Lightning Returns ending

This is how we communicate, you would never understand!

 

P. much this. I know you didn't genuinely call me an ass. If you want to genuinely spite me, you do something that takes time and effort.

 

I'm just stating facts here. People who don't have a degree in Fine Arts don't actually write essays on why art is important to the world. People like you and I who didn't major in art and whatever, don't actually discuss art in the same way. We don't say that art is the key to understanding humanity and we don't say that art is as important as breathing. Now seriously, just finish it.

 

Oh yeah?!!

 

Well art is certainly a good way to understand a culture, but if that's the case... then who cares? I've been bringing up the community since my second post in this thread. How the masses are discussing and taking the games as art NIGHTMARE is my concern. Good games are treated as shit because EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE ART DURHUR, issues are coming up that just don't exist, and we see good writing win awards over good game design because apparently cheese is a horrible topping. Not one part of me thinks any of this benefits the industry, the community, or the products one bit.

 

The thing here is, even if the character in question is more shallow than an inch of water to you, me, or anyone else, they still exist as a character to other people and still should have fair representation. I thought Kirito was a piece of cardboard masquerading as a character throughout SAO, but that doesn't mean that he should be objectified/dehumanized. There are still people who do connect with him, and it'd be wrong to parade him as an object of allure and essentially fart in the faces of people that do like him.

And to hit on the larger gender issues, the objectification of Lightning within this game is problematic not only because of that "lol fuk ur connection," but it also reinforces the continuation of the portrayal of women as sex fantasies within media. Even if you feel nothing about a character or a person, that is, especially in the case of actual people, no means to degrade them down to just an object. These people, even if it is wrapped up in a very wrong and problematic set of beliefs, are still human just like you are, and to make the claim that you'd readily diminish another person to that is a problem in and of itself.

And celebrities aren't? Do they deserve to be treated as nothing more than an object to ogle at and make an ultimate judgment on when they do something you don't like? And while I do doubt they would easily give in to the objectification, it is also a job that they need to do to make money to afford a living. If a voice actor/actress for animes, for example, turned down every role that they saw as dehumanizing or all around unpleasant, they would not be able to find as much work as they do. It's a risk of every job you take -- you have to inevitably do things that you don't feel comfortable with (e.g. new nurses and dealing with deaths), but it's something you have to do.

The perceived depth of characters is very much subjective. I don't see a lot of depth to Lightning either, but the legions of people who acknowledge her as their favorite character in all of FF sure as hell see miles of depth that I don't. Don't advocate dehumanization just because you yourself don't see a lot of worth or depth in a particular thing.

As much as I can hate the rhetoric of both feminists and men's rights activists doing this when the subject is already on the table, in this case, it's not. The subject of this is Lightning's objectification and how that extends to women's objectification in media in general. I think men face just as much of an issue in media portrayal and that feminism won't solve that or some other issues men face (b/c I think some feminists/MRAs try to make their movement far too inclusive of both sexes, but that's another thing entirely).

I agree that it is rather extreme, but for younger children especially who do play these games and experience both male and female characters that do end up dehumanized, that initial assimilation of this behavior can and will lead them to applying it to their everyday life, and the process of altering these schemas can be very difficult after a certain point.

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

Never got why art had to have some sort of meaning to it. Like the textures used in a game are art, the music in a game is art. A movie is art. That song you didn't like it art
Quality is subjective, but I'll never understand why the mere act of being art has become one. Wasn't the term for that originally 'high art'?
On the subject of gameplay vs cutscenes, one of the major reasons I got into game design at all was because of the incredible range of possibilities games had. They could be all gameplay, they could be mostly cutscenes. Personally, David Cage's games excite me because they open up the possibility of the movie equivalent of choose your own adventure novels with the potential to have vastly improved interactivity.
I personally don't get why people are always limiting exactly what can and can't be a video game. Sure maybe you don't like how one guy did it, but leave the option open for someone else to do it right, you know?

 

I bet kitty wasn't expect this thread to develop into this.

She probably did expect this either.

The job... Killer is Dead.

 

I don't even like video games.

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

...

 

What you're saying is true, but it's assuming that all characters are meant specifically to be characters. Your example with Kirito works because he's supposed to be a deep, interesting, and likable character, but he's so badly written that all of that completely fails. The thing with Lightning is that she's obviously designed to be a bad character so that she can be objectified. Based on what I saw before I started to hate it, the entire main cast of Free! is the same way.

I agree with all of this, but unless I misread you it's not really as related to my point. I agree that having characters that are designed for the sole purpose of being objectified is wrong, but that doesn't mean that the dehumanization of such characters is wrong. The problem rests in their existence, not in how they're viewed. If Lightning were intended to be a deeper, more engaging character that the viewer would connect with, then dehumanizing her would be a problem. The same goes for politicians. They're not people. They're roles that people fill. For example, my father absolutely hates Barrack Obama the politician but would gladly go to a bar and share a beer with Barrack Obama the person.

Note that I said "certain celebrities," not "all celebrities." I won't go into which ones because I don't want to insult anybody, but I'm mainly referring the ones who act like total idiots in the public eye and make it very clear that they're not just acting like idiots for their fans.

Since we're on the topic, I'd also like to digress for a bit and mention what I think of celebrities as a whole and what "famousness" means to me just so people know where I'm coming from when I talk about celebrities in the future.

Spoiler: Digression

Being famous, in my opinion, is what happens when a person freely chooses to give up his or her right to privacy. As a result of this, fame often results in being objectified by one's audience. Most celebrities are people who choose to work in an industry where they are liable to become famous and thus turned into objects in the eyes of their fans. If they aren't okay with that, they should never have chosen that particular career path. This is also my problem with child stars. It's built up to be bigger than it is in the media, but child stars are almost always the result of parents pushing their kids to become famous before they're able to decide if that's what they actually want to do. Just look at the Sprouse twins. I don't know if their parents pushed them into doing the Suite Life shows, but based on what they're doing now (Dylan's in game design; Cole's pursuing archaeology) I'm almost positive they didn't have much choice in the matter and are very lucky to have faded into obscurity as well as they have.

Rereading my post, I suppose I wasn't clear on what I meant there. I don't expect all actors and actresses to turn down roles that dehumanize them, just the ones who have a problem with being objectified. If a performer has a problem with being portrayed that way, he or she should pick a branch of the industry where objectification isn't a problem. I understand that it's much easier said than done, especially for those who have been in objectifying roles before and want to stop taking those roles, but it is an option nonetheless. Alternatively, they should never have chosen to enter an industry that tends to cause fame in the first place.

But the intended depth of characters is not.

Or they just see eye candy and angst. Or eye candy and angst are their definition of character depth. All of these explanations are probably true depending on the person.

This is exactly why we need to get better game rating systems. Parents sure as hell know their kids better than ESRB, PEGI, and CERO do, but they could still do a better job of explaining why the games that aren't suitable for children are marked as such. The launch of GTA V proved to me that most parents don't have super mature kids and are just really bad at reading game ratings. I made a point to go to my local Gamestop on launch day to watch the kids' faces as the clerk explained to their parents in graphic detail every single reason why it's rated M for Mature. Is it kind of messed up to enjoy watching kids cry over not getting a video game where half the fun consists of strip clubs, prostitutes, bank robberies, and killing people? Probably, but I'm still glad I went.

 

A Final Fantasy game with XIII in it's title has a terrible ending? For shame.

As long as Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts III aren't affected, I don't mind.

But I also heard we were making fun of Beyond: Two Souls.

Don't you love when a linear game pretends to be non-linear? Constantly? And then takes the player's decisions and says "FUCK THAT SHIT JODIE WOULDN'T DO THAT" and negates the player's decisions? And tosses in hours of Jodie's life that DON'T CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT?

 

Noel's an alright character and Caius is a cool antagonist, but they're the only characters I like. Caius doesn't get enough screentime. The general plot and events of the story bore me to death. Serah is annoying.

Also, I don't like time travel plots.

 

LOL I heard about this ending. In.

And this is true.