The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[VirusOnline]

If I could make this shorter I could. I crai inside.

Oh I dont mean you yourself are using sophistry . . .

Gamasutra has a reasonable conclusion with valid premises. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean its sophistry.
For example would it be faulty that SE decides XIV should have more casual content update than savage content updates as a result of identifying a large presence of casual players ? Casual player here being an identifier. We can break down into however much nuance we want, main fact is that SE sees that their market is majority casual and will naturally gravitate towards casual play. In mainstream games, individual nuance can be considered, but if that nuance is not generally harmful, targeting a generalization is acceptable to bring in or retain market. Look to casual vs. savage players as an example. It would be remiss not to consider the gaming identities present in the XIV community and how your content draws them in or puts them off.

I agree with this broadly . . .

I'm curious as to why you keep saying with no consideration to the market ? The consideration here is the netural, socially acceptable interests in relation to the straight male in mainstream games. For example, female sexualisation is generally acceptable.

The problem is the assumptions it must make for it to work . . .

I didn't suggest people can't have basic human empathy, sympathy, or emotions.

Let me present a situation : you're wanting to paint an attractively sexualised male marketed for female and gay audiences, but your design team is comprised of straight men. Will I seek out people randomly or will my research be focused around certain identities that are attracted to men ? This is where your details of attraction come in and how identities afford for different insights. There are two sides to this coin. Just having a gay friend won't tell you what he finds sexually appealing in another man. Just being an activist doesn't mean I can suddenly speak with nuance for any identity I am an activist for. Me having and artist friend doesn't mean I suddenly understand the nuance of blending technique and colour theory. This also doesn't mean one doesn't completely have the ability to be able to sympathize.

The point I'm making is that sexual identity is an insightful perspective when selling to a majority that also shares your same sexual identity and can identify and share what convention beauty would sell best.

Well itd be nice if there was something for everyone . . .

I resonate with you here and this is where I think Gamasutra holds a good point. Female sexualisation dominates and often is at the forefront because of the majority, largest, target. This can also considered 'safe' or the neutral in a global market. For example, female viera. A WoW study in 2014 estimated that 23 % of male players and 93 % of female players played female avatars. In 2017, YoshiP said that the ratio of male to female players was 7 : 3 or 57 % to 43 %. Female viera, a fan favourite and convetionally attractive model, therefore appealed to 58 % of the overall FFXIV population based on gender avatar preference alone. We could go into probability and statistics to address nuance, but the idea is to understand the generalizations of a market.

Bunny boy weird amirite, tho ? ugly cry

The problem is that this rejects the agency of the individual . . .

Individuals do have agency in the brainstorming process. But again, agency like creativity stops at the sole deciding committee. This could be YoshiP, this could be who he reports to, this could be investors, etc. Let's look at the process of Au Ra and how that image changed and what we were actually given. This is how creative process in a company goes like. Creatives, however beautiful the Au Ra originally were, were denied for what we have now.

Again, we can't cater to every one of them, thus generalization. I really feel you're going too deep between the lines rather than taking the argument for what it is. A generalized reasoning. You're diminishing what identity is here to a very shallow point of view rather than seeing how it pertains to much more than just a list of physical attributes.

And it comes to it's conclusion based on identity rather than the nuance of the individual, particularly when trying to understand a trend . . .

Not sure how we got to this point, lol ! Your favour nuance, this much is clear. What you presented is circular reasoning where both your premises having become your conclusion, and a premise can not be a conclusion. It's like saying my dog is the best because he thinks it therefore he is the best by his own thought. Gamasutra identifies a premise of a large presence of straight male in both developer and target market. The conclusion is lower rates of male sexualisation as socially acceptable straight male interests favour female sexualisation.

I bring up 80s/90s because Im trying (and probably failing but the sounds of it) to show you a then vs now trend . . .

We're both making the same point here. Only mine with the added reasoning that just because we're moving doesn't mean mainstream is still not considering the safe market to be whatever mode of socially acceptable straight male is. There has been change, but it would be remiss to say female and male sexualisation are even on the same level as each other and Gamasutra offers reason as to why.

Unfortunately, I just disagree with this outlook . . .

For someone who claims identity shouldn't be or isn't a factor, you surely use it quite a lot in your arguments. Perhaps your definition of identity is too shallow.

Identity is not just physical features. It's also comprised of our morals, ethics, values, relationships, personal experiences, lifestyles, ideas surrounding gender, culture, etc. It's a common phrasing in English to say "I identify with these morals, with these ethics, with these values" and so forth and so on. And one's identity is always changing in these regards. You accept that outlook can be affected by cultural identity but not by a sexual identity ?

You also say you don't want to make assumptions based on identity but do just that in the same line. We're human. We make assumptions and inferences without hesititation whether explicit or not. If someone says they're an RPG gamer, you might talk to them about FFXIV or WoW or Pillars of Eternity. Or you might see a friend on a computer playing an FPS and infer they like FPS games in general. It's how we contextualize, it's not some terrible thing to avoid. Focus groups and research teams alike target specific identities based on people's relationships such as teachers, doctors, parents, sexuality, etc in order to produce better results with insights from these different identities.

It would be silly of course to not realize that some factors influence certain actions . . .

Yes, there are a multitude of factors, the article nor I said any one factor is the sole purpose. You seem so hasty to rule out identity in the process of it all as if identity is but all bad in the creative process. Having a sexual preference can have an influence on a creative work and it's not a bad thing. It's one thing to say it's not a factor in an instance, it's another to completely rule it out. Drawing towards your sexual preference is a common theme in art just as is drawing towards your own gender. The prevailing difference between you and I is that you seem so intensely attached to nuance whereas I feel nuance and generalizations have their appropriate places.

I make this distinction because a lot of people fail to realize theres a difference . . .

Yes, there is a difference between ethnicity, nationality, and culture. I don't think anyone has or is currently contesting this.

We disagree on the details but agree on the overall message and that's fine enough.

[Melichoir]

Gamasutra has a reasonable conclusion with valid premises. ....content draws them in or puts them off.

Gamasutra is relying on a lot of assumptions that are on the basis of identity and predetermined output. The main crux of their position is the identity of the creatives and users is informing their decision making in a specific fashion. The problem with this argument is that it removes agency and nuance and treats the group as a monolith where there are no other factors at play. It dresses this point up by saying "Well, you have a lot of sexy ladies, and a lot of players and devs are straight men, therefore being straight is resulting in creating sexy women." But that point, no matter how you look at it, is suggesting identity is directly pushing input and output. It glosses over nuance in both creatives and in the market.

The example you provide does the opposite of what Gamasutra does: You consider the market forces that are based on individuality (a bunch of individuals making a personal decision) and have SE react to said forces with individual design choices. The key nuance here is the drastic difference in what people do on the basis of personal non identity factors (I.E what content they choose to play, regardless of identity) vs identity based decision making (I.E what they like to view based on personal identity.) And even when considering identity, you have individual identity vs collective identity. Just because a man may be straight doesnt mean they feel uncomfortable around male sexualization or homosexuality. To collectively say that this is how things are gonna be for hte whole group is, again, erasing nuance and agency.

There are to many assumptions that rely on collectivizing by group identity and attempts to dress it up as being valid and cogent, which is why it's sophistry. It sounds kosher on paper, if you accept the premise that the actions being taken are due to identity, and not personal choices and acting and reacting to those individualistic choices, or cultural norms, or other nuanced factors that are motivated by choice making rather than intrinsic identity decisions.

I'm curious as to why you keep saying with no consideration to the market ? The consideration here is the netural, socially acceptable interests in relation to the straight male in mainstream games. For example, female sexualisation is generally acceptable.

Because the issue is that what Gamasutra suggests makes more sense in a market that has a more adverse outlook on male sexualization. Again, it relies on the assumption that the market finds certain things acceptable and not acceptable based on identity.

This, btw, also makes another assumption - That males arent sexualized in media. I feel that this argument tends to crop up because people think that female sexualization is the same as male sexualization. That what a sexy male looks like is the same as a sexy female, and what some of that even looks like varies by culture.

I didn't suggest people can't have basic human empathy, sympathy, or emotions.

Im not suggesting you are. Im suggesting Gamasutra is.

Let me present a situation : you're wanting to paint an attractively sexualised male marketed for female and gay audiences,.... share what convention beauty would sell best.

Ive done commission artwork that is NSFW for virtually all spectrums of sexuality. What straight females like and what gay males like do not line up over half the time. And I was able to provide them with what they wanted by simply asking and observing - something a ton of creatives do. This doesnt even include family members and friends who are LGBT and talk about what they like. Ive sat down and had burgers and beers and chatted about what is hot and what is not from a variety of perspectives.

While I may have one insight on the sexuality spectrum, it does not preclude me from being able to have insight, understand, or create for another part of the spectrum. And that was my point above. The snippet relies to heavily on an identity and assumptions about said identity to reach its conclusions. It doesnt take into account a lot of factors, like cultural changes, or the individualism of the creatives or consumers and their personal feelings or even if such things matter.

I resonate with you here...Bunny boy weird amirite, tho ? ugly cry

Im not sure I get your point because it feels like its running counter to what was being suggested? Most of the market is male, and Female Viera exists and is sexy, so therefore female viera was put out there to appeal to the larger male player base?

This doesnt take into account a lot of other factors. How many of the 57% is straight. How much of the straight market even likes the female viera beauty standards. How about gay male player who like playing as female viera for their own personal choices. What about Lesbian Gamers who do like how female viera look. Or even straight females who want play as female viera cause theyre attractive. Then you have to start looking at the other side of this: Hrothgars. How many straight men play them. How about straight women. How about lesbian women, or gay men. What about those who dont care either way and play these races for other factors like lore, or cause they like tall characters, or they dig the amazonian vibe, or simply because it's something thats not a potato tot or catboi or whatever.

It's to broad a suggestion (with a lot of questionable implications about the nature of people) that identity is the deciding factor in how things are. If this was the case, we should see little to no changes in the creatives or market place when it comes to this stuff, but things have changed because its not about identity, its about ideas. It always has been. Straight men didnt push back against homosexuality cause that is inherent to straight men, they did it cause of bigoted ideas that were much more prevalent within the culture and what it meant to be a man. You want to know how this point is true: Go back and really look at the 70s and 80s and early 90s. Yes homophobia was a thing expressed a lot by men, but there were plenty of women who found homosexuality in men was undesirable as well (and yes there were plenty of straight men who viewed lesbians as bad too). This is because it was cultural, and culture is not built on identity, its built on ideas.

Individuals do have agency in the brainstorming process. But again, agency like creativity stops at the sole deciding committee.....how it pertains to much more than just a list of physical attributes.

Im being hard on the identity argument because people tend to conflate ideas with identity. That is they suggest that an identity group acts, thinks, and behaves in a certain way based on identity, when it is more likely other influences are at play, like culture or personal experiences. If we go with the former, then there is a ton of baggage that comes with it. One of them is the most immediate - how can you fault the group for behaving a certain way if its their identity influencing their decision making in such a drastic way. It is inherent to them. It is also acceptable to make judgements about people simply by identity. Which ironically is what Gamasutra does: Straight men have a problem with male sexuality or appearing gay. That is a sweeping generalization that is in reality heavily contextual on culture and what is defined as appearing gay or male sexuality, but for some reason it is implied it is a factor of identity.

Not sure how we got to this point, lol ! ... interests favour female sexualisation.

The premise gamasutra puts out is circular: Most Devs and Gamers are straight males. They make and consume content for straight males. They do this cause Most Devs and Gamers are Straight Males.

It is dressed up with some reasoning about the identity group and why they do what they do (problem with appearing gay and male sexuality), but it still is a conclusion that feeds back into the premise. The most charitable reading of what gamasutra says is they conflate correlation with causation. The cause of so much straight male fan service is cause straight males in both market and development, rather than that being a correlation.

It divorces any nuance from it, like some of what is suggested above.

We're both making the same point here. Only mine with the added reasoning that just because we're moving doesn't mean mainstream is still not considering the safe market to be whatever mode of socially acceptable straight male is. There has been change, but it would be remiss to say female and male sexualisation are even on the same level as each other and Gamasutra offers reason as to why.

I think the issue I take a problem with, especially as of late, is the portrayal that we havent moved nearly as much as we have. That were still all butt backwards. I keep tabs on the media industries at large and the content being made and can tell you this isnt the case. We've been accelerating (and in some places over compensating). Now if your point is "is it up to 'parity'" Id say no, which is why Im ok if they want to do nothing but guy candy the next xpac. It wont make a difference to me personally.

For someone who claims identity shouldn't be or isn't a factor, you surely use it quite a lot in your arguments. Perhaps your definition of identity is too shallow.

Identity is not just physical features. It's also comprised of our morals, ethics, values, relationships, personal experiences, lifestyles, ideas surrounding gender, culture, etc. I...

Best thing I can say is that youre suggesting identity in terms of the entire person, where I am suggesting identity in terms of physical characteristics only as is being commonly discussed in current political climates. This might be semantics issue then and agreeing to defined terms. Identity, the characteristics of ones physical nature and the way they were born, is not the same as the character, ideals, culture, and concepts they act out. Id probably call the latter character. I make this distinction because, again, to often people conflate morals, ethics, etc with a particular race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc. EX: If you are 'white' you believe and think this way as a white person. We should all understand well enough that this is a silly point to make because it is not consistent. Not all white people think and behave a certain way.

In some cases, Identity can inform some of our decision making process - but only in incredibly basic situations. If you tell me you are a gay man, then I am going to make the broad inference that you are sexually attracted to men. But that identity factor doesnt tell me anything else. It doesnt tell me how you live your life. Or what you like to do in your spare time. Or your political leanings, or your outlook on social concepts. It doesnt tell me about your personality, it doesnt tell me about your religious or spiritual beliefs. It doesnt tell me about your past, or future prospects. It informs of of nothing concrete except your basic sexual preference. To suggest otherwise requires I make assumptions about you by tying ideas or concepts to your sexuality that you may, as an individual, not adhere to.

You also say you don't want to make assumptions based on identity but do just that in the same line.... results with insights from these different identities.

If I wasnt clear, then I think thats a bit on me. Assumptions are a part of human nature, but there's a difference between making an assumption based on the choices you make, and making one based on the way you were born. Making an inference that a friend likes FPS if they own like 50 different FPS games, is one that is fine because buying and playing said FPS games is a personal choice they decide to do. Saying they like FPS games cause theyre a certain race, gender, sexuality, etc, doesnt make sense and isnt fine, particularly when were discussing the individual.

Yes, there are a multitude of factors, ...nuance and generalizations have their appropriate places.

I am quick to rule out collectivization along identity lines, not individual characteristics that a lot of people may share by happen chance. This may seem like semantics but there's an underlying thought here that the value of anything should be measured in an individual sense. I also am not naive to Gamasutra among other op ed pieces by places like Kotaku, Polygon, and other gaming journalist websites who have shifted from discussing games to discussing current identity politics. And it is not done typically as being equally valid, but seen as a problem.

We disagree on the details but agree on the overall message and that's fine enough.

Frankly thats how a lot of this always goes. Most people are on the same page, just the details differ, which as you say fine enough. :>

Ok I need to lay off the essays hahaa....