By Nexus on 4/9/01
Article Discussion Forum

This article isn't solely about breasts. On a larger scale, it's actually about the portrayal of sex and sexual material in games. It's an issue that's often discussed when a new game comes out, and there are always two sides to it regardless of how strange one side of the argument may look to the other. When I've been involved in discussions of this nature, I don't think I've ever seen a time that either party in the debate has really come to an understanding with the other through listening to the opposing arguments.

To some people, myself included (and I should probably tell you at this point that I am male), the idea of clothing female characters in a way that exaggerates sex appeal seems ridiculous when doing so is completely incongruous with the lifestyle and environment of the wearer. I have to admit that I simply can't present both sides of this argument in a fair way, because I myself can't really see the other side. The only argument I've ever understood from someone else was the idea that such a portrayal might lead to increased revenue because people wanted to buy something with a provocative element in it.

To me, this makes sense, but only sometimes. The Leisure Suit Larry series of adventure games was such an idea: the content was deliberately tailored around sex and sexual jokes. This was the intent of the game, so I see nothing wrong with it. Anyone that didn't appreciate it need never buy it and would not need to fear missing out on an enjoyable experience marred by what would, in their eyes, be a flaw or undesirable aspect.

On the other hand, though there are exceptions, the main focus of the plot in the bulk of the titles available in gaming stores is not sex, so one has to ask why it is present in so many of them. Most of the time, the consumer buys a title because it matches an area of interest or meets certain criteria for personal enjoyment, and may not be seeking to gratify sexual needs. For example, I bought Escape From Monkey Island (LucasArts) for its humor and its puzzles. I purchased Deus Ex (Ion Storm) for its storyline and innovative game play.

It's not a matter of banning all forms of sexuality in these games, but rather a matter of deciding when such content is appropriate in the context of the world, Conversely, it's just as important to determine when it's appropriate to leave it out.

Striking the right balance is key for developers. If you orient the content so that it reflects what the audience feels is fitting for the game environment, you'll likely be able to satisfy most players instead of alienating them by presenting an aspect they'll perceive as inconsistent or gratuitous. At the other extreme, it would impair the player's suspension of disbelief just as badly if everyone in a swimming pool was wearing bulky spacesuit-like clothing for no reason. The system should not revolve around the question of "What can we put in?" but rather "What is appropriate in the setting?" All of this, of course, must factor in the target age group for the game.

An often-cited example is that of the underdressed cavewoman in the middle of a barren arctic waste. Would she freeze to death in that clothing? Probably. Is there then a reason why she put on that clothing before ending up there? Usually not. Had the woman been magically teleported there without consent or knowledge a few moments before from a hot tropical paradise, there would be a logical reason for her attire. Had this happened, though, one would expect her to either start freezing to death huddled up in the fetal position, or to head for the nearest warm shelter.

I would say that there's been no point in increasing the performance of video cards and graphics hardware if it's only used to show us details that clash with the game's situation and story. If developers were to follow the rules of game world consistency, it would leave the door open for nudity and sex in games, but with the requirement that they write a story or create an environment that adequately explains it or has consequences that follow from it.

The rule that I would then suggest for developers to evaluate their work against is this:

 

Nudity, sex and all adult subject matter is justified if (and only if) the setting, story or logical consequences justify it.

Note that, for other subject matters, this sort of reasoning has been going on for years: if a character in a role-playing game is randomly killing innocent people, it's usually because that character is evil. Their background might include having a twisted personality that revels in using power in a bad way against those who lack it, rather than because they're a loving mother of three who just wants to make the playground a safer place. This information should be communicated to the player somehow, perhaps as a prologue or as a mystery that must be unravelled in the course of the game. In other words, even the evil exists for a reason. With the rule above, any sexual content should also have a reason for being present, and thus no gratuitous T&A.

The results of applying this rule seem simple to me: should a developer want a game to focus on sex, then they merely have to choose an appropriate setting. Under this guideline, a developer that wants to focus on story and character development can then include such content where it makes sense to do so, and not just liberally sprinkle it all over to add appeal and "eye candy."

What is perhaps an interesting facet of the rule is that it includes realistic consequences: a human tribe is allowed to live in a cold region and wear minimal clothing outdoors, but only if they start losing fingers to frostbite and keeling over dead. We're now seeing the emergence of games where you deal with the results of actions and choices made in a flexible environment: Black & White comes to mind as an example. Is this a sign of the industry maturing in the way they tell stories and create game worlds?