r/KotakuInAction • u/Oceanbia • Aug 19 '23
The ever increasing double standard in games journalism
125
u/MontmorencyQuinn Aug 19 '23
Just some simple vocabulary to help people in this thread.
"Cleans up". Implies that something was dirty or otherwise "wrong", and needed to be fixed.
"Lurid". "Very vivid in color, especially so as to create an unpleasantly harsh or unnatural effect". Or "(especially of a description) shocking because involving violence, sex, or immoral activity".
One title quite obviously (if you have a firm grasp of English, at least) portrays the removed/censored items as negatives, which at least implies some level of support for the decision. The other is presented much more neutrally.
71
u/doomraiderZ Aug 19 '23
The other is presented much more neutrally.
Not even neutrally. The 'boy toys' implies they're mad their asses are covered, lmao.
5
-16
Aug 19 '23
If you actually read the article, the "boy toys" one is about how it's silly that the boys are covered up because they're not sexualized; the title is therefore ironic. Overall, they agree with the GENSHIN IMPACT censorship because it also obscures panty shots.
34
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 19 '23
If you actually read the article, the "boy toys" one is about how it's silly that the boys are covered up because they're not sexualized
There goes that double standard again.
Maybe you should realize that whether a male character is sexualized or not is subjective; and also sexualization is not only determined by the creator and design of the character, it also depends on how the audience views it. The male characters are all designed to be handsome and some even topless, and I know that female players are fans of this.
-4
Aug 19 '23
I do realize that; the article is clearly referencing that.
The first article also positively describes the Skullgirls women as "sexy" and "buxom."
-6
46
56
u/doomraiderZ Aug 19 '23
A wonderful illustration of the double standard.
7
u/jeremydepanseque Aug 19 '23
Wait what's the double standard I don't understand somebody explain
49
u/CuTTyFL4M Aug 19 '23
Women showing butt : not good
Men not showing butt : not good
See the problem?
Either all of it's ok, or none of it's ok
3
Aug 19 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AnarcrotheAlchemist Mod - yeah nah Aug 19 '23
Comment removed following the enforcement change that you can read about here.
This is not a formal warning.
Please be aware AEO is now going through removed content as well it may be a good idea to edit/delete this comment to ensure you do not get any sitewide actions taken against you.
1
54
21
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 19 '23
What is the view/tone of Genshin Impact article though? If they're against the censorship of the male characters then it is definitely double standards.
Regarding the issue - it's great that the male characters are also censored so that the Rainbow and Feminist mobs now don't get their male fanservice. Hopefully this concept increases. If we cannot get our female fanservice then those Woke cretins should not be able to get their male fanservice.
#equalityofcensorship
3
-8
Aug 19 '23
They aren't really against the censorship of the male characters: the main point of the article is that the male characters are not all scantily clad so the censorship is silly. Some just straight-up are wearing pants.
Basically they censored everyone's butts equally. The title is making a joke because the effect of this is funny. No one in this thread read the article.
27
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 19 '23
the main point of the article is that the male characters are not all scantily clad so the censorship is silly
Did Polygon send you here?
The male character's back sides is not the covered up parts though.
They are clearly against the censorship of the male characters, they don't make this obvious but you can sense it. The fact that these Woke gaming outlets have done articles in the past that displays their double standards regarding this issue have already exposed them for the biased hypocrites they are.
I can guarantee you that if the characters were female instead and not scantily-clad (basically take this Genshin Impact situation but make it female characters instead), they would not be saying that the censorship is silly. Instead, they would be outright celebrating it.
1
Aug 19 '23
The Genshin article is about how they put a censor blur on every single character: male and female. They are "against" the censorship insofar as they think a catchall is kind of lazy and looks silly. They speculate the reason is to avoid legal problems in global markets (the opposite of woke, tbh). They don't take a celebratory point of view.
Note that the first article, by contrast, is about censoring one character who is underage and also, as part of the story, raped(!). They otherwise refer to the uncensored adult ladies as "cheesecake," "buxom" and "sexy," and assure readers there is still plenty of them to enjoy.
16
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 19 '23
They are "against" the censorship insofar as they think a catchall is kind of lazy and looks silly.
Yet the article title focuses on the male characters?
1
Aug 19 '23
It's highlighting the funny aspect, which is that even the males who aren't scantily-clad are censored.
19
u/guardian-deku Aug 19 '23
How long do you think it’ll take for a original Skullgirls mod to drop?
5
6
u/ShubaltzTV Aug 20 '23
I honestly hope people use the coverage of Baldur's Gate 3 and all the sexual shit in that game against journalists from now on
6
u/waffleboardedburrito Aug 20 '23
This isn't at all new, this sub exists because of far worse double standards 9 years ago.
5
4
5
5
5
u/SmithAnon88 Aug 19 '23
If you expect anythimg but trash and double standards from Polygon, you need to pay attention.
4
11
u/NecoArcOrochi Aug 19 '23
Its always fun to see the people who will always say "If you want a game with fanservice, just play porn games or watch porn instead" and then you look into their history on Twitter and they got a Star Wars scrolling text for a Bio and their likes is all Fetish art/ Furry porn.
5
u/SimonJ57 Aug 20 '23
Obligatory, they probably have both:
"this game doesn't need to pander to you"
and then have "this piece of media needs to pander to X" tweets at some point.
9
Aug 19 '23
I was going to post this in a respose to some downvoted comments here but after seeing how many people just miss the mark on this one, I'll put this for everyone.
Reality can be framed in many ways through many lens and never should be read as impartial data. What the journalist choose to put on the spotlight through language matters because they have full control on what's relevant to their point of view and what is not.
In this specific case, which is Polygon, the articles are also never written or try to be written from a neutral standpoint; they are heavily opinionated article pieces carefully curated to elicit emotional response from the viewers. You can clearly see the article on the right evoke more harsh and controversial themes while the one on the right portrais it as a silly fact. This does matter, it all matters.
There's a bonus added to Polygon's reputation of this kind of behaviour. If you a bystander or this is your first time reading a gaming article, you will probably miss this whole context and don't think much of them. But if you are here in this community, at least do yourself a favor to understand what it's all about before commenting nonsense or dismissing posts like the OP.
5
u/closeded Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23
Welp. I'm glad I never got Skullgirls. The pantyshots are the only reason it's in my Steam wishlist.
An hour ago I could have honestly claimed that it'd been a decade since the last time I pirated a game. Yep. An hour ago it wouldn't have been a lie.
3
-1
u/SirOrangeNinja Aug 21 '23 edited Aug 21 '23
dawg really wanted to buy a fighting game to get his dick hard
3
u/closeded Aug 21 '23
You can appreciate fan service without getting physically turned on.
That is allowed. And in this case, that's basically the entire game. A fan service fighting game. It's silly that they're removing content.
1
Aug 21 '23
This is an official warning for R1. Due to lack of prior participation, expedited to permaban.
7
u/KurisuShiruba Aug 19 '23
And people still get upset when I say no one needs videogame journalism nowadays.
The only thing they can do is being stuck in tutorials and complain over anime tiddies.
1
Aug 20 '23
There was never much "news" to be reported anyway, most things are just noise. You can easily get a summary every week and have enough information to make your purchase decisions.
2
u/KurisuShiruba Aug 20 '23
Meanwhile, I can get relevant information about the things I enjoy by going into my favorite subreddits (there's one for metroidvanias), following certain twitter profiles, and even the v-tubers I follow come up with something fresh during their streams.
Stuff like Kotaku and Polygon are nothing more but sensationalist tabloids, compared to the things which we had before the internet was a thing, even the big media outlets such as IGN aren't as useful or relevant like, let's say, a Nintendo Power - Maybe Vidya Journos have some weight in places like Japan, AFAIK Famitsu is still going on strong and I'm sure the reason is due to not pandering to twitter crowds.
5
4
2
2
u/Aurondarklord 118k GET Aug 19 '23
It is always always ALWAYS different when they do it. They have no morals.
1
Aug 19 '23
We all know video game and culture journos are dishonest, hypocritical and faithless. But, to be honest, I don't think this is a good example. They both say roughly the same thing thing in the same sort of way.
I'm not seeing an issue
25
2
1
u/DesertRanger12 Aug 20 '23
Both games are trash and you should feel bad if you enjoy either of them.
-3
u/boredtill Aug 19 '23
Did anyone read the articles that are being posted or do you all just react blindly?
0
Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23
Two journalists have a different opinion: Hypocrisy
Two journalists have the same opinion: Conspiracy
What's the argument here exactly, should Polygon only publish people with one set of opinions?
-11
u/Attibar Aug 19 '23
Should...should somebody tell them that a lot of the Genshin Impact characters are seen as underage? There's a reason why the community has the reputation it has.
-10
Aug 19 '23
If you actually read the articles there is no double-standard. The second headline is an ironic joke about how the male characters are censored along with the female ones despite not being scantily-clad. They don't talk about "lurid panty shots" for the guys because there aren't any.
You guys should be fucking terrified something so dumb gets 100+ upvotes on this sub.
11
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 20 '23 edited Aug 20 '23
The second headline is an ironic joke about how the male characters are censored along with the female ones despite not being scantily-clad.
So that is basically them implying that censorship should not happen to the male characters, thus meaning that they're against the censorship of the male characters. At least as far as the article title goes.
And they already know that there are male characters that are topless in the game, so the lie about how the male characters are "not being scantily-clad" is complete rubbish.
Therefore regardless of the supposed "ironic joke" and the article's content, the title alone already signals their bias and double standard.
These Woke games journalists never change. They need to be hounded out.
-2
Aug 20 '23
So that is basically them implying that censorship should not happen to the male characters, thus meaning that they're against the censorship of the male characters. At least as far as the article title goes.
Well they don't think so because they're not scantily-clad.
Therefore regardless of the supposed "irony" and the article's content, the title alone already signals their bias and double standard.
It's a double-standard to be against sexualizing an underage female character who gets raped, but think it's silly to censor a guy wearing pants? Please understand that this is what you're claiming.
0
u/SirOrangeNinja Aug 21 '23
They’re misogynists dude, they think female characters have to give them a boner for a game to be worthwhile
18
u/amakusa360 Aug 19 '23
You should be fucking terrified that "gender equality" disappears as soon as it comes to objectification.
-5
-30
u/MilleniaZero Aug 19 '23
Its not the same person.
45
u/pokepaka121 Aug 19 '23
Doesnt matter , same site.
-8
u/JRosfield Aug 19 '23
It does matter. Perhaps Ana Diaz isn't afraid of calling out censorship whereas Ian Walker celebrates it. So it would help if you had examples from the same journalist being hypocritical.
-22
u/MilleniaZero Aug 19 '23
It does matter. Its 2 people with 2 different opinions
28
u/slavdude01 Aug 19 '23
LMAO. Go ask them both what they think about those slutty female fucktoys in gaming.
You'll be banned quicker than you can shout "I'm an ally!".
-14
18
u/pokepaka121 Aug 19 '23
Its the same fucking site , would you publish 2 articles one bashing a certain thing the other praising it to high heavens in one newspaper next to eachother?
-4
u/MilleniaZero Aug 19 '23
newspaper
Hey where you going with that goalpost. They're not next to eachother either. They're a month or so apart
9
u/pokepaka121 Aug 19 '23
Hey where you going with that goalpost.
Not moving a goalpost , those sites are just digital newspapers/magazines. Lmao
-17
Aug 19 '23
You do realise that good journalism isn’t trying to make your publication a monolith and to have different writers with different opinions?
Right?
12
u/pokepaka121 Aug 19 '23
No thats why there are multitude of publications that write about the same things.
Having many directly conflicting ideas coming from the very same company/publication is confusing and makes people not take you seriously.
1
13
2
-26
Aug 19 '23
What's the double-standard? The headlines are very similar, down to the focus on fans not liking it. Are you objecting to "boy toys?" That's a stretch.
33
u/Oceanbia Aug 19 '23
"some fans cry censorship" is pretty dismissive while using the word "boy toys" implies approval of sexualising the characters
21
u/MontmorencyQuinn Aug 19 '23
Don't even bother with this one. They have no interest or desire to engage in any sort of honesty or good faith. You'll just waste your time talking in circles as they purposefully misunderstand and misconstrue what you said.
-17
Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
I figured this would be your response. Pretty huge stretch. You realize what journalism is, right? It's reporting on stuff: in this case, fan reaction to a change in a game.
Notice how in the second article they're saying fans are calling it a "diaper." Well, in the first, some fans are calling it "censorship." You're interpreting the quotes as dismissive when they are literally just quotes. They're reporting on the fans' reactions.
If anything maybe what can be gleaned is a double-standard among gamers, assuming they didn't cry "censorship" for GENSHIN IMPACT.
20
u/Oceanbia Aug 19 '23
Feel free to look up the articles but they're certainly not neutral on the concerns of the skullgirls fans while the genshin situation is just considered quirky
-6
Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
That's fair enough. But you were implying the double-standard could be evaluated from the headlines alone.
At the end of the day, both of them defend the choice and think the censorship is justified.
https://www.polygon.com/23836179/genshin-impact-fontaine-4-0-bubble-ass-censor
Both genders get the "diaper:" the "boy toys" headline seems to be focusing on the male characters because part of the article is spent pointing-out that it's kind of dumb that the men are censored too since they are not scantily-clad, but they think the idea makes sense.
So you're wrong that they're gung-ho about sexualizing men because 1) the article is about how they're not scantily-clad so the censorship is silly and 2) they overall think the change is harmless and fine.
It's a silly, nonchalant tone because it's mostly just a dumb little change, not a big deal.
https://www.polygon.com/23777370/skullgirls-changes-censorship-black-egrets-filia-art-patch-notes
Meanwhile you have to concede that this article is also about "Nazi-like" imagery, so any dismissiveness of "censorship" claims are also taking that part into account. The tone of the article is therefore a bit more serious, since Nazi imagery is a bit higher-stakes than censoring swimming animations for all characters.
It's just not apples-to-apples so the idea that it's a double-standard is 100% a stretch.
What's the double-standard? In one, they're defending censorship and criticizing scantily-clad women and in the other they're defending censorship and criticizing scantily-clad women (and also making a joke about how the censorship is silly because it impacts even the less-sexualized men).
15
u/Oceanbia Aug 19 '23
And yet I don't see any dismissiveness of the fans in the genshin article. A moment ago you just said that journalism is focused on simply reporting the facts but clearly they did more than that
1
Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
They did do more than that, you're right. I hadn't read the articles when I said that.
And sure. They aren't as dismissive of the fans in the "boy toys" article. But is that a double-standard? After all, the "boy toys" article is also about censoring panty shots. They censored the girls' butts too. The headline is about the boys because they think it's a funny overcorrection.
Also, in both articles they take the position that the censorship is good. So why is it a double-standard? In one, they take that position and also quote fans who don't and in the other, they merely take the position.
So are you saying the double-standard is that sometimes they make fun of fans who complain about censoring girls' panty shots and sometimes they don't...? But they take the same position regardless...? Huh?
Or, like me, do you think the key difference is the Nazi stuff? In the first article, they seem to find it egregious that fans defend Nazi iconography. I think this is not apples-to-apples and therefore not a double-standard.
-15
Aug 19 '23
If we need to do our own legwork for your post to make sense then your post is flawed.
14
u/Oceanbia Aug 19 '23
I've already pointed out where I see the double standard. If you then still don't believe it you're free to look at the articles
9
u/Toshiba9152 Aug 19 '23
If you ignore the articles contents then that makes you the biased and disingenuous and flawed one.
17
u/Boxing_joshing111 Aug 19 '23
“Skullgirls covers the bottoms of its sexual objects” wouldn’t make it past editorial
-13
-6
Aug 19 '23
It's a huge stretch to say it's a double-standard because they didn't use the exact same language in two different headlines by two different writers.
FWIW, "panty shot" is a cutesy turn-of-phrase similar to "booties" and "boy toys." "Sexual object" wouldn't be.
18
u/s69-5 Aug 19 '23
Now do "lurid"
-1
Aug 19 '23
Lurid in this context just means gratuitous and excessive.
Now that I've actually read the articles, I can tell you that the boy toys article is about how the censorship is a silly overcorrection because it's not lurid.
So, it's a double-standard to call lurid things lurid and non-lurid things not?
14
u/s69-5 Aug 19 '23
Lurid in this context just means gratuitous and excessive.
Language matters. If in this case (while I don't agree) it means excessive and gratuitous, then use those words, instead of a word that is only ever used in a negative cannotation.
-1
Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
If in this case (while I don't agree) it means excessive and gratuitous, then use those words, instead of a word that is only ever used in a negative cannotation.
I didn't say it didn't have a negative connotation. Gratuitous and excessive also have a negative connotation.
The second article headline isn't about panty shots: if you read the article it's saying that the "boy toy's" butts are fully clothed, so the censorship is silly. That's what the article is about.
So overall this thread is comparing an article celebrating the censorship of girls' panties with a joke about taking things too far by censoring boys' fully-clothed backsides. If you think that's a double-standard, you are not smart. Full stop.
14
u/s69-5 Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
Gratuitous and excessive also have a negative connotation...
Not really though. At least on a scale.
Covers up excessive panty shots. (neural to mild)
Covers up gratuitous panty shots. (mild)
Covers up lurid panty shots. (Sounds like porn)
Words matter. Besides, I still don't agree with your definition of lurid, but will play along as my point still stands. They are trying to conjure up the idea that the panty shots are dirty and sinful.
On the other side:
"covers up the booties of it's boy toys" sounds playful and dismissive at best.
-2
Aug 19 '23
"Excessive" means "too much," so that's not "neutral" by definition.
Anyway the second article headline isn't about panty shots: if you read the article it's saying that the "boy toy's" butts are fully clothed, so the censorship is silly. That's what the article is about.
So overall this thread is comparing an article celebrating the censorship of girls' panties with an article that also celebrates exactly that, but with a joke about taking things too far by also censoring boys' fully-clothed backsides. If you think that's a double-standard, you are not smart. Full stop.
13
u/s69-5 Aug 19 '23
Excessive is far more neutral than lurid, on a scale.
If you are unable to understand that, you are not smart. Full stop.
→ More replies (0)4
Aug 19 '23
how the censorship is a silly overcorrection because it's not lurid.
Uh-huh. Because if they say it isn't lurid in Genshin Impact it isn't, but if they say it's lurid in Skullgirls it is.
1
Aug 19 '23
You're acting like you can't just read the article and judge for yourself. I thought you guys were free-thinkers?
5
Aug 19 '23 edited Aug 19 '23
I don't even need to read the articles, because gaming journalism isn't that deep and the evidence of its absurd double standards are everywhere. But I'll comply.
The latest update for decade-old fighting game Skullgirls focuses entirely on altering elements of the indie fighting game that could be considered too risqué, controversial, or insensitive. Those changes include updates to costumes that feature Nazi-inspired iconography and upskirt shots of a female fighter in the game who is only 16 years old.
"Altering elements", not "censoring". "Considered too risqué, controversial or insensitive", as if justifying it immediately. From the first paragraph the article installs the idea these changes are necessary and reasonable.
Since the release of the update, Skullgirls has been hit with a deluge of negative reviews on Steam from those who apparently want the game to continue sexually objectifying a minor and celebrating Nazis.
The "celebration of nazis" is presented as a fact when all I see are soldiers in vintage clothing. I guess we could make a point about the armbands, but there is zero resemblance between an umbrella and a swastika, and the Black Egrets/Parasoul's motivations are not at all related to racial purity. Whether they were inspired by nazis, let alone supposed to be the stand-in for nazis in this fictional world, is up for debate.
"Sexually objectifying" in itself is already a debatable term. Is merely showcasing someone as sexually attractive really "objectifying"? Is putting on a short skirt on a female character "sexualizing" it? I've watched several dozens of hours of Skullgirls tournaments and I didn't even notice Filia's panty shots.
Also notice the language: "deluge of negative reviews on Steam", not simply criticism. "Those who apparently want to continue the celebration of nazis and sexualization of a minor", implying the people protesting this are nazis and/or pedophiles.
Now let's move onto the Genshin Impact article.
Developer Hoyoverse introduced a new way to censor the asses of its character and now even conservatively clothed men have their butts covered up.
Not "altering", now they straight-up call it "censoring".
They then feature a tiktok of an user that claims they are "censoring the butts because they know we're up to no good" and there's no insinuation of this fan being a pervert or a pedophile. But they did insinuate that in the Skullgirls article.
The article then goes on to say the censorship could make sense as the game is a global success and they want to appeal to more conservative audiences. I imagine that you read that paragraph alone to determine there's no contradiction and went on with that.
Additionally, fans have critiqued the game for the boob jiggle physics of characters like Lisa.
This part links to a reddit thread of someone complaining about the jiggle physics of this character. Notice the language again - "critique". This kind of complaints are presented as thoughtful critiques, but responses to the censorship in Skullgirls are presented as irrational, pedophilia-apologia and nazi-supporting.
Many of them, like Zhongli or Ayato have their butts covered up by their outfits. Kaveh was hailed as having a great butt,
The "Kaveh" part links to a tiktok of said character doing a transformation or something with a closeup of his ass. Because you can link to tiktoks of a character's male ass and comment on whether you find his ass nice or not and that's not "sexually objectifying" at all.
EDIT: a couple typos.
6
u/Boxing_joshing111 Aug 19 '23
The literal translation of boytoy would be someone used for sex, a toy. Panty shot doesn’t have that emotional load, it’s not degrading a human to the level of a toy.
1
u/ironwolf56 Aug 20 '23
two different headlines by two different writers
JFC some of you need to learn how journalism works. Headlines are made at the editorial level; so yes it DOES represent the overall skew of the outlet not the writer.
-26
-9
Aug 20 '23
Haha, cry about it 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Bunch of whereaboos crying beucase they cannot wank to hitler uniforms anymore.
-28
Aug 19 '23
Two different writers have two different opinions?
Huh
27
u/slavdude01 Aug 19 '23
No. Targets are different. Same people who drool on "hunks" write how disgusting "male gaze" is.
Maybe let's go ask Ana Diaz what she thinks about objectifying female characters?
13
4
1
1
257
u/Aurex86 Aug 19 '23
They didn't even say "Boy Toys" in quotations marks!
Like saying: "We're absolutely for boy toys, because we're a bunch of hypocritical weirdos"