arent you stretching that logic just a bit? the amazon looks alot like the dwarf and is not sexy conventionally.EstrogenicMuscle said:
Dragon's Crown Designer Apologizes for Exaggerated Characters
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
He doesn't need to apologize. It's his style.
I'm not fond of it, but I respect his right to create it.
I'm not fond of it, but I respect his right to create it.
I second this.Atmos Duality said:
It's his art, he can draw whatever he wants.
Whether you like it or not, that's your problem.
PS: Anyone find it a tad ironic (or perhaps hypocritical would be a better word ) that if a female game character has big boobs it's stereotyping, insulting, so on and so forth. However it's perfectly fine if a male game character has stupidly huge muscles - and no one defends more realistically proportion males designs when they are deemed "gay" by those insecure about their masculinity.
It is ironic and very hypocritical. The argument used to justify the stance is due to the 'frequency' of females being depicted with unpractical revealing attire... which I find holds as much water as a sieve.deadish said:
The only thing he had to apologize for was his initial rebuttal accusing his detractor of being homosexual, alluding that homosexuality is a negative thing. That being said I can understand his frustration when someone attacks you for a disproportionate art-style that draws ALL genders as disproportionate as somehow being sexist. Do all men look like the fighter and the dwarf? No. Then why do you think the artist believes that all women look like the sorceress and the amazon?
I wish more people thought like you. This whole issue bothers me as a artist cause it implies that artists shouldn't be allowed to create things and shouldn't have the freedom to do things as they please. I get if you don't care for the style but don't sit there and act like they are bad or hurting people for doing it.Atmos Duality said:
You are right I mean we shouldn't allow people to show unhealthy images because they force people to be like that. We should get rid of all shooting games fighting games and anything that isn't hyper realism because it sets a false standard people feel forced to live by. If people play spiderman games it is really awful because it sets a unhealthy idea of human capabilities and it might force people to try and jump off building to their deaths. We can't allow artists to show this sorta nonsense ever again!EstrogenicMuscle said:
Well, since "frequency" the primary complaint, there are two ways to address the problem.aba1 said:
(Where Frequency is defined as a proportion of [Desired : Undesired])
1) Increase amount of non-exploitative female characters in design. (any design; primarily visually, since video gaming is primarily visual, but in behavior as well)
Problems: The largest producers in the market are obsessed with marketability, which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their metrics and focus testing says gaming is a sausage-fest, so they will design for a sausage fest.
We need talent who can work outside of those constraints and take risks.
Increasing exploitative male character designs probably won't work so well given the current market conditions; it's be an interesting gambit given the current socio-political climate in the West.
2) Decrease amount of exploitative female design.
Problems: This route leads into Political Correctness: "You can't [say/draw/do] that! It might offend someone!"
We really don't need gaming diving any deeper into Hayes-Code territory.
*) Moving away from exploitation in general would reduce that "fear" of creating non-exploitative characters (especially female), and increase incentive to broaden the subject matter. But pitching this to a profit-driven entertainment industry is difficult at best (nearly impossible in all other media; mainstream music and film thrives on exploitation).
The fact that it was a joke was homophobic. "You don't like big tits? You must be gay! Here, have some burly, older, bearded, naked men! HAR HAR HAR! IT'S HILARIOUS! HAR HAR HAR HAR!"JazzJack2 said:
I fail to see what's so funny about a bunch of men being found sexually attractive by other men. I, for one, cannot think of a non-homophobic source of humour for that joke.
Well, I'm gay(ish) too and I did find it inherently offensive. Intention matters a great deal. The dude's intention wasn't to gently poke fun at the gay community in a lighthearted, amicable way. His intent was to use the trite-old "What are you, GAY?" as a rhetoric to silence criticism and mock his critics into silence.JazzJack2 said:
I can see where he's going with saying that it harkens back to the old D&D days; the Amazon looks like something that was spray painted on the side of an old 80's panel van. The Sorceress though looks like a teen, boy masturbatory fantasy. If the artist wanted to go for exaggerated proportions then fine, but having her tits virtually spilling out just pushes it to the realm of tacky. It's a pity because the actual game looks like an artistic, modern reboot of the old Capcom D&D side scrollers which I loved.
The homophobia comes from the fact that "what are you, gay?" is somehow an appropriate way of saying "fuck off". If he didn't consider gayness to be an inherently bad, shameful or hilarious thing, that reply would have made no sense. The only way the joke works is if there's something wrong with a dude liking dudes.JazzJack2 said:
I dunno man I saw it as more of a "If you aren't into women then men are most likely your game so here look at men instead" which isn't really offensive I mean there are only 2 genders so odds are if you aren't into women you are likely into men, the only other option is that you are a-sexual.Darken12 said:
There's no controversy here. There's no deflection. For chrissake don't link Kotaku and actually do some journalistic work. Schreier is nothing but a sham for a journalist who's hungry for page views more than actually doing his job, so he'll say just about anything to anyone if it means he can justify his joke of a job. The sooner you ignore Kotaku as a whole, the sooner you can at least pretend you have some level of journalistic integrity. God forbid you commit to actually having to do some research- that thing you had to do to get that degree you hopefully have- and trying to push the conversation beyond some banal conversation of whether or not it's "sexist."Andy Chalk said:
Dragon's Crown implicitly isn't and to try and draw a line in the sand here and now is beyond hipocritical. Has anyone even played Vanillaware games? Probably not, but nothing about the females in Dragons Crown is exactly new. Large breasts are hardly an indication of sexism, let alone the variable amounts of clothes the characters wear. The game is stylized and actually puts a fair bit more work into the design and references than most people will ever realize. That picture of the sorceress holding a skeleton to her breasts is probably never going to be anything but that one image that is fairly creepy to the common viewer.
The three sweaty dwarves are only ever going to be the homosexual joke despite it being a jab at Japanese producers who ever only wanted the female characters wearing as little as possible. It pre-dated Schreier's whine. When actually confronted with actual facts, perish the thought, Schreier back pedals and tries to pass off the male characters as power fantasies. As though men and boys fantasize about looking like an absurd body builder who frankly isn't even that attractive to look at. It's a fat, old dwarf. None of the characters in the game would work in real life. Back problems, leg problems, you name it, they'd have it. Exaggeration is the point here.
This is just one man playing out the all-to-common victim narrative that he uses to justify something he doesn't like seeing. The sooner people start realizing that fictional portrayals of fictional characters has absolutely zero impact on you as a person and any negative body image it gives you is your own problem, the sooner we can actually talk about something that matters. Don't get swept up in it.
Nobody is that naive. Nobody goes "oh, you are criticising a drawing I made? That's okay, have another. Is this better?" and means that sincerely.aba1 said:
It was a mean-spirited joke meant to shame the critic into apologising or going quiet (or for the artist to garner a backlash against the critic among his fanbase). The implied gayness was used as a petty, immature attack. It perfectly reflects the schoolyard boy's club state of most of the gaming industry, where the assumption is that everyone is straight, male and insecure, so people like the artist need only imply gayness to get dissenters back in line.
It's also ridiculous, since you can be a perfectly straight man who is passionately into women and still criticise the depiction of the sorceress and the amazon in the game. Being gay has literally nothing to do with the legit criticism levied at the game, and to consider "GAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!" as an appropriate retort to a thought-out critique is both juvenile and homophobic.
Ugh, how disgusting...this artist doesn't know proper proportions and his stylistic choice was obviously made because he has the mind of a pre-pubescent boy:
Here's another disgusting slob cranking out his fapping material:
Can you believe they used to make figurines of this filth:
Did this guy ever take an art class, THAT'S NOT HOW ANATOMY WORKS JACKHOLE:
Here's another disgusting slob cranking out his fapping material:
Can you believe they used to make figurines of this filth:
Did this guy ever take an art class, THAT'S NOT HOW ANATOMY WORKS JACKHOLE:
By the gods, what terrible terrible art xD I've seen the Sorcerer before and I could barely contain my laughter, but the rest is possibly even worse! People with logs for extremities and very tiny heads.. I mean, just look at the first one alone, the axe wielding amazon lady. WHO THE FUCK LOOKS LIKE THAT.