The Buttocks Of StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm

Zagara visits the gym regularly, clearly

Playing through the StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm campaign this weekend, I couldn’t help but be struck by Blizzard’s equality-minded approach to how it depicts its characters’ hindquarters. I’ve just been through every cutscene again, and screengrabbed every bottom I could spot (barring repeat shots and most of the slow zooms).

Men, women, horrible alien creatures: they all get their bums in the sun at some point. See if you can spot where the game’s noble determination to not objectify its female star, Sarah Kerrigan, really proves itself.

Raynor (civilian clothes):

Cargo Pants? More like Cor, fancy a go at that Pants!

Raynor (military clothes):

Solid steel power armour shows off all of Big Jim’s big curves!

Arcturus Mengsk:

With buns of steel like that he’s less ruler of the Terrans, more ruler of my loins!

Prince Valarian:

The heir to the empire follows his daddy’s tendency to leave nothing to the imagination!


Metal nappies make my heart go boom-boom-boom!

Plane-landing Man:

If it weren’t for that pesky metal hose, we could see *everything!*

A Marine:

Crack soldier, amirite!

Zeratul (rear just off-camera, presumably an accidental oversight):

Show us what’s under that loincloth, prophet-boy!

Matthew Horne & Valarian (rears just off-camera, presumably an accidental oversight):

The mid-length cloak is 2013’s most scandalous look!

Raynor (civilian) and Kerrigan (human):

Whatever Kerrigan can do, Raynor can do better! And fitter!

Kerrigan (human):

Not too busy overthrowing a galactic despot to forget looking good!

Kerrigan (human):

Boldly wearing the same skintight catsuit in both captivity and battle!

Kerrigan (human):

Just because you’ve been brutally experimented on and used as the genetically-modified slave of a madman doesn’t mean you can’t show the universe what matters most!

Kerrigan (human):

Kerri-can, more like!

Kerrigan (human):

Standing in that pose all the time has caused her life-long weakness in her right hip, but she knows looking great’s more important than debilitating joint damage!

Kerrigan (Zergy):

No chitin where it counts!

Kerrigan (Zergy):

2013’s Spring look means scales and spikes everywhere but on T&A!

Kerrigan (Zergy):

Arse of the swarm, if you catch my drift!

Kerrigan (Zergy):

Only a gal like that could pull off the difficult thong-made-of-chitin-exoskeleton look!

Kerrigan (Zergy):

So hot: the curve of the wings matches the curve of her buns perfectly!

Kerrigan (Zergy; rear just off-camera, presumably an accidental oversight):

Stop teasing us, naughty Kerrigan – show us the goods for once!


Now that’s a bottom I could marry!

Wow! Hot stuff all round from the men and women of the StarCraft universe!


  1. zebramatt says:

    I do like bottoms.

  2. Deviija says:

    So much butt equality! I mean, the objectification and scanty attire is clearly the same between Raynor (and dudes) and Kerrigan. Totally. At least we know Blizzard is keeping it equal.

    Snark and eyerolling aside, I do laugh at how HUGE Raynor is compared to Kerrigan. She’s like a diminutive child standing next to a hulk. So manly. :P

    • Gap Gen says:

      Someone pointed out that superheroes with huge muscles is a male power fantasy, not a female sexual fantasy. It was a David Willis cartoon about Batman, but I can’t remember the link.

      • El_Emmental says:

        Except that “superheroes with huge muscles” isn’t the male power fantasy of everyone, far from that. Same goes with impossible waist-to-hip ratio, enormous breasts, thin and long nose and feet, etc for women. These fantasies are well-spread, sure, but they are the fantasies marketed by companies, not by people (not as much, at least).

        Why people think males should have huge muscles, and female have big breasts and hip, with no fat anywhere ?

        Partially because the physical appearance attractiveness often means a “healthy” individual (both mentally and physically – at least from the outside), which is important for perpetuating our specy and not becoming extinct (please put the religious stuff aside on that part, thanks), partially because of marketing team around the world insinuating success/what we should strive for is “X”, and that their product is related to “X”.

        Imagining someone could sum up the fantasies of a group of people, let alone an entire gender, is utterly preposterous.

        You can’t just use the most mediatized fantasy out there and claim it is the fantasy of everyone/most people simply because it is on a billboard. “Men with huge muscles” is the fantasy of some men and women, just like “Women with huge breasts” is the fantasy of some men and women.

        Personally, my fantasies aren’t about huge muscles for me and big breasts for my partner, regarding my body it’s more about posture (greatly influenced by self-confidence)(or if we’re into superheroes, flying), while regarding the breasts I find their firmness more important than their size (and I know it’s a very serious concern among women, who are quite afraid of how they’ll age) – does it mean I’m an abnormal specimen, the unique snowflake, the 0.001% ? Not at all, I’m just not part of the group listening to marketers, like many, many other people.

        Stop generalizing whenever it serves your cause, it isn’t helping at all.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Oh, granted. And I wasn’t even really defending the point, or arguing against the previous commenter, just regurgitating something I saw on the internet. Plus I don’t read all that many superhero comics, so I couldn’t say what effect it has on me personally.

          Then again, it’s a little reductionist to say “different people like different things, so X can’t be true”. Just because different people like certain things it doesn’t mean that marketers don’t try to hit different demographics with their products. But I’d be interested to see if any research has/can explore the issue of gender responses to overly muscular male physiques. My intuition is that the characters in Gears of War, superhero comics, etc, aren’t aimed at getting women into the genre, but I could be wrong.

          • Jamesworkshop says:

            Gears of war does attract a certain gay male audience, really though for women it seems from my anecdotal experience women really like Ezio from assassins creed more than any-other male character in games of late.

      • Groove says:

        Got’cha covered link to

  3. Jamesworkshop says:

    Now Raynor, Im really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but Laurence “Prophet” Barnes had one of the best videogame butts of all time

    link to

  4. Zekiel says:

    I really don’t understand the criticism this article is getting in the comments. Alec is humorously drawing attention to the somewhat ridiculous presentation of one of the Strongest Female Characters in Gaming (TM) in a new game. The article isn’t ramming a “politically correct” viewpoint down anyone’s throat, in fact if you like to look at women’s posteriors and don’t think there’s anything wrong with it, he’s just helpfully given you lots of material to appreciate!

    • Dances to Podcasts says:

      I suspect it’s just more fallout from the previous posts on the subject, which were a lot less amusing.

      • vagabond says:

        A small percentage of the people who had something to say about the comments locked post took it to the forums, but otherwise I suspect you’re right and the rest of those people are bleeding over into the sunday papers and this article.

  5. Engloutie says:

    The subtlety and irony in this post really make it a great and meaningful piece of games journalism.

  6. Zewp says:

    You know, generally I agree with articles of this sort and I do feel there is a serious issue with sexism in the industry, but don’t you guys think that maybe, just maybe you ARE nitpicking now?

    Dead or Alive, Soul Caliber 4, those I can understand. But Starcraft 2? Really? I honestly don’t see what the issue with Kerrigan is. It’s not like the entire game is littered with overly sexualised females and I dare say it’s not like Kerrigan is overly sexualised either. In her Terran form she wears a skintight outfit. Seeing as she is a Ghost in the lore, I reckon this would make sense, because I assume clothes that don’t impair her movement would be preferable to a bulky suit of armor.

    As for her Zerg form, the ass and tits are exposed. Yes. She’s more zerg than human. Last I checked, Zerg don’t wear clothes or armor. I would assume they still defecate, though, so armoring her ass shut would be a bit counter-intuitive. Besides, does anybody actually find Zerg Kerrigan attractive? Those of you who raised your hands, please post your guardian’s phone numbers below so I can discuss options for mental therapy with them.

    So, point being, RPS, I love that you guys are standing up for equal rights in the industry. I love that you’re fighting against the sexism in the machine. Continue doing so, please, but do it where it is applicable. I do not think Kerrigan is a good example of objectification. From SC1, she was actually one of the most iconic female characters in the gaming industry and not because of her boobs and butt. Because she is a well fleshed out character and her story is both horrifying as well as intriguing. There is very little sexual about her and I do not feel that Blizzard’s intention was to objectify her at all.

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”From SC1, she was actually one of the most iconic female characters in the gaming industry and not because of her boobs and butt. Because she is a well fleshed out character and her story is both horrifying as well as intriguing.”

      In SC1 she wasn’t portrayed wearing super skin tight jump suits, with movement impairing high heels no less, and didn’t have the pouting, botox enhanced face of a porn star. The new Kerrigan is one of the most glaring examples of what defines the sexualisation of women in gaming. Her human outfit even separates her breasts to emphasise her breasts. This is not a subtle thing you are missing.

    • Gap Gen says:

      I agree that in SC1, she was a good character with a decent character arc playing the same game as everyone else in the universe. SC2 (WoL, at least), not so much, but then SC2 is full of bad cliches.

  7. Wulfram says:

    It’s a shame the male characters are so boring and generic

  8. elgonzo says:

    What i find interesting in the whole debate is how it is almost always only the “industry” or their products that is being displayed as sexist.

    I mean, if i am not totally mistaken, the whole purpose of the business is to make money by selling lots of products quickly to its customers, and repeat the process. If sexism is such a widespread product feature as it appears to be, then why is it so?

    Well, i can only guess. Maybe, because sexy/sexist content really helps selling; or maybe it is done almost automatically/instinctively/subconsciously without having a negative impact on sales which would require intervention? I don’t know…

    And, in reality, the whole thing is not really “just an excess” of the gaming industry, or gaming culture. In our world, women are presented as objects of sexual desire on a daily basis (so much so that we probably don’t even notice anymore…).
    One example (NSFW!!!): link to

    Or, as some idiot said somewhere, sometime: We can’t change the world unless we change ourselves.

  9. Joshua Northey says:

    This just in from RPS:

    12-21 year old men still the core consumers in the video-game marketplace.

    See our follow-up report about how 12-21 year old men like destruction and violence, and have shameful sexual urges. We think they should evaluate their media on different criteria than weather there are boobs and explosions and big swords on the cover.

    On a more serious note I would love to see RPS express 1/4 as much angst about violence in games as it does about sexism in games. It is the same issue. Boy like what boys.

    • Gap Gen says:

      Yes, it’s a fair point, although RPS regularly pans linear modern war shooters. I think a lot of it depends on context – sex in games isn’t a bad thing, but there’s always a fine line between objectification and just representing sex and sexuality. Similarly, something like ArmA largely just portrays war as it is. Sure, its core appeal is violence, but it’s not exploitative or unrealistic.

      Plus, in any case, nothing wrong with young males playing games they like. The issue with objectification of women is that it diminishes female players, and violence only becomes an issue if it glorifies real-world violence or violence against a certain group (a game where you have to kill Muslims or Russians because they’re Muslim or Russian, say).

      • Joshua Northey says:

        But the objectified women are what the young men like. They are just cardboard fantasies, which is both what the feminists are complaining about and what the young men like about them.

        • cpt_freakout says:

          Because that has absolutely no effect or impact on the way these “young men” not only deal with but also how they make the women around them feel. That goes beyond “young”, btw.

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”12-21 year old men still the core consumers in the video-game marketplace.”

      Wrong. I’ve seen many reports on the subject of gamer age groups, and none have placed the average gamer age in a western country under 23 years old. Gamers grew up while you were making up those numbers.

      • Joshua Northey says:

        You are BTW totally wrong about this. The average age of people who “consider themselves gamers” or who”play video-games in general” maybe be older, but the average age of a random purchase is still extremely young. Like possibly not even college age.

        For every 35 year old gamer buying 6 games a year there is a 16 year old whose parents buy him 20.

  10. CMaster says:

    I’m not sure about rear ends, but Zerg Kerrigan (Zergigan?) appears to have rock (well chitin) hard abs!

  11. cptgone says:

    ah, butts, our lowest common denominator.
    lovely article, but i’m not much of a butty man myself.
    chicks with dicks, on the other hand… and man boobs… <3

  12. AlKaPwn says:

    My question is, why is it that RPS seems to disproportionately cover one type of oppression over another? Blizzard essentially white washes their games, they turn Duran from the first game into a white guy named Narud, and general Warfield, a powerful and successful black man is killed off on a whim by Kerrigan. Minorities within a race didn’t exist in the Warcraft universe until world of warcraft.

    Also there is not a single LGBT character in all of the starcraft lore, the majority of the characters are overtly heterosexual.

    So why is it then that misogyny seems to take precedence?

    • elgonzo says:

      Suspicious, isn’t it? Noticed, how Raynor and Karrigan are not Asian but white people? Blizzard certainly must hate the Chinese…

      EDIT: And how they must hate the Koreans….

      • AlKaPwn says:

        It’s not the just a lack of inclusion in a specific game or as the main character that makes it suspicious. It’s the fact that the only black human in the series is killed off like a plaything on a whim by a white character, and messed up the invasion of char because he didn’t listen to the white protagonist, and had to be saved from his own incompetence by the same white guy.

        Or if you have created an entire universe spanning countless books, comics and videogames, and not one gay person in it all, also seems kind of suspicious.

        Your facetious comment is akin to those people who say “Oh males are sexualized just as much as women with their big muscles and stuff.” and then totally dismiss the point being made.

        • elgonzo says:

          Oh, my apologies, i did not pay attention to balance.
          While there are also many white guys that share the same fate as the black guy you mentioned, there is no black guy on the winner side to offset the bad fate of that black guy in the game. I was not aware of that.

          Which brings me to another aspect of lacking balance: In quite many games, you are often going to save a proverbial damsel in distress, or at least being a very charming game dude hero to some virtual graphics female. However you will quite often not be able to slaughter damsels like you are able to slaughter dudes in these games. Now, that is sexism right there… or was that violence…?

          EDIT: Just to make clear: Yes, i am ironic. Yes, i make fun of it. Until you actually play the game and realize, that General Warfield functioned as a moral authority, representing human moral values. It was not a white guy who held the banner of human ethics high and remembered Karrigan about what it means to be human. How does this align with your talk about racism and white supremacy?

          • AlKaPwn says:

            No you’re missing my point’ it’s not about balance, or someone dying for each general warfield that died. It’s that throughout the series “the white man” decides the fate of the very very few amount of black people that live in the game, usually by killing them at a whim, or by cleaning up their mistakes. They all play fundamentally subservient roles. Warfield doesn’t give Raynor orders, he takes orders, and only gives orders to redshirts, and the only orders that Warfield give always turn out badly. Tosh can be killed for almost no good reason, Duran literally changed race from one game to another. All of these go with consistent theme. Blizzard isn’t doing it actively, probably unintentionally from the way they view the world.

            And if anything it’s Raynor that reminded her to be human, Warfield was basically just like a little tick in one direction. I don’t know where you get this moral compass business when everyone from Raynor to Horner is so Dudley Do-Right good that I don’t know why the game would need a moral compass.

            It boggles my mind that RPS readers see Raynor have to rescue an incapacitated Kerrigan and go “that’s kinda sexist” or that Kerrigan wears high heels and special boob shirts and goes “That’s sexist” but when you have a game that has like like 3 black people, that must constantly be helped, are killed off at a whim by the white characters, or change race from game to game and RPS goes “I’m going to be facetious and ironic b/c there’s no racism there.”

    • Brun says:

      Minorities within a race didn’t exist in the Warcraft universe until world of warcraft.

      Forest vs. Jungle trolls in WC3. The latter were members of the Horde (Vol’jin’s faction), had blue skin and generally a lanky, wiry build. The former were originally members of the Horde during the Second War (they were WC2’s troll units), and were neutral creeps at the time of WC3. They had the traditional green skin, muscular build, and axes that all troll units in Warcraft had up until the introduction of the Jungle trolls. I’m a little fuzzy on the politics but at the time of WC2 and WC3 the power in Troll culture lay firmly with the Forest trolls while the Jungle trolls were outcasts.

      EDIT: You could also argue that High Elves vs. Night Elves (both present in WC3) is another example, although they rarely interact beyond a few NPC conversations, and the question of whether they’re still the same species is debatable. And while not members of the same species, the whole Humans vs. High Elves discrimination issue from TFT is also highly relevant (High Elves here being a minority amongst the members of the Alliance, relative to Humans).

      • AlKaPwn says:

        That is an excellent correction sir, but I think that the point I’m making still does stand. having a complete lack of analogous parallel to real world people and minorities within the human race reinforces the idea that they are an other from what is normal which is a bad thing. IE the human race is nothing but white people, non white people within the humans is weird, and the minority is another species that take on Caucasian features relatively exclusively.

        I will say to blizzard’s credit, the topic of the blood elves you bring up is excellent and Blizzard did do a good job of defamiliarizing racism by having you on the receiving end as the blood elves.

        • Brun says:

          More recently, within WoW’s ongoing story arc, there’s been much examination of the discrimination issue within the Horde (with the current Orc leadership actively and blatantly discriminating against other member species). Blizzard seems to be choosing (within Warcraft, at least) to examine discrimination on an inter-species basis, rather than an intra-species one, which makes sense on some levels – the relationship between the species alone is already bordering on Gordian. Plus, it seems more natural in a fantasy context to involve the other species in such examination, rather than to focus exclusively on one (such as humans).

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”So why is it then that misogyny seems to take precedence?”

      Why shouldn’t it. Most organisations with a platform to reach the public don’t even cover a single topic that might be even slightly controversial. RPS has rightly called out past examples of marginalisation, exploitation and discrimination in gaming. After the shitstorm created by the Anita Sarkeesian coverage, they have rightly identified misogyny as a far bigger problem than anyone really knew, and are taking a stand against it. This should be encouraged, not belittled because they cannot simultaneously cover every other form of discrimination in existence with equal weight.

      • AlKaPwn says:

        you still don’t give a good reason as to why it *should* take precedence. It’s not an Olympics of oppression, all things should ideally treated with equal regard and import.

        If we start doing that then we go into impact analysis. How many women die as a result of misogyny? How many women are dehumanized as a result of misogyny? Is this number higher or lower than the amount of people that die from the effects of homophobia? How many minorities die from the result of racism.

        Homophobia causes a huge amount of gay people to kill themselves because of the alienation they feel. These people are dying as a result of homphobia, then let’s give homophobia preferential treatment. But on the other hand a white convicted felon has a better chance of getting a job than a black man with a clean record, this poverty is causing a death of the soul, but misogyny effects more people than both of those combined, So what’s more important? Literal deaths of gay people a small amount of the population, crippling poverty of minorities, greater amount of population, or misogyny against women, the greatest amount, what takes precedence?

        • Vorphalack says:

          I actually did give a reason for why misogamy should be prominent. I don’t like repeating points so this will be the last time. It has recently become an unexpected hot topic after the Anita Sarkeesian kickstarter coverage. That’s it. It is relevant and current to what RPS have been covering.

          And no one, and I mean no one, who works to promote a good cause EVER judges what they are doing on an ethical priority system. Thinking like that is complete bullshit. I work for a charity out in the real world, and don’t go home every day worrying that i’m not supporting the most needy cause. I’m probably not, if you want to do a cold logic analysis of good will, but i’m doing something positive for a group of people that need help. What takes precedence is whatever the fuck you want to support, because honestly supporting one good cause is more than most people ever will.

        • Ergates_Antius says:

          ” Literal deaths of gay people a small amount of the population, crippling poverty of minorities, greater amount of population, or misogyny against women, the greatest amount, what takes precedence?”

          Firstly, you seem to be overlooking the literal deaths of large numbers of women as a result of misogyny. I’m sure you didn’t mean to, but it makes what you wrote look odd.

          You’re right that racism and homophobia are serious issues in the gaming world, and need to be addressed. However, I don’t see why this should detract for RPS’ decision to focus on misogyny (assuming they have). They’re far more likely to get throught to people and have a positive impact in the world if they focus on a single issue and write at length about it, than if they tried to include every issue into every article. You’ll end up with a incoherent mish mash that would struggle to have any impact.

          • AlKaPwn says:

            That comparison wasn’t meant to be literal, it’s supposed to represent that trying to play risk analyses is an awful clusterfuck that leads to nothing ever getting done, which is why you need to tackle oppression as one big boulder instead of a bunch of little rocks. And the reason why it’s bad to focus on only one kind of oppression is b/c of a few reasons.

            If you frame it as we must stop this first instead of framing it as stopping all oppression, it steals away attention and power from other causes. People have compassion fatigue, and if you can’t do a descent job of covering the important bases, you use up your compassion capital.

            The second is what does that say to someone else? “I’m sorry gay people and minorities, but you aren’t as important as women, and warrant our attention only as a second and third stop after this”
            Imagine it’s 1930 in Germany, blacks are being oppressed, jews are being oppressed, who do you help first? The answer is both.

    • cpt_freakout says:

      Agree with your point completely. I guess it’s a matter of giving it time – I think most people are still barely getting used to the spotlight on misogyny, and it’s also a lot easier to instantly see than race issues (but not LGBT ones, granted). Game writers / designers / artists are way more straightforward and predictable when it comes to women than race, while LGBT isn’t even an issue for them, making it wholly evident out of sheer absence, moreso than misogyny.

    • Brigand says:

      “the majority of the characters are overtly heterosexual.”
      There isn’t a hint of anyone’s sexuality outside the Raynor/Kerrigan and Mira Han thing.

      Also, I might be missing something but why does Warfield being killed off by Kerrigan constitute racism? First of all, he’s not the only black character, you’re forgetting Tosh (although he’s a cultural stereotype to an extent) and that other guy who walks around in the background of the Hyperion. Secondly, he’s the General of the Dominion army (a position of some power to say the least), since Kerrigan is on a path of vengeance leading to the Emperor of the Dominion it’d just be plain stupid if he didn’t get killed. It was a necessary plot point, he doesn’t just get killed off because of his skin colour.

      • AlKaPwn says:

        Horner and the pirate queen, for starters, lines the mauraders make, pictures of sexy ladies on Tychus’ armor, and varying lines that characters make while talking. I’d have to replay the game to find every instance.

        And Tosh is alive in cannon, but remember prior to HOTS, you had the option to kill him without needing to, and killing him for a pretty ambiguous reason. So there is this reoccurring theme of white people deciding the fate of black people on quite literally a whim throughout the game, or black people needing white people to be competent, or to be saved.

        For instance Kerrigan kills Warfield on a whim, but lets all his white troops go killing only him? Also Duran spends a decade disguised as a black guy but decides to be white again out of the blue? Was being one of 3 black guys too conspicuous? In the same way that sexism is more subtle than “Get in mah kitchen and make a sammich” racism is also subtle too.

        • Brigand says:

          The Mira Han and Horner thing was thrown in for some kind of comical relief, it doesn’t really come across as anything more. It’s not in your face this is a man and woman being heterosexual!! And those minor bits and bobs hardly constitute overt heterosexuality, I sure didn’t notice them. You say yourself you need to replay it to find more examples, if they’re not overt enough to be able to recall then you kind of undermine what you’re arguing for.

          It didn’t say press the button to kill the black guy though, it never said anything about killing him. It was all just oh we’ve got to stop him from releasing these guys or bad things will happen.
          It’s not a theme if it happens once. Warfield gets saved by Raynor, okay, you can argue oh white guy saves black guy it demonstrates that there’s some imbalance between the powers between the two races or whatever but in the end it’s just a guy saving another guy. Nowhere in the game is Warfield made out to be representative of anything but what he is; a space marine general.

          Why are you saying all his troops are white? You only hear one guy’s voice? And of course Duran was changed, if you were a shape shifting alien and didn’t want people recognising you what would you have done?

          There’s subtle racism and then there’s finding racism where there isn’t any. If the racism was subtle then Warfield wouldn’t have a position of power in the first place, deciding the fates of all those under his command. The main human villain is as white as you can get for christ sake!

          If I wanted to I could say that the whole thing is oppressive to gingers, as the only red headed character is zergified to hide it and when she’s dezergified she still retains zerg hair as that’s the better and more human of the two. You can criticise Blizzard for poorly written characters and plots but calling them racially oppressive is a tad bit unfair.

          • AlKaPwn says:

            You can call it comic relief, but the horner and pirate queen thing definitely displays their sexuality, and yes it is overt, the entire punchline of the comic relief is that she is attracted to him. How is that no overt? And not being able to remember every instances doesn’t take away from what I say, it just means I haven’t played the game in like a year.

            Also here is the sequence of events, Tosh his life is in your hands, it’s pretty evident that siding against him means his death from the way Nova talks about it. So you’ve potentially killed Tosh, then we get to the final battle, Warfield has a plan that he’s going to use, Raynor gives him orders to not do it, but Warfield says “No I got experience” blah blah blah, Raynor has to come in and save him b/c Warfield didn’t follow Raynor’s orders. Next game, Warfield is the only person that dies out of his battalion. Every single marine in the cinematics thus far has been white, every voice that was heard of a soldier that was not seen has a distinctly white voice, the voice on the radio was white, and of the entire terran army unit roster there are no black people in it. It’s not a stretch to think that it’s probably mostly white people in the battalion. And so general Warfield dies so that Kerrigan can go on a journey of self discovery and the white people can live happily ever after.

            Is decrying stilettos and boob separating shirts also finding sexism? You make it sound like anything that is not overtly trying to put someone down does not constitute racism. Like only after the koolaid and water melons could we consider anything racist. I’m not saying that blizzard is part of a white power conspiracy to oppress black people, in the same way they probably don’t mean to objectify women.

            They do it b/c they have a narrow world view point, and this stuff slips in b/c of that, unintentionally.

            The fact that the RPS readers don’t seem to recognize racism in the same way that kotaku members don’t recognize sexism is why it’s an issue that needs more coverage.

        • elgonzo says:

          General Warfield’s wounded troops which Kerrigan did let go were all Whites???
          How did you come to this conclusion? Science…?
          Wow… double wow!
          Really……….. ???

    • cptgone says:

      cause ***** is the ****** of the world.

  13. Dances to Podcasts says:

    I would be quite amused if RPS now became the number one site for digital butts.

    • elgonzo says:

      I would just so buttmark RPS for becoming a bottoms feeder :)

  14. PopeRatzo says:

    I’d hit that.

  15. evenflowjimbo says:

    They sure do like butt shots in this game, be it men or women. I guess they just want to be fair and spread it around since people seem to make a fuss over the little things. I mean, who watches the cut scenes more than twice?

  16. Stuka_JU87 says:

    I disagree with RPS on how fictional butt portrayal in video games is such an outrage it must be mentioned at every opportunity. But I enjoy reading dissenting opinions, especially when I find them ridiculously insane. So keep up with the soap box.

  17. Fred S. says:

    We’re still talking about objectifying game characters? They’re already objects. Their looks and their behavior is entirely scripted. You push a button and they do their thing. Push a different button and they do a different thing. It doesn’t matter how they’re dressed, they’re still nothing more than objects in a game.

    link to

    • Tagiri says:

      Their looks and their behavior is entirely scripted.

      And game developers keep picking the same tired script over and over. Even if you seriously believe a Sam Kerrigan would have ended up in the same outfit, what’s wrong with a bit of variety?

  18. Fred S. says:

    But that’s about style. How do you want your game avatar to be objectified?

    • Tagiri says:

      Maybe I don’t actually understand your point. Are you saying that characters can’t be objectified because they don’t exist? I don’t think anyone’s arguing that pics of Kerrigan’s butt are going to hurt her feelings.

      But since they aren’t real, characters are designed by people and reflect our cultural ideas and assumptions. Which means a designer somewhere decided alien wedgie was important, for either sales or aesthetics reasons. The ubiquity of implausibly tiny, oddly-costumed, or otherwise overtly sexy/sexual women is what people are talking about here. No one is saying characters are real, just that it’s frustrating to me as a woman that there is such a wide variety of ways that men’s bodies are portrayed in games in comparison to the narrow range of ‘acceptability’ for female characters.

  19. bushwacki says:

    Rock Paper Shotgun is doings Gods work.

  20. warcroft says:

    So, youre playing a game and taking as many screenshots of video game characters butts as possible. . . and you think game developers have a problem?
    Maybe all females should be dressed in Burkas? Like, whats it called? That religion thats totally oppressive to women? Its right on the tip of my tongue.