[Luis Dias]

So after that other thread went into the obvious flames everyone guessed it was going into, there are still ideas floating around that I find possible to discuss in a rational, sensible manner about the actual topic that I believe we should be discussing, objectification of women (and men? perhaps not?), and I propose using particular examples to try to dissect where people's opinions differ on this, and why.

I think this is possible, because I have noticed that the harsh emotional rants, back and forths, flame wars, accusations, harrassments (and even death threats in some places) and what nots in both here and especially in the wider internet are all about particular people*, not the subject at hand. When people are discussed rather than the topics, is it any wonder the **** hits the fan? I personally believe the internet "made" the mistake to be more concerned with human drama than the material at hand, and I thought, "why not try the exact opposite approach?" That's the purpose of this thread, to bring out the best parts of that last thread into the prominent topic of this one. Level up the discussion so to speak.

In order to kick this off, I thought to bring two examples, one already partially discussed from Watch Dogs and another yet to be discussed from Hitman. I have a formed opinion on both of these examples, but they are not brick and mortar, and I think we can all learn a thing from each other  with this dissection. I think it would be awesome if everyone interested tried to bring their own particular example that they thought interesting to discuss.

The hitman example



So it happens that there is a special mission within Hitman wherein you are on a rooftop and with a sniper rifle you have to shoot down evidence for an act of your client. Apparently it involves finding and shooting three pieces of clothing scattered inside a huge building filled with roofttops and parties and people and whatnot. If you manage to do that, this is your prize: a woman dancing for you (pole dancing style) behind a window. Let this be clear: this is a prize. This kind of objectification is undeniable and condoned by the game itself as an award to you the player. Furthermore, you are looking at her from a ****ing scope, and yes, you can kill her at any time, but who cares, it's just a whore right?

This to me is the kind of women objectification that can be seen as a perfect baseline of consensus. Not even the most prominent ... ahh... skeptics in the youtubes and whatnots would deny this (well I might be wrong there but still). Am I wrong in assuming this? Your thoughts?

The Watch Dogs example



Now things get a bit more nuanced and complex. Yes, the "women for sale" example. This has been highlighted as an example of women objectification. I think this particular truth is consensual. I think it's also consensual that the game itself is aware of this ghastly truth so it doesn't sell you the idea that this is "ok" in the narrative sense (unlike in the former example in Hitman, or say in Duke Nukem where you get to pay women to dance for you, while saying "shake it baby" and so on). It's painted as a dark setting painting everyone inside it as psychopathic monsters, or mysoginists, or whatever other nasty adjectives you might prefer. The protagonist is an "outsider" who is trying to do something else, merely observing the darkness around him.

The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.

The problem I have with this interpretation is not that I don't believe in it. I do. It makes sense. The problem is of course that this is not necessarily "bad" per se. Not everyone inside games will be written with gusto or sufficient development. Shortcuts will be used. Tropes will be used to quickly paint bad people, and this is an effective manner to do so: to show the "bad things people do". And the set of "bad things" also includes "women being sold". What I probably think is an issue is the prevalence of these types of tropes, which in conjunction can create the idea that women are only these passive objects that are used by bad people. This is a different point. Or is it? What do you think?




* Given all the wild speculation people made about my beliefs, I just want to stress that my thoughts on a certain woman is strictly because of a story wherein I honestly think she was most definitely behaving in a psychopathic way, I have never taken 4chan seriously and never will take their paranoia without such grains of salt that turn them relevant. It's also a moot thing. I am not interested in discussing people, period. Hope that settles it.

[The E]

The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.

The problem I have with this interpretation is not that I don't believe in it. I do. It makes sense. The problem is of course that this is not necessarily "bad" per se. Not everyone inside games will be written with gusto or sufficient development. Shortcuts will be used. Tropes will be used to quickly paint bad people, and this is an effective manner to do so: to show the "bad things people do". And the set of "bad things" also includes "women being sold". What I probably think is an issue is the prevalence of these types of tropes, which in conjunction can create the idea that women are only these passive objects that are used by bad people. This is a different point. Or is it? What do you think?

It probably can be stated more eloquently, but I for one don't care. This is pretty much my thinking on the matter.

Blatantly obvious titillation is one thing. Anyone with functioning eyes can see it. The latter example, which is more murky and can be argued about based on narrative decisions (i. e. "We need to show these are bad people that need a good taking down") is imho more insidious. Not only is it more prevalent^{[Citation needed]}, it also creates a discussion environment where one side of the argument says "This is objectification, it's bad and needs to stop", and the other retorts "Well, the narrative is telling us that these are bad people doing this, it's a condemnation, not an endorsement", which is a magnificent example of two well-meaning debaters talking past each other.

My point here is this: It's not a problem per se if you use violence against women (or children, or animals) as a quick way to characterize someone, or a group of someones. It is, however, a problem if that's one of the default ways in which villains are characterized. There are so many ways in which we can show someone is a bad person that don't involve the presence of scantily clad women or that cast women in the role of victim without agency, it's time to start using them more often.

[TrashMan]

This has been highlighted as an example of women objectification. I think this particular truth is consensual. I think it's also consensual that the game itself is aware of this ghastly truth so it doesn't sell you the idea that this is "ok" in the narrative sense (unlike in the former example in Hitman, or say in Duke Nukem where you get to pay women to dance for you, while saying "shake it baby" and so on).

Honestly, I think that regarding pole dancers, strippers, etc.. as something low, dirty or wrong does more damage to women doing those jobs than anything else.
There was recently some ruckus and discussion about that. I belive it was some college student that paid her fees by shooting pornos, and told her side of the story.

The argument why this is still a bad thing is that the trope is about using a woman's objectification as a way to characterize your antagonists, which is a lot more subtle than the mere brute usage of plain objectification. The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification. Perhaps this can be more eloquently stated.

If that is the case, then one cannot use objectification of women at all in any context or for any purpose. It will always be wrong.
This in turn limits creative writing.


I honestly think that way too much time and effort is spent fighting ants, believeing them to be elephants (all the while real elephants are trmapling your fine china)

[Dragon]

My thoughts exactly. Instead of objecting to games depicting strippers, we should object to people who think being a stripper is wrong or incorrect in any way. If a woman (or a man, for that matter) willingly, consciously decides to use her own body, or even sex, as a means of earning money, that's fine. If anything, it should be demeaning to be depicted as client in such establishments (as this implies the client in question can't have sex any other way than by paying for it).

If that is the case, then one cannot use objectification of women at all in any context or for any purpose. It will always be wrong.
This in turn limits creative writing.

Also an important point. Depicting evil isn't wrong. Even making the player do "evil" things isn't really wrong, as long as it's clear those things are evil. You can have a story without evil (the conflict being rooted in struggle against a force of nature, or, more tragically, two good sides with mutually exclusive goals), but it's somewhat harder to pull off than "good vs. evil" conflict.

The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification.

Say again? Yes, this could be more eloquently stated, because the way you said it, it's utter BS. By this logic, in any WWII shooter, both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at Nazi atrocities taking place. You take pleasure in making those Nazis pay for those atrocities, slaughtering them in droves. And by taking part in this fantasy, you're also taking part in said atrocities? Sorry for using Godwin's Law, but it's just the first thing that comes to mind, WWII shooters being as common as they are. This sort of argument doesn't hold up, plain and simple. Even if they actually depict a concentration camp, with SS gassing people and everything, I assure you there's nothing wrong with either seeing this happen, or putting a round into each SS-man that comes in your sight, precisely because of what they're doing.

You can, of course, create a fantasy in which Holocaust didn't happen, in which women aren't objectified, in which there is no cancer... But should you only be enjoying this kind of abstract, idealized fantasies? If so, you shouldn't even enjoy real life, since it's full of suffering and injustice. We have no obligation of only enjoying playing games depicting a better world than ours, much less a perfect one. Also, enjoying the game doesn't mean enjoying an entirety of it. In particular, the aforementioned concentration camp scene would likely be gut-wrenching and terrifying. That's the whole point of it. You're supposed to feel bad about those things happening, and even if you aren't, it's your fault (unless it actually is glamorized, or the designers are incompetent and make it look stupid or funny, regardless of intent. Then it's disrespectful on their part).

[The E]

The point is that both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at the objectification taking place, but are both revelling in the fantasy of shredding the people responsible for it, and in doing so you are indeed taking part of the objectification.

Say again? Yes, this could be more eloquently stated, because the way you said it, it's utter BS. By this logic, in any WWII shooter, both the game and yourself are aware and disgusted at Nazi atrocities taking place. You take pleasure in making those Nazis pay for those atrocities, slaughtering them in droves. And by taking part in this fantasy, you're also taking part in said atrocities? Sorry for using Godwin's Law, but it's just the first thing that comes to mind, WWII shooters being as common as they are. This sort of argument doesn't hold up, plain and simple. Even if they actually depict a concentration camp, with SS gassing people and everything, I assure you there's nothing wrong with either seeing this happen, or putting a round into each SS-man that comes in your sight, precisely because of what they're doing.

First off, you are equating two things that aren't really equatable. Outside of a very few isolated examples, games have not been depicting the liberation of concentration camps in any great deal at all. Taking the games out of their historical context, we are rarely if ever actually shown why Nazis are bad in a collective (rather than in an individual) sense. We're told, or it is implied, that Nazis are committing atrocities on an unprecedented scale, but the games almost never directly depict this.

Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains; You are (I think, I have not played WD) actively penalized if you try to help these women right then and there, you have to stay undercover. Yes, the people you're there to take down a bad people for treating women as a commodity to be bought and sold, but in the context of the game, you as the player are not incentivized to care about the women as more than plot coupons either. They could be replaced with exotic animals and the plot would effectively be the same. The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?

The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.

[Luis Dias]

First, about the prostitution / pole dancers thing. Of course, like all nuanced, ambiguous things, this is a contentious matter even in feminist circles. What is important is the exact issue of "objectification", that is, the representation of a particular objectification of a woman, whose only purpose of existence is to titillate you. This is not without issues. It could be that this particular woman enjoys being objectified, it very depends on context and ideologies. The worst problem is, IMHO, when these things are issued without further thought (like The_E's example of women being mugged vs men).

It's a hard thing to differentiate, I think, between being an object or a subject. It's inherently subtle, and it at least requires a writer that is conscious of these problems.

Now, regarding the first watch dogs example. It could be that such juxtapositions of environments and "objects" are created precisely to put you at unease. Would you feel uneasy if the objects they were selling were dogs? Would you feel anger and frustration if you were able to save those girls? These things are not only tools of objectification of women. By denying the player's action on that moment I think we can even say it "levels the playfield" in regards with the poor women, since one of the common criticisms focus precisely on the disparity between these women who are deprived of any means to save themselves - they are merely objects and fully dependent on your decisions - and yourself, full power fantasy protag capable of saving everyone if you so wish. Still, all that is left for the player to do is willfully enjoy the visual objectification of those women, while conveniently disavowing their enjoyment and scapegoating all the pervert pleasures unto the evil antagonists.

This is why I disagree with The_E here, I do think there is a good analogy to be made regarding the WW2 thematics and the nazis and whatnots. We scapegoat all the terrible **** we do ingame, all the crazy gore and torture and sadism that happens in (say) Wolfenstein, unto the existence of the Nazis themselves. They take the blame, while you the player are the one actually reveling in the pleasure of killing and torturing everyone on sight. In this sense, every nazi is "objectified" for you, but that's OK because the code is that nazis are a synonym of absolute evil. This is the basic engine that turns  Inglorious Basterds so magnificently sweet and delicious, especially in that bloody part at the end.

[Dragon]

Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains;

Can, but that doesn't mean he should or has to. From what Luis said, it's exactly something the player should feel bad about. It's not a reward or anything. I haven't played Watch Dogs, but I think this might be similar to the MASH scene in Apocalypse Now: Redux. Yes, there are no less than two very attractive topless women around. Yet, given the situation, it's hardly titillating, quite the contrary. Here, it's fairly clear (at least, from reading about it. Never played the game) that was what the creators intended. You're supposed to feel uneasy about something like this happening.

The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?

That highly depends on how immersive the setting is, actually. If people in general are depicted realistically, then the player has an incentive to care about all of them, to be angry about villains being evil and to care about their innocent victims. It's a part of a broader issue, and if a game does a good job immersing the player in it, then he will care about the women. If not, he'll be only saving them "to beat the game", but the same will be true of taking out the villain, or anything else the player does. It's up to the creator to make the player care about the world, be a part of it, believe that the people depicted are, well, people and not some abstract figures. It also has to do with how immersed someone is. As such, the answer here is rather personal, I think. Watch Dogs seems to be designed to be immersive (some games aren't, and if it was such a game, it'd be a no-brainer), so I think the creators did all they could there.

I don't think you could replace the women with exotic animals, either. There wouldn't be nearly as much emotional impact, even an immersed player wouldn't care much for animals, no matter how endangered. Also, with animals, there'd be a risk of falling into eco-nut territory (depicting animal trading villains as truly, irredeemably bad can easily come off as ham-fisted environmentalism) breaking immersion unless the whole game is like that (and then, ham-fisted environmentalism doesn't usually make for a good story).

The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.

I don't have enough information here. For all I know about domestic abuse, this would chillingly realistic. This is how it usually goes, you can't intervene until it happens (because that would be against the law) by which point it is too late. Again, I don't know who are those people (is the perpetrator just a random guy killing his wife, or are they both developed characters? Or maybe only one of them is?), how exactly is it handled (just what determines if she dies?) and all those details that really matter. Also, what is the nature of penalty you get for early intervention? Such a situation could be used for a lot of things. I'd use it as a way to show that sometimes, law and "doing what is right" don't always match up, in a tragic way. However, the designers might've had other ideas. And no, you couldn't replace her with an animal, unless we're talking one very firmly established as a character (it's possible elevate an animal to nearly human status, but it requires a lot of screentime and even then, it's tricky).

EDIT: Ninjaed, some good points in the above post, too. Indeed, what I didn't consider was that objectifying German WWII soldiers (not even Nazis, most of them likely didn't care for the ideology) might be objectionable, too. In a way, they have it much worse than women in video games, being shot, killed, tortured and generally equated with evil. Of course, very few of them are still around to complain (and they likely seldom play video games, given their age), but it's a related phenomenon. This just goes to show what WWII really did to people...

[The E]

I don't have enough information here. For all I know about domestic abuse, this would chillingly realistic. This is how it usually goes, you can't intervene until it happens (because that would be against the law) by which point it is too late. Again, I don't know who are those people (is the perpetrator just a random guy killing his wife, or are they both developed characters? Or maybe only one of them is?), how exactly is it handled (just what determines if she dies?) and all those details that really matter. Also, what is the nature of penalty you get for early intervention?

It's like this. The bit under discussion is a random scene that can play out while you are wandering around. It always follows the same script; the male is verbally abusing the female, while this happens, the player gets a "violence imminent" warning. If he intervenes before this meter turns red, he gets no points (in fact, he gets points deducted). Whether or not the woman dies is entirely up to whether the player manages to intervene in time (again, in that interval between the game giving you permission to intervene without penalizing you for it and shots being fired).

Such a situation could be used for a lot of things. I'd use it as a way to show that sometimes, law and "doing what is right" don't always match up, in a tragic way. However, the designers might've had other ideas. And no, you couldn't replace her with an animal, unless we're talking one very firmly established as a character (it's possible elevate an animal to nearly human status, but it requires a lot of screentime and even then, it's tricky).

Sure, you can interpret the scene that way. And yes, the victim in that situation could just as well be a dog for all the emotional impact it has. But the point is, the range of options you have is extremely limited. There is one path you have to follow to get positive feedback from the game, and that path is to assault the assaulter and chase him a bit before shooting him or something. You do not have the option to intervene before it escalates (something you would be able to do in real life), you do not have the option of staying with the victim to call the cops or an ambulance or something, no, the only option available to you is to be avenging Angel.

I know that building all these options takes time and effort and money. But is it really necessary to make such a shallow scene in the first place? One that, yet again, involves having a woman as a passive object that only serves to compel the player to action?

[TrashMan]

Two, in the Watch Dogs example Luis cited, the player gets a good long scene in which he can partake in the same objectification as the supposedly evil villains; You are (I think, I have not played WD) actively penalized if you try to help these women right then and there, you have to stay undercover. Yes, the people you're there to take down a bad people for treating women as a commodity to be bought and sold, but in the context of the game, you as the player are not incentivized to care about the women as more than plot coupons either. They could be replaced with exotic animals and the plot would effectively be the same. The question asked here is, do you care about these women because they're people and noone should be treated like this, or do you care about them because you have to save at least 3 of them or else fail the mission?

I don't see a problem.
If you're undercover, of course you're not going to risk the whole operation there and then.

As for the underlined, I don't think the game should "incentivize" me to care about something specific. I have enough moral anvil dropped all around. Actually, I didn't put that properly.
Yes, to a player there wouldn't be much difference.
Anything in a game is a plot cupon - especially characters you don't get to interact with.

The other example from Watch Dogs, the one with the domestic abuse scene, is more clear in this regard: Not only are you penalized for intervening before violence happens, after violence has happened and the woman is dead or lying there crying on the sidewalk, you are unable to do anything except chase after the perpetrator for a quick action scene. The women in those scenes could be replaced with animals, or even cars, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference in terms of the decisions the player makes.

It could be a man and it would be the exact same thing...

[Dragon]

It's like this. The bit under discussion is a random scene that can play out while you are wandering around. It always follows the same script; the male is verbally abusing the female, while this happens, the player gets a "violence imminent" warning. If he intervenes before this meter turns red, he gets no points (in fact, he gets points deducted). Whether or not the woman dies is entirely up to whether the player manages to intervene in time (again, in that interval between the game giving you permission to intervene without penalizing you for it and shots being fired).

So, it's just a random event? Well, you've got a point, then. Domestic abuse as a random event? Now that's something to be angry about. Was this a story event, something dealt with accordingly to just how much of a deal domestic abuse is. Including this as a random event cheapens it incredibly. At least they could've gave it a 50/50 chance of it being a female on male abuse (it also happens, depressingly often, too)... Wouldn't make it much better (it'd still cheapen domestic abuse, which is a bad thing in my book), but at least be fair. Oh, and yes, an option of staying with the victim (if she's still alive, that is), or at least returning after getting the perp should be present. It's like they weren't even trying.

Indeed, I think that it's the best case made so far. It's easy to defend "storyline" uses of misogyny, where it's often explored and explicitly condemned. Story can address the things it depicts. Random events, on the other hand, a different thing. They're "the usual", which is generally not dealt with in any meaningful way.

Sure, you can interpret the scene that way.

Now I see that I really can't. I assumed it was a story event, with proper emotional impact intended. However, it's just a very shoddy random encounter. I would have ensured that the player has a choice there. He could, at the very least, intervene before any violence happens, getting some flak from the "law", but getting the woman's heartfelt thanks (and perhaps something else, like a karma reward), or chose to act lawfully and wait. more options could be added, time/budget permitting, but it's important that there's a choice, that the player needs to ask himself a question "Do I value my points more than her?". This wasn't done, the designers are thus guilty of: cheapening domestic abuse, misogyny, and a wasted opportunity to add a dramatic choice. They could've added in a meaningful choice between being lawful and good, but here, I don't think they even thought about the latter possibility.

It could be a man and it would be the exact same thing...

Of course, but they failed to acknowledge that. They could have included female on male abuse, which is a thing, too. But they didn't. At the very, very least, it should have been done, if only to show the world really is rotten through.

[Luis Dias]

What The_E is referencing, circa 12:40 of the below video:

[0rph3u5]

I didn't have all the time to read all (I will correct that later) but I though that given my knowledge of the subject I should chip in...

Prelude:
I as a rule don't discuss topics of importance over the internet for two reason: 1) Discussion of every matter of note should be done in envoirment that allows for as much ways of communication as possible; if you discussion something of importance you do it in a fashion so exchange not just texts but also hear your fellow participants speak, see their physical reactions etc. so you can have a full and rich discussion, which more often then not is relying on more than rational agruments (for rationality is only a part of the human psyche). 2) For a Nihilist I have an exaggered sense of rightousness (which means when I think I'm right by any standard that can be argumented in fashion I find easy)  which often imparts my judgement once I'm set on something. It's a social inheritance from my mother's side of the family - Stubornness is their family trait.

First I would like to put a methodolical criticism; you state this topic is about "objectivication of genders/of a gender" in games but you limit you argument only to sexual objectivation. With that you imply this is the only form of objectivication there is in Video Games as a medium which is not exactly true. Sexual Objectivation is a present and pervasive in Video Games but not the only phenomenon that can be discribed as objectivication that is present in Games (e.g. the objectivication of humanoid depicted "units" in Strategy Games); I guess this comes from it being currently the most pominent phenomenon in public discussion, so I don't think you meant to offend here just commited an oversight.

(more will come later, I'm not finished yet)

[Luis Dias]

Sorry to interlude before you finish that post. I think that's a highly appropriate criticism of the possible narrowness of the topic and I am interested in reading anything you have to say over kinds of objectifications other than sexual. I also think we have crossed that line already by referencing the objectification of german soldiers in WW2 as "objects of evil, do what you please unto them", i.e. violent stuff. Do you have any particular examples in mind?

[swashmebuckle]

I think the watchdogs example is certainly egregious pandering that attempts to pleasure the player with the sexualized power fantasy motivation of saving these women's nubile asses from the clutches of the bad guys. You can't give it a pass just because it's pandering to an audience pretending to be social justice vigilantes rather than an audience pretending to be lecherous assassins, the tits are still out for the enjoyment of the player.

That said, I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with art that is tacky or exploitative (provided that it's produced and consumed with the full consent of all parties involved). We are responsible for making it known that some of these things are pretty messed up and would be totally unacceptable behavior IRL, but if someone out there really loves Custer's Revenge, well, let he who hasn't massacred untold thousands of virtual people cast the first stone.

[MP-Ryan]

My point here is this: It's not a problem per se if you use violence against women (or children, or animals) as a quick way to characterize someone, or a group of someones. It is, however, a problem if that's one of the default ways in which villains are characterized. There are so many ways in which we can show someone is a bad person that don't involve the presence of scantily clad women or that cast women in the role of victim without agency, it's time to start using them more often.

I think this statement is a wonderful summary of the problem in general, and also a good summary of why there are so many arguments about gender objectification in games.  Indulge me for a moment while I expand on this.

I think the vast majority of reasonable people can agree that examples like the Hitman example in post one are purely and simply gender objectification that serves no purpose whatsoever.  It's in the same vein as my favourite pet peeve of scantily-clad females in combat alongside males dressed in the equivalent of power armour.  It doesn't make sense in any form other than as a purely voyeuristic experience for players.  In that sense, these examples really don't bear arguing about further here because they are obvious.  Unless there's someone who disagrees.

Where the more nuanced and interesting argument lies for us of HLP, I think, is on things like the Watch Dogs example and specifically related to The E's point which I've quoted above - because it's reasonableness all depends on the perspective of the viewer and the broader context.

In a game that is set based on real-world modern day dynamics or history, objectification and victimization of women in a critical manner to establish villany, misogyny, or simple distatefulness of particular game characters is, as Luis/The E pointed out, not an inherently sexist thing.  It is perfectly reasonable for game makers to characterize female characters in victim roles when they do it critically and in a manner that is narratively consistent.  An excellent example of this is historical games - while there are examples of very powerful women throughout history, it is well-established that women have been historically in subjugated power relationships relative to men, which had produced relatively high rates of victimization among women.  It is not inherently sexist or "bad" to use this information to present situations and characters to a modern audience as evil, as by our modern-day judgement they are.  It is, however, at least a little bit lazy... because if you're playing a historical game as a male character, chances are the character is unlikely to view that victimization with the same lens that a modern person does today.  This is why I say such use has to be done in a critical way, as it's far too easy to fall into this usage as a shorthand for "character = bad guy."  Victimization of women can be a part of what makes a character a bad guy, or it can be so egregious that it is truly the only thing the player cares about that makes the fellow a bad guy, but it should not be a default trope to highlight bad guys in a generalized manner in games.

But while we're talking about objectification and stereotyping of characters in games concerning women, we're ignoring that there's what I think is an even more problematic trope on the other side of that coin, and that is that if women are being continuously objectified for their sexuality in a victim role, men are being continuously objectified for their sexuality in the emotionless hero role.  It's a double-hit; not only are some of these games teaching young male audiences that women are sexual objects and victims, they're teaching young male audiences that to be male is to be physically dominating, emotionless, and a paternalizing hero figure for women.

While many game developers are getting better at giving us playable or direct-supporting female characters that are multi-dimensional - Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, Dragon Age, Bioshock Infinite among some of the best I've personally played among AAA releases in recent years - top selling game charts are still dominated by titles that include men as uber-macho-emotionless-heroic-robots (chief offenders being the Call of Battlefield Gears tripe).  Where men are given some emotion in games, they are often motivated by retribution and rage, as opposed to more dynamic human emotional sets.  Games like Dishonored, DX:HR, Half-Life, etc are interesting departures from that general depiction of men because their quasi-silent role-playing elements actuall allow players to project their real-world emotions onto the character and adjust their playstyle to match.  I loved all of those games because I could approach them in a non-lethal manner that allowed me to project "well, this world is going for **** but I am standing by my principles" onto the character without being forced into a murderous bloodbath, but still having to do distasteful things to defend those principles.  Another game series that largely avoids male gendered stereotyping is the Thief series, in which Garrett is a multi-dimensional character who has some player agency in his persona, but also has large segments simply written in (and written in well).

I find that there are numerous troubling aspects of gendered stereotyping and objectification in games that need to be directly challenge from multiple perspectives; I find it very concerning that the focus to date is predominantly on female depiction, because the male depiction coupled with the female depiction makes for a far more troublesome whole scenario, and I think it's important to look at the issue from a holistic perspective, rather than focusing on particular areas of objectification.

[Luis Dias]

An excellent example of this is historical games - while there are examples of very powerful women throughout history, it is well-established that women have been historically in subjugated power relationships relative to men, which had produced relatively high rates of victimization among women.  It is not inherently sexist or "bad" to use this information to present situations and characters to a modern audience as evil, as by our modern-day judgement they are.  It is, however, at least a little bit lazy... because if you're playing a historical game as a male character, chances are the character is unlikely to view that victimization with the same lens that a modern person does today.  This is why I say such use has to be done in a critical way, as it's far too easy to fall into this usage as a shorthand for "character = bad guy."

Manveer Heir's really good at challenging this "women being victimized = good because historical truths" argument, by simply pointing out that these so-called historical games are mostly fantasy games somewhat rooted in medieval times. One cannot be so hardcore about the very detailed and nuanced historicity regarding the women's oppression in a game where Dragons are flying around, mages and spells are part of the natural order of things, orcs and winged monsters are just your run-of-the-mill adversaries to defeat if you want to get supper by nightfall.

These are mostly fantasy games and if the portrayals of women as submissive victims to rape and prostitution and whatever are there, they are there because the designers chose to, not because "History demands it". They might be absolutely honest in saying this, but I think that it is just pure disavowal on their part. They are being cognitively dissonant here.

Let's be frank, they are being selective in what is "real" and what is not "real" in a very specific way of their own choosing. And I partially get it. In order to convey the fantastic parts, you have to base the experience in something "mundane", normal, expected, recognizable. And so they always fall to these usual medieval tropes as baselines. And it's on top of these where they add the fantasy things. But I think we can positively question this. If all of these medieval stories are in fact fantasies (which they are) in fantastic lands with fantastic creatures, then why not drop all the "historical portrayals of oppressed women" in here at all?

Imagine it. A DragonAgeSkyrim game where women are portrayed as exact equals to men. Why not? It's fantasy, revel in it. Challenge the tropes.

[MP-Ryan]

Manveer Heir's really good at challenging this "women being victimized = good because historical truths" argument, by simply pointing out that these so-called historical games are mostly fantasy games somewhat rooted in medieval times. One cannot be so hardcore about the very detailed and nuanced historicity regarding the women's oppression in a game where Dragons are flying around, mages and spells are part of the natural order of things, orcs and winged monsters are just your run-of-the-mill adversaries to defeat if you want to get supper by nightfall.

These are mostly fantasy games and if the portrayals of women as submissive victims to rape and prostitution and whatever are there, they are there because the designers chose to, not because "History demands it". They might be absolutely honest in saying this, but I think that it is just pure disavowal on their part. They are being cognitively dissonant here.

Let's be frank, they are being selective in what is "real" and what is not "real" in a very specific way of their own choosing. And I partially get it. In order to convey the fantastic parts, you have to base the experience in something "mundane", normal, expected, recognizable. And so they always fall to these usual medieval tropes as baselines. And it's on top of these where they add the fantasy things. But I think we can positively question this. If all of these medieval stories are in fact fantasies (which they are) in fantastic lands with fantastic creatures, then why not drop all the "historical portrayals of oppressed women" in here at all?

Oh, I agree with Heir, and that's the reason I didn't highlight certain fantasy games as example of what I consider acceptable historical use of sexual objectification or victimization. No, games where I see this as being more acceptable are things like Assassin's Creed, semi-historical shooters, or modern-world games that have all of that history stacked beneath them (like Watch Dogs, for example, which is a futuristic game based on present-day historical timelines).

Imagine it. A DragonAgeSkyrim game where women are portrayed as exact equals to men. Why not? It's fantasy, revel in it. Challenge the tropes.

DA is definitely an offender, but to be fair to TES, it is perhaps the least egregious of these examples, because (especially in Skyrim), women and men are both depicted frequently in all roles, though women may be marginally more frequently treated as victims (I haven't run the stats, obviously, but based on my own playthroughs I see victimized men nearly as frequently as women when it comes to live NPCs, and far more frequently dead).  Where TES, or at least Skyrim, falls down a little is that the tavern wench phenomenon is still alive and well, if not nearly as ubiquitous in other games.  Thinking more about this, I really do think Skyrim did an excellent job of casting women and men nearly equally in all roletypes.  A couple tavern wenches aside, I really cannot think of any particular depictions of the women or men in that game that offended as a trope or shortcut that was over-used.  It has a diverse cast of characters that have individual personalities, with no particular gendered stereotype shining through consistently.

Some edits to reformat for clarity.

[TrashMan]

What is important is the exact issue of "objectification", that is, the representation of a particular objectification of a woman, whose only purpose of existence is to titillate you.

Hm...come to think of it, doesn't every object or character in fiction exist with a specific purpose?
Mostly provoking a specific reaction?

For example, doesn't a starving urchin little girl with a sick puppy exist to makes you feel sad?

[An4ximandros]

I will not rest in peace until women NPCs are reduced to characterless Gibbing Props as men so often are. So basically Unreal 1. Victory achieved 15 years ago.

Why is "objectification" so prevalent? A simple issue with a simple answer. People are lazy, they take shortcuts. Tropes are shortcuts.
That half-done game you are making needs to be final by next month. Make it happen.

[AtomicClucker]

Why is "objectification" so prevalent? A simple issue with a simple answer. People are lazy, they take shortcuts. Tropes are shortcuts.

Pretty much "tropes," as my personal beef with the Gaming media is an underwhelming lack of women spear-heading a push for a woman's perspective on the gaming identity.

There's a million Anita Sarkesians, only a small group of Fine Young Capitalists pushing for more women in the industry.