NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[Luzur]

'I take off the wizards' robe and hat' - PS4 stream couple 15 min of fame

Darckobra lift up her shirt and expose one breast to the world. The channel then went dark for 15 minutes or so, with Darckobra’s unconscious wife completely naked when the stream continued.

Fuck you, Kwa, fuck you

R-R-R-RRRRAAAAPPPPPPEEEEE

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So let me summerize this : feminists have the right to criticize what they consider over-sexualized female characters, and at the same time show their tits and pussies at every public manifestation ? Sounds neat.

Are you sure they are the same persons? I met some feminists that not only like those characters but also are cosplaying them. Then I saw comments on RPS accusing the article writers of "slut-shaming" and "puritanism".

Well I'm talking about this new breed of feminists that objectify their bodies worse than any "sexist pig" would have imagined.

I think they are the ones that complain about white knights being puritans and slut-shamers.

 

[Machocruz]

It is a very universal statement that I suspect will still be true long after certain movements or systems like the economical or governmental ones we take for granted will possibly be long gone. The moment it isn’t true anymore would bring rather dire consequences for the human race.
http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/early-wall-art-europe-120514.htm
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/th...s-show-aspects-of-sex-beyond-the-reproductive

As some of those articles state, it can even be used to sell entirely unrelated and generally "unsexual" things from food like corn flakes, various body products to cars.

Good flavor will sell food better than sex. The reason certain things may not sell is not because the don't have sexual advertising. Sex is just one of many things that sell, so again, no reason to put a fine point on it unless you're trying to rationalize needing buxom babes and hunky studs in things where they make no sense appearing.

“Whether or not a product is related to sex doesn’t matter, a good marketer can relate a product to sex for profit. In turn, the public will see the advertisement for this product and fail to realize the irreverent correlation between the two.”

Marketers can do what they want. Maybe what they are marketing will sell, maybe it won't. I doubt sex is the lynch-pin in many cases. So again, why make a point of it?

Do they happen to very often be outright ugly or unpleasant to look at?

They often happen to be average or acquired tastes. I don't think Sam Jackson is a heart throb, yet people will see something just because he is in it. Were people going to see Star Wars or Jaws in droves to gawk at Mark Hamil and Roy Scheider? Did people flock to Avatar because of half naked blue cat people and a pleasant looking (no homo) but unknown lead, or because James Cameron and ground-breaking production assets? Would they have skipped it if Paul Giamatti was the lead ? (sorry, Paul )

About as “facile” as what you are complaining about three sentences in, but I guess also potentially true. I didn't say it's the only thing.

That's the point. A lot of things sell, but they don't have their own cliche. They're not treated as something special that needs to be highlighted in contrast to other things.

Are the best examples you can think of really two products that are marketed mainly towards children? And even there, say in Disney movies or cartoons you will rarely see ugly characters or ones that are unpleasant to look at.

That's an example of when sexuality can have the exact opposite effect.

Show me evidence that attractive characters are what sells Disney films. Show me evidence that people wouldn't go see a Disney film if characters were unpleasant to look at. Hunchback of Notre Dame? Disney was already on a slight decline by then. Still raked in 300 million. "Cartoon animals sell" is about as useful a statement as "sex sells."

It wasn’t exactly free from sexual content, but I’m happy you brought it up because more and more premium series watched by a lot of people considering themselves to be the more “sophisticated” audience employ said technique and show actual sex scenes you’d have found only in soft-core pornography freely a few decades ago: http://variety.com/2013/biz/news/cover-story-brave-nude-world-pay-tv-pushing-boundaries-1200703785/

It wasn't exactly watched for its sexual content either, where over the course of 5 seasons with 12-13 one hour episodes each, sex occurred infrequently and in short duration. I certainly didn't care about that aspect of the show, and I'm not an anomaly. But let's look at more popular shows later.

And more and more premium series are watched by this kind of audience because the storytelling and production values in television have improved leaps and bounds from where it was 20 years ago. If the producers think showing sex acts will get their numbers a little higher or make the story more involving then that is a decision they are free to make. But the sex is not selling shows where sex is not a major theme.

Game of Thrones, Rome, Entourage, Spartacus, Homeland, Banshee, The Borgias, Shameless, Californication, Dexter, The Tudors, Mad Men, Southland, Hell on Wheels, American Horror Story, Walking Dead, Boardwalk Empire, Justified, The Americans, The Bridge, House of Cards etc.

Of those, I regularly watch Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Justified. Not only in the most sensual of these, Mad Men, is the sexual content rather tame, it is relevant to the entire thematic tapestry. Sex isn't selling Mad Men anymore than fashion and 60s nostalgia are. And if you think Walking Dead, which doesn't show any nudity and has a bunch of sweaty, gore caked, desperate people having little sex is being sold with sex, then I can't take anything you type about this subject seriously. Guns and dialogue probably sell Justified more than sex. Boardwalk Empire has sex, but are teenagers boys and girls wanting to see some dames and hunks flocking to it?

A few of those shows are pretty much just pulp or exploitation, lizard brain stuff. They sell because of that, but again a lot of things sell more for a lot of reasons. The Walking Dead has bigger ratings than most of those shows. Breaking Bad will be talked about long after most of those.

Going back to games, regarding Blizzards audience in WoW a lot of female players actually loudly complained about not having classically “attractive” humanly looking avatar options on the Horde side upon release which eventually lead to the introduction of the Blood Elves as a faction and they seem rather popular: http://i.imgur.com/N0tWJqx.png

But are they complaining about there being ugly characters at all? Do they only ever select the prettiest characters. If so, they are part of the man-child moron audience who can't enjoy things that aren't constantly stimulating them in the easiest of ways, can't judge things beyond their superficial qualities. They'll get destroyed by my ugly ass Blanka and Zangief in SF. Fart jokes will sell to these people. I put these kind of people in the same group that can't enjoy anything that doesn't have a happy ending or explosions

In MOBA games, from the amount of women that actually do play it the “sexy” characters are apparently also the most popular: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=31555980#31555980

For context, did you know Miss Fortune is the most popular character among female League players? Sona is #2 – something that is appealing to the eye is more aspirational and has a higher “cool quotient” than things that are not – even without hormones in the equation

The point is "normal" people do not need nor desire sexual content in everything. They can enjoy films with average looking actresses, read books that have not a jot of said content in them, play games with no attractive humans to speak of. Needing everyone to be attractive is not normal. It's immature. Like grow up already, life, which all fiction draws from in some way, is not all pornstars and firemen calendars. Velazquez painted all kinds of people, Dustin Hoffman was a major lead in many famous films, Twain didn't describe bust-lines in all his work.

"Sex sells" is people's rationale for being vapid and superficial. It comes off as "don't judge me, everyone else is doing it," because you call them out on the fact that maybe a female soldier in a thong is kind of stupid and lazy, and if you (not you specifically, dexter) like it that's okay, but don't try to justify it with some high minded reasoning or appeal to consensus.

 

[Lagole Gon]

...

Gianna Michaels?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It is a very universal statement that I suspect will still be true long after certain movements or systems like the economical or governmental ones we take for granted will possibly be long gone. The moment it isn’t true anymore would bring rather dire consequences for the human race.
http://news.discovery.com/history/art-history/early-wall-art-europe-120514.htm
http://www.dominicantoday.com/dr/th...s-show-aspects-of-sex-beyond-the-reproductive

As some of those articles state, it can even be used to sell entirely unrelated and generally "unsexual" things from food like corn flakes, various body products to cars.

Good flavor will sell food better than sex. The reason certain things may not sell is not because the don't have sexual advertising. Sex is just one of many things that sell, so again, no reason to put a fine point on it unless you're trying to rationalize needing buxom babes and hunky studs in things where they make no sense appearing.

One thing that annoys me that these games which have these sexually aggressive characters don't have rape, or even ordinary sex. It's like false advertisement.
The cover speak to me "Rape Amazons are out there! Will you capture and ride them or will you have to endure a 50 minute cunnilingus minigame?!". Fucking liars.

 

[Machocruz]

One thing that annoys me that these games which have these sexually aggressive characters don't have rape, or even ordinary sex. It's like false advertisement.
The cover speak to me "Rape Amazons are out there! Will you capture and ride them or will you have to endure a 50 minute cunnilingus minigame?!". Fucking liars.

None of these developers are allowed or skilled enough to incorporate sexuality or sexual violence as a relevant theme that pervades the entire game. That would be something. Actually, Silent Hill 2 did it and that's why I laugh when idiots think storytelling has improved this generation with stuff like Last of Us, which is a game about nothing relevant at all. Well Catherine did it too, but too much silly animu crap. Bioware probably thinks that they do it, but their dating sim/high school drama way of doing it clashes with the space adventure stuff.

I don't criticize the mere existence of sexuality in a game, or enjoying it in a game, but the way it's done most of the time just reminds me of when we used to draw boobies in our notebooks in elementary school, giggling in the back of the assembly hall. Is that the level people who make and play games want to operate on as they age?

On the other hand, I respect something more when it makes no bones about trying to appeal to the audience's libido, when it's only trying to be about that. It's commenting on sex in it's own way, instead of having it as window dressing and looking stupid because it makes no sense. Game developers don't even have the balls to do that, aside from Tecmo and some other Japanese stuff I've seen. Check out an artist called Rockin' Jelly Bean.

 

[Sceptic]

Can't say I sympathize with anyone who would marry a fat neckbeard.

Check your thin hairless privilege, bitch.

 

[Average Manatee]

Can't say I sympathize with anyone who would marry a fat neckbeard.

Check your thin hairless privilege, bitch.

You heard it here. Women who marry ugly men deserve to be raped. Roguey approved.

 

[Roguey]

Disgusting unkempt facial hair and excess body fat say only negative things about one's personality. Anyone who would aid, abet, and comfort the enemy is also the enemy.

Of course I would show only kindness if she were to divorce him and renounce her misogynerd-enabling ways.

 

[JohnTheRevelator]

Judging people by how they look says only negative things about one's personality.

Spoiler

would reply again, too obvious though so you score only 3 trolls

 

[Tehdagah]

(...) "Sex sells" is people's rationale for being vapid and superficial.

No, it's the truth:

Spoiler

It comes off as "don't judge me, everyone else is doing it," because you call them out on the fact that maybe a female soldier in a thong is kind of stupid and lazy,

A female soldier in a thong is hot for anyone who is attracted to women. This is not even debatable.

and if you (not you specifically, dexter) like it that's okay, but don't try to justify it with some high minded reasoning or appeal to consensus.

You kinda have a point and the same can be said about people who tries to justify their dislike with talks about feminism and opression. Not you, but pretty much every feminist/SJW is doing this right now.

(...) I don't criticize the mere existence of sexuality in a game, or enjoying it in a game, but the way it's done most of the time just reminds me of when we used to draw boobies in our notebooks in elementary school, giggling in the back of the assembly hall. Is that the level people who make and play games want to operate on as they age?

The way it's done most of time reminds me of men having fun. Sounds terrible.

On the other hand, I respect something more when it makes no bones about trying to appeal to the audience's libido, when it's only trying to be about that. It's commenting on sex in it's own way, instead of having it as window dressing and looking stupid because it makes no sense. Game developers don't even have the balls to do that, aside from Tecmo and some other Japanese stuff I've seen. Check out an artist called Rockin' Jelly Bean.

1 - Why it should be 'only about that'? You can mix things.
2 - Funny how most of the 'nonsensical' stuff in games get a free-pass, but when it's something related to sex, a war erupts. Recent example: "Lightning Return: Final Fantasy XIII" features a lot of optional outfits for the protagonist. Most of those outfits don't even fit on Lightning's personality (a classy dress, for example), but the butthurt erupted only when Square revealed a sexy cat outfit. The general argument against the outfit - only THAT outfit - was "It has nothing to do with the character! Makes no sense!" blah blah blah.
3 - Game developers have the ball to do this, after all, fan-service doesn't try to be more than fan-service. Selling a pure fan-service game or adding some fan-service in your game have the same obvious objective (although with different scales), this has nothing to do with "commeting on sex in it's own way".

Bonus:

Spoiler

 

[Roguey]

Judging people by how they look says only negative things about one's personality.

That's only true for things a person can't reasonably change. Note that I didn't say anything about his receding hairline. Beards can be trimmed. A proper body shape can be maintained. Not doing these things reveals personality flaws.

 

[Humanity has risen!]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...u-need-to-know-in-the-ps4-vs-xbox-one-battle/

Hardware power
This time around, the top two contenders for the console power crown are closer than they've ever been in terms of raw processing power. We took a deep-dive look at the internals recently, but the long and short of it is that the basic system specs are nearly identical. The CPUs share the same architecture and multi-core design, the GPUs vary only slightly in clock speed and number of compute units, and while the PS4 has a faster unified pool of GDDR5 RAM, the Xbox One makes up for this (at least partially) with a small cache of ultra-fast ESRAM.

Specs aside, the proof of a console's power is in the pudding of its graphical output, and thus far the PS4 and Xbox One are practically indistinguishable in this regard. Others have posted detailed breakdowns of the precise number of pixels being pushed on each system (as seen above). While we have no reason to doubt their analysis, the difference just isn't all that apparent when you're playing in a standard living room setup on a 1080p TV.

Switching between inputs while running a game like Battlefield 4 on both systems, the only apparent difference to my eyes was a somewhat duller color palette on the Xbox One. Both versions showed the same noticeable-but-not-jaw-dropping general level of improvement in lighting effects, texture detail, and character animation when compared to the last generation of consoles. Going over to exclusive games, it's hard to compare the graphics of the Xbox One's Forza 5 to the PS4's Killzone: Shadow Fall and declare one the undisputed winner or loser.

We're going to give this one to the PS4 based on the higher resolution it manages on some cross-platform launch titles, but we're loath to count it as a significant negative for the Xbox One. So far the Xbox One generates images that are just as nice for all practical purposes.

I can't believe how outrageous Ars Technica is becoming. It's not just an insignificant different, it's three times as many pixels in many cases. Upscaled games look like trash on the 1080p HDTV that everyone has nowadays.

Remember how the gaming media used to bash Sony and the PS3 every chance they had because the first few generations of multiplatform games looked worse on PS3? Now when it comes to a generation where there's a much worse disparity, in favor of Sony this time, they all basically say "there is no difference, stop whining you entitled nerds" in unison. The hypocrisy is just killing me.

Marcus Beers aka the Annoyed Gamer is just about the only one who dared point out that this was unfair, I got more respect for him. All the others just act like they're on Microsoft's payroll, it's disgusting.

 

[Machocruz]

Spoiler

But will it sell as well as New Super Mario DS, a sexless game, when it's all said and done? "Mario sells" > "sex sells," and thus no reason to make a point of sex selling

A female soldier in a thong is hot for anyone who is attracted to women. This is not even debatable.

Yes, but in a warfare setting she is absurd. Scott/Spielberg/Kubrick > video game designers on the artistic and maturity scale.

You kinda have a point and the same can be said about people who tries to justify their dislike with talks about feminism and opression. Not you, but pretty much every feminist/SJW is doing this right now.

Agree. To me this is about creativity, not social issues. I even state I'm fine with fully sexual content in my later post.

The way it's done most of time reminds me of men having fun. Sounds terrible.

Men have fun with a lot of things. They don't have it in the same way children do.

1 - Why it should be 'only about that'? You can mix things.

Because when it's about that, than it's justified as a logical inclusion. Tits and ass in a Leisure Suit Larry, a game about a man trying to get laid? Perfect. D-cup cleavage in a serious bizness game about shooting aliens in a gritty, frozen sci-fi setting (e.g. Dead Space 3) where all the men are dressed neck to toe? Frat-boy wank material designed by goofs. Ripley's underwear shot in Alien was less obvious than that AND it made sense in the context of the scene.

And mix things? creators don't just mix things.

2 - Funny how most of the 'nonsensical' stuff in games get a free-pass, but when it's something related to sex, a war erupts. Recent example: "Lightning Return: Final Fantasy XIII" features a lot of optional outfits for the protagonist. Most of those outfits don't even fit on Lightning's personality (a classy dress, for example), but the butthurt erupted only when Square revealed a sexy cat outfit. The general argument against the outfit - only THAT outfit - was "It has nothing to do with the character! Makes no sense!" blah blah blah.

FFXIII is nonsensical in general. What the hell is a L'Cie? Why not call them Goony-Goo-Goo while they're at it? Why are there robes with lights on them? Why is a bird living in a guy's afro?

3 - Game developers have the ball to do this, after all, fan-service doesn't try to be more than fan-service. Selling a pure fan-service game or adding some fan-service in your game have the same obvious objective (although with different scales), this has nothing to do with "commeting on sex in it's own way".

First, you're conflating two different points. One point is that they don't have the balls to make something that really explores sexuality as it relates to living itself. They're not making anything that is the equivalent of Shame or Secretary, or even Mad Men. That would take an adult with a perspective and life experience, not your average game developer. What they most always do is use cheesecake, not even real sexual relations, as a spice that doesn't at all relate to the themes or setting of the game. They would make a Quest For Fire game and and ignore the part where cavemen try to force themselves on cavewomen, that's how sackless and bland the vast majority of publishers are. Actually, if the cavewoman gets to do an awesome QTE execution move on the caveman just in the nick of time, then they would probably make a feeble attempt at suggesting almost-rape

Second, a game that is pure, raw sexual expression would be addressing sexuality and society's pre-occupation with it. Rockin' Jelly Bean's art is all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, the same as the products he illustrates for. It's human desire laid bare. A game about space marines vs. invaders that sprinkles in some ballistic boob armor or has some random ass close-ups is doing no such thing.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Reminds me why I added Roguey to my ignore list. She/he/it is a psychopathic fashion-cosmetic industrial complex drone.

 

[FeelTheRads]

FFXIII is nonsensical in general. What the hell is a L'Cie? Why not call them Goony-Goo-Goo while they're at it? Why are there robes with lights on them? Why is a bird living in a guy's afro?

Ok... so... his question was why only that suit was criticized as being wrong?

You really don't see that no matter the circumstance and no matter the game, these people always jump on the sex part? Yes, even on Larry, if you read some of the reviews of the remake for example.
So no, SJW don't care only about the inappropriate/childish use of sex. They're on a crusade to remove it, completely, because sex is bad and I guess it shames ermm.. asexuals or something?

 

[bot]

German PS4 launch party contest: create a "living the playstation" pic, get invited to a party and own the first PS4 in the country.

"Ingenious" move by the marketing department. Get gurrrrrrrl gamur in everyone's faces to show the company and platform as progressive, inclusive and all that shit. Females are the new "now for the whole family!!!1" schtick. It's hilarious that a duckface self-shot with controllers is the best female-made entry they could find.

Winners:

What is art, Roguey?

edit: turns out the submitter of the pic is a male; in a sudden twist, a touching story of emancipation and redemption of females and duckfaces worldwide becomes a damning case of exploitation and misogonony. Inb4 900 comment thread on RPSJW demanding public lynching of that manipulative monster.

 

[Spectacle]

This should have been the winning picture:

 

[Unkillable Cat]

That is an absolutely retarded choice for a winning entry. There HAS to be an explanation for this.

 

[bot]

That is an absolutely retarded choice for a winning entry. There HAS to be an explanation for this.

Well, yeah, I've provided it.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Judging people by how they look says only negative things about one's personality.

That's only true for things a person can't reasonably change. Note that I didn't say anything about his receding hairline. Beards can be trimmed. A proper body shape can be maintained. Not doing these things reveals personality flaws.

In all seriousness (I'm not trolling here), why should people have to bend to societal beauty standards? I'm not saying I'm immune to that stuff either - I've been waxing my chest and back since I was a teenager (used to take 3 hours each time, and would be covered in blood)...yet I still think it's absurd that women should feel pressured to keep their legs/armpits waxed.

Why would you say that a woman who doesn't keep 'proper body shape' or maintain her body hair in a manner that meets the current beauty standards has a personality flaw? Is it that unthinkable that she might just have different priorities in her life?

 

[evdk]

Why would you say that a woman who doesn't keep 'proper body shape' or maintain her body hair in a manner that meets the current beauty standards has a personality flaw? Is it that unthinkable that she might just have different priorities in her life?

Hello.

Roguey.

Trolling.

Why would you even take anything this person s ays seriously?

 

[Dexter]

Good flavor will sell food better than sex. The reason certain things may not sell is not because the don't have sexual advertising. Sex is just one of many things that sell, so again, no reason to put a fine point on it unless you're trying to rationalize needing buxom babes and hunky studs in things where they make no sense appearing.

How often do good products really sell better than well marketed ones?
Do you think that AXE is the best body spray out there or that Coke is the best sugar free or sugary drink there is in the whole world?

Spoiler

http://dancingontheradio.com/2008/10/you-gotta-love-coca-cola/
http://www.spraytm.com/the-lasting-popularity-of-body-sprays.html

Unilever’s AXE brand dominates the men’s body spray category, with a 74% share of the market, according to market research firm SymphonyIRI Group. While AXE is targeted primarily to men aged 18 to 24, the brand also is popular among adolescent boys (however, Mintel doesn’t track usage for those under age18.)

There was also a historic example given in one of the articles:

Selling sex is no longer taboo, but using sex to sell products in the past has had spectacular results. Take Kellogg Corn Flakes™ for example. When first advertised in the 1930’s, they yielded very poor sales, mainly because they tasted awful. But, when Kellogg realized they had a huge back stock of Corn Flakes, they silently spread the word that Corn Flakes were an aphrodisiac and could increase one’s sexual appeal. The word spread quickly furiously and Corn Flakes soon garnered high sales and have now become a staple of American life. Times have yet to catch up though, as the sale of Corn Flakes on Sundays is still technically illegal in Ohio because they were considered to promote sexual activities on the Sabbath day.

Were people going to see Star Wars or Jaws in droves to gawk at Mark Hamil and Roy Scheider?

Spoiler

Mark Hamill wasn’t exactly an ugly duckling either:

I’m pretty sure if Leia looked like that: http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/11/hbo-girls-gender-lena-dunham.png or worse the entire movie would have had an entirely different context and amount of popularity and it would all be about "making a point".

Regarding Jaws, let’s see how they sold the movie(s):

Spoiler

That's the point. A lot of things sell, but they don't have their own cliche. They're not treated as something special that needs to be highlighted in contrast to other things.

There wouldn’t be any need to or any focus of attention on it, since it is known and normal to sell if the SJW didn’t make a point out of it to constantly bring it up, similar to how “concerned parent initiatives” and certain lawmakers bring up the predominant violence (which also sells as you have noticed) and deeply religious people rail against other portrayals.

Show me evidence that attractive characters are what sells Disney films. Show me evidence that people wouldn't go see a Disney film if characters were unpleasant to look at.

Spoiler

And more and more premium series are watched by this kind of audience because the storytelling and production values in television have improved leaps and bounds from where it was 20 years ago. If the producers think showing sex acts will get their numbers a little higher or make the story more involving then that is a decision they are free to make. But the sex is not selling shows where sex is not a major theme.

It is and they will. The amount shown has only increased lately even when compared to a few years ago.

Of those, I regularly watch Mad Men, Walking Dead, and Justified. Not only in the most sensual of these, Mad Men, is the sexual content rather tame, it is relevant to the entire thematic tapestry. Sex isn't selling Mad Men anymore than fashion and 60s nostalgia are. And if you think Walking Dead, which doesn't show any nudity and has a bunch of sweaty, gore caked, desperate people having little sex is being sold with sex, then I can't take anything you type about this subject seriously. Guns and dialogue probably sell Justified more than sex. Boardwalk Empire has sex, but are teenagers boys and girls wanting to see some dames and hunks flocking to it?

A few of those shows are pretty much just pulp or exploitation, lizard brain stuff. They sell because of that, but again a lot of things sell more for a lot of reasons. The Walking Dead has bigger ratings than most of those shows. Breaking Bad will be talked about long after most of those.

Walking Dead is probably one of the weakest of the examples given, but it is still a rather big theme that pops up again and again: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/parentalguide
If it wouldn’t sell Mad Men (or if it would impact the show inversely in fact), why do you think it is such a big part of the show in the first place after all they could depict almost anything or cut it out entirely like in the 40s and 50s when there was “morality censorship” still around? All of the shows I brought up are pretty well made and most of them (bar maybe the comedies: Entourage, Californication and Shameless which might be an acquired taste and possibly Spartacus/Banshee) are generally very good overall.

Also, we weren’t talking about “sex” depicted as an act that sells (although most of those shows include that too it isn't what the saying is inherently about), but generally attraction/sex appeal of such nature to the characters portrayed and how they are being shown. I don’t think any of the games RPS is railing against contain any actual sex, but some people act as if giving a character breasts and an attractive figure makes it pornography of the vilest kind and are calling for this instead:

Spoiler

[/img]

The point is "normal" people do not need nor desire sexual content in everything. They can enjoy films with average looking actresses, read books that have not a jot of said content in them, play games with no attractive humans to speak of. Needing everyone to be attractive is not normal. It's immature. Like grow up already, life, which all fiction draws from in some way, is not all pornstars and firemen calendars. Velazquez painted all kinds of people, Dustin Hoffman was a major lead in many famous films, Twain didn't describe bust-lines in all his work.

What is it with this obsession of some people stating that just because it is sexual it is only going to sell to “teenagers” or calling it “wank material” and that they are so much above it all when it doesn’t have much to do with that? Sexual attraction will work fine on 40/50/60 year old people even if it is possibly more subtle.
It’s like there’s an assumption that there is an age limit where one suddenly stops liking breasts and curves or respectively well-built bodies, a pretty face and charisma.

Humans are genetically programmed to look at characteristics like those first and they attract attention to things even subconsciously as well as influence possible decision making (including buying decisions) that could stem from said attraction. If you deny that it has any influence on you whatsoever, it is much more likely to have an influence that you aren’t aware of.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5
http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/Heat_of_Moment.pdf

Personally I’m aware that these kind of things influence my decisions to possibly watch a movie or TV series, buy a product or even play a game although it is by far not the only factor, not sure why some people have to get so defensive about it with the need to state how above it they are.

Anyway, I don’t really want to discuss this much further reply after reply since it is time consuming, so I think I’m done here.

 

[Machocruz]

Good flavor will sell food better than sex. The reason certain things may not sell is not because the don't have sexual advertising. Sex is just one of many things that sell, so again, no reason to put a fine point on it unless you're trying to rationalize needing buxom babes and hunky studs in things where they make no sense appearing.

How often do good products really sell better than well marketed ones?
Do you think that AXE is the best body spray out there or that Coke is the best sugar free or sugary drink there is in the whole world?

Spoiler

http://dancingontheradio.com/2008/10/you-gotta-love-coca-cola/
http://www.spraytm.com/the-lasting-popularity-of-body-sprays.html

Unilever’s AXE brand dominates the men’s body spray category, with a 74% share of the market, according to market research firm SymphonyIRI Group. While AXE is targeted primarily to men aged 18 to 24, the brand also is popular among adolescent boys (however, Mintel doesn’t track usage for those under age18.)

There was also a historic example given in one of the articles:

Selling sex is no longer taboo, but using sex to sell products in the past has had spectacular results. Take Kellogg Corn Flakes™ for example. When first advertised in the 1930’s, they yielded very poor sales, mainly because they tasted awful. But, when Kellogg realized they had a huge back stock of Corn Flakes, they silently spread the word that Corn Flakes were an aphrodisiac and could increase one’s sexual appeal. The word spread quickly furiously and Corn Flakes soon garnered high sales and have now become a staple of American life. Times have yet to catch up though, as the sale of Corn Flakes on Sundays is still technically illegal in Ohio because they were considered to promote sexual activities on the Sabbath day.

No one is going to buy food that tastes like shit no matter how sexy the packaging is. Cheerios are the best selling cereal. Maybe because the little O's remind people of rectums, derp.

"Marketed well" can mean anything. I've seen things marketed well with blood, comedians, luxury, fields of flowers, the list goes on. "Things sell!"

Were people going to see Star Wars or Jaws in droves to gawk at Mark Hamil and Roy Scheider?

Spoiler

Mark Hamill wasn’t exactly an ugly duckling either:

I’m pretty sure if Leia looked like that: http://cdn.crushable.com/files/2012/11/hbo-girls-gender-lena-dunham.png or worse the entire movie would have had an entirely different context and amount of popularity and it would all be about "making a point".

Regarding Jaws, let’s see how they sold the movie(s):

Spoiler

Shows a picture of Leia the third film, Star Wars was already huge after the first.

And Return of the Jedi is the lowest grossing Star Wars. Oops!

You think people were lining up around the block to check out Harrison Ford and Mark Hamil? Couldn't be the groundbreakig FX and space adventure, could it?You think people lined up around the block to see random bikini surfer? Couldn't be the promise of being terrified and sharks being interesting and cool, could it? "Sharks sell," "Special Effects sell."

There wouldn’t be any need to or any focus of attention on it, since it is known and normal to sell if the SJW didn’t make a point out of it to constantly bring it up, similar to how “concerned parent initiatives” and certain lawmakers bring up the predominant violence (which also sells as you have noticed) and deeply religious people rail against other portrayals.

That just means there are two camps who don't get it, the SJWs and the cliche spouters.

Show me evidence that attractive characters are what sells Disney films. Show me evidence that people wouldn't go see a Disney film if characters were unpleasant to look at.

Spoiler

This is isn't evidence that attractive characters sold Disney films any more than elephants, wooden dolls, genies, lions, or hunchbacks did. Correlation is not causation. Half these were underperformers or quickly forgotten. Lion King made all these bitches its bitch. "Lion sells" > "Sex sells"

It is and they will. The amount shown has only increased lately even when compared to a few years ago.

You've provided no evidence that it is or will. Correlation is not causation.

Walking Dead is probably one of the weakest of the examples given, but it is still a rather big theme that pops up again and again: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1520211/parentalguide

I watch the show, it's not a "big" theme at all. According to your logic, sex spread sparsely throughout a 4 season show about zombies is responsible for the show's success? And this makes sense to you? I visit several sites that cover television. Every one of these has a Walking Dead thread or comment section. Over 4 seasons the amount of times I've seen sex scenes talked about at any length is far, far, far, outnumbered by the amount of discussion surrounding either gore FX/kills, character development, logic gaffes, comparisons to the comic, criticism. Anecdotal? Sure, but that's far more tangible evidence that people don't give a damn about sex in this show than you have so far provided to the contrary

If it wouldn’t sell Mad Men (or if it would impact the show inversely in fact), why do you think it is such a big part of the show in the first place after all they could depict almost anything or cut it out entirely like in the 40s and 50s when there was “morality censorship” still around? All of the shows I brought up are pretty well made and most of them (bar maybe the comedies: Entourage, Californication and Shameless which might be an acquired taste and possibly Spartacus/Banshee) are generally very good overall.

They don't cut out anything that pertains to peoples lives. The don't cut out smoking, fighting, mild cursing, sleeping, arguing, crying. Sex is part of the tapestry of people's lives. It's a big part of the show maybe because of the sexual revolution going on in the 60s? Guess what? Class, racism, political strife, suburban discontent were also major themes of that decade and thus big parts of the show.

I can only guess that you think sex is a special condition of life, and therefore its presence in shows about people's lives is something extra important. It's not and it's not.

Also, we weren’t talking about “sex” depicted as an act that sells (although most of those shows include that too it isn't what the saying is inherently about), but generally attraction/sex appeal of such nature to the characters portrayed and how they are being shown. I don’t think any of the games RPS is railing against contain any actual sex, but some people act as if giving a character breasts and an attractive figure makes it pornography of the vilest kind and are calling for this instead:

Spoiler

[/img]

So what? Fat chicks exist. Grow up. Don't be like one of those comic book kids who get upset when Alex Ross gives a male hero a bulge. If you need all your characters
to fit your definition of what is visually comforting, you have the problem. Art , even fantasy art,holds the mirror up to nature, so either argue that games aren't art or accept diversity of human physical characteristics. The only point you've made with this is that Borderlands 2 has awful character designers who can't draw fat people, and that RPS are dumbfucks who think morbid obesity = regular. You're all pretty silly.

What is it with this obsession of some people stating that just because it is sexual it is only going to sell to “teenagers” or calling it “wank material” and that they are so much above it all when it doesn’t have much to do with that? Sexual attraction will work fine on 40/50/60 year old people even if it is possibly more subtle. It’s like there’s an assumption that there is an age limit where one suddenly stops liking breasts and curves or respectively well-built bodies, a pretty face and charisma.

Because that's a trait of kids and unsophisticated adults. They don't value logical consistency in fiction, only what's "cool" or keeps them geeked up 24 hours a day. The characteristic of mature work is that it depicts what is appropriate to the themes, setting, and genre the creator is working with.This should be obvious to anyone who wasn't raised solely on Image comics and pulps. Should Harvey Keitel and Robert Carradine have been replaced by two women in high heels and bikinis in The Duelists? Would the 50 year olds have dug that?

But read again. I say it's immature to require every human in a piece of entertainment to be attractive. If there were some quality TV shows with buxom babes sauntering around just for the heck of it, I would watch it. But I'm not adverse to watching Breaking Bad even though Marie sometimes looks like a dude and Skylar goes from average to lizard-like with each season. I'm also not afraid to see penises on screen or in comics, unlike some people I've come across.

Humans are genetically programmed to look at characteristics like those first and they attract attention to things even subconsciously as well as influence possible decision making (including buying decisions) that could stem from said attraction. If you deny that it has any influence on you whatsoever, it is much more likely to have an influence that you aren’t aware of.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-009-9523-5
http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/Heat_of_Moment.pdf

My programming has decided I can enjoy the Hobbit without tits, and tits wouldn't make me enjoy the Hobbit any more than I already do. You see, the brain is also programmed to detect bullshit that doesn't mesh with the whole.

Personally I’m aware that these kind of things influence my decisions to possibly watch a movie or TV series, buy a product or even play a game although it is by far not the only factor, not sure why some people have to get so defensive about it with the need to state how above it they are.

Not being defensive, just pointing out how limited your evidence is. Sex does sell some things some times, even frequently. Never disagreed with that. It just doesn't make dumb and clumsy implementations of sexuality not dumb and clumsy. The Industry has a creativity problem, imo, not a social problem.

 

[Machocruz]

FFXIII is nonsensical in general. What the hell is a L'Cie? Why not call them Goony-Goo-Goo while they're at it? Why are there robes with lights on them? Why is a bird living in a guy's afro?

Ok... so... his question was why only that suit was criticized as being wrong?

And my answer to the question was bascially: Who gives a shit? The whole game is nonsense. You're not replying to them you're replying to me, so don't bring their issues into my issues as if they're the same.