Dragon's Crown Review: Buxom Babes and Battleaxes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

xPixelatedx:

Windknight:

Caused muscled men embody all positive traits - strength, honour, bravery.

Fetishised women are pretty much Tits n ass, tits n ass, tits n ass. No bravery, no strength, nothing but tits n ass.

Yeah muscled men do embody positive traits, but lets not pretend they aren't fetishised and ridiculous as well. All these characters are deformed and sexualized; we just happen to place good qualities on the male designs alongside with the bad. That's not exactly the fault of the artist, though. If the artist went through the effort to make the females more... normal looking(?) they would then be out of place alongside the "living tumors" that the males appear to be. At the end of the day, it was a lose/lose situation.

I think Jim C Hines summed it up best in a couple of blog posts where he emulated urban fantasy, fantasy and romance novel covers.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/

these poses, womens poses, glamorize rather than strengthen, and most of them cause discomfort or actual pain to hold, something that undercuts strength - women have to be pretty, and that's all that matters.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/04/posing-like-a-man/

All the poses embody strength, power, dominance. Even on the pictures aimed at women, the men are powerful, in charge. Dudes are manly, powerful and to be admired for being so. A man can be conventionally ugly, but he's still an awesome manly man to be admired.

Windknight:
I think Jim C Hines summed it up best in a couple of blog posts where he emulated urban fantasy, fantasy and romance novel covers.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/

these poses, womens poses, glamorize rather than strengthen, and most of them cause discomfort or actual pain to hold, something that undercuts strength - women have to be pretty, and that's all that matters.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/04/posing-like-a-man/

All the poses embody strength, power, dominance. Even on the pictures aimed at women, the men are powerful, in charge. Dudes are manly, powerful and to be admired for being so. A man can be conventionally ugly, but he's still an awesome manly man to be admired.

You're oozing with bias there - if a woman being womanly is all that matters, then males being manly is also all that matters. Both are unfair.
A lot of fantasy attempts to visit historical times, eras of bygone ages - this is compounded with a lot of fantasy being aimed at males along with nerd culture in general being rather male-dominated.
Pulling some extremely basic stuff from history, men were required to be manly/strong and women were required to be beautiful/charming - cold harsh requirements of life which neither gender could really escape. Expecting a man to spend their life training, fighting and performing laborious jobs was just as unfair as expecting women to learn housework, cooking, etc. The only difference was that one was glorified in the eyes of society and the other was simply considered normal. Y'know, probably because one of them involved getting killed (or worse, wounded and forced to live in agony) in service to the kingdom/empire and the other one...didn't...really?

Guess which one makes for a more interesting and thrilling foundation for a fantasy story? I'm sure you can take a vague stab at a guess. I agree fantasy is supposed to break the "norms", and it often does (especially when it explores futuristic/alien settings), but it often also relies on things we are already familiar with. We are familiar with history, and we are famliar with manly men and beautiful women. From the very basis of our evolution and biology, humans (as a whole) will continue to think that way for a long time to come regardless of technological and intellectual advancements.

erttheking:

I'm sorry, I prefer characters in video games to be well crafted with balanced personalities and interesting stories.

Its a retro style side scrolling beat-em-up, strong characterization was never going to be a selling point, and gender issues have nothing to do with it.

OT: Can wait to pick this up on the sixth, I only hope I can get there early enough to grab the Gamestop preorder art book that they are giving out first come first serve.

Yuuki:

Windknight:
I think Jim C Hines summed it up best in a couple of blog posts where he emulated urban fantasy, fantasy and romance novel covers.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/

these poses, womens poses, glamorize rather than strengthen, and most of them cause discomfort or actual pain to hold, something that undercuts strength - women have to be pretty, and that's all that matters.

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/04/posing-like-a-man/

All the poses embody strength, power, dominance. Even on the pictures aimed at women, the men are powerful, in charge. Dudes are manly, powerful and to be admired for being so. A man can be conventionally ugly, but he's still an awesome manly man to be admired.

You're oozing with bias there - if a woman being womanly is all that matters, then males being manly is also all that matters. Both are unfair.
A lot of fantasy attempts to visit historical times, eras of bygone ages - this is compounded with a lot of fantasy being aimed at males along with nerd culture in general being rather male-dominated.
Pulling some extremely basic stuff from history, men were required to be manly/strong and women were required to be beautiful/charming - cold harsh requirements of life which neither gender could really escape. Expecting a man to spend their life training, fighting and performing laborious jobs was just as unfair as expecting women to learn housework, cooking, etc. The only difference was that one was glorified in the eyes of society and the other was simply considered normal. Y'know, probably because one of them involved getting killed (or worse, wounded and forced to live in agony) in service to the kingdom/empire and the other one...didn't...really?

Guess which one makes for a more interesting and thrilling foundation for a fantasy story? I'm sure you can take a vague stab at a guess. I agree fantasy is supposed to break the "norms", and it often does (especially when it explores futuristic/alien settings), but it often also relies on things we are already familiar with. We are familiar with history, and we are famliar with manly men and beautiful women. From the very basis of our evolution and biology, humans (as a whole) will continue to think that way for a long time to come regardless of technological and intellectual advancements.

And how does that justify a woman who's purpose in the game is to blow stuff up with her mind or hack things to death with a sword being posed to emphasize their beauty and nothing else? Does it justify a nun who's been defeated in battle being presented like she's a centerfold in a porn mag?

We've come a long way from 'traditional roles' for men and women, and pretending that 'traditonal roles' justify and excuse anything is misguided at best

Windknight:
And how does that justify a woman who's purpose in the game is to blow stuff up with her mind or hack things to death with a sword being posed to emphasize their beauty and nothing else? Does it justify a nun who's been defeated in battle being presented like she's a centerfold in a porn mag?

We've come a long way from 'traditional roles' for men and women, and pretending that 'traditonal roles' justify and excuse anything is misguided at best

It's incredibly annoying trying to argue with you when the foundation of your argument is thick bias and projection. Where is it implied that when a female strikes an exaggerated pose that she's only there as decoration and a prize for men to claim? I actually find it pretty disturbing that you're able to get this 'message' from a cursory semi-analysis of appearance.

Men are put on display as being powerful, aggressive, and dominant, and these are all positive things and therefore okay? Sure, why not. Women are made out to be sexy, beautiful, and seductive, and these are negative things to convey? You honestly see no flaws with this reasoning?

I came into these comments expecting a bunch of nonsense like, "my outrage has been justified because this game wasn't given a perfect score!" I'm glad most people realize something this silly was never meant to be taken serious.

Edit: I said this before I saw the picture of the Nun. SMH now.

Denamic:

Windknight:
And how does that justify a woman who's purpose in the game is to blow stuff up with her mind or hack things to death with a sword being posed to emphasize their beauty and nothing else? Does it justify a nun who's been defeated in battle being presented like she's a centerfold in a porn mag?

We've come a long way from 'traditional roles' for men and women, and pretending that 'traditonal roles' justify and excuse anything is misguided at best

It's incredibly annoying trying to argue with you when the foundation of your argument is thick bias and projection. Where is it implied that when a female strikes an exaggerated pose that she's only there as decoration and a prize for men to claim? I actually find it pretty disturbing that you're able to get this 'message' from a cursory semi-analysis of appearance.

Men are put on display as being powerful, aggressive, and dominant, and these are all positive things and therefore okay? Sure, why not. Women are made out to be sexy, beautiful, and seductive, and these are negative things to convey? You honestly see no flaws with this reasoning?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

I think this pretty much sums up the fallacy of your argument.

Men are idealised - they are given positive qualities that do not revolve around their appearances.

Women are objectified - all positive traits bar their appearance are ignored. The might be a brilliant scientist who creates technological marvels, a seasoned warrior of strength and talent, or a jounalist of insight and great wordplay, but this art shows them only as their boobs and ass, like everything else does not matter.

I grew up on this stuff. Beat'em Ups were my genre as a kid. Odin Sphere is also one of my favorite games. And I get that the art was intentionally exaggerating typical fantasy portrayals (buxom ladies and dwarfs being built like a boulder) to the point of absurdity. So hearing that the gameplay, the important thing here, is functional is great news.

Windknight:
The same exact point being made by everyone else with the same exact words.

Well aside from a few bumps in the road like this one, it's great that the video game industry is beginning to make the necessary changes and make women more relatable. Once they get you guys sorted out I look forward to men that look a little more realistic and relatable.

Windknight:

Denamic:

Windknight:
And how does that justify a woman who's purpose in the game is to blow stuff up with her mind or hack things to death with a sword being posed to emphasize their beauty and nothing else? Does it justify a nun who's been defeated in battle being presented like she's a centerfold in a porn mag?

We've come a long way from 'traditional roles' for men and women, and pretending that 'traditonal roles' justify and excuse anything is misguided at best

It's incredibly annoying trying to argue with you when the foundation of your argument is thick bias and projection. Where is it implied that when a female strikes an exaggerated pose that she's only there as decoration and a prize for men to claim? I actually find it pretty disturbing that you're able to get this 'message' from a cursory semi-analysis of appearance.

Men are put on display as being powerful, aggressive, and dominant, and these are all positive things and therefore okay? Sure, why not. Women are made out to be sexy, beautiful, and seductive, and these are negative things to convey? You honestly see no flaws with this reasoning?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

I think this pretty much sums up the fallacy of your argument.

Men are idealised - they are given positive qualities that do not revolve around their appearances.

Women are objectified - all positive traits bar their appearance are ignored. The might be a brilliant scientist who creates technological marvels, a seasoned warrior of strength and talent, or a jounalist of insight and great wordplay, but this art shows them only as their boobs and ass, like everything else does not matter.

You're not listening. I'm arguing against how you're making arguments. I've already mentioned multiple times earlier in the thread that I am aware the females are heavily and exaggeratedly sexualised in the game. My point is you're going into the argument with a foregone conclusion and ignoring every point made against you. Case in point: You're arguing that the female characters in this game are oversexualised. Yes, I agree. But, you're also arguing they're displayed as weak and only there for decoration and something for men to throw over their shoulder. That would be a fair point if they actually were, but none of this is conveyed through just screenshots and gameplay clips. In fact, the gameplay clips directly contradicts that, as the females are clearly on par with the males. A character is more than their appearance, and I think it's safe to say you haven't played the game and do not know anything, or very little, about the characters other than their appearance. It's annoying arguing against a foregone conclusion.

Denamic:

Windknight:

Denamic:

It's incredibly annoying trying to argue with you when the foundation of your argument is thick bias and projection. Where is it implied that when a female strikes an exaggerated pose that she's only there as decoration and a prize for men to claim? I actually find it pretty disturbing that you're able to get this 'message' from a cursory semi-analysis of appearance.

Men are put on display as being powerful, aggressive, and dominant, and these are all positive things and therefore okay? Sure, why not. Women are made out to be sexy, beautiful, and seductive, and these are negative things to convey? You honestly see no flaws with this reasoning?

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7290-Objectification-And-Men

I think this pretty much sums up the fallacy of your argument.

Men are idealised - they are given positive qualities that do not revolve around their appearances.

Women are objectified - all positive traits bar their appearance are ignored. The might be a brilliant scientist who creates technological marvels, a seasoned warrior of strength and talent, or a jounalist of insight and great wordplay, but this art shows them only as their boobs and ass, like everything else does not matter.

You're not listening. I'm arguing against how you're making arguments. I've already mentioned multiple times earlier in the thread that I am aware the females are heavily and exaggeratedly sexualised in the game. My point is you're going into the argument with a foregone conclusion and ignoring every point made against you. Case in point: You're arguing that the female characters in this game are oversexualised. Yes, I agree. But, you're also arguing they're displayed as weak and only there for decoration and something for men to throw over their shoulder. That would be a fair point if they actually were, but none of this is conveyed through just screenshots and gameplay clips. In fact, the gameplay clips directly contradicts that, as the females are clearly on par with the males. A character is more than their appearance, and I think it's safe to say you haven't played the game and do not know anything, or very little, about the characters other than their appearance. It's annoying arguing against a foregone conclusion.

Except this discussion was entirely about 'why do people get angry about art of half naked women, but not half naked men? Double Standards! Double Standards!'. That's the entire thing I have been talking about. And whilst the game itself does present the amazon and sorceress as pretty kick butt and awesome, look at how the promo art presents them, and compare it to how the warrior and the dwarf are presented in their art. The dwarf is arguably showing as much skin as the amazon but his posing is much more aggressive and powerful. The amazon is doing a glamour pose, and the sorceress is presenting the usual back-breaking boobs n butt pose that say nothing about their strengths and capabilities.

Now I LAUGH when people say they didn't buy a PS Vita, this shall be my... humm... Third Vita game... yeah not cool...

Anyway, I'm getting this for Vita asap :D Looks pretty entertaining, maybe over the top, but so was Hotline Miami (I KNOW, it's totally different, and, for my tastes, I sincerely don't expect anything to top Hotline Miami, I really didn't expect it to amaze me as much as it did :D) and most other games that are really catching my attention lately. hope I'm right :)

major_chaos:

erttheking:

I'm sorry, I prefer characters in video games to be well crafted with balanced personalities and interesting stories.

Its a retro style side scrolling beat-em-up, strong characterization was never going to be a selling point, and gender issues have nothing to do with it.

Actually I purchased Odin Sphere (which is also a retro style side scrolling beat-em-up, developed by Vanillaware),
for strong characterization. Particularly this guy.

image

He's a dragon, and if a developer could skip out on the characterization of anything and get away with it, it would be a dragon. More often they're just stock enemies with little role to play in the actual story. Wagner however, has reasons for attacking you, that stem farther than "It's just his nature".

Just because a game is of a particular genre doesn't mean it can't have a good story or strong characterization as a selling point. Actually the reviewer even noted lackluster story as a downside to this game, which implies a good story is becoming a requirement for most games.

Windknight:

Except this discussion was entirely about 'why do people get angry about art of half naked women, but not half naked men? Double Standards! Double Standards!'. That's the entire thing I have been talking about. And whilst the game itself does present the amazon and sorceress as pretty kick butt and awesome, look at how the promo art presents them, and compare it to how the warrior and the dwarf are presented in their art. The dwarf is arguably showing as much skin as the amazon but his posing is much more aggressive and powerful. The amazon is doing a glamour pose, and the sorceress is presenting the usual back-breaking boobs n butt pose that say nothing about their strengths and capabilities.

And so this is the point that (IMO) is most worth addressing. The discrepancy in assessment / logic in the judgement of whether an issue exists or not.

Whether someone thinks the depiction of exaggerated men or women is right or wrong will always be a subjective issue that is dependent on the individual, the current time, social environment, culture, etc. Its like asking whether someone thinks a certain kind of music is good or bad, the issue will come down to people's perspective and observation of what is at stake.

In this case, what I am hearing is people trying to dismiss that one exaggeration is okay while the other is not, one is positive and the other negative. All on the premise that one caters to one gender's sexual inclination (which is debatable as that's a bit of a generalization) while the other doesn't (again, generalization, but for the sake of simplicity). From a fundamental perspective, both are exaggerations and neither is immune to being attached to positive or negative traits. The fact that people see "honour" or "bravery" in one and not the other is truly a projection of one's own beliefs and not what is being presented considering that both those traits are abstract concepts of character / personality.

Here are some examples, a woman posing sexually can be a liberating idea for someone who's sexuality has been repressed. To them, that image can show someone confident, able to put themselves in a vulnerable position without feeling threatened, self-aware, courageous, etc. To another person, one who's sexuality has been exploited, it could mean someone who's been taken advantage of, submissive, stripped of their dignity, etc. Now that doesn't mean if you hold either of those views that you have been sexually repressed or exploited, that's just to illustrate how someone can arrive at either of those views and how they can be in strict opposition to each other despite the same content being in question. A more basic example could be a picture of a military officer, to some it would represent protection, bravery, strength, honour, etc. while to another it represents corruption, cowardice, abuse, oppression, etc. At the end of the day, all that was presented is the image of a military officer.

Now, this is what I think is worth emphasizing the most, attaching positive traits to an image is all fine and good. Attaching negative traits or inferring that positive traits cannot be attached to an image is where I feel a problem is created because it reinforces a double standard with very real negative consequences for both genders. Its in line with the same logic as the double-standard of a promiscuous male or female (ie. the male is commonly viewed as "ok" while the female is commonly viewed as "slutty" or wrong). It encourages the notion that a person who resembles that very same imagery is devoid of any positive traits (or embodies negative ones) and results in a lack of respect towards a demographic (or an entitlement towards another).

Not to harp on a genre that hasn't been relevant since the 90's (side-scrolling beat 'em ups, not fantasy), but I can get all the random flashes of light, bouncing numbers, and sex-appeal from Borderlands 2. It's not really something to brag about when you're making Mad Moxxi look subtle and nuanced.

cursedseishi:

edgecult:

Tanis:
Here's a question:
How's the lag?

Odin Sphere, at least the NTSC-U released, had some damn near CRIPPLING lag during some of the fights.

Curious about that myself. Hardest bit in the whole game for me was the back to back odette, queen of the dead boss fights... so much lag.. but even still game was bloody beautiful and loads of fun when you weren't choking out your ps2 processor to pump out all that pretty.

I'm not sure if the NTSC-U version would be different from the NA release, but that lag was normal in any fight with far too many enemies, and thus effects, going off at once.

Having played their other games, I've noticed less and less lag though. Muramasa on the Wii ran pretty well, and the vita version I'd say runs silky smooth. So with the upping of the power on the PS3/Vita, I'd think it's a safe bet that unless some giant extreme occurs it would run fine.

Ah, I don't remember it getting to bad on any other fight than Odette but that's because she just pumps out stupid amounts of extra guys to flood the screen that hobbled my game when I got to close to the mass. (I remember spending half the fight on the other side of the game map and firing off tornado's in her general direction trying to clear the screen enough to get a few good strafing runs on her to try and keep the lag issue down. Muramasa ran perfectly fine for me when I played it on Wii (no vita. Every game I want on it I've beaten on another system already. Can't keep rebuying every new version of Persona >.> it's getting silly now.)

"OH NO! BIG BREASTS! SO FUCKING SEXIST!"
"...And the Dwarf/Warrior aren't? Who the hell wants to look like a hulking monstrosity?"
"NOPE POWER FANTASY LOL"
"... Please stop posting. Please oh god stop posting."

This is the conversation I have had ongoing with this bullshit. The Sorceress isn't sexy, I have no want to "be" a hulking monstrosity, and this is all just a very stylized game with stylized characters, bordering on the absurd. Why people take offensive to it, I will never know.

I am going to be picking this game up because it looks fun to play, I have had an itch for a good ol'beatemup for a while now. Also, to spite the whiny children screaming SEXIST and to spite the terribleness that is Kotaku (whose journalists border on the level of TMZ journalists).

Capitano Segnaposto:
"OH NO! BIG BREASTS! SO FUCKING SEXIST!"

I'd say it's more along the lines of "Oh no! Big breasts, hypersexualized clothing for every female, the images of the Sorceress and Amazon are them grinding their ass on their staff and a gravure shot respectively, and the nun having that spread leg pose for no reason! So fucking sexist!"

"...And the Dwarf/Warrior aren't? Who the hell wants to look like a hulking monstrosity?"
"NOPE POWER FANTASY LOL"

Putting it in all caps and making it look as though it was typed by an idiot doesn't suddenly make it an invalid point. Being a hulking mass of muscles in heroic poses is a power fantasy. Breaking your spine to show off your ass-staff grinding skills and your massive, barely clothed chest is a sexual fantasy.

"... Please stop posting. Please oh god stop posting."

That would certainly make it easier to claim that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who types in all caps.

This is the conversation I have had ongoing with this bullshit. The Sorceress isn't sexy, I have no want to "be" a hulking monstrosity, and this is all just a very stylized game with stylized characters, bordering on the absurd. Why people take offensive to it, I will never know.

Turns out seeing a gender (possibly their own gender) being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses bothers some people. I'd be perfectly okay with and understand you saying that you don't personally take offense to the game or its art/style, but apparently you can't show the same courtesy to anyone who disagrees with you. There's nothing wrong with not being offended by something, but there's a lot of things wrong with you being completely incapable of understanding why it might be offensive to others.

I am going to be picking this game up because it looks fun to play, I have had an itch for a good ol'beatemup for a while now. Also, to spite the whiny children screaming SEXIST and to spite the terribleness that is Kotaku (whose journalists border on the level of TMZ journalists).

I always consult my "Who to spite" list whenever I make entertainment purchases too.

The strange thing about this debate is that even though the women are hyper sexualized. They are not victims, they are ass kicking super heroes. They may have alluring poses in concept art, but when you get into the game, they are tearing through hordes of enemies with ease. It also should be noted that you have options if you don't like the art. If you want a muscular naked male or female (Dwarf/Amazon), Clothed? (Wizard, Elf). So I don't see the complaint too much, the game gives the player the option to play a fairly correctly proportioned elf girl, and a fairly correctly proportioned Wizard guy and past that you never really have to look at any of the characters again.

Ive bought two copies of this game, one for PS3 and one for Vita, and I don't even own a vita because I want this game to sell literally millions of copies. I want people so mad at the success of this game they choke.

-Axle-:

Windknight:

Except this discussion was entirely about 'why do people get angry about art of half naked women, but not half naked men? Double Standards! Double Standards!'. That's the entire thing I have been talking about. And whilst the game itself does present the amazon and sorceress as pretty kick butt and awesome, look at how the promo art presents them, and compare it to how the warrior and the dwarf are presented in their art. The dwarf is arguably showing as much skin as the amazon but his posing is much more aggressive and powerful. The amazon is doing a glamour pose, and the sorceress is presenting the usual back-breaking boobs n butt pose that say nothing about their strengths and capabilities.

And so this is the point that (IMO) is most worth addressing. The discrepancy in assessment / logic in the judgement of whether an issue exists or not.

Whether someone thinks the depiction of exaggerated men or women is right or wrong will always be a subjective issue that is dependent on the individual, the current time, social environment, culture, etc. Its like asking whether someone thinks a certain kind of music is good or bad, the issue will come down to people's perspective and observation of what is at stake.

In this case, what I am hearing is people trying to dismiss that one exaggeration is okay while the other is not, one is positive and the other negative. All on the premise that one caters to one gender's sexual inclination (which is debatable as that's a bit of a generalization) while the other doesn't (again, generalization, but for the sake of simplicity). From a fundamental perspective, both are exaggerations and neither is immune to being attached to positive or negative traits. The fact that people see "honour" or "bravery" in one and not the other is truly a projection of one's own beliefs and not what is being presented considering that both those traits are abstract concepts of character / personality.

Here are some examples, a woman posing sexually can be a liberating idea for someone who's sexuality has been repressed. To them, that image can show someone confident, able to put themselves in a vulnerable position without feeling threatened, self-aware, courageous, etc. To another person, one who's sexuality has been exploited, it could mean someone who's been taken advantage of, submissive, stripped of their dignity, etc. Now that doesn't mean if you hold either of those views that you have been sexually repressed or exploited, that's just to illustrate how someone can arrive at either of those views and how they can be in strict opposition to each other despite the same content being in question. A more basic example could be a picture of a military officer, to some it would represent protection, bravery, strength, honour, etc. while to another it represents corruption, cowardice, abuse, oppression, etc. At the end of the day, all that was presented is the image of a military officer.

Now, this is what I think is worth emphasizing the most, attaching positive traits to an image is all fine and good. Attaching negative traits or inferring that positive traits cannot be attached to an image is where I feel a problem is created because it reinforces a double standard with very real negative consequences for both genders. Its in line with the same logic as the double-standard of a promiscuous male or female (ie. the male is commonly viewed as "ok" while the female is commonly viewed as "slutty" or wrong). It encourages the notion that a person who resembles that very same imagery is devoid of any positive traits (or embodies negative ones) and results in a lack of respect towards a demographic (or an entitlement towards another).

Again... A PERSON choses what they chose to wear, chooses how they act and has all the rights in the world to do whatever they please with their own body, behaviour and fashion choices.

A CHARACTER has all this chosen for them by an artists who's intentions are in question. And in the cases that cause people Ire the intention is to provide titillation using characters who are supposed to be strong women. And if this is porn or erotica, that's no problem - sexy outfits have their place. if its a fantasy knight who's supposed to be fighting monsters with sword and shield, and the portrayal is more interested in giving us boobs and ass, its weakening the character for the sake of titillation - this is objectification. this is why people don't like the chainmail bikini, and half naked women in these kind of situations. To bring up an example from comic books, a female character is welding, has an accident and is burned. If, as scripted, she had been wearing safety gear thats all it would have been. But he artist wanted breasts, so put her in a low cut top, which ultimately made the character look like a complete idiot when she had the accident and got burned.

Please stop trying to say that by being against objectified characters I'm trying to 'slut shame' women who chose their own wardrobes. Its not what I'm saying and you know it.

LifeCharacter:
Turns out seeing a gender (possibly their own gender) being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses bothers some people. I'd be perfectly okay with and understand you saying that you don't personally take offense to the game or its art/style, but apparently you can't show the same courtesy to anyone who disagrees with you. There's nothing wrong with not being offended by something, but there's a lot of things wrong with you being completely incapable of understanding why it might be offensive to others.

Don't kid yourself. Comparing a fantasy video game to the real world and generating a reaction based on that is an incredibly naive thing to get 'offended' over, let alone have it dictate what the overall thought of video game review should be. 'Castle Crasher's' had you carrying around fair maidens like they were no different to sheep, the outright personification of the so called 'objectification of women in games', yet no one bats an eye.

It is with these double standards and illogical perceptions that bring about the 'incapability of understanding' by people who deem thoughts like these to be worthless as it is clear (and has been for a long time now) that this isn't about what's right or fair. Only an outright perversion of a non-issue to have a place in media discourse.

RapeisGenocide:

LifeCharacter:
Turns out seeing a gender (possibly their own gender) being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses bothers some people. I'd be perfectly okay with and understand you saying that you don't personally take offense to the game or its art/style, but apparently you can't show the same courtesy to anyone who disagrees with you. There's nothing wrong with not being offended by something, but there's a lot of things wrong with you being completely incapable of understanding why it might be offensive to others.

Don't kid yourself. Comparing a fantasy video game to the real world and generating a reaction based on that is an incredibly naive thing to get 'offended' over, let alone have it dictate what the overall thought of video game review should be. 'Castle Crasher's' had you carrying around fair maidens like they were no different to sheep, the outright personification of the so called 'objectification of women in games', yet no one bats an eye.

It is with these double standards and illogical perceptions that bring about the 'incapability of understanding' by people who deem thoughts like these to be worthless as it is clear (and has been for a long time now) that this isn't about what's right or fair. Only an outright perversion of a non-issue to have a place in media discourse.

Wait, what? We're talking about the sexualization of women, not damsels in distress. Also who's offended? No one is offended, I'm not offended, she's not offended, we're criticizing the design of a character because it reflects a rather negative trend in the industry, and frankly because it just looks dumb.

LifeCharacter:
Snip.

That was a word for word conversation I had somebody with Twitter (yes, I know. Shame on me for using Twitter).

Also, why is it always a double standard? If you see a women with huge breasts and little clothing, it is sexist. As you put it, "being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses". Yet, the same exact description holds true to the male characters like the dwarf and warrior. Little clothing, huge muscles, giant pack, "heroic" poses. Yet, you deem it as a power fantasy. It isn't to me and MANY Men out there. Most men, as has been said in this very thread, don't consider this a power fantasy.

This is the issue I have with the whole deal. It is NEVER anything but a "Power Fantasy" as you put it, even though I find it disturbing just as much as a women does with the Sorceress. Which is utter and complete bullshit and you know it.

The only difference in this whole thing is that most men out there that I know don't take offense to it. Why should we? Sure a lot of us find it disgusting, but it is a fucking GAME. A game all about overly exaggerated features. This, besides the obvious double standard that you have so clearly shown, is what I don't get.

Not surprising the devs behind Odin Sphere released a solid game.

Also not at all a fan of the art style personally, but the uproar of defensive-minded political correctness it caused was absurd and completely unwarranted. On the positive side, this has probably just resulted in the game getting more attention, therefore more sales.

Might check out some footage in the future, and see if I'd like to pick up a copy myself.

Maybe one day certain individuals online will realize the strange fact that art styles/ character models in a fantasy setting are in no way bound to reflect reality.

Capitano Segnaposto:

LifeCharacter:
Snip.

That was a word for word conversation I had somebody with Twitter (yes, I know. Shame on me for using Twitter).

Also, why is it always a double standard? If you see a women with huge breasts and little clothing, it is sexist. As you put it, "being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses". Yet, the same exact description holds true to the male characters like the dwarf and warrior. Little clothing, huge muscles, giant pack, "heroic" poses. Yet, you deem it as a power fantasy. It isn't to me and MANY Men out there. Most men, as has been said in this very thread, don't consider this a power fantasy.

This is the issue I have with the whole deal. It is NEVER anything but a "Power Fantasy" as you put it, even though I find it disturbing just as much as a women does with the Sorceress. Which is utter and complete bullshit and you know it.

The only difference in this whole thing is that most men out there that I know don't take offense to it. Why should we? Sure a lot of us find it disgusting, but it is a fucking GAME. A game all about overly exaggerated features. This, besides the obvious double standard that you have so clearly shown, is what I don't get.

I'm not sure what that conversation has to do with the debate being had at the moment.

Also, here's the thing that makes things different. Intent and purpose of design, in other words, what the intent of the design and the purpose of it. The intent of the design of characters with sexualized bodies making poses is too look sexy and the purpose of that design is to appeal to the male audience. The intent of big muscular men who beat up hundreds of people at once is to be a power fantasy, and the purpose of design is also to appeal to a male audience. And that's where the problem comes in, male characters are designed to appeal to males, but female characters are also designed to appeal to males. You may not personally like them, and a lot of people may not, but the thing is that was the intent behind their design, to pander to the male audience.

That's why people get annoyed. They don't consider male power fantasies sexist because they were power fantasies designed specifically to pander to men, but they get annoyed at sexualized female characters because they are also designed to be pandered to men. It's a sign of a much bigger problem in the industry, that games are designed for men and no one else. Women want more female characters that aren't designed to be sex objects, I don't think they'd mind a female character designed to be a power fantasy, they want to be pandered to for once.

Zeckt:
I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon that the game's characters should not of detracted on the score of the game. It's like giving grand theft auto a bad score because it has prostitutes and drugs, I don't see the difference there.

Why not? We have seen countless examples of games being bumped up a notch because of their particular art style and characters design (for example Okami, Borderlands or Team Fortress 2). Its only fair that the opposite can also happen depending of the taste of the reviewer.

Masterdebator:
Maybe one day certain individuals online will realize the strange fact that art styles/ character models in a fantasy setting are in no way bound to reflect reality.

They don't reflect reality, but they do reflect intent. Most people jumping at the defense of the art style make it look like its characteristics are on the eye of the beholder, when in truth it was an intentional decision in the part of the developer.

erttheking:
[quote="Capitano Segnaposto" post="6.823754.19956570"]And that's where the problem comes in, male characters are designed to appeal to males, but female characters are also designed to appeal to males.

That's why people get annoyed. They don't consider male power fantasies sexist because they were power fantasies designed specifically to pander to men, but they get annoyed at sexualized female characters because they are also designed to be pandered to men. It's a sign of a much bigger problem in the industry, that games are designed for men and no one else. Women want more female characters that aren't designed to be sex objects, I don't think they'd mind a female character designed to be a power fantasy, they want to be pandered to for once.

Wow, this is hilarious. Your complaint is that a game designed by men for men appeals solely to men?

Here's an idea; if women want to be represented as 'they' wish in video games, why don't they design them their selves? Then we'll be able to argue why games designed by women for women that appeal only to women are so exclusive of men.

We'll just leave it as a stalemate.

Capitano Segnaposto:
That was a word for word conversation I had somebody with Twitter (yes, I know. Shame on me for using Twitter).

Then I'm actually not surprised that a conversation like that happened; it is Twitter after all.

Also, why is it always a double standard? If you see a women with huge breasts and little clothing, it is sexist. As you put it, "being reduced to a combination of breasts, ass, a lack of clothing, and stupid poses". Yet, the same exact description holds true to the male characters like the dwarf and warrior. Little clothing, huge muscles, giant pack, "heroic" poses. Yet, you deem it as a power fantasy. It isn't to me and MANY Men out there. Most men, as has been said in this very thread, don't consider this a power fantasy.

Well let's look at the male characters. Only the Dwarf, lacks clothing and, even then, his lack of clothing is used to show that he is a ball of muscles which logically translates to having great strength. The other two are dressed reasonably, in pants and robes or full plate armor with barely any skin other than their face showing. Their poses from that official artwork from a while back also translate to (from wizard to fighter to dwarf) casting a spell, combat readiness, and a victory pose.

Meanwhile two of the women have an apparent aversion to reasonable clothing, with a chainmail bikini or a top that stops the moment its job of censoring the nipples is accomplished. The Amazon having a lack of clothing I could accept if it wasn't in the form of the shittiest piece of fictional clothing ever, since she is overly muscular and all that. The Sorceress, OTOH, has no justification for her outfit other than blatant, lazy fanservice since all it does is draw attention to her huge chest and bare legs. The Elf is the only one who actually makes it out safely, but that likely has to do with the fact that she's the token younger looking one with braids and a zettai ryouiki. Then there's there poses of (from sorceress to elf to amazon) ass grinding, combat readiness, and a gravure shot.

If you really don't see the difference between the men having all of their aspects there to show how powerful they are (and reasonably dressed for their profession) and the women who have pretty much all of their aspects geared to making them look sexy to someone (despite them looking hideous due to the art style) then I guess that this is where the conversation ends. I would like to be able to sway you and everyone else to my view, but I can't get you to see a problem if you outright refuse to believe that a problem exists.

This is the issue I have with the whole deal. It is NEVER anything but a "Power Fantasy" as you put it, even though I find it disturbing just as much as a women does with the Sorceress. Which is utter and complete bullshit and you know it.

Huge muscles generally equate to power. Huge tits and a lack of clothing generally equate to sex appeal. While there may be a bit of a sexual fantasy for some people who are into hypermuscular men, there's no inherent power to being a hypersexualized woman.

The only difference in this whole thing is that most men out there that I know don't take offense to it. Why should we? Sure a lot of us find it disgusting, but it is a fucking GAME. A game all about overly exaggerated features. This, besides the obvious double standard that you have so clearly shown, is what I don't get.

First, and this is not directed solely at you, can we stop with the bullshit idea that you can't get offended about something because it's just a game? Is there some actual reason why a game can't be offensive, because I have yet to hear any reasonable argument to support such a claim.

Anyway, "overly exaggerated features" is right. The thing is, men get overly exaggerated features (except the wizard but, then again, the elf remained relatively unscathed too so it's even) that showcase strength and power, while women get overly exaggerated features that showcase that they have tits, asses, thighs, and malleable spines. If there was a female equivalent of the fighter where she was decked out in full plate armor (without the bullshit addition of tit-plating) and an obviously huge build, I'd be in full agreement with you. Same with a female Dwarf (pretty much a short Amazon), if it wasn't for the pose and a bikini, I'd agree with you. But, sadly, that's not the case.

RapeisGenocide:

erttheking:
[quote="Capitano Segnaposto" post="6.823754.19956570"]And that's where the problem comes in, male characters are designed to appeal to males, but female characters are also designed to appeal to males.

That's why people get annoyed. They don't consider male power fantasies sexist because they were power fantasies designed specifically to pander to men, but they get annoyed at sexualized female characters because they are also designed to be pandered to men. It's a sign of a much bigger problem in the industry, that games are designed for men and no one else. Women want more female characters that aren't designed to be sex objects, I don't think they'd mind a female character designed to be a power fantasy, they want to be pandered to for once.

Wow, this is hilarious. Your complaint is that a game designed by men for men appeals solely to men?

Here's an idea; if women want to be represented as 'they' wish in video games, why don't they design them their selves? Then we'll be able to argue why games designed by women for women that appeal only to women are so exclusive of men.

We'll just leave it as a stalemate.

The fact that video games should only be designed for men is an unhealthy mindset and the idea that people of one gender can't design games that the other gender can enjoy just doesn't make any sense. The head writer of Assassin's Creed 2 was a woman.

Also there's problems in the industry regarding female characters, the developers of remember me had to fight tooth and nail to make a game with a female lead.

erttheking:
The fact that video games should only be designed for men is an unhealthy mindset and the idea that people of one gender can't design games that the other gender can enjoy just doesn't make any sense.

Because I'm sure you're just dying to play a game squarely about romance that also comes with jewelry; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4cFZCsBPA

I hate to break it to you, but men and women are completely different beings who crave completely different things. This is how it's always been, this is how it will always be.

RapeisGenocide:

erttheking:
The fact that video games should only be designed for men is an unhealthy mindset and the idea that people of one gender can't design games that the other gender can enjoy just doesn't make any sense.

Because I'm sure you're just dying to play a game squarely about romance that also comes with jewelry; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mw4cFZCsBPA

I hate to break it to you, but men and women are completely different beings who crave completely different things. This is how it's always been, this is how it will always be.

I...what? What is that even supposed to mean?

Not exactly, I've got more than a few female gamer friends and just about all of them are fans of the Persona series, which doesn't have any sexualized characters and simply has a very good story with very likable characters. I also love the Hell out of Persona, as do plenty of my male friends. My female friend is also introducing me to the Suikoden series, an awesome game series about massive political intrigue and gray and grey morality.

We're not as different as you think.

RapeisGenocide:

I hate to break it to you, but men and women are completely different beings who crave completely different things. This is how it's always been, this is how it will always be.

Is there no middle ground? Surely a game can have aspects that appeal to both men and women. Also I would appreciate a source from the developers that state Dragon's Crown is made by men for only men and no one else... Actually in these days of game developers trying to "appeal to a broader audience" to make a game for only men seems like the opposite line of thought.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here