old.reddit.com

Whats the logic behind making gacha games exclusively with only female characters?

The niche is very strong. When you take, say, Azur Lane or Blue Archive, the general idea is *to not* be like Genshin or FGO, as competition would...



Mind you I do consider this as anecdote even citing it.

Has any company tried to make a gacha game focused towards women with malefanservice as horny as your typically men focused gacha games?

Because if the answer is no, them there's literally zero evidence to assume that those wouldn't sell as well.
 
Apologies, that was a rubbish take by me, I was just trying get a better understanding of such things and though that was informative for me since Gacha always had a problem with demographic appeal.
 
Note that context does matter, as military and medical folks can get in the habit of saying males and females, but if it's "men and females" that tends to be really eyebrow-raising.
 
Note that context does matter, as military and medical folks can get in the habit of saying males and females, but if it's "men and females" that tends to be really eyebrow-raising.
Yes, this; people often use terms like "males and females" when they are trying to speak in a clinical/technical sort of way. It's the inconsistency that's a tipoff.

It's like the difference between "guys and girls" and "men and girls"; one is speaking informally, the other is putting women in a lesser category.
 
I think it's a good thing that the new ending added in the Definitive edition no longer frames Buzzo as being right when he said it's not his fault he did all the things he did it was actually because Lisa was pure evil and she made him do it.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a good thing that the new ending added in the Definitive edition no longer frames Buzzo as being right when he said it's not his fault he did all the things he did it was actually because Lisa was pure evil and she made him do it.
Don't know the context of the new ending as of yet, but that doesn't feel like it's going to be particularly controversial? IIRC Lisa has sort of a theme through the entire series of broken people making more broken people, and tends to at least somewhat condemn those people's actions even if understanding where they came from.
 
Don't know the context of the new ending as of yet, but that doesn't feel like it's going to be particularly controversial? IIRC Lisa has sort of a theme through the entire series of broken people making more broken people, and tends to at least somewhat condemn those people's actions even if understanding where they came from.
Pretty much everyone I've seen talk about it are mad it's making Buzzo to be a bad guy instead of giving him the 'redemption' he had in the original endings or claiming that it's written by someone who just decided to hate him. Plus there's probably the hate that certain elements of the fandom have for Buddy and that she's the one, being pretty the only person left, who calls him out on it. Which is wild to me because one of the worse parts of Joyful's original endings for me was the final word being dropping all the blame for everything that happened in the world to be solely Lisa's fault.
 
"Female characters" is fine. It's specifically "Females" that is a rather common dogwhistle of the "Women and men are completely alien to each other like an entirely different species and the former are also lesser and worse" type.
Basically, "female" as an adjective is common usage in English. "Females" as a noun ("a female") is nearly always a sign of extreme detachment.

There are a few honorable exceptions, usually involving someone who's talking about biology deliberately backporting to talking about humans ("the female of the species is more deadly than the male"), but normally, yes, someone who just casually refers to 'females' is a male-identifying person who thinks of women as weird alien lifeforms with inhuman thoughts and motivations.

Note that context does matter, as military and medical folks can get in the habit of saying males and females, but if it's "men and females" that tends to be really eyebrow-raising.
Yeah- and both war and medicine are signs that you're speaking of people with extreme detachment. And I agree with you about the eyebrow-raiser.
 
To be fair, if someone is talking about "males" a ton they're probably doing a similar thing. Like it won't have the background cultural sexism stuff, but it sounds like a weird radfem polemic to my ears if you're not using it scientifically a little bit too.
 
To be fair, if someone is talking about "males" a ton they're probably doing a similar thing. Like it won't have the background cultural sexism stuff, but it sounds like a weird radfem polemic to my ears if you're not using it scientifically a little bit too.
Yes, but I would joke around if they talk that way though. "Males? Which males are you talking about? Also, for which species of those males ?"
 
Remember, it's pronounced "FEEEmales", said while stroking your earlobe.

Seriously, as far as women in fighting and other games, I just want one that looks like an actual MMA fighter. You know, basically a fireplug of muscle.

I just look at the women fighters in video games and can't help but think "Girl, you need more torso muscle, getting hit in the stomach is gonna HURT you."
 
Generally, most of the women in visual fiction including games that I've seen look like that are orcs. I mean, paint those women green, give them tusks and they'd totally look "orcish."

Which does say something about our societal attitudes toward female body shape, yes.
 
I think it's a good thing that the new ending added in the Definitive edition no longer frames Buzzo as being right when he said it's not his fault he did all the things he did it was actually because Lisa was pure evil and she made him do it.
Honestly it just felt better overall. I tried to think of a really through explanation on why that is but my brain just kept blanking. The new secret ending is a pain in the ass to get but it just feels more satisfying.
 
Honestly it just felt better overall. I tried to think of a really through explanation on why that is but my brain just kept blanking. The new secret ending is a pain in the ass to get but it just feels more satisfying.
Oh yeah I would never have gotten it without looking it up but it feels a lot more satisfying, I think it helps that part of the process is intrinsically tied to Buddy facing up to the ghosts of the Warlords, which brings that aspect back into the forefront as an important part of the story rather than letting it fade away in favour of Yado, the Vaccine and the Buzzo motivations which I just find less interesting than the character drama of Buddy and her place in the world, finding out why Olathe is the way it is never mattered to me, but the new ending feels like its more about Buddy's character rather than things just happening to or around her. I still prefer Painful as a story more but I think they did the best they could elevating Joyful without really heavily reworking it.
 
I feel like someone who was very good at gender studies sorts of things could make a really interesting argument about gender presentation in fictional characters, based on the Doylist/Watsonian divide.

From a Watsonian perspective, a character has a gender identity and an outward way in which they present themselves, like any real person.

From a Doylist perspective, a character is all presentation. They're entirely fictional. Kratos isn't actually a person; he's just a bundle of (hyper)masculine aesthetics and dialogue, to the point where there's nothing there but what the author has decided will be shown.

I'm not really sure where to take this observation, or what to do with it, but I feel like there's something to build on here.
Interesting. I have an "I don't know what to do with this" thought of my own that might be related:

It seems few things have a larger gulf among modern scholarship between "how acceptable is it for the thing to exist in reality" and "how acceptable is it to make video games containing this" than a scantily-clad woman. A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of a real life city, is rightfully not to be criticized- to do otherwise would be slut shaming. Perhaps this flaunting of backwards social norms is to be cheered on. A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of whereever some GTA game is set, even if she behaves much the same as the real one, was probably put there for no other reason than to be a toy for male players. Which, it seems according to a lot of discourse, is to be harshly condemned.

From a Watsonian perspective, they have a gender and sexual identity and a way they chose to present themselves. From a Doylist perspective, they're a bundle of (hyper)feminine traits that are mostly there because the writers wanted to make people's PP hard.

I recall a moment where Richard Dawkins was debating some guy about religion and morality. The guy said "you dress your women like whores" to which Dawkins rightfully replied "no, they dress themselves". But western society often does dress its women as 'whores'- their fictional women, that is.

Yeah this has rambled and I am not sure where if anywhere this goes but i wanted to get that thought out.
 
It seems few things have a larger gulf among modern scholarship between "how acceptable is it for the thing to exist in reality" and "how acceptable is it to make video games containing this" than a scantily-clad woman. A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of a real life city, is rightfully not to be criticized- to do otherwise would be slut shaming. Perhaps this flaunting of backwards social norms is to be cheered on. A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of whereever some GTA game is set, even if she behaves much the same as the real one, was probably put there for no other reason than to be a toy for male players. Which, it seems according to a lot of discourse, is to be harshly condemned.
That... has a lot to do with the basic fact that one of those is a person, and the other is a product, I think. It's not exactly surprising that extremely different things get notably different treatment in regards to academia and whatnot.

Nevermind there's often still pretty significant differences between how a scantily clad anyone acts and wears apparel (or lack thereof) in real life, and how it's depicted in gaming. Lot of the gulf you're talking about exists because the similarities between the two subjects are actually pretty bloody slim. It'd possibly be stranger if the discourse around them wasn't pretty different.

E: Though it's also not just something you see in video gaming, specifically. That discussion happens across basically all media, from what I understand. Fiction and performance is considered differently from... not that, basically. Which is fairly understandable, considering they're pretty different things?
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with showing women in revealing clothing in a game.
Problems come with the how and why of it.
Lot of fanservice is, quite blatantly, there for no other reason than to rub some pictures of tits and ass on the players faces.
Randomly missing pieces of armor, clothing that is not only inappropriate for the culture depicted in the game but also does not fit the personality of the character wearingthem, camera angles that ignore actual interesting bits of the scene in favour of cleavage...
As a fan, i do not feel serviced by this most of the time.
 
There is a fundamental difference in context between a real woman (a fully realised and infinitely complex individual with hopes and dreams and personal agency, whose decisions in self presentation must at least be respected as her decisions) and a fictional woman (a character created for a work of media, and the sum total of the creative choices of that work's authors, which can and should be approached critically).
 
There absolutely is such a difference, I 100% agree.

It's a difference that lends itself to a lot of discussion and interesting... not really paradoxes, but things that seem like a paradox when approached naively.
 
A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of a real life city, is rightfully not to be criticized- to do otherwise would be slut shaming. Perhaps this flaunting of backwards social norms is to be cheered on. A woman in revealing clothing on the streets of whereever some GTA game is set, even if she behaves much the same as the real one, was probably put there for no other reason than to be a toy for male players. Which, it seems according to a lot of discourse, is to be harshly condemned.
A major difference being that an actual woman can push back. A character can't, and if their creator tries they are treated as fair game, unlike how the woman in the first case would be regarded. So the prudes can go ahead and slut-shame as much as they like.
 
Back
Top