real world, if you cant differentiate that, i advise you to stop playing animated games all together.
Also try reading up on the games lore for once, you'll notice lots of sexism, slavery, torture, murder, genocide, molestation, alive bodymodification etc etc., if u ask me from a game lore point of view those 2 globes are actually way to chic!
I'm gonna guess that they must come from a more high Vaalish style of portrayment, a legacy almost forgotten in Wraeclast.

Have a good day O/

God forbit gamers ever take an issue related to women's representation that is not MORE BEWBS! seriously. And we wonder why girls grow up thinking that games are not for them.

OP, the truth is, the Devs are making the game that they want. The orb candy is there and I believe it's a good thing as it can be considered art. There's a lot of discussion of this in the thread, I don't care to go through all the pages.

However I'm going to give this "suggestion" a -1

You can play Hello Kitty Online if you are offended, but the fact is:

1. The devs enjoy the art. If they didn't, it wouldn't be there.
2. I'm fairly sure the majority of players enjoy the art. Don't make something attractive to teenage boys? Well newsflash: older men enjoy it too.
3. Most importantly, it belongs in the game. It fits the style.

I honestly don't even look at the orb candy when playing, or even in town, and cannot even remember when I last noticed it. However knowing it's there, knowing all the "content" in act 3 of similar nature, even though I don't enjoy act 3 nearly as much as act 1 & 2 - is encouraging to me. It sends a message that GGG is willing to ignore the vocal minority for the greater good.

"

Kaydegard wrote:

Here's the thing though, why are all of you getting so worked up about this?

The OP lacks tact and presented his "suggestion" poorly. Instead of opening that he may be wrong and that he thinks there is merit to making the game more appealing to women, at the expense of artistic integrity, he essentially told everyone who disagreed they were wrong and that if he wasn't appeased he would leave the game for a competitor.

How are you surprised by the response?

Oh and I still haven't heard why virtual sexism is worse than virtual violence.

"

DrunkardCain wrote:

What does Path of Exile say? What does having naked women chained to the UI say?

It says, "Rated M for Mature."

The Vallejo-ish chained up women on the interface are the first thing noticed by most people I show the game to. A few of them don't want the game played around their daughters because of it. It's horribly offensive, but I do remind them that the game is from New Zealand. Nowhere near as horribly women-hating as Australia ("She's too fat to be the PM"), but still....

In the US, I know some people who get annoyed enough at it that they don't play. They also don't read 1970s softcore fantasy crap. It's pretty embarrassing to have it in the game.

"

Veta321 wrote:

"

Kaydegard wrote:

Here's the thing though, why are all of you getting so worked up about this?

The OP lacks tact and presented his "suggestion" poorly. Instead of opening that he may be wrong and that he thinks there is merit to making the game more appealing to women, at the expense of artistic integrity, he essentially told everyone who disagreed they were wrong and that if he wasn't appeased he would leave the game for a competitor.

How are you surprised by the response?

Oh and I still haven't heard why virtual sexism is worse than virtual violence.

Practically speaking, it's a lot harder to remove the killing from PoE than it is to remove the orb-candy.

Apart from that... sexism is a far more rampant problem than wanton violence. You can argue that the latter is worse when it happens, but that is rare enough that it would seem like all of these violent video games don't really have anything to do with it. Sexism, in comparison, is very common, and it's easier to fathom a link between growing up with sexist media and being a sexist, than to imagine one between growing up with GTA and being a mass murdering drug lord (do you get to be a drug lord in GTA? Replace with something appropriate if not). That's why it's more offensive.

But mostly, I think this is about how the orb-candy is at best mildly offensive and entirely pointless.