Dragon's Crown Review: Buxom Babes and Battleaxes

[-Axle-]

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.

Precisely. The focus would then be to find those new baker's instead of disparaging or getting rid of the existing ones.

 

[-Axle-]

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.

LOL!

This actually reminded me of a comment my mother-in-law made one day, saying that she never thought the male body was all that attractive but when she saw the men dressed in 300 she was very much attracted.

The most important part here is, most women liked the men for superficial physiological reasons, and not because of their characters. Nothing wrong with that (unless, of course, you start to devalue them).

 

[-Axle-]

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 ... 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*

So I'm curious, what is wrong with that? I see the difference, but what exactly are you suggesting is the problem?

I don't think its secret knowledge that a confident male is sexually appealing to straight women. Where as a timid male or unconfident one is not typically the object of desire. Inversely, a timid female is found to be appealing for some straight males, especially in Japanese culture, which is the perspective this game is created from.

(dont have soething against that. i like porn. but that is an action-spg-brawler, no fucking eroge.

While I agree with you that those scenes are a better fit for an erotic game, I'll ask the same question again as above, what is wrong with it? Hybrids happen all the time. You can't make an erotic action brawler?

 

[-Axle-]

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.

An old post but I thought I would quickly add my comments.

I agree with this person as well in terms of choice of words. I would've said "Polarizing taste" as questionable seems to imply that there might be something wrong with it.

I don't know if the reviewer cares, reads these comments, nor do they need my feedback, just thought I'd mention it.

 

[CBanana]

To address some earlier comment, there is a difference between bare-chested male power fantasies and fanservice geared towards women.

Umm, no, actually there isn't. It was already explained why. Also, people have every right to complain about men being exploited if we have to constantly hear about females being exploited. The muscular man is based on what women find sexually desirable, whether you want to admit it or not. It's amazing how some of you in this thread are in denial about this.

Also, not all men and women are attracted to the same thing. Your little example is more geared to the anime/manga crowd who seem to like more feminine looking men. Plus, I'm sure may of the comments in that youtube video were jokes, like the quote you picked out.

You do know it's a trend in almost all female targeted media for the males to have more of a slightly lithe athletic build than a steroid abuser build? Yes, some women may prefer the steroid abuser build but they're in the minority.

My male friends in real life find the male high elf from TERA off putting so it's not just the YouTube commentators although my male friends are far more mature in their comments. At any rate, I'm not going to stop anyone from complaining about anything although I'll take someone a lot more seriously if they're not spewing homophobic or misogynistic garbage.

Ultimately though, I'd like people to have a bit of empathy for other people. Just because someone isn't offended, doesn't mean they can't show some empathy to someone who is.

 

[-Axle-]

...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?

+1

I almost wish there was a way to publish this (without sounding arrogant) in a video form as some sort of debate as there's a lot of ground that was covered and really thought-provoking points made without drawing too many absolute conclusions.

I think it would benefit the overall gaming community considering it tends to lean more towards anger, outrage, and scandal instead of civil constructive discussion. Obviously one results in more clicks, so I'm not being completely unreasonable, but maybe the thumbnail shows first-class erotic art. Yes? No? I tried.

 

[Minity]

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 have a little more time today, so I will try to be a bit more thoughtful than my last post lol

I totally understand what you are saying here, and I completely agree, that my idea of sexism is too broad. You are correct that sexism, the term, indicates negative associations. I do not feel the characters in DC are devalued for their portrayal. I think they were depicted unequally. So .....I will use "unequal treatment of gender" (which...waaaaaay in the future, I would like to not be done) to describe this from here on out. However, I will probably skip some of your examples, except to clarify where I may be coming from, as I do believe that sexism can be occuring in those outside examples.

I hope that makes sense? lol

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).

Agreed. The only way I would say that sexism is occurring in DC is the unequal treatment of all women in video games, meaning they cannot appear any other way. Which is not the case, especially as more games continue to change and become more well rounded. (There is still sexism in games, but IMO, it predominately involves women being allowed to be the main characters, and that is also slowly changing) Also, if you look at the very original designs, the sorceress looked nothing like she does now, so she would have been in the game, regardless of being hyper-sexualized (she was younger and had no breasts actually lol).

If the only way she was getting in the game was to be sexualized, then it would be sexism.

Her portrayal is simply unequal in comparison to how the men (playable ones) are portrayed.

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.

Only in my "utopia" do I think that is possible, LOL, sorry I did not make that more clear.

For example, the hyper-sexualized characters of DC, will not appeal to everyone, I was saying it could have been done for the playable male characters and the target audience, IMO would not have been upset. I am not saying we should have done it to try and please everyone, simple that it could have been done and made the depiction between the playable gendered characters more equal.

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.

I agree with you and this would still fall under the category of "unequal treatment of gender" for me, because studies show, fathers pick up those traits when the mother is not in the picture, meaning both sexes can embody that. Now, from a marketing stand point, you don't want to make everyone the same and depict them the same, but IMO, that means the populations views of mothers and fathers is unequal....

Is that sexist...I guess it depends, and we could discuss that more, but I am going to keep moving on for now.

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.

Agreed, but for DC, IMO. it shows that we could have hyper-sexualized the playable men and it been ok

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.

Agreed. Doing it only because they were men, is leading into sexism though, which is my argument for the women. In DC, it is only unequal treatment.. I guess for me, I was discussing with my BF last night, that sexism draws up too many negative ideas and people become definsive, so like I said earlier, its not want I want to use for this discussion.

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.

Agreed again, however, lets take the audience out. Was the original intent to include the sorceress as transgendered (like Poison from SF right?) and was is scrapped only because she was transgendered, that is unequal treatment, and devalues the transgendered demographic IMO.

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).

I agree with this, but that is still unequal treatment. Again, take out the audience, why aren't those non-physical traits being exaggerated for the women and only for the men. Why is it only physical (I know it deals with the target it audience, but if you have an idea, for how you want your female character to be, and you cannot do it, only because she is female (and vice versa) for men, then it is unequal treatment, and we are starting to step into sexist territory). I don't want to keep going with that example, because I'm pretty sure you know I will then ask the question does the depiction devalue the character, etc...

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?

Exactly, I do not think it would / should lead to discrimination. I feel, in media, (esp since we keep bring up that target audience LOL) that the depiction is cause by the discrimination that already exists. So that is why I want to discuss the unequal treatment of the characters in DC, so we can be aware of it and become aware of our own biases. How will we move forward without knowledge and understanding.

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.

I agree with you completely, but I am going to play devils advocate and say it is still unequal treatment, lol, its not wrong, but it is unequal...and thats ok. I am trying very hard to look at this argument without discussing, who it is catering to. I don't care who it is for...is unequal treatment there? Once we answer that, then we can look into why and why not and if it is sexist or not. I think that is a much clearer representation of where I am coming from lol

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.

Agreed, but we also both agreed it could be done, regardless of target audience. Now, lets discuss the women again, I am curious of your thought on my question, do we, as American's know that the male characters are male (wizard and knight) only because they do not have bulging breasts and butts?

It doesn't matter what the target audience is, is the unequal treatment there, must women be depicted with their sexual assets exaggerated so we know they are women? (I feel that is why people are saying the game is sexist, that the women cannot appear in this game otherwise)

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?

Ok, so we have a love story with 1 transgendered person and another love story a heterosexual couple. Are the couple depicted differently only because of their sex. I.E. Does the transgendered character look trashy, or not put together, or disorganized, or unattractive, only because they are transgendered. The decision was made that they must be this way because of their sex.

I think you and I are on the same page, they should not be depicted differently, only based on their sex, but obviously they are different, so they may have different plot lines in their stories, however, the key peaces of a love story would all be there, you know?

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.

I feel like this is semantics, you can ask people, including artists to re-do something until it meets the original creators intent. Hmmm...Like, if I was the creator of DC, and I wanted all of my characters hyper-sexualized, I would say look at Roland and make the other, playable male characters sexualized like him, I would give him examples of Wizards that I thought were sexy. It doesn't mean my strength is in seeing males sexy. does that make sense?

Now, i would also encourage an artist to go after their vision, but they are hired for a job, not always for their creative vision. And again, I am not saying the artist is wrong or that the men he drew are not "sexy", but the sexualized versions are just not equal between the sexes, and he drew a character (Again I use Roland) to show that he was capable of hyper-sexualizing the men more...again IMO

I am sorry, I feel like I just talked in a circle.

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.

I love this statement, because it shows you have a clear understanding and ability to view others view points as to why they may feel this way. I wish others who were having this debate /discussion could be so clear and open.

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

I feel like we are coming even closer to a clear understanding...at least of the depictions of characters in DC LOL

Plus, it means our wall will get smaller LMAO


Also, I would just like to add, that the characters in DC do not have established personalities or backgrounds, so its not like the women were closer to "normal" in one game and then all of a sudden hyper-sexualized for this game only because they are women. That would be closer to sexism.

 

[Minity]

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 ... 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*

So I'm curious, what is wrong with that? I see the difference, but what exactly are you suggesting is the problem?

I don't think its secret knowledge that a confident male is sexually appealing to straight women. Where as a timid male or unconfident one is not typically the object of desire. Inversely, a timid female is found to be appealing for some straight males, especially in Japanese culture, which is the perspective this game is created from.

(dont have soething against that. i like porn. but that is an action-spg-brawler, no fucking eroge.

While I agree with you that those scenes are a better fit for an erotic game, I'll ask the same question again as above, what is wrong with it? Hybrids happen all the time. You can't make an erotic action brawler?

I actually think that touching character game goes more into sexism than anything else in DC (But lets remember, we have not played the game yet, there may be a male character who moans and wiggles just like the girl).

I would say it starts to devalue them because....how do I say this....their sexuality is one sided, based on their gender, and we don't get to see any other option. It's definitely unequal, is it sexist? Like I said, its much more sexist than the player characters in the game, but we haven't seen everything, we don't know who else we get to touch LOL

 

[Minity]

...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?

+1

I almost wish there was a way to publish this (without sounding arrogant) in a video form as some sort of debate as there's a lot of ground that was covered and really thought-provoking points made without drawing too many absolute conclusions.

I think it would benefit the overall gaming community considering it tends to lean more towards anger, outrage, and scandal instead of civil constructive discussion. Obviously one results in more clicks, so I'm not being completely unreasonable, but maybe the thumbnail shows first-class erotic art. Yes? No? I tried.

STFU

LMAO I was literally telling my BF that I wish we could take this conversation and publish it as an academic article, because I really think it calls into question the use of the term "sexism", how it appeals to men (I think most are immediately put on the defensive when it is used), and are people even using it correctly or know its true definition!?

 

[Minity]

To address some earlier comment, there is a difference between bare-chested male power fantasies and fanservice geared towards women.

Umm, no, actually there isn't. It was already explained why. Also, people have every right to complain about men being exploited if we have to constantly hear about females being exploited. The muscular man is based on what women find sexually desirable, whether you want to admit it or not. It's amazing how some of you in this thread are in denial about this.

Also, not all men and women are attracted to the same thing. Your little example is more geared to the anime/manga crowd who seem to like more feminine looking men. Plus, I'm sure may of the comments in that youtube video were jokes, like the quote you picked out.

You do know it's a trend in almost all female targeted media for the males to have more of a slightly lithe athletic build than a steroid abuser build? Yes, some women may prefer the steroid abuser build but they're in the minority.

My male friends in real life find the male high elf off from TERA putting so it's not just the YouTube commentators although my male friends are far more mature in their comments. At any rate, I'm not going to stop anyone from complain about anything although I'll take someone a lot more seriously if they're not spewing homophobic or misogynistic garbage.

Ultimately though, I'd like people to have a bit of empathy for other people. Just because someone isn't offended, doesn't mean they can't show some empathy to someone who is.

Exactly, and pointing out when someone thinks sexism or unequal treatment of gender is occurring is not bad, how else will we move forward and get something different if we cannot discuss the topic.

I assume that, just because your friends don't like the male high elf in TERA doesn't mean they think the high elf shouldn't be there. They don't have to like it, and their opinions are valid. Just as the people who don't like the women in DC, but it doesn't mean those women shouldn't be there as well.

 

[Grahav]

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

Not exactly to everyone. Some straight men (too much naked guys), people who studied the history of Sparta (they killed slaves for sport) and ESPECIALLY iranians (descendents of the persians).

But it does get kudos for depicting semi-naked men for the overall balance. Not my thing, but it pleases other people, so it is fine.


You see that even among the own gender there is discordance in what constitutes appealing. Thank god!

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

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.

Precisely. The focus would then be to find those new baker's instead of disparaging or getting rid of the existing ones.

I want you both to know that I really apreciated this conversation.

One thing that I concluded. Even if the present bussiness focus is to use whatever it gives money (be it baby products without fathers, T&A, pure kindness) this doesn't mean that the final result won't be bad. Or won't be good.

The baby thing for example. The company wants to stay competitive and assure the pay-check of everyone, right? But there are already a stream of thought that thinks that fathers are just accessories to mothers. What you get?

Fathers leaving families because the mom will take care of the kids. Mothers alienating the children of their fathers.

The lack of clothed female protagonists. Or excessive fanservice. Or the armies of male mooks getting slaughtered without a second thought. Or the lack of compassion against male characters in the media.

Are they the symptons of our current culture? They perpetuate our current culture? Both?

It is undeniable that they associate with sexual objects (female) and expendable objects (male).

Reverse it?

Women with no sexual desire and unnatainable. Men with no courage.

So, what then? Do we censor it?

North Korea, Iran, Russia...

Paved with Good and Neutral Intentions indeed.

It is the hard way. To balance freedom of expression, with knowledge of self and others, with responsibility (not censorship).

You can create anything if you are willing to accept and discuss criticism. You can have any media, as long you have common sense to not turn into a dick or a **** (see, I offended both) because of it.

In a weird way, Dragon's Crown was strangely progressive. It wasn't intended to be thought provocative (or was it?) but made us discuss a lot of things. Heck, I got some improved points of view on the issue.

I hope more people could also get it.

Although, considering the differences some may have gotten worse.

Goddamit.

Fantastic and Stupid diversity.

 

[Grahav]

...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?

+1

I almost wish there was a way to publish this (without sounding arrogant) in a video form as some sort of debate as there's a lot of ground that was covered and really thought-provoking points made without drawing too many absolute conclusions.

I think it would benefit the overall gaming community considering it tends to lean more towards anger, outrage, and scandal instead of civil constructive discussion. Obviously one results in more clicks, so I'm not being completely unreasonable, but maybe the thumbnail shows first-class erotic art. Yes? No? I tried.

STFU

LMAO I was literally telling my BF that I wish we could take this conversation and publish it as an academic article, because I really think it calls into question the use of the term "sexism", how it appeals to men (I think most are immediately put on the defensive when it is used), and are people even using it correctly or know its true definition!?

I support this.

 

[-Axle-]

if you look at the very original designs, the sorceress looked nothing like she does now, so she would have been in the game, regardless of being hyper-sexualized (she was younger and had no breasts actually lol).

I wasn't even aware there was a predecessor to the game, thanks for bringing that up (I think someone hinted to it earlier but never clarified). I checked it out but Princess Crown appears to be separate from Dragon's Crown in terms of design (they were made by the same person, but its not a re-make) so I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the "original" design.

If the only way she was getting in the game was to be sexualized, then it would be sexism.

I see what you're getting at. Its interesting to point out because the way I keep seeing it, is that because she's female, they chose to highlight sexuality, versus only including her on the condition that that her sexuality be on display. Kind of like putting a big guy on defense in a sport (ie. you put them in defense because of their physical size, but its not like you're not willing to let them play at all unless they play defense)

... studies show, fathers pick up those traits when the mother is not in the picture ...

What do you mean? You make it sound like they would only behave that way if the mother isn't present. LOL, I'm just bugging you, I know what you meant.

Was the original intent to include the sorceress as transgendered (like Poison from SF right?) and was is scrapped only because she was transgendered, that is unequal treatment, and devalues the transgendered demographic IMO.

Just a quick side-note, I don't believe Poison was transgendered by original design, she became that way when the NA port of Final Fight was done to avoid controversy with male-on-female violence. Although, clearly that decision seems to imply equally if not worse implications for discrimination! lol

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?

Exactly, I do not think it would / should lead to discrimination. I feel, in media, (esp since we keep bring up that target audience LOL) that the depiction is cause by the discrimination that already exists. So that is why I want to discuss the unequal treatment of the characters in DC, so we can be aware of it and become aware of our own biases.

I understand what you mean but I have to admit I find that view a little on the pessimistic side. I completely sympathize with why you would doubt the creator's intent and would be more inclined to agree with you if it we were living in the age were there were cartoon versions of black people with exaggerated features still being made. Nowadays, I think people (artists) are more inclined to just follow their fantasy(ies) when conjuring their work, rather than making socio-political statements. Although I understand that you don't think its necessarily intentional, but coming from the subconscious side, or at least knowledge / bias taken for granted.

must women be depicted with their sexual assets exaggerated so we know they are women? (I feel that is why people are saying the game is sexist, that the women cannot appear in this game otherwise)

I have that suspicion as well (why people jump to the conclusion), but I would say that is a very specious conclusion based on assumptions. Clearly we can have female character's where their sexuality is not part of their character. Its just so rare (in all mediums) since sexuality is considered so central to a woman's identity and definition.

PS. re: Wall of Text, Is there a prize for decent effort at improving!

 

[-Axle-]

I actually think that touching character game goes more into sexism than anything else in DC (But lets remember, we have not played the game yet, there may be a male character who moans and wiggles just like the girl).

I would say it starts to devalue them because....how do I say this....their sexuality is one sided, based on their gender, and we don't get to see any other option. It's definitely unequal, is it sexist? Like I said, its much more sexist than the player characters in the game, but we haven't seen everything, we don't know who else we get to touch LOL

But you do? In the video in the post, you can see the Barbarian (Roland) being touched with the same icon and with the freedom in any area (whoo!). Did you watch the whole thing?

The only complaint I heard was that the one woman was bound while the Barbarian was just standing there (I won't bother repeating my reply just to save space)

 

[-Axle-]

I want you both to know that I really apreciated this conversation.

Likewise

...
Are they the symptons of our current culture? They perpetuate our current culture? Both?
...

This was an amazing post loaded to the brim with discussion points.

What I would love to hear more about from both you and Minity (and anyone else who agrees with them), is why this inequality / bias / polarization is a bad thing. Your above statement ties in beautifully with the concern over violent entertainment as well (ie. do we glorify violence due to our current culture? do we perpetuate the glorification of violence? etc). I think we all know that its a product of both but does that make it inherently bad (just to clarify, I am talking about sexuality now, the violence thing was just a quick tangent)

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

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.

Not to mention to question the art direction of this game as "exaggerated" is to forget that we have real life people walking around today with those sorts of proportions.

Plus Japanese.

 

[Grahav]

I want you both to know that I really apreciated this conversation.

Likewise

...
Are they the symptons of our current culture? They perpetuate our current culture? Both?
...

This was an amazing post loaded to the brim with discussion points.

What I would love to hear more about from both you and Minity (and anyone else who agrees with them), is why this inequality / bias / polarization is a bad thing. Your above statement ties in beautifully with the concern over violent entertainment as well (ie. do we glorify violence due to our current culture? do we perpetuate the glorification of violence? etc). I think we all know that its a product of both but does that make it inherently bad (just to clarify, I am talking about sexuality now, the violence thing was just a quick tangent)

It does not. The problem is how people react to things.

When Hitler publised his book, a lot of people got along with it. Some were terrified, because they were able to see what was coming. Now is a study of a mad man's mind. And inspiration to neo-nazis...

DC is a parody, a study about sexuality and prejudice, fap material, a beat'em uo with friends, a perpetuation of unrealistic bodies.

It is all about how people interpret it. And there is always a dipshit who learns the worse possibility even in works with the best intentions..

http://www.cracked.com/article_20543_the-5-most-insanely-misunderstood-morals-famous-stories.html

Still, we should go creating responsible. It is demeaning to the rest of humanity in thinking that we will handle anything given to us as stupid babies. We must exercise our responsibility and not be cowards.

End

 

[Minity]

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.

Not to mention to question the art direction of this game as "exaggerated" is to forget that we have real life people walking around today with those sorts of proportions.

Plus Japanese.

I want you both to know that I really apreciated this conversation.

Likewise

...
Are they the symptons of our current culture? They perpetuate our current culture? Both?
...

This was an amazing post loaded to the brim with discussion points.

What I would love to hear more about from both you and Minity (and anyone else who agrees with them), is why this inequality / bias / polarization is a bad thing. Your above statement ties in beautifully with the concern over violent entertainment as well (ie. do we glorify violence due to our current culture? do we perpetuate the glorification of violence? etc). I think we all know that its a product of both but does that make it inherently bad (just to clarify, I am talking about sexuality now, the violence thing was just a quick tangent)

http://widgetau.org/male-sexualization-in-video-games/

This is a very good article on the topic.

One of the things that stood out since we are talking about hyper-sexualization...

"Sexualization has a lot in common with sexual objectification. Smythe (2007) describes it as the viewing of people solely as de-personalized objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires of their own. Sexual attraction is therefore not the same as sexual objectification; objectification only occurs when the individuality of the desired person is not acknowledged. The person is only being viewed as a body."

and

"Male sexualization is difficult for many to pinpoint. For example, many believe that characters with, as Bordo (1999) puts it, engorged Schwarzenegger bodies, have sexuality.

According to my study of such characters, that is often not the case."

Just an interesting read

(Also, if you are on PS3, let me know, I am leveling up my sorceress now )