Talk:Quiet (Metal Gear)

The article needs Kojima comments on how Quiet was created for cosplayers and for figures

Also needs non-American/Western perception/reception, in particular that in Japan as it's a Japanese game. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

"Oversexualized" is only an opinion

Even just looking at America in May 2019 (allowing ourselves to be USA-centric), there are no established standards and thresholds of "sexualization" to see if something is "undersexualized", "just-fine sexualized", or "oversexualized". This does exist within cultures, religions, or government regulations (sometimes connected with religions, as with the Islamic theocracies), but Wikipedia does not follow any. In this case, it's just personal opinions of some people in games journalism and academia. There are now Sony company worldwide standards (in accordance to the Californian "progressive" culture) but even they didn't censor Quiet with their infamous god rays. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think "criticized for her overt sexuality" might be a better adjective. "Oversexualized" is obviously in the eye of the beholder, but there's no doubt that the character was created as "fap fuel" which no rational person would deny._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

SNAAAAKE's edits made it encyclopedic and unbiased again. Personally I used "to a seemingly oversexualized" when I created this article. Although, I think I'm leaning towards Zxcvbnm's suggestion. This shouldn't even be a debate as the "oversexualization" is all opinion not fact; it is something intangible that can not be proven or disproven. Using "the oversexualized portrayal of women in video games" is wrong and biased. Xfansd (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Seemingly oversexualized" suggests that the people who think that are wrong, which would be biased in the other direction. I think this would also work: "Quiet was met with a polarized reaction from Western critics, who criticized her design as oversexualized." It's attributing the criticism to the critics rather than suggesting the critics are right or wrong._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with ZXC's last version, as long as it keeps the wikilink. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium: I'm a little iffy on the Wikilink. It being in the lede suggests that she IS oversexualized by association. It should be fine to include it later in the Reception section instead where it can be in the proper context._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see it that way. In my opinion, it is just a way to give readers better context on what it even means. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 06:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The link doesn't say anything more than what the text already says, which is that critics are saying it. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How about "Quiet was met with a polarized reaction from Western critics, with criticism directed at the perceived oversexualization of her design"? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't really agree with that. Seems like the original version adequately demonstrated that it's the critics' POV, so 'perceived' is unneeded. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What about my quote but with "perceived" removed? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem is that its called "Polarized Reception". what is it polarizing to if there's no opposing thoughts. that word choice in my opinion is what may be causing the issue. There are some opinions that defend the design choice and don't consider her over-sexualized in the reception section. Highlighting both in the lead will put this issue to rest.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I think adding any adjective in either direction is too contentious and the word should remain unmodified. As for "polarized", I think the meaning of the word implies that there are those who support the stated position and those who don't, but I'm open to a more clear phrasing. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If we also include the information about the other western critics defending her design, then it will highlight that the opinion of oversexualized isn't universal and just the majority. We avoid using words like "Perceived".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Image choice

Doesn't it seem a little awkward how the article has multiple images, but none of them accurately portrays Quiet's in-game render? I think it's important that we have an image that accurately portrays Quiet in the Metal Gear video games. I'm positive that it would meet the NFCC if it was replaced with the concept art.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox pic is in fact Shinkawa's concept art. But it's only of many, here being some: [1] & [2] I'm partial to one from the first collection: [3] SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, an actual in-game render of the character is more beneficial than concept art. We get to see what the character actually looks like in the game. They're both non-free content anyways, right? I don't see the benefit of official concept art in the infobox.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

All MG character articles use Shinkawa's artworks. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a stylistic choice? can you explain to me why the stylized artwork is used instead of an actual in-game render?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

By "render" do you mean in-engine? Because there's a screenshot of Quiet here, as "oversexualized" (despite her being clothed there and not naked like in some Shinkawa pictures). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, there's an in-game render right there. I don't think we need another one. There's another discussion to be had about whether we need two non-free images in the article, but I'm not particularly interested in having it right now. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe that is a good image because you can't really tell what you are looking at. Let me explain it a different way: I shouldn't have to google Quiet Metal Gear to get a better idea of what she looks like. Put yourself in readers shoes. I never played Metal Gear, I don't know who Quiet is. And none of the pictures give me an accurate picture of what she looks like. I have to compare each one and sort of use my imagination to guess.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In that case you won't just have any idea what for example The Boss (Metal Gear) really looked like at all because it looks there like some demon creature and not [4]. Her article sucks, btw, too, but rather for the reason nobody has rally touched it since I've first written wrote it as a stub, concentrating on reception aspects because of "notability", many years ago.

Not mentioned in the article

Quiet here looks more like precedessor (not mentioned in Quiet's article somehow) Sniper Wolf, which I've kept updating, and where you can see how she looks like just fine overall, but my personal choice of Shinkawa-pic for her was rather [5]] (with the "over"sexualized one of his for her being the other one at [6]). But even that the green hair is very misleading and you need to actually read the article for that (where I notrd it), but again: my picture was black and white, has been changed when I've been "not banned" (also Quiet's wasn't even linked from there as she didn't have an article at the time, but Quiet can be even dressed as SW in MGSV).

Also, as noted here, "Females like to dress up as Sniper Wolf and Quiet" precisely as intended as Kojima.[7] Which, repeating myself, was actually what Quiet was made for (and for figures), according to Kojima himself, to the point that even her reveal was supposed to help the cosplayers (also not mentioned in the article, but to quote from the reveal: "The initial target is to make u want to do cosplay or its figurine to sell well"[8] followed by "Dear Cosplayer friends, something like this for example." and the pic of her butt[9]). But there's no "cosplay" word anywhere in this article at all. I'll add a sample picture of these cosplayers right here.

stick to content

I suppose the reason why this is not mentioned it's because it was written as a not-even-veiled (very one sided) attack article on the game, Kojima himself (with some industry-nobody somehow described here as "Halo designer" actually quoted to call him a "man baby"), and nebulous "oversexualition of women in video games". Can I rewrite it to be something at least resembling of a proper and factual, and at least relying basic facts, or will you keep playing that reverting game with me again to get me blocked?

And yes, most of these other MGS-girl articles also really need work, even if for different reason. (Only Sniper Wolf's is fine - not perfect or even great, but okay.) SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Please stop bringing up issues you have with other articles. This is a discussion about Quiet's lead image and how she is depicted, not whether people cared enough to edit The Boss' article.
2. Why is this discussion thread being made to be about the oversexualization? Again, please keep on topic.
3. If you take issue with the lack of cosplay, you can add it in, provided there's adequate sourcing discussing it. It's nice to have the intention of Kojima, but you need to provide evidence that she's a popular cosplay choice. If you have those sources, then feel free to add them.
4. The fact that editors generally included critical reception for Quiet that was negative is, in part, because a lot of the reception did make fun of her. The article also makes a point of mentioning counters to that criticism, so the bad-faith accusations don't even make sense.
5. This isn't the place to litigate your issues with Halo designer David Ellis. He's acknowledged because his callout of Kojima was reported on. Are we supposed to ignore media coverage because it's about someone being mean to Kojima?
6. It is not nebulous because the reasoning behind discussing it as "oversexualization of women in video games" is elaborated in the reception section. However, I do agree that there needs to be further elaboration - not because I find it nebulous, but because there have been a number of opinion pieces that go into detail explaining this.

off-topic

One of the first things you did after returning from a last-chance block was to pick a fight and make thinly veiled accusations that people are out to get you. You got reverted because you were making edits that multiple users found disagreeable. If you make another disagreeable edit (policy/guideline-wise), I'll revert it. Taking the approach you're taking makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy that you will just get permanently banned, and I think your mentor would agree on this.

- Bryn (talk) (contributions) 09:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The image of Quiet is simply Wikipedia-standard, so you will have to change all of them. If you didn't really understand yet.

He's not "Halo designer", he's just one of the a great multitude people who have worked on Halo games (in which Cortana actually dresses less than Quiet, as in nothing because she's "naked" all the time) in minor positions as his only games to his credit at MB and who said something von twitter that just happened to align with the opinions of these "opinion pieces" writers but which otherwise only got less than 50 likes/retweets.[10] How is that any important? It's not at all. SNAAAAKE!! (talk)

The reason I didn't understand is because that's not a Wikipedia standard. Articles are not monolithic. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's just en established standard for all these articles (but the pics could be better). Also, speaking of twitter, some more relevant English-language tweets from Kojima: [11][12][13][[14][15][16]

Western mass media coverage of Quiet and cosplaying: https://www.google.com/search?q=quiet+%22metal+gear%22+cosplay&source=lnms&tbm=nws SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a "Wikipedia standard" from what I can see. This is just a choice from one or multiple editors that no one questioned up until now. And even if it was considered a standard, you need to explain why we should follow it instead of just mentioning that it exists. Rules and standards change in Wikipedia. I don't understand why you are bringing up cosplayers. My only concern at the moment is what is the best infobox image that will help readers know exactly what she looks like. And all the images in the article do a poor job. Its like a puzzle trying to figure out exactly what she looks like. I'm going to request for more opinions on this in WP:VG.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, BPP - if it's something that was agreed upon by multiple editors, then it's local consensus rather than simply a choice. If it was something followed for consistency, then it's simply an undocumented method or status quo. I agree that there are instances when it's best to apply WP:IAR and to get more input, but I'm also of the mind that consistency and following a certain long standing method can be a good thing as it provides a solid foundation on which to build. I don't know enough about this topic to contribute much more than the obvious from a ce/GA-FA reviewer POV. Happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is an alternative image that would make sense to use: [17][18].Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I would argue that there is value to giving a clear shot of this specific depiction since her design is the subject of a lot of commentary. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 12:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)