A somewhat overdue, but now posted-and-pretty piece of mine, “Developing Sex in Games,” went up today at Gamasutra. It’s mostly a prose-ized interview with Brenda Brathwaite, a sex games developer and head of the IGDA’s Sex in Games SIG. She’s gotten a lot of good press lately - so heck, why not give her more?
Check it out for some brief wisdom on sex game-related discrimination, censorship, and new opportunities. Or just click over for a pic of two hot Playboy: the Mansion chicks doing it in a hottub.
November 15th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
I have a question for you Bonnie. How does one break into the seemingly nebulous world of freelance video game journalist as well as writing for a slew of online magazines? I would really like to break into this world but I’m seemingly at a loss as to how I should go about that. By the by, I really appreciate your writing, very insightful in a way I hadn’t seen yet as far as video games are concerned. Good work!
November 15th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
Thanks Devon, though I’m happy to talk to you about freelancing even without the compliments :-). Anyways, I can explain how it worked for me, and maybe that’ll be helpful:
In real life (or something vaguely like it) I’m a student at a competitive liberal arts school in New England, where I study Eng. lit. and creative writing. Over the last few years, I’ve been involved in a lot of different publications, both student and professional, that have more or less nothing to do with gaming - as a writer, journalist, editor, intern, etc. - which gave me a solid background before I started writing about games. My first game writing gigs were with Planet GameCube and Gaming Age - both of whom I had queried about a girl gamer column (Sometimes it helps to bring something relatively unique to the table.) After a while, I started searching around for other venues that might be interested in my work. Eventually, I was able to put together a somewhat substantial list of clippings (past, published pieces), which made suggesting stories at larger-name publications like The A. V. Club, Gamasutra, and The Escapist much easier.
After all that babble, the point is, it’s a process. You find somewhere to sneak in, and then you move up. I certainly hope to keep on moving. And best of luck to you, Devon, in doing the same!
November 15th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
Sorry to go off topic, but I was just wondering what your thoughts were on an entry in another blog I sometimes read. Go to squidi.net and check out the Nov. 14 article “Toys for Tots”. Basically, he was checking out the girls’ toys in Toys R Us and started thinking about the effect toys have on enforcing gender roles. Well, that’s the first few paragraphs at least. He rambles a bit as he expands on that into a more abstract look at the issue. That’s just the way he writes.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Muljo, thanks for the link. That was actually really interesting. Especially since I’m putting together an article on “girl games” right now, and a lot of what he has to say about toys applies to that segment of gaming too. I’m really struck by his comment that boys are allowed to be imaginative, while girls’ fantasies are restrictive or practical. Again, it totally reflects back on girl games - where you’re either a princess or a blond idiot deciding what to wear before spending the day in high school being a total bitch. Things that are new, or strange, or a different approach to imagination don’t go in the girls aisle. If they’re lucky, they make it to unisex.
Don’t even get me started on her good friend Midge, who is with child (Barbie is having too much fun, so her boring friend is the one that settles down).
If this is true, it’s just hilarious.
The next aisle over is the Bratz section, which is essentially the modern day version of a princess in a sports car… Lindsey Lohan style. They wear leapord print spandex, snorting coke off each other’s ass, while downing shots in the back of the Bratz Party Jet(tm). It’s girls gone wild without nipples. And the Bratz Babies are the most grotesquely deformed amalgamation of baby and troll that I’ve ever seen.
Also hilarious. Have you ever seen these dolls? It’s like their heads have gone through a printing press.
This past Halloween, I noticed that boys got all manner of cool things to dress up with while girls got to be… wait for it… princesses (or, if you are slightly older, slutty pirate wenches or skimpy devil outfits)
And this is totally, totally true. Walking through Halloween costume aisle in Target last month, my fiance pointed out the slutiness factor. For men, Halloween is about dressing up for fun. For women, Halloween is about dressing up for men.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:09 am
I think Brathwaite’s point at the end–how most of the sexual content that is in games–is what matters the most to me. I am quite intrigued by the concept that games can be used to safely explore sexuality, I hadn’t considered that before. However, it just seems like 99% of the time the only type of sexuality that is being explored is male heterosexuality.
November 16th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Natalie, I agree with you that in most games, the only type of sexuality that’s being allowed free range is mainstream male heterosexuality. This is even true in the projects that Brenda herself has worked on, like Playboy: the Mansion. Unfortunately, that seems to be dictated by consumer market, or at least publisher’s perception of the consumer market (They assume that only male-orien, hetero games will sell since, supposedly, only male heteros play games.) Yet, with developers like Brenda, you can see that there’s potential for much more. Brenda’s Sex SIG blog covers a wide range of topics, and who knows what she might create if it weren’t for current strangle-hold big business has on game creativity - even sexual creativity.
With that that, there are a lot of opportunities out there for non-mainstream sexual gameplay. Sometimes it’s in the form of online games with low production costs. Mostly though, in-game sexual exploration comes in games where the players create the reality, specifically MMO’s. If you’re interested in learning more on the subject, I suggest you check out two great sites that are making it their business to tell the world about this sort of alternative experimentation: MMOrgy (www.mmorgy.com) and Slashdong (www.slashdong.com).
November 16th, 2005 at 12:18 pm
“For men, Halloween is about dressing up for fun. For women, Halloween is about dressing up for men.”
Not exactly. The problem isn’t not so much women dress up for men, they don’t, dressing up to be desired implies wanting up to attain a form of power over the one who’ll desire you, so I’d say they dress up for themselves. The real problem, as the squidi.net post pointed out, is that women have been limited to that form of power for so long.
Up until recently, it was almost the only one they had. Women as desired objects and men as desiring machines (Not that it didn’t serve a purpose, I think it allowed to maximise the production of males in the human species, giving it a clear advantage).
With all that in mind, I sometimes fear Women’s Liberation is nothing but the process of readapting the rôles of men and women to the benefit of the capitalist machine: most of the liberation process has been made at the expense of women, what they acquired was the duties of men as a workforce while not appropriating themselves new rights and powers (well, yes sometimes a greater share of economic power, but since capitalistic society seems to have a strong tendency to reject the codification of sex as a purely economic process [I now, that’s one hell of an affirmation, but I think it does make sense], they didn’t exactly achieved what they wanted).
Proof-reading I saw gross historical approximations pointing out their noses, but I hope the post will be interesting anyway.
About sex in games, I think I’ll never thank Xenogears enough for that shower scene. Gave a clear proof it could be done well narratively.
The more I think about it though, the stranger I find the way the problematic has been sentenced. Depending on the broadness of the definition we give to the term “sex”, either we shouldn’t even be thinking of adapting it into games (too few verbs, sexual intercourse itself would make for very poor gameplay… either that or I lack imagination -_^), or we’ve never been doing anything else (I mean, we all now Mario wants to save the princess for a reason, RIGHT ?).
(Josh Lesnick might beg to differ on that last point: http://go-girly.com/go/josh_grb )
November 16th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Hey, MD^2, what does this mean?:
Proof-reading I saw gross historical approximations pointing out their noses, but I hope the post will be interesting anyway.
Also, I hear what you’re saying about assuming sexual power - but it’s never that simple. That’s an age-old debate: is the attractve power of women empowering, objectifying, othering… I think, in the end, it’s all of those things. As far as For men, Halloween is about dressing up for fun. For women, Halloween is about dressing up for men. I stand by that. Without women in mind, men would still dress like, heck, whatever. Without men in mind, however, women wouldn’t dress so sexually.
November 16th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
“However, it just seems like 99% of the time the only type of sexuality that is being explored is male heterosexuality.”
Obviously, you never picked up the “Sims: Lesbo Breeding Camp” expansion…
November 16th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Sorry, my bad, this is what happen when I’m in a hurry: rough word-for-word translation of an idiomatic expression.
Anyway what I meant is that I noticed re-reading my post that it gave an over simplied vision of history, but I still hoped it made enough sense to prove interesting.
“I stand by that. Without women in mind, men would still dress like, heck, whatever. Without men in mind, however, women wouldn't dress so sexually.”
Told like that, I agree. My main problem was with the word “for”. The fact that you dress up with spectators in mind doesn’t imply you’re dressing up for the spectators, the same way creating a piece of art with a certain public in mind doesn’t imply you’re creating it for that public. At least that’s how I see things; as far as I’m concerned, if you’re consuming the beholder’s consumption, you’re doing it for yourself (but, sad fact, isn’t the whole problem lots of people are not even aware they’re doing it ? Or worst even, that they can do it?).
"However, it just seems like 99% of the time the only type of sexuality that is being explored is male heterosexuality."
Explored is too great a word, too flattering.
Enforced is good. :)
November 16th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
MD^2, I second your enforced comment, and I hear you on the art comparison. But, like you say, I would be amazed if a fraction of the population is actually thinking through the power of their double-sided consumption, which, in some way, takes the power out of it.
November 16th, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Yes, enforced=perfect word. I keep on looking at things from my own queer perspective and find that the heterosexuality that is portrayed is too peculiar because of it’s abundant loyalty to stereotypes. Not surprising, I guess. What I do tend to wonder about is what would equality look like in sex? I think people can find that on their own terms, but how can this be universally portrayed in something like videogames?
November 16th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
Forgot to say, thanks Bonnie, for the links. I’ll be sure to check them out.
November 16th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
All sex scenes in games are bullshit.
All of them.
Straight, gay, bi, space aliens, swinging from chains, you name it. It’s gratuitous pandering. Now, if that’s your thing, then fine. But let’s not pretend this stuff has anything to do with “game narrative” or defining characters.
November 17th, 2005 at 3:37 am
I stand by my example.
The shower scene in Xenogears can hardly be considered pandering, nothing is seen, the hero is masked by steam and only the heroine can seem him naked, risking a coy comment on the cuteness of his ass). The scene feels very natural, no slutiness pandering factor, just an attemp at finding joy and pleasure in the middle of a chaotic war situation.
For once, the heroine can desire a shortly objectified hero. It’s only a tiny element in the whole characterisation process, but without it it wouldn’t ring as true, or deep.
November 17th, 2005 at 9:32 am
Ah, the “objectified” cliche finally makes an appearance.
There’s more than one kind of pandering, MD2.
November 17th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Also, not to be pedantic, but if “nothing is seen” then it’s not really a sex SCENE, is it?
November 17th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
Brummbar, I think there’s also a big different though between a game with a sex scene, and a game with sex. When the point of the game is sex (or, with an MMO, the point of the action at hand), sexual interaction is hardly gratuitous.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
Bonnie - Agreed! A game in which seduction, romantic “problem solving” or actual sexual techniques are core mechanics would, perforce, have a lot of such material which would not be gratuitous at all.
November 17th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Speaking of which, have I plugged my new game yet?
It’s called SexQuest.
SQ is an action / RTS / driving / fighting / RPG / side-scrolling platformer / horticulture sim set in the Normandy campaign of WW2, but with ninjas. And zombies.
You’ll control the game in 2nd-person perspective using the original X-Box “glazed ham” controller along with a Logitech QuickCam and UL-certified smoke detector.
The game will be rated ME (for “My Eyes!”) and contain graphic, prolonged depictions of carnal acts which are anatomically impossible in standard Earth gravity.
To attract women gamers, you can play as a female character (who is a lesbian nymphomaniac, so that takes care of the guys).
Coming soon for Windows ME, BeOS, GEM, NeXTStep and the Coleco ADAM!
PC Gamer says:
“93% - Editors’ Choice! - The best game we’ve played until we say the same thing in next month’s issue!”
Also, there will be an expansion pack, which in addition to having more “attitude,” will be “edgy.”
BewareWare, my development company, is also considering a Massively Uniplayer version to capture the market of lonely fat guys who play games like this. The game manual will be made of bacon.
And finally, we are releasing the first patch/bug fix/EULA revision before the game arrives in stores. Because we care about our customers. We’re here for YOU, the gamer!
November 17th, 2005 at 9:46 pm
“Glazed ham” controller. That’s even better than the bear :-).
November 21st, 2005 at 8:03 am
“Also, not to be pedantic, but if "nothing is seen" then it's not really a sex SCENE, is it?”
As long as their’s a defined set (here the place generated via computer graphics), point (sex), and means of passing it on (text), we’ve got a scene, even if nothin is seen. (I’ll go back later check in an english dictionary, maybe the word has strayed other paths than those troded upon by its french counterpart… nothing as dangerous to translate as words that seems the same).
Also, can’t think of a good example right now(except for a pretty old gothic short story no one has probably read) but aren’t some scene based wholly on absence to pass on the point ?
Damn it, I want that Coleco ADAM version of SexQuest now…
November 21st, 2005 at 8:35 am
MD^2, the definition of the word “scene” as you’re thinking of it - almost in the sense of theater - is correct. I think Brummbar is just looking at the possible linguistics there and raising a question about the meaning of an accepted word. But yes, I would agree with you, scene’s can even be set by absence - any set of defining boundaries really. And which gothic story are you thinking of? Just curious…
November 21st, 2005 at 10:25 am
I was about to say the opening one in Karen Blixen’s “Seven Gothic Tales”, except it seems after a quick check I may be mixing it up with another story called “Eternel palimpseste” (the term being applied here to a prostitute, I like that) I have in a Polish literrature anthology.
I’ll have to go down in the basement to confirm.
(Noooooooooooooooo those piles of parked books are dangerous, they eat SOUNDS I tell you…)
November 21st, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Actually, it was pointed out to me almost immediately by several people (in person, who also read this blog) that it’s quite possible to have a sex scene where absolutely nothing is visible. In fact, my girlfriend insists on it.
Ha! Little joke, there.
But something like an erotic radio play comes to mind. Or, indeed, a written description. Strictly speaking, no visuals there at all; only description.
That said, I still wonder if a scene in which someone makes a saucy comment about another’s anatomy qualifies as a “sex scene” if no actual sex is being had. Seduction, maybe. Flirting, sure - and foreplay. But “sex scene?”
November 21st, 2005 at 9:33 pm
I suppose it’s hard to define; maybe it depends on the context. In a G-rated movie, for example, foreplay is a sex scene. In a XXX porn, not so much. In general, it’s sort of a colloquial term. It becomes what you make of it.