Dragon's Crown Review: Buxom Babes and Battleaxes

[Grahav]

We keep bringing the argument back to money and the target audience, while I agree those are important, and appropriate, I want to still discuss if sexism is occurring in the game without discussing who the target audience is. What is the abscence of discrimination, when we reach everyone, equally correct? Do I think we will achieve that, no, but I feel like we are using the marketing to negate the fact that something unequal is occurring in the game. I am not say that it should not occur, ever, I am bringing up points as to how it is there and how it could have been avoided. Continually spilling the conversation over into marketing and other groups makes our discussion too broad IMO, which was your comment on my definition of sexism.

Also, if we are going to keep talking about a marketing stand point. What about the fact that women are sexualized in their own media, when it is targeted at them? What then? It still shows that women tend to get sexualized more than men. (Not saying is wrong or bad, just uneven)

I dont have more time to post, but I will address your other points asap when I get back tonight

This will seem to be like a silly question, but it is important. How do you define "sexism"? Earlier it was discussed "objetification".

It is not silly at all, as Axle and I have only briefly discussed, how people use terms is somewhat subjective.

I have a broader definition of sexism that revolves around unequal treatment of gender based only on gender. So a woman or man is treated in a particular way, only because of their gender. It is unequal. Objectification CAN be used to give this special treatment, and that treatment can be negative or positive, but it is unequal, and the same opportunities are not provided to the both genders in the same situation.

Now, I am not saying this is bad, so sexism might not be the best term since it drudges up negative connotations.

However, for example, I think chivalry is sexist against men. Women want and expect equal treatment, but also chivalry (holding doors, you know all that good stuff). Women, if they want true equality, should not be given chivalrous treatment, everyone should be treated chivalrously. Will that happen in our life time, will I expect men to stop being chivalrous, no, but acknowledging it is the first step.

Well, if you go by that definition, so it is sexist. Since it is a male oriented fantasy. The character models are reflectional parodies of what men achieve (themselves, ultra upper body strenght, females, mega T&A).

But a Shoujo manga is also sexist because it uses female fantasy as a base.

The thing is... If you try to balance everything to be gender equal, all works will have to settle to a smaller area. And then, they become boring. The same if everything is male oriented or female oriented. Mix-up the ingredients to obtain different cakes.

Finally, unequal treatment is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Regardless of gender, different people like different things. In a broad example: I would apreciate a ham sandwich. If you try to feed a jew or a muslim with one, they will punch in you the face. If someone appreciates holding a door, fine, it takes no effort. If the person doesn't and, gently, says it, you don't hold the door. Sometimes your basic attitude is not apreciated, because the other person would like something else, but that is living and knowing people.

When it comes to gender, considering the psychological differences, it is normal to appreciate different kinds of chivalry. But, of course, there is room for common acts. I smile when a lady holds the dor for me and vice-versa.

What is dumb is DEMANDING acts of chivalry or expecting unreasonable ones like demanding dinners at 5 star restaurants or always having top notch hair.

 

[Minity]

You do not believe it is "ok" to only cater to one gender when creating sexually-loaded entertainment, and this also falls in line with your definition of sexism because it caters to only one sex.

You're getting my opinion wrong. I do think it is ok to cater to one gender. However, my opinion is that, the ultimate goal is everyone, is treated equally, that, we will not have to cater to one sex or the other. Sort of, a higher state of enlightenment, if you will. Do I think that will happen during our civilization, no, but I will acknowledge when equality is not happening, because in the long run, I wish we could all just be hippies and be truly equal and live peacefully. LOL

Now, in today's society, if you are catering to one sex over the other, I do not believe that is sexism. It is marketing, as you said. I believe that sexism occurs when 1 gender is treated a particular way only because they are that gender. Much of the time, I believe that women, cannot be seen in media, geared toward either women or men, and not be sexualized. (Very generalized statement).

So for example, people will always see other people as sexual. You do not have to make the sorceress and amazon hyper-sexual in order for the sexual prowess to be noticed. People are sexual beings, they will see sexuality where they want to, so why are the Amazon and Sorceress hyper-sexualized and the male characters are not?

Again, it is not about demographics, because that sexuality will still be there regardless of the hyper-sexuality.

Here's why I disagree;
(1) That definition of sexism is too broad.


(2) That same definition would also paint the other "isms" such as racism too broadly.

Definitely agree, because we are moving very far outside of the argument. It is becoming to broad. I think we should take marketing out. Who cares what audience is being catered to. Is inequality happening. Just because we are catering to a white audience, does not mean we treat the black characters any differently.

Lets look at female media and advertisements, geared toward women. It often depicts women in a sexualized and unrealistic manner. Psychological studies show that women are the primary cause of perpetrating this, because the men just want to see women. They don't need a hyper-sexualized woman, because they are sexually attracted to women, they will see sexuality regardless. So again, the target audience is moot in my opinion.

(3) Frequency does not necessarily dictate correctness
Is it tiring, overdone, etc. to see the same thing produced? IMO, yes. I would love to see more variety for all the same reasons. How often are Germans depicted as only Nazis, how often are Americans depicted as only heroes in any given event?

I think we are going off topic, but again, I agree completely. If Germans are only seen as Nazi's in American entertainment, it is discrimination and a fundemental flaw the the population's images of German's.

Let me ask you a few questions to help shed more light on the situation

(a) Do you feel the same way about non-sexually loaded entertainment? (That it needs to cater to both genders equally, or is it only whens sex is a component of the entertainment that an even-hand has to take place) Why?

No I do not think it needs to cater to both sexes. I think when the sexes are shown, they should be treated equally. Like your example of the advertisements with mothers and children. In these ads, that predominately show mothers, are they depicted differently than when they show fathers? IF so, then that it is unequal and sexist if the differences are based only on sex. Is the mother sexualized, is the father sexualized...in an ad with children? Why?

Now, what do we mean by catering to one gender over an other, by depicting them more often? That is just more exposure, but again in my "utopia" it would be equal all around.

(b) Do you agree that it is ok to prioritize your audiences in order of who is likely to produce the most financial success?

Yes. However, in Twilight, were the men more sexualized than say, Interview with the Vampire, or Queen of the Damned? Were the werewolves more sexualized than in an American Werewolf in London? What about Underworld?

I don't think its intentional though. I think at a base level, yes, there is a lot of overlap in what appeals sexually to straight and gay men / women / etc. and that's why you have the result you do today. If there was no overlap, then I think you'd have a lot more less emphasis on highlighting male sexual traits.

So you agree, it is ok to sexualize men then? Even when it appeals to a broad audience, why can't we sexualize women and have it appeal to a broad audience?

I think we're mixing two very different things together though. The need for people to be treated equally and afforded equal opportunity and then we're talking about depictions of fictional people in an entertainment medium.

This is why I want to avoid the marketing standpoint, because it is 2 different things, as you said.

In a serious setting, that kind of setup wouldn't make sense since it begs the question of "why isn't she wearing protective gear". But we need to discuss it in the context of a fictional fantasy setting in order to compare apples to apples. I would go back to my Tony Stark example, if he was shown welding something dangerous sans protective gear and with a look that only appealed to women (lets assume it was unappealing to men), would that be sexist? What if we use the same scene (in a fictional fantasy setting) but reverse the context, where the men are welding without protective gear and the woman is fully protected. Say it was also done with a clear objective of sexually appealing to women at the expense of men finding it appealing, is that sexist? If so, why?

How do you make a man appeal only to women and not to others. Appealing to one target audience only can be done for women, just look at some of the backlash at DC (not that I agree, you know). But women can be over sexualized so much, that it repels a particular group or 2, but still reaches the main target, can the same be done for men regarding their sexuality and media's depiction of it?

Now, I agree, any situation can be "fixed" in a fantasy setting. If you told me women are immune to heat in this world, or had more durable skin, I would expect the women to be in less clothing and might be offended if she was wearing protective gear (well not offended, but questioning of the choice )

However, we did not discuss that, we gave an example of people in a factory, the example is now subjective and is a bit to broad IMO, because both of use are manipulating it to fit our argument.

A "better direction" is relative to your expectation that entertainment should cater to both genders simultaneously but I challenge that notion because there are so many other entertainment pieces that people (let me know what your opinion is on these) wouldn't classify as problematic despite being unbalanced. I'm thinking of things like "chick flicks", romance novels, soap operas, etc. that appeal to women first and foremost. Men aren't forbidden from liking those things, but they don't gravitate towards them, in the same way that I would say DC appeals to men first without making much effort to appeal to anyone else.

Again, it is how the genders are depicted. In female media, geared towards females, women still tend to be more sexualized than the men (in both media geared toward women and men, meaning that the male depictions are closer to reality than the women who are depicted). We can cater to whatever gender, race, sexuality, we want, but we should not change the way people are depicted based only on those traits. Women should not be depicted a certain way, only because they are women.

Unequal treatment? Yes. Sexist? No.


It is simply forecasting how a business person deems the market will react for that specific product. If Dante was a character in a romance novel, yes, they'd hyper-sexualize the cr@p out of him IF women would find it more appealing and more likely to buy the product. But if Bayonetta was a character in a romance novel, they would NOT hyper-sexualize her as it would likely turn away women, who are their primary demographic and client. Is that situation treating both genders unequally? Yes. Sexist? No.

Again, take the business model out, and only include um....sociable justice? lol Sociable fairness? I don't know lol.

If the creators are not allowed to show the character as they truly want him to be, in this case Dante, only because he is a male, then it is sexist. If they are expected to show Bayonetta a certain way, even when that was not how they wanted to show her, only because she is a woman, that is sexist. It is depicting characters differently based only on the gender and then sidelining them to a particular niche and arguing that it is a "business model". While it may be, that is sexism in the corporate world then.

In my example, I would say it was done purely out of the sake of arousing a male audience (without regard for the character). I think it would be in poor taste and cheapening the history of the material but not sexist. Where as I think this is where you think it crosses into sexism.

If it is being done, only because she is a women, it is crossing into sexism. It is also crossing into objectification now, because the creators took this character and forced her to be seen in a certain way, like an object, without regard to her dignity. Again, if this was done, only because she was a woman, it is crossing into sexism.

Eroticism, arousal, attractiveness, objectiveness, etc... do not fall under sexism which I am sure we agree.

LOL, well, obviously straight-women are attracted to a naked male but I don't think the aversion to a naked male avatar is because they weren't socially conditioned to do so. At a fundamental level, I just think its that women aren't as highly influenced by a male's physiology as much as men are to women's physiology. Without going too far off the topic of VG, you can see this in any study about evolution and what's important in mate selection to each gender. You'll notice that each gender cares about different aspects "unequally", but that doesn't constitute as sexism. It can lead to sexism, but is not enough alone to constitute as sexism.

As you said, this is getting way off topic, but there is psychological research that suggests that arousal traits are influenced by societal norms. Look at the very few matriarchal societies, where the women have adopted much of the same psychological traits, including how they treat spouses, that the male gender predominately holds now. However, that is again way off topic, and a whole different conversation. I brought it up, however, to indicate that we cannot just assume what women and men are interested in and how they approach sexuality.

I think I want to point out and bring this conversation back to video games and its depiction of males and females in DC. We can clearly see that the women have breasts and butts, which are hyper-sexualized. We cannot see the men depicted in the same fashion with hyper-sexualized butts or pecs (except Roland, the Conan looking guy), let alone penises.

Lets dissect the males in DC more. They each, except the Dwarf (but I will ignore him the way others are ignoring the elf in calling DC "sexist" lol) but each male has a very soft, "beautiful", "effeminate" face, and "luscious" flowing hair, as viewed from an American lens. Do we only view them as men because we do not see their bulging breasts and butts?

This ties into sexism because the hyper-sexualization is only occurring in the women because they are women.

You seem to be of the opinion that a person depicted has to represent their background, at least their gender. Why? This would create so many problems with any depiction as you'd always have to have equal numbers of representation in everything to evade sexism, racism, religious discrimination, etc.

That is not what I meant. I didn't want to touch on it because I did not want to go back into discussing objectification. When I meant they were not people, it was because you essentially always objectify fictional things because the artist forces you to look at them in a particular manner, they do not give you the choice of how to view them if they are posed in a certain way.

Let me clarify, I don't think a person depicted CAN'T represent their demographic, I just don't think they need to and consequently should not be looked at as representing their demographic, simply because they happen to be a part of it.

Agreed

LOL, thank you for that. I feel like I was really lazy not looking it up (I was just tired, it was late and I was writing for a long while).

HAHA no worries, it was a good refresher, I didn't realize what it actually looked like LOL

From an artistic perspective, absolutely not. It tends to make things more interesting (IMO). But from a business perspective, it would be really unwise to make your key demographic uncomfortable.

That does not mean the sexism is negated because the key demographic would be uncomfortable and then left stuff out. It shows that sexism is perpetuated by the "system" if you will and the audience agrees with it.

I don't think so. Remember, there's not just straight-sex appeal. How often do you see sexuality that appeals to trans-gendered people in romantic / dating movies? Would it make straight men and women uncomfortable? Yes. Are they going to do that when the target financial demographic to the current romance movie is straight men and women? Absolutely not. Is it sexist (or whatever you would call that form of it)? I don't think so.

Do we treat and depict the transgendered differently only because they are transgendered? That is the point I am trying to make with my argument. We should not depict them differently only because of what they are.

I don't think it was because it would make a straight male audience uncomfortable, I think it was because the artist(s) made the designs in what they saw in their vision (which naturally does not include every perspective). Think about how successful you'd be at making something hyper-sexualized that appeals to someone of an opposite / different orientation to your own. You wouldn't likely be able to do it justice the same way that someone who identifies with that orientation, nor have as much desire to. That doesn't make you a bad person in my eyes. Its just where your abilities lie.

Since we keep talking about business, if a developer hired an artist and said "make all of the characters over-exaggerated and hyper-sexualize them" then the artist has the responsibility to do that for all characters, and if they have a hard time doing it for one of the genders, then they should do their research and get the job they were hired for done.

I am (lol), not that there's anything wrong with that (Seinfeld fans?)

LMAO one of my favorite episodes!

But let's remember, sexual appeal isn't unanimous. What some find sexually appealing may not be for another and vice versa.

Its not about who finds it appealing, since not everyone will be ever be satisfied. As I have said before, it is ok to be unequal, I don't think the sexism in DC is wrong or disgusting or unappealing, but it is there, because the women were sexualized only because they were women. IMO lol

A few things here;
(1) There is nothing stopping the over-sexualization of male characters from a fundamental perspective.
The reasons why it isn't done right now is because the business side has found success in appealing primarily to straight men. Appealing primarily to straight women presents an unknown risk (for a hyper-sexualized, polarizing product, will they find buyers?) and unknown territory in how to get there (there aren't many with experience AND success in this background in the VG industry). Also, the majority of developers appear to gravitate to the straight demographic. So in essence, the financial and creative forces at play.

(2) Men look towards Male rolemodels differently than Women look towards Female rolemodels, so you can't directly equate the two with respect to approach in designing a product's appeal
Men are more likely and generally comfortable with striving for a "superficial" physical trait compared to women. The target for women is usually more about achieving the same level of sexual appeal / attention, but not necessarily achieving that other person's proportions. I have a feeling this will be misconstrued a lot so let me try a an example. How many men would like to look like those guys depicted in muscle mags with extremely large muscles all over? How many women want to look like those women depicted with extremely large breasts? This is what I'm trying to get at, one is more common than the other and what is sexually appealing to a man / woman won't necessarily be something that another woman / man would want to strive for, just to gain favour with the opposite sex's sex appeal.

1. This is unequal treatment, and to me, you are implying that the straight male demographic is accepting of sexism (can't think of a better / kinder way to say it) because, we can't treat / depict both genders the same since we are only marketing to the "Straight male".

2. I totally get what you mean, But see, this is still happening in media targeted for women. (and again moving off-topic because it branches into another very long discussion....which relates to sexism and objectification lol). Media targeted at women is still sexualized. Perhaps not to the extent of DC females, but google the Hawkeye Initiative, many of the comics today that this "movement" is using, depicts overly sexualized women that is said to be marketed to women as well. This is done in fashion magazines, soap operas, chick flicks, you name it. This unrealistic depiction of women is one of the reasons why eating disorders are more prevalent with the female gender. And if you look at recent studies, now that it is okay to "objectify" men, eating disorders among the male gender is increasing. (I read a quote once that said the only thing feminism did was allow men to be objectified).

Well, we'd be generalizing if we said that.

What I will say is that one of the motivating factors behind highlighting sex from a business perspective is because it doubles down on the likely hood of success (historically anyways, it may not always be that way). For example, a character can be interesting independently of their sexual appeal, but should they fail to be interesting, a sexual appeal angle could still garner attention. Where as, a boring non-attractive character would be more easily forgotten.

Well, I completely failed at reducing the wall of text. Sorry (lol).

Again, lets take the business model out. Does sexism exist in video games. Are genders treated differently only because of their gender. To me, based on your arguments, you are saying yes, because the corporations won't take the risk. Who controls the corporations, money, who has the money, the people buying the products. So sexism is being perpetuated by the people and the corporations, and to blame one or the other is helping to negate the fact that it is there. It's not "wrong", it's not "bad", but it is there.

I seriously RUSHed through this, OMG LOL. Trying my best to not be harsh. Great points

 

[Minity]

Well, if you go by that definition, so it is sexist. Since it is a male oriented fantasy. The character models are reflectional parodies of what men achieve (themselves, ultra upper body strenght, females, mega T&A).

But a Shoujo manga is also sexist because it uses female fantasy as a base.

The thing is... If you try to balance everything to be gender equal, all works will have to settle to a smaller area. And then, they become boring. The same if everything is male oriented or female oriented. Mix-up the ingredients to obtain different cakes.

Finally, unequal treatment is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Regardless of gender, different people like different things. In a broad example: I would apreciate a ham sandwich. If you try to feed a jew or a muslim with one, they will punch in you the face. If someone appreciates holding a door, fine, it takes no effort. If the person doesn't and, gently, says it, you don't hold the door. Sometimes your basic attitude is not apreciated, because the other person would like something else, but that is living and knowing people.

When it comes to gender, considering the psychological differences, it is normal to appreciate different kinds of chivalry. But, of course, there is room for common acts. I smile when a lady holds the dor for me and vice-versa.

What is dumb is DEMANDING acts of chivalry or expecting unreasonable ones like demanding dinners at 5 star restaurants or always having top notch hair.

LMAO...agree completely. Definitely don't think unequal treatment is always "bad" or "wrong", it happens and we must simply be mindful of it. Thats it.

How it is done, is a different story. Like again, I do mind the hyper-sexualism of the women in DC, but none of the playable male characters are as hyper-sexualized, which implies that they were hyper-sexualized only because they were women. Is that on purpose, I don't know, but do I see it, yes. Does that mean I dislike the character design, definitely not LOL

 

[Grahav]

Well, if you go by that definition, so it is sexist. Since it is a male oriented fantasy. The character models are reflectional parodies of what men achieve (themselves, ultra upper body strenght, females, mega T&A).

But a Shoujo manga is also sexist because it uses female fantasy as a base.

The thing is... If you try to balance everything to be gender equal, all works will have to settle to a smaller area. And then, they become boring. The same if everything is male oriented or female oriented. Mix-up the ingredients to obtain different cakes.

Finally, unequal treatment is NOT necessarily a bad thing. Regardless of gender, different people like different things. In a broad example: I would apreciate a ham sandwich. If you try to feed a jew or a muslim with one, they will punch in you the face. If someone appreciates holding a door, fine, it takes no effort. If the person doesn't and, gently, says it, you don't hold the door. Sometimes your basic attitude is not apreciated, because the other person would like something else, but that is living and knowing people.

When it comes to gender, considering the psychological differences, it is normal to appreciate different kinds of chivalry. But, of course, there is room for common acts. I smile when a lady holds the dor for me and vice-versa.

What is dumb is DEMANDING acts of chivalry or expecting unreasonable ones like demanding dinners at 5 star restaurants or always having top notch hair.

LMAO...agree completely. Definitely don't think unequal treatment is always "bad" or "wrong", it happens and we must simply be mindful of it. Thats it.

How it is done, is a different story. Like again, I do mind the hyper-sexualism of the women in DC, but none of the playable male characters are as hyper-sexualized, which implies that they were hyper-sexualized only because they were women. Is that on purpose, I don't know, but do I see it, yes. Does that mean I dislike the character design, definitely not LOL

Well, the artist may be a straight man. So he probably has little wish or skill to hyper-sexualize the guys to attend the gay man and the straight woman community (which tend to have different views in what constitutes a sexual man).

So if he attempted to do this it would be either by force of outside influence criticizing his work. Also, it could have gone lame as hell in trying to play politically correct. The art could also end schizophrenical as hell, because the objective was to exagerate the classical fantasy games, and not to take everything.

To satisfy everyone he would have to make all the cakes. It is impossible. So let him make the cakes that he is good at and have other people make the other good cakes and you will have equality.

 

[Minity]

*snip*

I agree, however, it doesn't mean that the artists inability or lack of desire is not inadvertently sexist. It is designing characters differently, based only on their gender. It is not "bad", we do not have to change it, or stop it, but it is there. It also doesn't mean his art, or the character designs are negative.

I personally think he could have done more with hyper-sexualizing the playable male characters, judging by his drawings of Roland in the game, but thats just my opinion and open to my subjectivity.

 

[babinro]

At least the over the top paladin and barbarian model make me cringe and embarrassed as much as the female models. Kudos on the successful Southpark design of 'offend' everyone so no one has a right to complain.

Love the art style in the level and monster design though.
This game might not be fun to play but it is tempting to try out.

 

[Minity]

I agree, however, it doesn't mean that the artists inability or lack of desire is not inadvertently sexist. It is designing characters differently, based only on their gender. It is not "bad", we do not have to change it, or stop it, but it is there. It also doesn't mean his art, or the character designs are negative.

I personally think he could have done more with hyper-sexualizing the playable male characters, judging by his drawings of Roland in the game, but thats just my opinion and open to my subjectivity.

What makes you think they are not hyper-sexualized already? Because they don't have curves or big breasts? Muscles are a sexually appealing attribute for many people with regards to men. The Dwarf is completely exaggerated in that regard.

My subjective opinion makes me think that. I also have specific reasons as to why the Dwarf is not sexualized, but I have avoided discussing that since it is only my opinion, the same way I have avoided discussing the elf. I also did not say that the male characters were not hyper-sexualized at all, just not to the same extent.

Are the males posing so that one of the first things I see is there muscles (since you are saying they are equal in sexual power for men as breasts are to women), is the artist making sure I don't miss that? Because the sorceress and amazon are posed to ensure I see their sexual assets. Their direct counterparts, the knight and wizard are not. That doesn't mean there are not men who are not hyper-sexualized (from my point of view in the game). Look at Roland below...but he is not playable (much to my disappointment actually).

 

[Paradoxrifts]

300 wasn't designed to appeal to women.

Because you don't personally find Kratos attractive, no one else does? Funny how you also bring up 300. It may be a "guy" movie, but I have a little newsflash for you, MANY women find the men in that movie attractive. In fact, that is why a lot of women actually saw the movie. They wanted to see the half-naked guys.

Posts like yours just prove you don't truly comprehend power and sexual fantasies.

I interrupt this conversation to bring you this urgent weather report! You're in for one wild night!​

[HEADING=1]HALLELUIAH![/HEADING]​

 

[Grahav]

*snip*

I agree, however, it doesn't mean that the artists inability or lack of desire is not inadvertently sexist. It is designing characters differently, based only on their gender. It is not "bad", we do not have to change it, or stop it, but it is there. It also doesn't mean his art, or the character designs are negative.

I personally think he could have done more with hyper-sexualizing the playable male characters, judging by his drawings of Roland in the game, but thats just my opinion and open to my subjectivity.

Well, I think now it has come to the matter of taste. The unequal treatment.

Me, I am a big fan of fanservice. Games with panty shots draw my attention, and when said game is good (Dead or Alive 2)... Oh,man.

But I also like to play games without the fanservice appeal. They are a different kind of work that I also appreciate.

I am just guessing, but I think you really like and wish for gender progressive games and you feel that Dragon's Crown may be a retrocess against that. Don't be. These kinds of gaming are coming more and more (the new Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Scary Girl, The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, Alice, that game in some pages back with female looking male elves). The industry has taken notice.

When it comes to DC my opinion:

Multi-player side-scroller beat'em up: Fantastic! I missed those kinds of games.

Lack of plot: Not much of a problem since not all games needs to be plot heavy. Multiplayers story is you and your friends having fun with the game, making fun of the game, fighting and infighting.

Design: Purposelly over the top. Pretty colors, cool monsters. Kind of a parody of classical fantasy games. Some (lots) are supersilly. For me specially the warrior with a young girl face on top of a giant torso on tooth pick legs is atrocious. Seemed super silly to me.

Fanservice: Super over the top, to the point I flush when thinking in playing with someone. But when people tried to shame censor it, I grabbed it with a vengeance.

So basically, I feel angry when there is backlash against panty shots because I feel like people are trying to label my sexuality as responsible for the evils in the world. But when there are games with gender equality, cool women, no fanservice, etc, I am fine and eager to play them because I am not just my sexuality.

 

[Minity]

*snip*

I agree, however, it doesn't mean that the artists inability or lack of desire is not inadvertently sexist. It is designing characters differently, based only on their gender. It is not "bad", we do not have to change it, or stop it, but it is there. It also doesn't mean his art, or the character designs are negative.

I personally think he could have done more with hyper-sexualizing the playable male characters, judging by his drawings of Roland in the game, but thats just my opinion and open to my subjectivity.

Well, I think now it has come to the matter of taste. The unequal treatment.

Me, I am a big fan of fanservice. Games with panty shots draw my attention, and when said game is good (Dead or Alive 2)... Oh,man.

But I also like to play games without the fanservice appeal. They are a different kind of work that I also appreciate.

I am just guessing, but I think you really like and wish for gender progressive games and you feel that Dragon's Crown may be a retrocess against that. Don't be. These kinds of gaming are coming more and more (the new Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Scary Girl, The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, Alice, that game in some pages back with female looking male elves). The industry has taken notice.

When it comes to DC my opinion:

Multi-player side-scroller beat'em up: Fantastic! I missed those kinds of games.

Lack of plot: Not much of a problem since not all games needs to be plot heavy. Multiplayers story is you and your friends having fun with the game, making fun of the game, fighting and infighting.

Design: Purposelly over the top. Pretty colors, cool monsters. Kind of a parody of classical fantasy games. Some (lots) are supersilly. For me specially the warrior with a young girl face on top of a giant torso on tooth pick legs is atrocious. Seemed super silly to me.

Fanservice: Super over the top, to the point I flush when thinking in playing with someone. But when people tried to shame censor it, I grabbed it with a vengeance.

So basically, I feel angry when there is backlash against panty shots because I feel like people are trying to label my sexuality as responsible for the evils in the world. But when there are games with gender equality, cool women, no fanservice, etc, I am fine and eager to play them because I am not just my sexuality.

I agree with you, but I am not talking about taste, becauseI like the art. I'm not saying it is wrong to have fan service but it was done unequally with the genders. Now those who say it is terrible, well I don't agree with them, but in my opinion they are missing the point of the argument. Calling something sexist or saying it is objectification or both leads to defensive and argumentative discussions because people's opinion and taste are essentially attacked. I believe we need a new word to discuss this unequal treatment so we can use it to acknowledge when it simple exists. Conversations about why and if it is ok or whatever are geared to "fixing the problem". I would argue that that is a completely different conversation as is calling it a "problem". But again that's just me

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

Hmmm... not sure I agree with using "Questionable taste" as a con. While I can see why the reviewer may not have appreciated the visual design of the game, and I find it rather offputting as well, that's just far too subjective a thing to be labelled as a ciriticism in a professional review. We're not talking about the game allowing you to kill children here, we're just talking about women (and men) drawn in extermely exaggerated fashion.

Either way, the actual gameplay looks and sounds pretty good. It doesn't sound like a day one purcahse to me but maybe somewhere down the line after a price drop or three.

and being able to "touch" the breasts of a "bound" questgiver-eg touch the crocth of the spreaded nun or the titties of the lady in the white-see-through togy, which reacts with the kind of "nhg"sexy scueck which you could find in japanese schoolgirl-porn (dont have soething against that. i like porn. but that is an action-spg-brawler, no fucking eroge. the man stands firmly, moans, but is assured in power, but the female is halpless and this sound thesy make-he reacts clenching his fist a bit more and moans, she wriggles and sounds like a little girl. *würg*


here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex133LSR6xE&feature=player_embedded

maybe those devs need a fuck?

 

[Minity]

300 wasn't designed to appeal to women.

Because you don't personally find Kratos attractive, no one else does? Funny how you also bring up 300. It may be a "guy" movie, but I have a little newsflash for you, MANY women find the men in that movie attractive. In fact, that is why a lot of women actually saw the movie. They wanted to see the half-naked guys.

Posts like yours just prove you don't truly comprehend power and sexual fantasies.

I interrupt this conversation to bring you this urgent weather report! You're in for one wild night!​

[HEADING=1]HALLELUIAH![/HEADING]​

I think 300 is a great example of the hyper sexualized male! I feel it was appealing to everyone and a good example of why it doesn't have to just be women who are hyper-sexualized

 

[Grahav]

*snip*

I agree, however, it doesn't mean that the artists inability or lack of desire is not inadvertently sexist. It is designing characters differently, based only on their gender. It is not "bad", we do not have to change it, or stop it, but it is there. It also doesn't mean his art, or the character designs are negative.

I personally think he could have done more with hyper-sexualizing the playable male characters, judging by his drawings of Roland in the game, but thats just my opinion and open to my subjectivity.

Well, I think now it has come to the matter of taste. The unequal treatment.

Me, I am a big fan of fanservice. Games with panty shots draw my attention, and when said game is good (Dead or Alive 2)... Oh,man.

But I also like to play games without the fanservice appeal. They are a different kind of work that I also appreciate.

I am just guessing, but I think you really like and wish for gender progressive games and you feel that Dragon's Crown may be a retrocess against that. Don't be. These kinds of gaming are coming more and more (the new Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Scary Girl, The Last of Us, The Walking Dead, Alice, that game in some pages back with female looking male elves). The industry has taken notice.

When it comes to DC my opinion:

Multi-player side-scroller beat'em up: Fantastic! I missed those kinds of games.

Lack of plot: Not much of a problem since not all games needs to be plot heavy. Multiplayers story is you and your friends having fun with the game, making fun of the game, fighting and infighting.

Design: Purposelly over the top. Pretty colors, cool monsters. Kind of a parody of classical fantasy games. Some (lots) are supersilly. For me specially the warrior with a young girl face on top of a giant torso on tooth pick legs is atrocious. Seemed super silly to me.

Fanservice: Super over the top, to the point I flush when thinking in playing with someone. But when people tried to shame censor it, I grabbed it with a vengeance.

So basically, I feel angry when there is backlash against panty shots because I feel like people are trying to label my sexuality as responsible for the evils in the world. But when there are games with gender equality, cool women, no fanservice, etc, I am fine and eager to play them because I am not just my sexuality.

I agree with you, but I am not talking about taste, becauseI like the art. I'm not saying it is wrong to have fan service but it was done unequally with the genders. Now those who say it is terrible, well I don't agree with them, but in my opinion they are missing the point of the argument. Calling something sexist or saying it is objectification or both leads to defensive and argumentative discussions because people's opinion and taste are essentially attacked. I believe we need a new word to discuss this unequal treatment so we can use it to acknowledge when it simple exists. Conversations about why and if it is ok or whatever are geared to "fixing the problem". I would argue that that is a completely different conversation as is calling it a "problem". But again that's just me

Okay

True there are many nuances and situations to use only one word to describe them all.

I just think that is very possible to reach fair equality with equal and unequal arts.

Phew! This is a long conversation.

 

[Minity]

Okay

True there are many nuances and situations to use only one word to describe them all.

I just think that is very possible to reach fair equality with equal and unequal arts.

Phew! This is a long conversation.

It is, but I am glad that people can discuss it civily, how else can we find ways to do anything different, if we don't identify what it is we are actually discussing and come to a mutual understanding, you know?

because of this discussion with you and a few others, I truly do not want to use the term "sexist" when describing this game, but again, that is a different conversation haha

 

[-Axle-]

In a broad example: I would apreciate a ham sandwich. If you try to feed a jew or a muslim with one, they will punch in you the face.

LMAO, an extreme example but funny nonetheless.

Let me say again, that you are doing an amazing job at being succinct. I'm going to try really hard at not making this a huge wall of text again.

You're getting my opinion wrong.

I am so sorry Minity. After you replied to Grahav (and before this post) I completely understood what you meant better (at least I think I do).

In an effort to reduce the "wall of text", I'll try Grahav's approach.

Agree that we should de-focus on the business-side. I only brought it to light to show motivation and causation, not justification. I think we all agree it is independent of whether something is classified as sexist / unbalanced or not. That and to determine whether you thought other mediums where "sexist" in your eyes or not, which would help me understand your position better (as well as me explain mine).

I'm not trying to be stickler, but I am using a textbook definition of "sexism" versus yours. Your definition is more about distinguishing based on gender where as a textbook definition is based on devaluation based on gender. But I think we ultimately agree what the "bad" kind of sexism is and you helped clarify this by saying you didn't think all forms of sexism were "bad" (again, if we used your definition. By the textbook definition, all forms of sexism would be bad).

my opinion is that, the ultimate goal is everyone, is treated equally, that, we will not have to cater to one sex or the other.

In terms of balance and trying to strive for meeting everyone's needs. While I think its admirable, I think it would also inherently flawed by design as we all know that you can't make everyone happy all of the time. Grahav gave a good example with food. You did express that you think it is possible to appeal to "everyone" and I'm going to try and challenge that notion here.

By "everyone", we seem to be sticking to a heterosexual audience. I'm sure that there is an audience that would appreciate the sorceress to be packing some heat in the form of a bulge. But guess what, to a straight audience (male or female), that notion would be unappealing. There is no overlap there for the sexual desires of straight men and women to be met with those of a trans-gendered person (in that specific situation). And so you're at a cross-roads, whose appeal do you prioritize if you want to make that kind of character. There will come a time where you have to toss someone's appeal off to the side for the sake of your vision and while yes, that would be unbalanced and by nature limit its appeal, I don't think its worth any less or something that should be discouraged.

I think when the sexes are shown, they should be treated equally. Like your example of the advertisements with mothers and children. In these ads, that predominately show mothers, are they depicted differently than when they show fathers? IF so, then that it is unequal and sexist if the differences are based only on sex. Is the mother sexualized, is the father sexualized...in an ad with children? Why?

Let me tell you that you gave me shivers with that last part. I sincerely hope I never seen an ad with a sexualized parent next to children. LOL

To answer your question (and trying not to go too far off topic), the males are depicted differently but not on a sexual front. They typically are shown in a significantly less affectionate (loving? primary care? not sure what the right word is here) manner and more utilitarian way. More of a help for the mother, rather than taking the same role or vice versa. That doesn't mean they are all like that, but the vast majority (like 95%) are. My wife had made a comment that she had heard some time ago that a reason why advertisers have gone this route is not only due to some stereotypes people may hold, but also due to studies that showed single-mothers being less attracted to packaging that included a male or depicted a male utilizing the product in question. Since the primary consumer base was decided to target women, they tend to opt for the approach that appeals primarily to women instead of men. I sadly don't have a source to point to for that study ATM but don't think its ultimately important since my overall point for all of this is to say while I find that "unbalanced", I would not call it "sexist" despite a differentiation being made based solely on gender. It limits appeal, it is more exclusionary, less inviting, etc. but at no point is there any evidence that states men should NOT be a parent, cannot be a parent, are less valuable as parents, etc. You can certainly project something like that, but it is not inherent in what is being presented by simple virtue of one gender's needs / appeal being absent.

Yes. However, in Twilight, were the men more sexualized than say, Interview with the Vampire, or Queen of the Damned? Were the werewolves more sexualized than in an American Werewolf in London? What about Underworld?

I'm guilty of almost insinuating this in my above piece, just because it happens elsewhere should not be indicative of correctness. What I will say is that Jacob is definitely sexualized. Is he hyper-sexualized, no because that would be really hard in live-action, but his purpose is one of primarily being eye candy first, then everything else. Which again, when done to males, people tend to be less prone to rob them of the rest of their traits, but when done to women, people tend to devalue them.

So you agree, it is ok to sexualize men then?

Yes, I even think its ok to hyper-sexualize the men and the men alone. It is not problematic or sexist in my eyes. Limits appeal? Yes Devalues men? No.

Even when it appeals to a broad audience, why can't we sexualize women and have it appeal to a broad audience?

You can have it appeal to some women, but remember, that judgement isn't something unanimous in the entire demographic. But in terms of majority, yes I think you can try and appeal to a majority.

How do you make a man appeal only to women and not to others. Appealing to one target audience only can be done for women, just look at some of the backlash at DC (not that I agree, you know). But women can be over sexualized so much, that it repels a particular group or 2, but still reaches the main target, can the same be done for men regarding their sexuality and media's depiction of it?

I believe so, I just think its hard to conjure up because its not as common in the same capacity (again, once the business side figures it out, you can count that it will be exploited as a strategy more). The trans-gendered sorceress example I gave earlier could work but not a perfect fit for what you're looking for with respect to a straight female.

Again, it is how the genders are depicted ... women still tend to be more sexualized than the men ... male depictions are closer to reality than the women who are depicted ...

Agreed when speaking about sexual physical proportions and will state again that this is only because the current demographic of women doesn't find exaggerated male genitalia to be sexually appealing (notice I said exaggerated, not to be confused with large). You'll notice than non-sexual physical traits are still exploited. For example, how often do you see a romance between a man and woman where the man is shorter than the woman? how about smaller than the woman? Superficial no?

The male traits that are typically "exaggerated" per say, would be non-physical ones. Ones of dedication, self-worth, meaning, etc. (ie. how often is a man who is nothing without his woman romanticized, wants to change solely for her, finds no meaning or self-worth without them, etc.). So the "unbalance" is there, just not on the same factor(s).

We can cater to whatever gender, race, sexuality, we want, but we should not change the way people are depicted based only on those traits.

Why not? Let me make a leap here. I'm assuming that you think doing so would lead to discrimination based on whatever factor the depiction hinges on. But just because it can lead to, does that mean it ought not to be done? Isn't that the argument people would make with respect to violent media?

If the creators are not allowed to show the character as they truly want him to be only because he is a male, then it is sexist ... It is depicting characters differently based only on the gender and then sidelining them to a particular niche and arguing that it is a "business model". While it may be, that is sexism in the corporate world then.

With your broad definition of sexism, yes. By textbook, no because its a business decision (not model) based on risk. Like choosing one cooking style over another (say Italian over Indian). That's not discriminating against Indian people, its striving for appealing to Italian's first (or I should say people who like Italian food).

Side-note: This is the benefit of true Indies, they are able to bring their ideas to fruition unfiltered due to the lack of someone else trying to make a business decision over their vision.

We can clearly see that the women have breasts and butts, which are hyper-sexualized. We cannot see the men depicted in the same fashion with hyper-sexualized butts or pecs (except Roland, the Conan looking guy), let alone penises.

As I mentioned above, if there was a (definitive) market that would be attracted to exaggerated and hyper-sexualized depictions of penises, it would be done.

That does not mean the sexism is negated because the key demographic would be uncomfortable and then left stuff out. It shows that sexism is perpetuated by the "system" if you will and the audience agrees with it.

Agreed.

Do we treat and depict the transgendered differently only because they are transgendered? That is the point I am trying to make with my argument. We should not depict them differently only because of what they are.

You threw me off here. But they are different and they are depicted differently. We should just not value them any less. Is that what you meant?

Since we keep talking about business, if a developer hired an artist and said "make all of the characters over-exaggerated and hyper-sexualize them" then the artist has the responsibility to do that for all characters, and if they have a hard time doing it for one of the genders, then they should do their research and get the job they were hired for done.

Well, likely, it was the other way around (the artist was already there and it was his vision he/she presented, not the other way around). Even in your situation, I would say you can't just create anything like you would a table. An artist would have a certain style and strengths. There's nothing wrong with research and all that, but I would always encourage an artist to go after his or her own vision and not a business requirement or decision.

This is unequal treatment, and to me, you are implying that the straight male demographic is accepting of sexism (can't think of a better / kinder way to say it) ...

(No worries, no offense taken, I think we're both in agreement that we're talking about each other's argument, not attacking each other)
I would agree with what you said though. I do believe that men, in general, are more accepting of their physiology being put on display for the sake of sexual arousal compared to women (again, in general). I think history and the fact that women have been oppressed for these very same factors makes it a much more sensitive and sore subject for them than it does for men, who while they have also been oppressed or treated unfairly at different times, it wasn't typically due to a sole focus on their physiology.

...This unrealistic depiction of women is one of the reasons why eating disorders are more prevalent with the female gender. And if you look at recent studies, now that it is okay to "objectify" men, eating disorders among the male gender is increasing.

Feelings of inadequacy often do follow acts of overcompensation or desperation. However, why some men / women feel inadequate about themselves tend to differ in terms of what they identify as lacking due to depictions on popular media. I don't think that's the media's fault though, I think it should come back to the notion that you should be encouraged to be critical of everything you see instead of trying to find role models in the media for yourself.

I seriously RUSHed through this, OMG LOL. Trying my best to not be harsh. Great points

Not at all, great job. Some amazing points being made.