Unchained: Enslaved Premium Edition Now On Steam

By Nathan Grayson on October 25th, 2013 at 10:00 am.

So it was written by an Australian ratings board (and then later confirmed by Namco Bandai), so shall it be. After avoiding a PC release for three years, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West has finally accepted our loving, all-accepting embrace. The action-adventure from DmC: Devil May Cry developer Ninja Theory is based on classic Chinese tale Journey to the West, and it’s brimming with strongly acted character-driven drama. Bless you, Andy Serkis. Bless you. If that’s not enough for you, you also get to thwack snarling scrap robots with a giant metal pole. Oh, and there’s (criminally underused) hover surfing. It is, in other words, incredibly faithful to the original story. See it in action below.

Here’s a synopsis, for the video-averse:

“Trip, a technologically savvy young woman has been imprisoned by a slave ship but manages to escape using her mental prowess. Monkey, a strong, brutish loner and fellow prisoner also gets free by virtue of his raw power and brawn. Trip quickly realizes that Monkey is her ticket to freedom and is her only hope to survive her perilous journey back home. She hacks a slave headband and fits it on Monkey, linking them together. If she dies, he dies and her journey has now become his. ENSLAVED centers on the complex relationship between the two main characters. Players take on the role of Monkey, utilizing a mix of combat, strategy and environmental traversal to ensure he and Trip survive the threats and obstacles that stand in the way of their freedom.”

The Premium Edition includes couple-hour-long DLC episode Pigsy’s Perfect 10, which actually changes the game pretty significantly. While Enslaved proper is pretty heavy on platforming and rock-’em, thwack-’em robots, Pigsy’s more about stealth and discretion.

You’ll also nab a number of bonus character skins, including “Sexy Trip,” which turns an otherwise decently written, interesting character (at least, by game standards) into an object. Thanks for that, gaming industry. Ugggggghh.

It’ll only run you $19.99 on Steam. It’s out now, so hop to it. Wot I Think coming soon.

__________________

« | »

, , .

161 Comments »

  1. Diziet Sma says:

    Although some sections in the game are a bit frustrating it really is worth playing through IMO, especially for the final moments. In fact even if you find the demo of the game bland, play it. The journey and the ending are worth any roughness in the ride.
    I found it to well presented and charming with effortless controls on the 360. Of course what we need now is a port of the also excellent Heavenly Sword; though that’s not going to happen seeing as it was published by SCEE.

    • Henke says:

      Yeah I liked it too. The gameplay is mediocre, but the story, characters, setpieces and settings are very good.

      • sd4f says:

        I like the game as well, but the level design is a bit too bland and the gameplay didn’t help it along. It’s the sort of game where, if it was one long cutscene, and I didn’t have to press a button, I wouldn’t care. On a slightly different note, I’ve recently watched Pitch Black, and I can’t help but think that the beginning of Enslaved has ‘borrowed’ a lot from it, that is, unless Pitch Black has ‘borrowed’ heavily from something else.

  2. Oryon says:

    Can we please stop with the feminism angles in everything you write, Mr. Grayson? Please?
    It’s real bothersome.

    • Ansob says:

      Can you please crawl back to whatever rock you slithered out from under? Thanks.

      • Oryon says:

        What a mature, friendly and totally not insulting attitude! Thanks for being a civilized internet person.

        • Jim Rossignol says:

          Mr Grayson is unlikely to “stop with the feminism angles in everything”, nor is anyone else on the site. We’ve explained the reasons for this at length. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

          In fact, I would ask you to stop asking us to do something we are unwilling to ever do. If you find it bothersome please do read other sites. Heaven forfend we bother anyone.

          • K33L3R says:

            And Mr Grayson is totally correct in highlighting the pointlessness of having a sexy Trip. Why, what is the point?
            anyway, excellent game. Gonna pick this up when i get the chance

          • Oryon says:

            First time commenting on the issue. Will not do so again. To each their own, i guess.
            I would want you to know however, that i will continue to peruse your site because i mostly enjoy and appreciate the content. And thank you for the effort put in for it.

            As a side note, and for whatever it’s worth: “We encourage you to disagree with us.” is written somewhere on this page. Not everyone’s trying to start a flame war or be offensive all the time on the internet. Crazy, i know.

          • Lemming says:

            While you’re here Jim, how come the silence on the Garry’s Incident/Total Biscuit debacle?

          • Jim Rossignol says:

            What is there to say? Our games journalism journalism remit is pretty limited.

          • sd4f says:

            So this game objectifies women. Never mind the story that Trip engages in techno witchcraft to force the main character, Monkey (who on that note, is proportioned like Mariusz Pudzianowski, as if that’s normal…) to be ‘enslaved’ to her to complete her quest, otherwise, he dies. So in that context, you have the whole game objectifying a male character, as the shirtless muscular brute who’s only there to do her dirty work, meanwhile, one skimpy skin warrants a mention of objectification.
            How about some consistency?

          • Hahaha says:

            sd4f don’t be silly……it only works one way

          • souroldlemon says:

            This attitude, along with the quality of the writing, has resulted in my reading a lot more game journalism than i used to, almost all on rps.

          • gwathdring says:

            @ hahaha and sd4f

            A few things to consider.

            1) I do not believe they said this makes the GAME objectifying. That has not been said. They said the outfit is objectifying to the character.

            2) As I have said elsewhere, objectification is not the problem. Objectification, on it’s own, is fine. It’s just a technique of writing, presentation, what-have-you. It has no inherent value. What we have here is an inconsistency–we’re asked to see a character with motivations and personality and so forth … and then we’re given an alternative outfit that does a number of things.

            2a) Takes away the character’s agency in terms of dress. We decide what the character wears. This isn’t always a problem or even a big deal, but it’s one more piece of context here. It ain’t-no-thing in a game where the character is merely our avatar … it’s more of a thing when the characters are supposed to be sovereign.

            2b) Tells us THIS IS SEXY. It decides for us that the outfit is sexy. This is Sexy Trip. This also implies Trip isn’t as sexy without the outfit. It is the outfit that makes her Sexy Trip. Sexy Trip isn’t Trip–they’re different. Again, I’m breaking it down like this, but it’s not a Major Issue in my mind … so do understand that. But I’m trying to dissect it to show you why people might find it distasteful or annoying even though I don’t think it’s that big a deal (and for that matter, the author doesn’t seem to think this one thing is a big deal all on it’s own either!) Do you see how this is starting to get weird, though? The game explicitly telling us what’s sexy, rather than just presenting something for our visual engagement and using various implicit techniques to sway our attention and reaction one way or another?

            2c) Makes a spectacle of the character’s appearance where there wasn’t one or was less of one before. The character is becoming more of a visual object. This is appropriate in some contexts, but not when we’re supposed to see the character as nuanced, motivated, and human.

            2d) Plays with the artistic integrity. It tells us that the look of the character is a commodity and isn’t integral to the visual design of the game. This isn’t inherently bad–and sometimes this kind of thing plays with it without disrupting it.

            3) We’ve established the outfit is mildly disruptive, but not necessarily that the disruption is bad. For some people that it looks cool and gives them as a player a little more control adds more to the joy of the game than it takes away. But then there’s the broader, unequal scheme: the inappropriateness of the sexualization in some of these games, the sense that these games think we always want sexualized female characters, the sense that these games are more for men than for women. And on and on and on and on.

            4) Objectification isn’t the problem. The trouble is how rarely these games fail to perform gender as ascribed in archetype. If women are smart, they are manipulative and men are brutish. If men are smart, women are not brutish and powerful but rather docile and the emotional center to the cold and calculating man. There is a consistent and misplaced sense of balance that doesn’t allow for non-gendered power dynamics in some games that simply don’t need to deal with gender. There is a misplaced sense of realism that, when games ought to deal with gender, fails to provide nuance or qualification or commentary but merely presents archetypes and a general sense that something’s probably off but the game’s to busy being Gritty to have an opinion about it.

            This is fantasy. Characters can be fantastic. Everyone can have a particular role on the team without duplication or overlap. But when we do seemingly stupid and inconsequential things in with exactly the same imbalances and predispositions over and over and over … it represents something. It’s games under the influence of social pressures we aren’t as aware of as we could be, games that aren’t in control of themselves. Good games are carefully designed no matter how silly and fluffy the final product is; good games are in control of seemingly inconsequential detail.

            I’m not asking for every game to be a deeply involved social commentary. I’m asking gamers to recognize when they’re defending something worthless. Maybe it’s not worth attacking either, but comments to that effect aren’t what bother me; there’s room for discussion there. I’m asking gamers to recognize obvious patterns and listen to people who feel left out, bummed out, offended, or otherwise unwelcomed by those patterns.

            As a final point, it’s worth mentioning that sexism in female appearance cuts two ways: female characters are far too often compelled to be sexy and attractive even when their male co-stars have no such requirements. But there’s also a sense that the male form is somehow less erotic and requires less modesty. An man with lean but well defined legs walking around shirtless in a loincloth is not considered as immodest as a woman in a bikini, let alone a mere loincloth. The lattermost issue is kinda too complicated to get into here, but the weird relationship between inappropriate sexualization and inappropriately paternal ideas about female modesty and purity is worth discussing. It certainly complicates the “how do we fix this?” bit that comes after recognizing problematic portrayals.

          • smb says:

            That’s a lot of words for a pointless bonus skin. Now I’m glad that all the article said was “Ugggggghh.”

          • Ragnar says:

            That’s a lot of words explaining well and in detail why this is an issue, why the issue is worth bringing up every time it rears its ugly head, and why we should not simply ignore it as if it doesn’t exist.

        • Viroso says:

          RPS is snarky with a ton of things and the “feminism angle” is apparently the only thing you notice and ask them to stop with. I know they’re snarky with a ton of things because I too sometimes make comments asking them to quit it, think about how many times has something they said bothered you and that you felt you had to make a comment about it.

          With the “feminism angle”, in this article, it is totally justifiable and it isn’t really doing anyone any harm.

          • engion3 says:

            If only they had released a “sexy monkey” pack as wel…

          • Hahaha says:

            TB mentioned in one of his vids that some dev (think it was for an FPS) had done a community poll to decide what the female skins were going to look like and that they were doing it for each region, don’t know if it’s been covered here, but whatever the outcome it should be interesting.

          • gwathdring says:

            @ hahaha That would be Warface and the outcomes are obnoxious as hell. The men are in full armor and the women have bizarro-world sphere-breasts, visible cleavage, and generally less war-like outifts (high-heels included). I never bothered to find the original polling attempts, so I have no idea how well it actually reflects what the audience wants and how much the developer pushed it.

            Two points there: 1) It looks dumb. 2) It sounds way more democratic than it is (see the sociology of Primary elections). 3) It’s inconsistent with the rest of the game.

            The problem is not breasts. The problem is not large breasts. The problem is not that some people find that kind of player model sexy, or badass, or whatever makes them want to play it. There isn’t just one problem, and none of those are major ingredients of the problem soup. It’s still obnoxious as hell.

          • Hahaha says:

            Will we get an article on what the poll results were for each region and what the choices were…. I doubt it as it would show to much for RPS to be comfortable posting, if they actually wrote some good indepth articles on this subject instead of regurgitating the same crap in different forms it would be nice.

    • Henke says:

      There’s no “angle” to the story, it’s just 2 sentences at the end. (3 if you count “Ugggggghh.”)

    • Tinus says:

      Can we please stop with the sexism in everything that you make, Mr. Games Industry? Please?
      It’s real bothersome.

      • cauldron says:

        To be fair, the guy show more skin than the girl.
        Has a nice ass also.

        • Guvornator says:

          Very hard not to read that post in a Borat accent, for some reason…

        • Geebs says:

          I hear Andy Serkis mo-capped all of the buttocks in the game himself

        • strangeloup says:

          Having the main character as a hot guy (who does, indeed, have a nice ass) without an abundance of clothing is a really good way to keep me playing your game.

          More of this, please. In Bizarro World, all games are like that already.

          • Geebs says:

            The weird thing about ass physics is that you’re doing your utmost to minimize jiggle

        • Ragnar says:

          It’s not about how much skin they show. It’s that the female got a Sexy Female skin, as if she needed it and as if that makes this Premium Edition worthwhile.

          We’re not against showing skin or sexy females. We’re against taking females and making them “sexier” for the sake of making them sexy. That stuff is fine for personal 3rd party mods, but inappropriate and embarrassing for an industry that’s trying be seen as grown up.

          My friend and I started playing Halo 4 in front of our wives, and the first comment from his non-gamer wife upon introducing Cortana was, “Wow, lots of breasts. Lots of breasts and ass. Why is she naked?” My friend and I were embarrassed, and how do we respond to that? “Well, you see, the gaming industry still views all gamers as adolescent boys…”?

      • Keyrock says:

        The whole white knight thing does indeed get bothersome, but at least RPS doesn’t generally lay it on too thick and I can look past it as I enjoy most of this site’s writing. I won’t let the 5% of writing that makes me roll my eyes ruin the other 95% for me.

        • Faxmachinen says:

          You do realize that the “white knight” accusation is usually used by misogynist trolls to derail and silence, right? You might want to reconsider the way you word your opinions, whether you really are misogynistic or not.

          Or in the opposite direction if trolling was indeed your intent.

      • smb says:

        Easy to say when you remain ignorant to the vast expanse of the actual games industry. Though I guess there’s not much point in preaching optimism to an ideology rooted in pessimism.

    • Badgercommander says:

      Do you realise that you’re just drawing more attention to it?

      The ‘Sexy Trip’ skin was a pre-order bonus originally on console, make of that what you will. Not only is it pointlessly objectifying, it also just doesn’t look that good or make sense, it makes her look like a cyborg. Regardless of your position on sexism, I suggest not using it.

      Having played this three years ago and thoroughly enjoying it, I’m tempted to get this version and replay it (something I don’t do often) with the bonus of better graphics and the extra content.

    • Taidan says:

      I’m pretty sure that when a man tries to inform people what women should and should not be allowed to wear, in particular drawing negative conclusions about them showing a bit of skin, it’s not feminism, it’s the opposite.

      I think that a proper feminist would declare that to be “Slut-Shaming” and would find it to be a particularly insidious form of conservative misogyny.

      *Disclaimer*

      Not an expert in gender politics, feedback welcomed!

      • deejayem says:

        That assumes the person in question has agency – that they’ve chosen to dress that way. In this case, that’s not true. The criticism here isn’t of a woman choosing to expose some skin, it’s of a developer drawing the focus of a female figure down to sexual appearances rather than character or narrative.

        • djtim says:

          Now you appear to be making the somewhat sexist assumption that the developer in question happens to be male, that’s some blatant sexual stereotyping on your part. Perhaps the costume in question was made by a female artist who happens to have no problems with showing a bit of skin and is dressing the character as she imagines herself dressing given a similiar sci-fi fantasy scenario. No one ever wins in these discussions which is why games journalism should focus on the games.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Actually, I think you made the assumption there – see criticism of the female artist who drew the skullgirls characters for reference of how gender doesn’t and shouldn’t grant you immunity.

          • djtim says:

            @Sheng-ji
            Thanks for helpfully reiterating the point that I was trying make. Succinctly summed up in the last sentence of my post.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Sure but you accused the other guy of making an assumption he did not make, which was really rude.

          • deejayem says:

            Wotcher. If you can pick out anything in my post that assumes a gender for the developer, please do. :) Deeper and more interesting point is about whether effect of a piece of culture is distinct from its intention. Effect of putting a female character in a revealing outfit (as marketers and publishers of either gender well know) is emphasise sexuality over agency, whatever the artist’s original intention.

            Sorry, edit for clarity.

        • Lemming says:

          The player has agency, and the skin is a secondary choice (not a default). So, yeah it does actually apply. A male or female player for a few reasons might decide to use that skin.

          • deejayem says:

            Sure – it’s not the player that’s under examination here.

          • MacPoedel says:

            The Sexy Trip skin doubles the stun time of some attack of hers, if I read that right somewhere. So the player might have a reason to use that skin, regardless of what it looks like.

        • djtim says:

          OK i get what you and Sheng-ji are trying to say, and point well made. Apparently a bit subtle for me however. I still don’t understand the controversy and why this has any part in games journalism though.

          I asked the question below in a badly replied post, as I’m genuinely interested.

          • gwathdring says:

            Simple. They’re telling you what comes with the game that you might not get in the standard console release. Part of the game = part of games journalism. Why is this a question?

          • gwathdring says:

            I would also add that agency is additionally removed by labeling the skin “Sexy Trip.” Neither the character nor the player is simply given an outfit to decide how sexually they want to treat it for themselves. They’re primed by being told it’s sexy–this means the outfit is trying to define sexiness for it’s audience OR is so assured it matches up with people’s predilections and preferences that it feels that is a) desirable and b) a foregone conclusion for much of the audience. This is obnoxious. You don’t have to be trying to defend female gamers to find that obnoxious.

            Two last points. One is something I like to bring up every time these discussions happen. Objectification is not a problem. Sexual objectification is not a problem. There are many contexts where it is acceptable and some where it is even optimum. Certain kinds of erotic material are not designed to stimulate you socially, but purely provide sexual gratification–sexual objectification is appropriate here. In advertisements, we want people to connect with products so we can play with objectification and subjectification to give them a connection to the products and push the people in advertisements into an object role. None of this is, on it’s own, bad. When people complain about objectification, unless they’re talking from the cuff and not really thinking about it, they usually really mean that there is specifically out-of-place objectification that distracts from the work, defeats it’s message, or lines up with unsettling larger social motifs that make people uncomfortable.

            Finally, controversy is something of a strong word. That usually implies some degree of uproar. Here we have a short bit in the article that’s barely longer than “Here’s a thing; this is kinda dumb, isn’t it? Stop that industry!” followed by a handful of comments moaning about how annoying that line is, followed by a response to that moaning which lines up with a much larger trend both on the site and in gaming. I don’t think there’s much controversy surrounding Sexy Trip–no one seems especially excited one way or the other. The controversy is about something else. Something multi-layered, longer running and not specific to one article or game.

          • Faxmachinen says:

            Well said. I tip my hat to you.

          • smb says:

            @gwathdring
            Since when does expressing an opinion = removing agency of others? Because that’s what you’re saying when you state, “agency is additionally removed by labeling the skin ‘Sexy Trip.’” Furthermore, video games require agency to operate a computer, shop for a game, purchase a game, launch it, input commands, and follow the game’s instructions… which is the core reason why the “feminism angle” is so hypocritical and void in relation to this and other entertainment industries.

            There’s certainly nothing wrong with criticizing games for particular themes and motifs, but using sensationalist language to demand social acceptance of that opinion is what I think most of us get upset about.

      • Shieldmaiden says:

        I’m pretty certain the intent of Nathan’s comment was “The devs took a perfectly decent female character and then gave her what is literally called a sexy skin, which then objectifies her.” However it’s not a stretch to read it as “The fact that she’s wearing a sexy outfit invalidates her character,” which is a problematic line of thinking, especially if one were to apply it to real people.

        Not claiming to be any kind of feminist authority, but I’d say that Nathan’s comment was fine, but your awareness of the potential problems surrounding the issue does you credit.

        On the general topic of RPS and feminism, I’m glad that they’re keeping it up. Too many problems in the industry are only mentioned when there’s a big scandal and then ignored, except by people with entirely unhelpful extremist viewpoints. RPS features continuous, mostly balanced reporting of the issue.

        • 00000 says:

          Sometimes I’m in the basement eating greasy potato chips and playing a role-playing game after having masturbated furiously for hours. What I then do is I install a nude mod, take off all my armor, continue to play in easy mode as a naked woman, make the most evil choices I can and if possible kill defenseless innocent creatures with blood magic.

          Does that make me a closet-transgender, nudist and sadist or a misogynist who wants to objectify woman as naked evil beings? Please RPS, give me your unbiased opinion.

          PS: True story, except I don’t have a basement and avoid eating greasy stuff when I’m on the computer.

          • SillyWizard says:

            This is extremely funny to me.

          • The Random One says:

            It just makes you weird. Most of us do that before the hours-long furious masturbation.

          • Shieldmaiden says:

            Personally, I don’t think it makes you anything. I’m sure a psychology student could have a field day analysing you, but I’m not of the opinion, for example, that a single act of sexism makes you a misogynist. That kind of thought process really annoys me; it’s unhelpful, counter-productive and exactly the sort of thing that I’d classify as an extremist viewpoint.

            I’ve seen the same thing happen so many times; guy (usually) does/says something sexist out of ignorance, rather than malice. Radfems descend, call him a misogynist prick and hurl abuse. Guy gets defensive and hurls abuse back. Argument ensues, negative stereotypes of feminism are reinforced, nobody learns a damn thing. How does that help anyone?

          • Faxmachinen says:

            Sounds like perfectly reasonable behavior to me, and there’s nothing misogynistic about it. Hell, I’d probably let it slide even if you were a designer presenting your female characters that way. Naked evil blood magicians with agency are several orders of magnitude better than damsels in distress. You can find some good examples in The Secret World: [NSFW image]

    • Grey Poupon says:

      Violent games don’t make you a murderer, but sexy games sure as hell make you a chauvinist and that’s something one must not forget. This time the irrelevant sexiness is optional though, so it’s only worth a mention after the story itself.

      • Sheng-ji says:

        I’m not convinced sexy games make you a chauvinist, but they certainly hold a mirror up to society. Like drink driving though, a particular culture is not an excuse to carry on.

      • MarcP says:

        Chauvinism is fanatical patriotism. One might argue claiming “chauvinism” has any other meaning is in itself chauvinist, once again the English appropriating and misusing a word from another language with no regard for its background.

        Even then, I’ll humor you for a second. Quoting from en.wikipedia.org, “male chauvinism is the belief that men are superior to women.” I play sexy games (I don’t seek them out but I happen to play them) and yet I believe women are superior to men. Your argument is absolute, therefore it takes only one counterexample to prove it wrong.

        • Hahaha says:

          “Even then, I’ll humor you for a second. Quoting from en.wikipedia.org, “male chauvinism is the belief that men are superior to women.” I play sexy games (I don’t seek them out but I happen to play them) and yet I believe women are superior to men. Your argument is absolute, therefore it takes only one counterexample to prove it wrong.”

          Highly amusing, so thinking woman are better than men is fine but not the other way round…… hahahahaha

          • Faxmachinen says:

            Highly amusing, so thinking woman are better than men is fine but not the other way round…… hahahahaha

            Sure it might not be nice to disrespect rich white males, but if you think it’s just as bad as disrespecting other groups, you’re ignorant about our history and status quo. As a well off white male myself, I find this kind of whining insulting.

          • airmikee99 says:

            RE: Faxmachinen

            Agreed.

            Oh no, someone said something mean about you? Yeah, that’s equivalent to centuries of oppression.

          • smb says:

            “…but if you think it’s just as bad as disrespecting other groups, you’re ignorant about our history and status quo.”
            “Oh no, someone said something mean about you? Yeah, that’s equivalent to centuries of oppression.”

            Riiight. Gotta pamper the newborns for grievances against their long-dead ancestors, committed by other long-dead ancestors. It’s amazing that we believe anybody has the right to personal agency with this kind of faulty logic.

            BRB, I have to help my government pay back this little debt to my potential great-great-great-great-grandchildren. Otherwise they might starve to death.

            -

            Sarcasm aside, it’s sad how blatantly hypocritical people become. Because you both are right: Doing something mean to a fictional character that might share the same genitals as a real human being? It sure doesn’t compare to centuries of oppression. In fact, nothing can since no one could feasibly experience “centuries of oppression.”

          • Hahaha says:

            “Sure it might not be nice to disrespect rich white males, but if you think it’s just as bad as disrespecting other groups, you’re ignorant about our history and status quo.”

            Where did white males come in to this? that wasn’t what was posted

            “I play sexy games (I don’t seek them out but I happen to play them) and yet I believe women are superior to men. Your argument is absolute, therefore it takes only one counterexample to prove it wrong.””

            Your hypocrites through and through

        • gwathdring says:

          Er … telling yourself you think women are better than men (whether or not that’s true in a more fundamental way) doesn’t magically change anything much.

          Further, purity of language arguments are always and will always be bullshit. I will get out my etymological reference books which I am fond of collecting and I will teach you how corrupted and vulgar and distorted your language is until I have you speaking some arbitrarily selected variant of middle english–which I will still chastise you for because it’s a horribly impure language.

          Purity of language my ass …

        • airmikee99 says:

          The historical definition of chauvinism is fanatical patriotism.

          From the same Wikipedia article you quoted from:

          “By extension, it has come to include an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of any group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards rival groups. Jingoism is the British parallel form of this French word, but its meaning has not expanded beyond nationalism in the same way that the word chauvinism has.

          A contemporary use of the term in English is in the phrase male chauvinism.”

          The definition of a word can change over time, check out ‘decimate’ which used to mean ‘to reduce by 10%’ but now means ‘to kill or destroy’. ‘Abandon’ now means ‘to give up completely’, whereas it used to mean ‘to subjugate’. In Roman times ‘addict’ referred to a debtor, now it means someone that can’t live without a particular substance. ‘Nice’ used to mean ‘foolish’, now it means ‘kind.’

          And it’s definitely not limited to the English language, EVERY language steals from other languages.

      • Viroso says:

        I don’t think media has much of an influence on how people think, like someone said there earlier, it’s more of a mirror. So I don’t think it can alone turn a person into something. But I think it reinforces it.

        Aside from that, it is also fucking stupid. I think that being fucking stupid is good enough reason not to want it in a game. Is violence fucking stupid? Sometimes, but most of the times it isn’t fucking stupid like sexy bonus costume.

        • gwathdring says:

          I don’t know. It depends on your relation ship with media, doesn’t it? If everything you know about society comes from gaming and television … well, wouldn’t it profoundly effect your behavior?

          Obviously most people aren’t socialized that way. But nothing in our education reaches into our brain and hard-codes information. Everything is leaning. Conditioning. Reinforcement. Punishment. Procedure. Assessment.

          Media can’t MAKE us behave one way or another, but that hardly makes the case for it being a weak influence on us. My mother can’t make me do a damn thing, but she raised me and I spent a significant portion of my life under her roof. There are certain profound influences that result. Media is not a parent (except in exceptionally depressing households), but the concepts are not so disparate as you seem to be implying.

          We are what we’re born with and what our environment does to us. Especially in the modern era, it is absolute foolishness to discount how much of our environment is media driven.

          • smb says:

            “We are what we’re born with and what our environment does to us.”

            Then what about the people who specifically rebel against their environment, against themselves, and against popular beliefs? We certainly have the capacity of free thought, more than pseudo-psychological arguments would have you believe. The fact that we’re even having this discussion should give credence to this.

      • drakkenson says:

        “Violent games don’t make you a murderer, but sexy games sure as hell make you a chauvinist”

        It appears to be so if one looks at all the discussion on this site, isn’t it? But I wonder why one kind of games would change you and not the other.
        I personally think that media violence is far more damaging to anyone who watches it than sex is, irrespective of age and gender, but that’s just me enjoying an occasional skin flick but feeling genuinely sick when watching violent films…

        • Hahaha says:

          RPS looked at itself and realised it was part of the problem, now we are here.

          When did you get your first female writer guys….. lmao

        • gwathdring says:

          There are way too many elements to this to discuss it properly here, but a short overview:

          Violence against other humans is more inherently repugnant to us than sexism. There is plenty of precedent for sexual equality in nature, but it’s not uncommon for a species to have different roles and characteristics for the sexes (i.e. to have socially constructed genders); humans are clearly one such species at present but there are any number of reasons to assume it’s NOT a biological imperative (at least, not the way we do it) and to modify it to provide for a more streamlined society. Anyway, that’s it’s own long and topsy-turvy discussion! Back on track, it certainly doesn’t make most people queasy to imagine that a person is better for this or that reason, or that people of this or that sort have a particular role and place in society. Violence, however, can make a great bulk of people physically sick. There’s a stronger biological imperative against violence.

          Violence actions have to pass through more layers of our cognitive filtration systems. It’s easier for most people to prevent specific physical activity than prevent broad thought patterns and biases.

          Social modes (including sexual and gender-based discriminations, biases and hierarchies) are reinforced by many sources–in our media, in our schools, in our homes, at our work, among our friends. Violent behavior is reinforced as bad in most of these places. This makes it easier for us to separate the fantasy. Education is key. Let’s take something that’s not directly related to sexism or violence: sexual practice. In the absence of proper sexual education and awareness, some people’s primary exposure to sexual practice and information is erotic material. While few people are going to be surprised to learn that sex doesn’t work the way it does in their pornography, when that is your primary point of reference, it’s going to color how you think people want to be treated during sex, how you perceive the sexiness of your body, what you think you should be capable of during sexual activity, and so forth. Getting a foot in the door and providing more realistic expectations, healthier attitudes, and solid advice to the sexually inexperienced is important in countering the spread of misinformation from well-meaning urban legends, erotic materials, self-classed experts who got their information from those sources, and so on.

          Just so with any learned behaviors. What makes sexism so insidious is what makes racism so insidious and any other form of social classification and discrimination. It’s vastly easier than understanding everyone as individuals first and members of a group second; it plays into fundamental cognitive organizational principles that help us do so many of the amazing things the human mind is capable of, a downside of the same things that make us so good at language processing and abstract thinking. It’s reinforced in small ways across all of participating society. Even people who have no ill-will towards those classified as lower than themselves still have an innate preference for being on top of the hierarchy. We are resistant to change because we want to follow the rules so we can keep society tidy and organized and functioning which means and are likely to behave in a reactionary manner when social change is suggested even if they identify with the principles of that change. I could go on and on and on.

          I’m much more worried about showing children violent media than showing them sexual media. But I’m more worried about showing them classicist, sexist and racist media than either of those! Even well adjusted kids can have violent fantasies that never turn into violent actions so long as violent behavior is always curbed. The same is true, as it happens, of racist, sexist, and classist media … only it’s harder to tell when those influences are at play. How do you know your kid is being standoffish towards one of his class mates because Timmy told him the that class mate is trailer trash? You can try your best to get inside the kid’s mind … but it’s a lot harder than swooping down and stopping them from being actively violent. It’s difficult to reinforce positive social attitudes here, much more difficult than curbing violence.

          Sexism in our media holds up a mirror alright … but mirror’s can be dangerous if we haven’t properly taught people how to look at themselves and others in a pro-social way.

          • smb says:

            “Violence against other humans is more inherently repugnant to us than sexism.”

            Citation needed. Humans have a long history of being violent towards each other. Sure, not specifically ripping each others heads off all the time but neither is, say, rape. Bar fights, “cat” fights, slapping a guy for saying something rude, slapping a girl for being disrespectful (in ye olde days at least,) slapping a kid for being a kid, etc.

            There has always been varying degrees of violence accepted in society, no different than sexism (for both genders.) Except all is fair in love and war, right? Honestly, I think this “sexist” stuff (scary quotes because it’s not malicious) is tame compared to the impact any display of violence can cause. Attaching physical harm to an emotional sentiment is extremely powerful.

      • Foosnark says:

        As I’ve posted before, maybe even here:

        Fake violence.

        Real sexism.

    • Geebs says:

      To be honest, it’s not even a “feminist” angle, it’s a “normal human being embarrassed by stupid decision” angle. In terms of the “what’s wrong with being sexy?” argument, the thing which is depressing is that any time a company tries to sell you something as “sexy” it immediately becomes the exact opposite

      • Drinking with Skeletons says:

        The problem is that the sexy is almost never applied to a male character. I realize he’s already shirtless and ripped, but there’s obviously things that could be done to sex up the guy in this game. I doubt they did that (and if they did, then I’ll actually argue against RPS’ comment about sexist objectification).

        • Volcanu says:

          Just for amusement’s sake – please do share with the class the 3 steps you’d take to “sexy” the man up?

        • Geebs says:

          Sorry, “what’s wrong with being sexy” is a spinal tap quote and meant to imply that the person asking was too dumb to be able to tell the difference between “sexy” and “sexist”. I sometimes forget how old I am ;-)

    • benjaminlobato says:

      It’s not even a question of feminism as much as its just an annoyingly juvenile artistic choice. The only people that think this sort of thing is sexy are nerds whose only interaction with women is their Leia-in-metal-bikini action-figure.

    • SkittleDiddler says:

      Look at the bright side: at least Mr. Grayson didn’t feel the subject warranted a whole article.

  3. iARDAs says:

    It was a great game on PS3 even with terrible framerate. I will be picking this up for sure.

  4. Guvornator says:

    Probably worth mentioning that the story was co- written by Alex Garland, who wrote the novel The Beach and the screenplay for 28 Days later, Dredd, and other excellent works.

    • maximiZe says:

      That is most definitely worth mentioning after the abortion (heh) Ninja Theory created with DmC’s plot when they were mostly on their own in regards to writing.

      • Philomelle says:

        That’s nice and all, but Alex Garland worked on DmC. He was the story supervisor, credited as such in the credits and multiple interviews. He is as much at fault for what happened with that game as Tameem and co. are.

        I do love him as a writer (Dredd and Enslaves were both incredible), but it’s getting a bit tiresome to see him put on a pedestal at Ninja Theory’s expense when he was heavily involved with their most controversial piece of writing.

  5. Lemming says:

    “You’ll also nab a number of bonus character skins, including “Sexy Trip,” which turns an otherwise decently written, interesting character (at least, by game standards) into an object. Thanks for that, gaming industry. Ugggggghh.”

    Nothing wrong with choices. Even choices a *gasp* lady might make!

    • Stardreamer says:

      If the scales were balanced in that regard then I’d be okay with it. Give Monkey a Mankini (Monkini?) for his own Sexy Monkey Adventure Time and then we can call it fair and square. Giving scantily-clad options to just the girl is always going to furrow exploitation-sensitive brows.

      • Keyrock says:

        Monkey is already scantily clad in his standard outfit. There’s no need for a “sexy” skin for Monkey as his standard skin is already “sexy”.

        • gwathdring says:

          There’s no need for a Sexy Trip. Not every character needs to be sexy. There are certainly games with sexy women that don’t have sexy men. We can deal with a game that has a lightly clothed male but a more modestly dressed woman.

    • Guvornator says:

      Generation Sex
      Respects
      The rights
      Of girls
      Who want to take their clothes off
      As long as we can all watch
      That’s okay

  6. I Got Pineapples says:

    I still kind of haven’t forgiven them for how dull DmC was.

    For a genre one of whose defining characteristics is mad over the topness, they managed to make mad slashy action boring.

  7. Laurentius says:

    I have a question for those who played it, is this game similiar to Prince of Persia (2008) ? I know it was generally hated but i love it ( except fighing, it sucks) and think is the best game of the series.

    • lowprices says:

      Gameplay wise, it’s closer to Beyond Good and Evil. It’s got the same kind of Stick-hitty combat, automated platforming, and simple stealth (although stealth moments are few and far between). The gameplay isn’t phenomenal, but it’s enjoyable, and the acting and writing is all of a high standard.

    • Henke says:

      Gameplaywise it’s very close to POP2008 yes.

    • Philomelle says:

      I would sooner compare it to Sands of Time. Unlike POP2008, which was more of a 3D Metroidvania, Enslaved is a fairly linear romp. I would argue that it does combat much better than POP2008 did, while the climbing is much less exhilarating.

      That said, I’m not sure what you mean by “hated”. POP2008 is one of the most common namedrops in “video games are art” arguments

      • Laurentius says:

        I didn’t think that much of non-linearity of PoP (2008) as much as a game that you go through a motions without hurdle while enjoying very good graphics with decent story and characters.

        It was “hated” in a sense that it was called to easy, no puzzle chalanging and general feel of the game was often described as a chain of QTE, and i love it for these features.

        • Philomelle says:

          See, the funny thing is that I’m hard-pressed to call it easy. A lot of the game’s platforming was brutal and depended on careful positioning and timing, and one mistake could cost you a truckload of progress. In terms of actually challenging my intelligence and reflexes, it felt incredibly satisfying to finally nail one of POP2008′s platforming sequences after a string of failures. Going back to those areas later and discovering I can finally blaze my way through trials that gave me difficulty before while having the exact same tools felt amazing.

          It’s just that POP2008 never really punishes you for failure. No matter how badly you do or how many mistakes you make, Elika is always there to bail your ass out of trouble with a gentle touch of her hand. It’s probably the finest game for female empowerment in that sense, because the female lead is the grizzled male protagonist’s lifeline every step of the way and you won’t ever forget it.

          All that said, yes, Enslaved will slake your emotional thirst from POP2008 quite nicely. Both Monkey and Trip are fleshed out characters whose interactions go from enforced co-reliance to deeply rooted trust, while the gameplay has them interact with each other just as much as they interact with the environment, often in interesting ways. You might play as only one character in the pair, but it’s hard to not feel responsible for both of them.

  8. Joga5000 says:

    As someone who quite enjoyed DmC: Devil May Cry, I’m glad this finally got a PC release (I don’t own any consoles so never had a chance to play this before). Picked it up and played for about an hour and I’m really liking it so far. Kind of a bare-bones port, but you can use the usual Unreal Engine 3 .ini tweaks (AA, AF, Vsync, Framerate smoothing, etc.) to set it to your liking. I’m using a 360 controller so I can’t really comment on the mouse/keyboard controls.

    Maybe this will hold me over for my 3rd-person action game fix until whenever the hell Metal Gear Rising comes out (hopefully soon).

    • DanMan says:

      Thanks for those comments (about the graphics, mostly).

      I’ve put it on my Steam wishlist. Gonna buy it on the next sale (still got plenty of other stuff to play).

  9. HadToLogin says:

    Lol. DLC making woman/women sexy – bad.

    But the fact woman enslaved guy and orders him around – not a problem. Funny how it would make a problem if it were a man enslaving woman…

    • aldo_14 says:

      That’s because we still have areas where women are, in almost literal terms, slaves to men, and that such a dynamic has only been removed relatively recently in the developed world. This is acceptable because it places a subversion upon it, particularly in the sense of the vastly larger and (physically) stronger man (almost a bully archetype) being controlled by the smaller woman.

      If she was the larger, stronger one – the one capable of controlling through simple brute force – then it would be seen as unacceptable. People are generally far more tolerant of the ‘little guy controlling the big guy’ (inser gender noun as appropriate) than the converse.

      • MarcP says:

        “If she was the larger, stronger one – the one capable of controlling through simple brute force – then it would be seen as unacceptable.”

        Big woman terrifies tiny guy is a pretty common trope. I haven’t ever seen someone bitch about it. If anything, there’s been noise recently about men beaten by their wives because nobody takes them seriously.

        • jjujubird says:

          “Big woman terrifies tiny guy is a pretty common trope”

          Do you really think so? I can’t think of many places where said “trope” has been used.

          • gwathdring says:

            It’s not uncommon at all. Further, woman-on-man (and man-on-man to a lesser extent) rape is played for laughs more than man-on-woman rape. My takeaway, however, is quite different from that implied by the OP.

            It’s tempting to talk about sexism in terms of who has it worse. This is a stupid idea. It’s tempting once we’ve given in to that stupidity to paint things as simple accountancy in terms of the number of ways X is discriminated against compared to Y without respect for the intricate ways that ties back into societal dynamics. I feel this is naive, but not “stupid,” at least. It’s a messy issue.

            I’m reminded of a study that claimed chimpanzees had more beneficial genetic adaptations compared to a common ancestor than humans did. In a sense, they were said to be “more evolved.” What does that really mean though? Suppose they have a more advanced immune system, muscles more finely adapted tot heir environment, enzymes more finely adapted to their diet. That doesn’t make them better, does it? Or even necessarily a higher form of life! By that kind of accountancy, bacteria are easily the most evolved forms of life we commonly encounter–I’m quite comfortable calling bacteria and viruses the most advanced and evolved forms of life; but again, does that have any inherent value assessment built into it? Are they a “higher” form of life? Of course not! Value is far too subjective for pure accountancy to have much bearing on it.

            Back on topic, sexism cuts both ways. Problematic gender roles hurt our entire society and cause everyone problems. That said, you can’t judge a social discrepancy by it’s surface features. Casual treatment of male rape has a lot to do with ideas of male power: men are powerful so they can deal. Male sexual prowess: men are inherently sexual, so how could they not want sex to the point that it ought to be called rape? Importance of female virginity: female sexual purity is essential and must be defended by men; as part of this, men are more likely to be looked down upon for not getting laid whereas women are more likely looked down upon for being promiscuous.

            When you put it all together with clear evidence that women are less well represented among many markers of broadly accepted social power and prestige, you have something that is rarely as simple as whether or not character A asserts control over character B. Note that this story plays fairly close to archetype–the male is impossibly physically capable if a bit brutish while the female is crafty but requires the physical protection of the male. You could point to it as derogatory towards either party when you place it in such abstract terms; I haven’t played the game so I don’t know whether or in what ways the game elevates the story as it fleshes it out. But in theory, we have room for stories that play to those archetypes as long as there are also alternatives in reasonable proportion. That last bit is a significant problem!

    • Contrafibularity says:

      I haven’t played the game but I assume that plays a rather large part in the story, as it does in the game mechanics? Which is to say the game addresses it rather than exploiting it.

      • Moraven says:

        Which is made clear in the trailer. The complaint is about randomly slapped in ‘sexy’ character skin. Why is it even warranted or needed? Sadly people fail to see that is why it was commented on.

        They were slaves on a slave ship, escape and being slaves to each other, with Trip has the power to remove it but wants help home.

    • RedViv says:

      You seem to be confused on the proper weight of examining simple lazy boring eye candy versus actually explored narrative content. Those are vastly different things.

  10. Pippy says:

    But…Tripitaka was male…shirley?

    • WhatKateDoes says:

      I suppose on whether or not your experience of Monkey is based off of the imported BBC version of the 70s/80s which no doubt led to some very confused young boys and girls.. I know I was :D

      For the record, yes, I think it’s a shame that there’s a sexytime outfit dlc, this isn’t saints row where the narrative allows for such comedic mayhem and such personal choice of individual clothing choices the player decides. The clothing (or lack of) should be irrelevant to this particular tale.

  11. fancynameplease says:

    “It’ll only run you $19.99 on Steam.”
    Not in €uroland. Funny how a lazy sign in front of numbers can make a difference of nearly $8…

  12. hhhahhh says:

    Well if a simple change of clothing turns an apparently good character into a poor one then I guess she wasn’t that good in the first place, huh?

    • Moraven says:

      There was nothing said about being turned into a poor one, but turning her into an object. What if we had ‘sexy’ outfit Femshep or Lara Croft?

    • benjaminlobato says:

      Imagine if a great movie were re-released with all the characters wearing over the top “sexy” outfits. That would change things, for the worst.

      • smb says:

        Matter of case and opinion. It certainly has the potential to make some movies better via “so-bad-it’s-good.” They would probably be terrible to begin with, though. Hence the original point.

  13. djtim says:

    @Sheng-ji
    OK so out of two choices (I realise there are more than two options); 1) A Male developer decides to animate a computer game character as a sexy figure because he likes how they look an nothing more and 2) A Female developer decides to animate a computer game character as a sexy figure because she likes how they look and nothing more.

    … and these are both bad decisions, as bad as each other. Misogynistic even. If so, why?

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Because any person is more than simply how they look, by creating strong characters in games who are more than how they look, you foster a far more tolerant, less offensive culture in gaming.

      I always try to imagine if a character could be replaced by a note and not affect the game at all – and a good example is Garrett from Thief 1,2 + 3. Even though his character barely intrudes on the game, the character is so strong it profoundly affects the game. Conversely, Cole from gears of war is a terrible character – you could literally replace him with a letter imparting the information he gives and the game would be unaffected, well, I suppose you could say it would be improved because you wouldn’t have to hear him shouting “The Cole Train” every battle.

      • djtim says:

        OK thanks, appreciate the reply. But my obvious follow-on question is; why then, is there not a similar point made in every RPS article about Gears of War type characters? (being serious here btw, not trolling). Maybe there is to be honest, and I just don’t notice.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Well, this is where I personally disagree with RPS’ take on things – I think focusing on the one element that they do is admirable and I certainly agree with the vast majority of what they say but I feel that you can’t ever just solve one element of the problem.

          Right now we have a situation where there are more games than we could ever play in a lifetime but so many of them target the same demographic, which happens to be male. Women who play games are currently the most obvious and largest demographic being marginalised so I guess the greatest good can be done by making the industry more inclusive for them – but I am obviously second guessing what RPS writers are thinking. Possibly they don’t notice a poorly written male/black/handicapped etc or possibly they do and when they mention it, the comments don’t go berserk, so it’s not highlighted.

          My take on things is that a well written character can be sexy, if she is sexy by design – and of course we all have our unique idea of what is and is not sexy, I for example feel the latest Lara Croft is by a significant margin the most sexy – however my husband disagrees, he likes the one with the circle glasses. Lara Croft is generally a well written character and weird inflating boobs aside she is a great female character. Shoehorning a sexy costume onto a character who it does not suit is different – this was never intended to highlight another facet to the characters personality, this was always intended to be a marketing device. Perhaps it would be acceptable if we also got plenty of “Diet Coke” male skin pre-order bonuses as well but otherwise it highlights the gaming industries peculiar focus on one particular type of customer.

          I know I rambled on a bit there – and I’ve got broken hans and typing really, really hurts, but I hope I answered your question :)

          • djtim says:

            Interesting. Again I appreciate the reply (particularly the effort if you have broken han(ds?). :)

            I assuming here that you are female and I dont mean to be rude by making that assumption. If so, do you actually feel maginalised by the mainstream gaming industry? Does something like the DLC for Enslaved or the Torso from Dead Island actually put you off the games that they are marketing? My guess here is probably not when taken individually, but given a constant barrage of similiar marketing or characterisation efforts…

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I am female yes, and please don’t worry about offending me with this stuff – You basically got it spot on – I don’t care about Deep Silver releasing a bloody torso – it’s tacky but some people like tacky stuff and that’s fine, we shouldn’t be shaming them for their honest tastes.

            What I have a problem with is that so many good games come out and none are marketed to appeal to me, which is secondary to my issue with how I get treated in most places by other gamers if they find out my gender – I either get hit on or made to feel unwelcome. There is only one solution, to get more women into gaming, make it the norm to have several girls in a multiplayer lobby and to do that we need games marketed at us. I’m already in, I can recognise whether a game is good or bad through the marketing, but that torso will have put girls making the first tentative steps into games off that game, and it was pretty good! Also, skullgirls put even me off, despite looking great because the bouncing just made me wince – they need sports bras!!!

      • smb says:

        “Because any person is more than simply how they look”

        Don’t you think seriously associating personal merits with the portrayal of a fictional character is a bit belittling in itself? Besides, games revolve around obeying RULES and OBJECTIVES. Not really ideal for expressing the extent of human capacity and understanding. What games DO offer is “personality through gameplay” which is unique to the artform. Concerns about character portrayals become irrelevant when you play a game for, well, the game. Because no matter who you play as, you are personally the one getting things done.

  14. Screamer says:

    Mmmmkay! Sexy lady = Object. Gotcha ;). Me personally will get the game, enable DLC, and ogle at exposed buttock :D

  15. Philomelle says:

    What mostly confuses me about the whole “Sexy Trip” debacle is that a quick search will tell you it was called “Robot Trip” back when the game was originally released. It only became “Sexy Trip” during the PC release for no explainable reason whatsoever.

    Does it mean they think sex sells better on PC while robots sell better on consoles or something?

  16. Michael Fogg says:

    This game bored me so much that I stopped playing halfway through (the console version). This is something that happens very rarely, as I usually commit to the games I play (only others in recent memory were Rage and Risen 2.

    People who say that gameplay may be weak but the story is great are Missing the Point of Video Games, I feel.

  17. Shadrach says:

    I tend, on principle, to avoid games featuring huge muscular steroid-disasters (with optional ridiculously sized swords), and/or ladies with completely useless armour and huge cleavage.

    But seriously, this actually looks like a good story, and the trailers make me think there is some good acting so maybe I’ll have a closer look.

  18. bill says:

    I would just like to go on record as being very depressed and disappointed in many of the comments on this thread. Not only that a perfectly reasonably 2 lines has allowed people to totally dis-rail all discussion, but the number of people who seem to either (A) totally miss the point, or (B)set out some totally illogical false equivalences in their arguments.

    At first I wanted to post some angry responses explaining why they were totally missing the point, but now i’m just rather depressed. Sigh.

    Would it have been too much to ask to just accept those 2 reasonable lines as something that was pretty much a given, and then have a nice discussion about the game?

    • The Random One says:

      It’s only too unfortunate that the people who complain that RPS are always talking about sexism instead of games cannot waste a single chance to talk about sexism instead of games.

  19. XhomeB says:

    Soo… which game would you recommend, this one or Castlevania Lords of Shadow?

  20. whoCares says:

    I really wanted to play this game, but since it was not released on PC for the forseeable future I watched a Let’s Play. Now I have seen the whole story/cutscenes/gameplay-ideas and now there is no reason to buy it anymore.
    Maybe some Publisher reads this and will not be so stupid in the future.

    • The Random One says:

      “That commenter is right!” says the Publisher. “We should ban Let’s Plays!”

      • Geebs says:

        I just this week watched an LP of Beyond :colon: Two Souls. It actually made me sad to realise that the publisher of that game could seriously argue that pretty much amounted to piracy

  21. belgand says:

    Am I the only one who actually looked up the alternate costume first? For one thing it’s apparently “Sexy Robot Trip”, not just “Sexy Trip” which, I would say, changes the meaning a bit. More importantly it’s not particularly sexy and doesn’t show much more skin than her standard clothing. One leg is exposed, and the whole thing is silver, but that’s pretty much it. The neckline and exposed midriff are pretty much the same.

  22. ZX k1cka55 48K says:

    “You’ll also nab a number of bonus character skins, including “Sexy Trip,” which turns an otherwise decently written, interesting character (at least, by game standards) into an object.”

    Right on sister, fight the patriarchy!

    Seriously though, can you PLEASE keep all that retarded feminist BS out of my video games? Thank you.
    Its like a new thing on all gaming sites lately ffs…
    How about a honest article for a change about Anita Sarkeesian being a lying, scamming fraud instead, no?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw
    All those editors started acting like a sexy, good looking woman is something disgusting, something to be ashamed of. Perhaps you guys are just mad, because there are not many games featuring hairy dude’s asses and sweaty balls, no?
    Well I’m out, gone to check my privilege.

    • unknown_vector says:

      Bye.

    • Llewyn says:

      You’re quitting RPS again? You’ll be a huge loss to the community…

      …when you inevitably come back.

    • airmikee99 says:

      Mr. Rossignol replied above to someone else that had a similar comment as yours.

      “Mr Grayson is unlikely to “stop with the feminism angles in everything”, nor is anyone else on the site. We’ve explained the reasons for this at length. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

      In fact, I would ask you to stop asking us to do something we are unwilling to ever do. If you find it bothersome please do read other sites. Heaven forfend we bother anyone.”

      Don’t let the door hit you on your way out! Or do, I really don’t care.

    • Faxmachinen says:

      All those editors started acting like a sexy, good looking woman is something disgusting, something to be ashamed of.

      As far as I can tell, nobody else has said that yet. I love scantily clad women and I love pizza, but there’s a time and place for it. I don’t want all the characters to be pizzas for no apparent reason either.

  23. jonahcutter says:

    I’d say the Monkey character is far more idealized and objectified. Look at his ass-out pose, in skin-tight pants nonetheless, in the first pic of this very article.

    Any “sexing-up” the Trip character gets would likely just bring her up/down to his level.

    Of course, I don’t have a problem with characters showing lots of skin when it makes sense within the story. And that jungle environment does looks kinda… hot and… steamy…

    • dE says:

      Hell, monkey is even wearing an electroshock collar, how much more idealized and sexualized can a male get? *cracks whip* Mrrreowww.

      • jonahcutter says:

        This all makes me think of the creator of Wonder Woman, William Marston, who also created the forerunner to the polygraph machine. He deliberately designed WW as a symbol of feminine power. Both physically powerful and alluring, and having almost bdsm elements in her costume and tools (the Magic Lasso that makes you tell the truth when she ties you up in it).

        He was a kind of proto-feminist who thought women should run things. And he based WW on his wife and the woman who was the third in their extended relationship. This was back in the 30′s and 40′s. He was an interesting cat.

      • strangeloup says:

        I’m sure someone who doesn’t really understand how things work could make some kind of “aaaaa reverse sexism” argument, but I for one am immensely okay with this. Up with this sort of thing!

  24. Jupiah says:

    I was wondering why this game I’d never heard of before got over a hundred comments. Should have guessed it was the anti-feminism trolls dogpiling on the article Sigh.

  25. Mr Propellerhead says:

    “The action-adventure from … developer Ninja Theory is based on classic Chinese tale Journey to the West…”

    Very, very loosely based – they incorporate, what? Three names and a couple of props?. :|

  26. malkav11 says:

    Gorgeous game with strong writing and a beautiful, verdant post-apocalypse setting (as opposed to the barren wasteland that’s been typical for most post-apocalypse videogames). The gameplay’s nothing special but it’s not obnoxious either. I’d recommend it and will definitely be dropping my Xbox playthrough (which save was lost in the great Xbox Harddrive Crash of earlier this year) in favor of this PC version whenever it reaches a price that makes me feel like less of a chump for doubledipping.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>