Dragon's Crown Review: Buxom Babes and Battleaxes

[gamernerdtg2]

The overwhelming majority have been talking about the graphics, I guess I can't come here to learn anything about the game itself. Oh well.
This kind of game needs to exist today for the type of gameplay it presents, and it needs to be developed for the next generation of consoles. Otherwize it's more of the same - FPS and RPGs with very lackluster combat.
Everyone else has commented on the gender issues, so I'll leave that alone. Dead or Alive 5 is coming out, so I expect more of the same there...except that game really IS about T&A.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Pro/Con breakdown is a great addition to the review.

This game looks stunning, I'll definitely be picking it up.

Welcome to the club.

If you liked the old fantasy beat'em slash'em burn'em ups from Capcom and the whole palette of same game, different name, different graphics and stuff, it's pretty awesome. Same basic gameplay as, say, Final Fight (Shadows over Mystara, Tower of Doom, Knights of the Round, Golden Axe, etc. etc. etc), but I find it absolutely enjoyable.

It needs to be revisited and developed further. You say they're all the same game with different characters.....much can be said about the current generation of games (rpgs esp) where the characters are different but the mechanics are the same. Many of the latest actio RPGs are borrowing from that list you made and I'm really enjoying that trend, however long it lasts.
Glad for Dragon's Crown, Dragon's Dogma and Amalur. Here's to hope.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

snip

I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a little problem. Assuming you had a team of all female game developers and ignoring the fact that funding and making games is really hard for anyone, and the result was a game made by women for only women, you know what that would be? Sexist and exclusionary.

I personally believe the key is not to have a "boys only" "girls only" club where games are split between genders,
but to have a team of as equal as possible numbers, working together. It's okay to have a game with aspects that appeal to men (want a character that's bluntly fan service, have at it!), however if you're going to have such a character to pander to the male audience, you should also maybe include a character to pander to the female audience as well.
Equal opportunity pandering is not as hard as people seem to make it out to be.

The Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games, and while the guys (or anyone interested) could have as much fun as they want with all the optional sex scenes, I got to stare at Iorveth. The character profile for him says the scars on his face took away his elven beauty ...it really didn't. The Witcher 2 also includes Saskia, who is a good female character IMO.

 

[-Axle-]

What's "sensible" is a product of a lot of outside influences and it evolves over time and with society. What responsibility does a video game, specifically one set in a fictional fantasy setting, have towards displaying any subject matter tastefully? Should an artist always try to appeal to the sensibilities of every demographic out there? A minimum number of two demographics (male and female)?

Flipping the tables again, if someone designed the same game but with the intention to appeal primarily to a female demographic with male characters that are not seen as "tastefull" or "sensible", is that something that is wrong / negative / should not exist / etc.? And if so, why?

I have to keep coming back to the question of why and I hope you understand why that is (no pun intended).

Except we're not talking about one videogame here really.

Because we seem to be talking about two different things, I'll just reiterate that my argument this entire time has been directed towards the tendency of attaching negative traits to the portrayal of a hyper-sexualized female character and saying that they're "stupid", "weak", "less than x", etc. or that they do not embody the traits of "strength", "power", "dominance", etc. because of the manner they are depicted / posed / etc.

If it was just one videogame, no-one would really take offence or notice, apart from liking or disliking the art on its own merits according to their own personal tastes.

I have to disagree. Quantity does not justify correctness.

So if there was a racist game here or there, no-one would really take offence or notice, apart from liking or disliking the art on its own merits according to their own personal tastes? Sounds unreasonable right?

The fact that there is an over saturation of this kind of depiction can be a lot of things; tiring, unoriginal, overdone, etc., it does not, however, define what traits that character depiction carries though, especially when it comes to value.

This is about how videogames in general, comics in general and other media in general treat women.

I'm not trying to be critical, but I do have to address your positioning on that statement because it implies that women (not a person, a demographic) have a relationship with video games (an industry), which is personifying two very non-human things. What I think you're driving at is that you feel the manner in how women have been depicted by these industries has somehow been detrimental to the demographic of women.

Now while this would be a giant discussion on its own, I will ask the question again, does any individual artist have a responsibility to depict any or all demographics in a manner they find tasteful?

Dragons Crown is not being singled out, its being caught up alongside all the other games and comics treating women as tits and ass objects and not as characters and people.

Why is a woman portrayed seductively on display become an object to you?

I'm not accusing you of doing this intentionally or trying to label you as a bad person, so please don't misunderstand what I'm trying to say as an attack but this is precisely what I'm arguing. This tendency to devalue the image of a woman that is hyper-sexualized on the basis that it has no worth because it doesn't embody the definition of what's "tasteful" to you (or whoever). This is a very damaging outlook for both genders because it indirectly attaches negative connotations to sexual presentation.

Is it wrong to prefer different imagery that better meets your definition of "sexy" or "tasteful"? Absolutely not. But it doesn't make what doesn't meet your definition of sexy or tasteful worth less or stripped of any positive attributes.

None of my arguments have been about one game specifically or one comic specifically except as examples of a trend as a whole, and that trend is women being portrayed as sexy first, and any other merits they have being ignored because they don't promote that sexiness.

Ok, got it.

What I have to challenge then is your notion that their other merits are ignored. This is something done by the individual, not what is being presented. You are subconsciously performing a "valuation" of a character by looking for certain things to be displayed and when they are not, or better said, when other aspects are emphasized instead (such as exaggerated sexual overtones), it results in your judgement. When the judgement crosses into the territory of false association, that's what I'm concerned about.

And to reiterate - a lot of women do not want to be defined by their appearance, good or bad, and if their gamers, find it uncomfortable to find the vast of majority of characters of their genders are pretty much created to show off as much skin as possible - to appeal to a teenage male, without any thought to appeal to a teenage girl or a woman.

So again, where does this factor into the negative associations made towards the portrayal of a hyper-sexualized female character?

The manner of how women are depicted and would like to be depicted is an entirely different issue but I'll address it since its clearly something you feel strongly about (hopefully you can show me the same courtecy by addressing the questions I've posed to you).

I've asked you this question before in this discussion and in order to make progress I have to pose it again. What responsibility does an entertainment piece have towards appealing to multiple demographics? Do you think a movie like Magic Mike had the intention to appeal to men AND women, or mostly women? Was it wrong for it to do so? What if it depicted men in a manner that didn't meet your definition of "tasteful", would it be wrong then? Why?

I ask this question because I think it will answer whether you are consistent in your approach towards the subject at a high level.

And again, if this was just one game, people would not be bothered. But it is NOT just one game. its the vast majority of them.

I've addressed this earlier but will mention it again. Whether something is acceptable or not should not be based on quantity, but on its own aspects.

I get that you're trying to encourage "a better way forward" and I don't disagree that injecting variety into the medium would do just that. I also don't think its a bad thing to encourage the creation of more female characters without an emphasis on their sexuality. I DO think its a bad thing to badger the creation of hyper-sexualized female characters as it attaches negative attitudes towards those depictions.

 

[-Axle-]

If you were talking about a serious setting, then you'd have an easier time making that argument but then it completely falls out of line with the current subject considering the entire universe is based on exaggeration and exhibitionism.

Again the Writer had decided she knew enough about what she was doing to wear the proper gear. Doesn't that seem to suggest that the artists decision to overide that because he wanted fanservice was at bets misguided?

I'm a little lost, so you're implying that one person wrote the scene and another changed it? Is that what happened in Dragon's Crown? or only in the example you are giving?

I'm talking about the comic book example - the welding. And yes, the writer and the artist were different people, and the writer had scripted the scene as the character being in the correct gear, and the artists changed it simply because he wanted some breasts to draw. This is the point I'm making, that as the scene was written a sensible person had an accident and was hurt. Because someone wanted boobs, the scene got turned into an immature person who deosn't know what she's doing getting hurt because of her foolishness. The 'need' for boobs sabotaged the character.

Ok, so yes, in that SPECIFIC setup, you're absolutely right but I hope you see how you've polarized the entire question by splitting the creation of the character in two and having two cooks in the kitchen. Its more about someone "changing" something rather than what it was like to begin with. This happens all the time and without sexuality even being at stake. How many people didn't like the new DMC Dante or SW: Episodes I / II / III? Same idea.

In order to address your question, the writer and artist would have to be the same person. Likewise, coming back to Dragon's Crown, was there someone who created the Amazon character before the artist drew her? Did they stray from that design and create something that betrayed the original concept? To my knowledge, the answer to those questions is no.

Further into your question, the character's intelligence, strength, talent, etc. all need to be taken into the context of their universe. I'll ask the question of Tony Stark again, if they depicted him in a movie with a sexual appeal to women while welding in his mansion (and subsequently getting injured), would that rob his character of his intelligence, strength, worth, etc.

 

[WindKnight]

Snip

(shrugs)

I've explained to you why objectifying women is bad multiple times, and provided a number of links with explanations and clarifications. If your going to pretend I haven't, then I really don't see the need to engage with you any further.

 

[Dragonbums]

Because I'm an anatomy freak I can't love the art style as much as I want to.
I mean...fuck just everything in those colors! I want to rub my face in it!

Otherwise it looks like an average game with beautiful visuals. Something to pass the time away.
Of course due to the nature of some of the...women I am a bit afraid to play the game out in public lest a DDD breast lady pops up on screen at the same time someone is looking at my tablet.

 

[Anchupom]

It looks like I'm slowing becoming a big fan of Atlus games - they seem to be developing genres pretty close to my preference of genres.
Anyway, I've been quietly keeping interested of Dragons Crown since I heard about it (via the controversy) and I'm glad it's gained an at least "passable" review, with one of the main cons being the character design.
It's not something I'm an advocate for, but I will definitely be able to look past the ridiculous (and I think satirical) breasts on the sorceress and hopefully will be able to enjoy the game when I pick it up.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

If you liked the old fantasy beat'em slash'em burn'em ups from Capcom and the whole palette of same game, different name, different graphics and stuff, it's pretty awesome. Same basic gameplay as, say, Final Fight (Shadows over Mystara, Tower of Doom, Knights of the Round, Golden Axe, etc. etc. etc), but I find it absolutely enjoyable.

It needs to be revisited and developed further. You say they're all the same game with different characters.....much can be said about the current generation of games (rpgs esp) where the characters are different but the mechanics are the same. Many of the latest actio RPGs are borrowing from that list you made and I'm really enjoying that trend, however long it lasts.
Glad for Dragon's Crown, Dragon's Dogma and Amalur. Here's to hope.

Aye, I agree. Brought back with a bang, I want/need/crave more of it. Because it's fun.

Indeed, I did say those games (plus Captain Commando, Cadillacs and Dinosaurs, Warriors of Fate, the Punisher, Alien vs. Predator, Irem's Undercover Cops and all I might have forgotten) were practically the same offering in various flavours. We got futuristic and fantastic stuff, all while eliminating foes of various sizes and picking up food items from the floor to replenish health. They were all mostly quite simple games - easy to pick up, but some were quite hard to master - and finish.

Most FPS shooters these days cost multitudes to produce, they only last 5-6 hours on average and the tacked-on multiplayer is, more often than not, not worth the hassle. I find the majority of them to be a waste of time, money, resources, talent and shelf space. Some of them even do their best to exhume, humiliate and utterly destroy beloved old franchises. That does not amuse me much.

I'm not so certain about modern RPGs borrowing much from the games of old, but any proper fantasy game that - to whatever extent - relies on established fantasy lore and expectations is bound to feature bits and pieces and patches and whole chunks of stuff we've already seen and hopefully haven't grown tired of yet.

I really like Dragon's Crown, and while I find it somewhat difficult to compare it to Dragon's Dogma and the ill-fated Amalur, I like those games as well. Funny enough though, that I found myself preferring Amalur over Dragon's Dogma, as I found combat and enemy variety and design to be quite bombastic, even though the game had obvious issues. Dragon's Dogma felt like a true hybrid hermaphroditic halfbreed and I didn't like it's take on the class system too much. The pawn system felt like something half-arsed Ubisoft would come up with. The incessant banter of the NPCs got from boring to annoying to intolerable at the speed of light... and, yet, I liked it because it did a lot of things right. Not quite the same things Amalur 0.8 beta alpha rushed final release, but they all saw me entertained for hours. Not too shabby, that.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

It's always good to exaggerate your character designs to a degree, but for Christ's sake keep it balanced. Most of the characters in this game look like they're suffering from elephantiasis. This amount of body horror would make David Cronenberg blush.

If the "keep it balanced" rule were to be applied to the arts, many acclaimed works would be eliminated. Historically, imbalance is the means by which most unveiling has occurred. Balance as an ideal belongs in politics, physics and marriage.

 

[Casual Shinji]

It's always good to exaggerate your character designs to a degree, but for Christ's sake keep it balanced. Most of the characters in this game look like they're suffering from elephantiasis. This amount of body horror would make David Cronenberg blush.

If the "keep it balanced" rule were to be applied to the arts, many acclaimed works would be eliminated. Historically, imbalance is the means by which most unveiling has occurred. Balance as an ideal belongs in politics, physics and marriage.

This instant however it's applied to playable characters.

I love Dali, but I wouldn't want one of his creations to be a main character in a game.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

snip

I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a little problem. Assuming you had a team of all female game developers and ignoring the fact that funding and making games is really hard for anyone, and the result was a game made by women for only women, you know what that would be? Sexist and exclusionary.

I personally believe the key is not to have a "boys only" "girls only" club where games are split between genders,
but to have a team of as equal as possible numbers, working together. It's okay to have a game with aspects that appeal to men (want a character that's bluntly fan service, have at it!), however if you're going to have such a character to pander to the male audience, you should also maybe include a character to pander to the female audience as well.
Equal opportunity pandering is not as hard as people seem to make it out to be.

The Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games, and while the guys (or anyone interested) could have as much fun as they want with all the optional sex scenes, I got to stare at Iorveth. The character profile for him says the scars on his face took away his elven beauty ...it really didn't. The Witcher 2 also includes Saskia, who is a good female character IMO.

Why would the game that women want to play necessarily be something for "girls only"? I truly don't understand it. Tons of girls apparently enjoy games made for guys, I'm sure there'd be lots of guys who'd enjoy the game made for girls in the same fashion.


When there's conflict of vision, it's better to not muddle things by going easy on your vision enough so that half of the other person's vision can also be included. That's called game desing by comitee and it's not a good way to make games.

I'm not advocating gender segregation here of course but it is good to just have a single person's crystal clear vision that is only strengthened by the others' visions as your end goal rather than a muddled mess of multiple conflicting visions. To put it more clearly, a game like Bayonetta has a clear vision, a game like that knows what it is and it's unique and stands out cause it adheres to its singular notion and goes full force. We want more games like it, games unapologetically sticking to their guns. I believe Dragon's Crown does this thing too and it should be celebrated.

 

[Pariah164]

Here goes my two cents:

I am a woman. I am purchasing this title day one. The art is a stylistic choice, whether you accept that or not. You wanna be offended? Fine. Be offended. I'd rather be a sorceress shooting down monsters and making hordes of skeletons than playing Lara Croft almost getting raped by some douchecanoe. I like what I've seen of the gameplay; I could care less about the story or the characters 'questionable looks' if the gameplay is as awesome as it appears. I think The Last of Us gave gamers their fill of intense story.

It's a beat em up. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. Get over it.

And just as a reminder, this is my opinion. The great thing about opinions is that NOBODY is 100% correct.

 

[xdiesp]

Quick, somebody put up a delusional argument about women rights to cover up the fact we are prudish puritans who would sooner talk about porn than making love 'cause it's a dirty thing.

 

[rbstewart7263]

Here goes my two cents:

I am a woman. I am purchasing this title day one. The art is a stylistic choice, whether you accept that or not. You wanna be offended? Fine. Be offended. I'd rather be a sorceress shooting down monsters and making hordes of skeletons than playing Lara Croft almost getting raped by some douchecanoe. I like what I've seen of the gameplay; I could care less about the story or the characters 'questionable looks' if the gameplay is as awesome as it appears. I think The Last of Us gave gamers their fill of intense story.

It's a beat em up. It's a game. It's supposed to be fun. Get over it.

And just as a reminder, this is my opinion. The great thing about opinions is that NOBODY is 100% correct.

Sad thing is is that when people make the arguement that women can like this kind of stuff or people say" I got a lady friend and she loves this game." they usually just pretend that such a thing is a lie, that no self respecting woman can like titilation in there games! This is just a man lying to gain favor in the debate. Oddly enough your screen name is rather appropriate here.

And yeah I got two lady friends who dont feel the weight of oppression when they play titilating games AND enjoy them. Also got one that thinks that her whole gender is being persecuted against whenever things like this happen.

 

[Kc Abshere]

The following is a peaty nerd complaint about he game. Dwarf, Elf and Amazon are not classes. Elf and Dwarf are races and Amazon is more of a society. They could have called the Dwarf barbarian. The Elf ranger.... Wow, I play way to much D&D. >_>

 

[Grahav]

The following is a peaty nerd complaint about he game. Dwarf, Elf and Amazon are not classes. Elf and Dwarf are races and Amazon is more of a society. They could have called the Dwarf barbarian. The Elf ranger.... Wow, I play way to much D&D. >_>

Haha! I thought the same thing!

To be fair, in a lot of spin-offs of D&D (electronic or not) those two were considered classes. This game is based on that.

But it would be cool to play a dwarf mage, an elf paladin, an orc cleric, a gnome warrior, a goblin barbarian, a mind-flayer ranger...

Because I'm an anatomy freak I can't love the art style as much as I want to.
I mean...fuck just everything in those colors! I want to rub my face in it!

Otherwise it looks like an average game with beautiful visuals. Something to pass the time away.
Of course due to the nature of some of the...women I am a bit afraid to play the game out in public lest a DDD breast lady pops up on screen at the same time someone is looking at my tablet.

I am passing through that the same problem. Let's beat the shame!

snip

I understand what you're trying to say, but there is a little problem. Assuming you had a team of all female game developers and ignoring the fact that funding and making games is really hard for anyone, and the result was a game made by women for only women, you know what that would be? Sexist and exclusionary.

I personally believe the key is not to have a "boys only" "girls only" club where games are split between genders,
but to have a team of as equal as possible numbers, working together. It's okay to have a game with aspects that appeal to men (want a character that's bluntly fan service, have at it!), however if you're going to have such a character to pander to the male audience, you should also maybe include a character to pander to the female audience as well.
Equal opportunity pandering is not as hard as people seem to make it out to be.

The Witcher 2 is one of my favorite games, and while the guys (or anyone interested) could have as much fun as they want with all the optional sex scenes, I got to stare at Iorveth. The character profile for him says the scars on his face took away his elven beauty ...it really didn't. The Witcher 2 also includes Saskia, who is a good female character IMO.

Why would the game that women want to play necessarily be something for "girls only"? I truly don't understand it. Tons of girls apparently enjoy games made for guys, I'm sure there'd be lots of guys who'd enjoy the game made for girls in the same fashion.


When there's conflict of vision, it's better to not muddle things by going easy on your vision enough so that half of the other person's vision can also be included. That's called game desing by comitee and it's not a good way to make games.

I'm not advocating gender segregation here of course but it is good to just have a single person's crystal clear vision that is only strengthened by the others' visions as your end goal rather than a muddled mess of multiple conflicting visions. To put it more clearly, a game like Bayonetta has a clear vision, a game like that knows what it is and it's unique and stands out cause it adheres to its singular notion and goes full force. We want more games like it, games unapologetically sticking to their guns. I believe Dragon's Crown does this thing too and it should be celebrated.

Amen to that.

That said we need more females in the industry to add different views and ideas to fresh it out and diversify the games. We miss points when a specific area is dominated by only one gender (be it games, literature, science...). Women and men have differences. And this is a GOOD thing because it adds variety and "different" doesn't mean "worse".


I am fine with media/art created for a specific audience. Be it to a gender, to a culture, to everyone. It is all fine. And it is very cool that there is people that can cross the bridged of labels (like the girls here who are willing to play the game or the guys who read Kimi ni Todoke.

What I think is the main problem is the line where criticism becomes censorship. Compare:

"I think the exageration in the art style is a bit silly. Also, there are already a lot of games that goes for the male desire. The market for that is already saturated. Can't they explore alternatives?"

"It is obviously fantastic bodies. But I wonder if people are sane enough to know that. Else they are going for a lot of plastic surgeries and steroids. I also hope that who has read "50 Shades" are not thinking that the only acceptable men are billionaires and that women have the absolute power of redeeming guys."

What I don't like:

"The art is sexist. The kind of thing that only teenage boys would like."

This is not only calling male sexuality bad and filthy, but also that being a teenage boy is prove that you are dumb.

When somebody says that, quote this guy from another site:

"As usual, feminism not using logic or facts to back her arguments. They labeled it as an "Adolescent Fantasy".

So I did my own scientific research on this subject: I'm 28 years old, I masturbated to the sorceress massive breasts, and the results were favourable. Age was not an impediment."

 

[-Axle-]

Snip

(shrugs)

I've explained to you why objectifying women is bad multiple times, and provided a number of links with explanations and clarifications. If your going to pretend I haven't, then I really don't see the need to engage with you any further.

Have you engaged with me at all?

Looking back at our posts, I've answered every single one of your questions and even elaborated on my rationale. I haven't seen you do the same for the statements I've put forward, so I'm not sure why you're disappointed.

If you want to maintain that you disagree regardless of what has been discussed, that's fine. But I would expect you to at least have the capacity to acknowledge the fact that your argument wasn't about whether objectifying women is good or bad (everyone knows its bad), it was whether this classifies as objectification and why, which again, you haven't explained much further than what boils down to "this appeals more to men than women".

Lastly, I'll say it again, my argument was a concern with attaching negative connotations to depictions of hyper-sexualized women.

 

[-Axle-]

What I don't like:

"The art is sexist. The kind of thing that only teenage boys would like."

This is not only calling male sexuality bad and filthy, but also that being a teenage boy is prove that you are dumb.

This is essentially a tangent I was trying to address in my earlier posts.

I feel like people are trying to encourage diversity by badgering things that either challenge their sensibilities or has been overdone before instead of simply encouraging what they want. It would be in line with "we already have thousands of smartphones in black, so any smartphone in black is crap and/or a bad thing" instead of "the new black smartphone doesn't do much new except bring back an old infrastructure that hasn't been used in years".

When somebody says that, quote this guy from another site:

"As usual, feminism not using logic or facts to back her arguments. They labeled it as an "Adolescent Fantasy".

I would say its an assumption to say that anyone who makes that statement is a feminist though. One because they likely haven't mentioned whether they identify as one or not, and secondly for the same reason that you wouldn't want to make the assumption that a Christian / Muslim / Jew / etc. makes a statement that may resemble only a portion of that demographic.