Excuse-O-Rama

[Areloch]

Wait, I don't play the MGS games, but is the explanation for Quiet seriously supposed to be that she breathes through her skin? Was she created with amphibian DNA or something?

Spoiler

She suffers massive burns at the beginning of the game and basically is infected by a symbiotic parasite by the big bad, which replaces most of her skin. Given that her lungs were ashed, the skin parasite basically acts as her lungs, letting her breathe.

She's visibly impaired in the last mission you can do with her when she gets captured by some Russians and forced to wear prisoner clothes which cover up most of her body. She goes back to normal once she gets them off though. Similar to how it's pretty hard to get the air you need if you're trying to breathe through thick clothes.

 

[Kontarek]

So today I learned that there should never be an in-universe justification for anything people may not like.

Gotcha.

This is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if the character's written like this, they were made by a writer, and therefor it's _____ist".

If a character is sexist, that's because the writing is sexist. I'm not seeing how that's a controversial statement.

So is a character like The Major from Ghost in the Shell sexist? She spends most of the series walking around in a unitard, and the sum total of the justification seems to boil down to "the character likes to wear that".

I think the Major's outfit in Stand Alone Complex is easily the worst part of an otherwise fantastic show. But at least they never made up a bullshit excuse for it.

So today I learned that there should never be an in-universe justification for anything people may not like.

Gotcha.

This is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if the character's written like this, they were made by a writer, and therefor it's _____ist".

If a character is sexist, that's because the writing is sexist. I'm not seeing how that's a controversial statement.

Surely you could have a sexist character in a work of fiction, without the entire book being sexist?

I don't think anyone is disputing that. In fact I'd say it's pretty rare to find a work that could be defined as sexist in its entirety.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

I suspect a lot of the in-universe reasons came about because before, it was never really necessary to defend the designs, as most people either didn't care, liked them or didn't vocalise it very much if they did.

With the near constant criticism of any sexualised female character design in gaming, for right or wrong people feel the need to justify why they create those designs because "just doing it" isn't widely considered to be okay.

That's not to say the reasons hold any weight, but I suspect if it was possible to create those designs for the sake of it without such a wide spread negative reaction, then more people probably would still be giving a "Kamitani response".

This, quite a bit. It's the same kind of thinking that makes people upset at Resident Evil 5 for having a bunch of black enemies, when I doubt the artists thought much beyond, "Most people in Africa are black, we should make most of the infected black." People have gotten very pseudo-analytical about their media, and they demand answers for why something is a certain way rather than just accepting it's because artists are people too who like to draw certain things, and other times don't want to obsess over every choice when they have bigger fish to fry.

And yet it was the very reactions to Kamitani's responses that caused the efforts for justification. Amusingly enough, if you put the media's reactions beside each of their comments they would all be largely interchangeable.

Please do this. The entire media. Not just Kotaku.

Most of this story blew past me originally, but just putting 'Dragon Crown art design' into Google turns up articles from Gamasutra, Venturebeat, Destructoid, and some other outfits lambasting both the decision to put the Sorceress design in there, and the artist's response (which, depending on whether you believe the letter Kamitani wrote afterwards or not, was either a joking acknowledgement of what was going on mangled by a computer translator, or a deliberate slap in the Kotaku writer's face). Heck, this very forum saw this response from a Gearbox artist:

That's actually something that made its way into a basically finished video game, fucking lol! Some juvenile delinquent kid in my 5th grade class used to draw girls that looked like that (only without the creepy blank, featureless samefaces and wizard hats), and I think he was actually better at it. I also think he's in jail now.​

Telling the world to just accept something they do not like is not a valid strategy to avoid this style of shitstorm. Not valid criticisms and actual discussion about the art, mind you, but the kind of pointless shouting match that we see too much of, where people are more interested in calling each other chucklefucks than they are in talking. You may admire Kamitani's stance, but it doesn't address the problems people have and at best it keeps the artist from flinging back any of the feces plastering his studio.

 

[freaper]

Yes, thank you.

I got called the usual quartet of epithets for saying that Cortana's design was just teen-bait.

 

[The Wooster]

So today I learned that there should never be an in-universe justification for anything people may not like.

Gotcha.

This is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if the character's written like this, they were made by a writer, and therefor it's _____ist".

If a character is sexist, that's because the writing is sexist. I'm not seeing how that's a controversial statement.

So is a character like The Major from Ghost in the Shell sexist? She spends most of the series walking around in a unitard, and the sum total of the justification seems to boil down to "the character likes to wear that".

This is actually an interesting question since Ghost in the Shell covers the entire spectrum of these kinds of decisions.

I assume you're talking about the Stand Alone Complex TV series rather than the movies? I don't know if I'd call the Major's outfit design in that series "sexist" but I do think it was a pretty bad design. There's some scenes where she's in a room full of military types and she's dressed like she's going to a swim meet. It's an odd design and if I had creative control of the series, I wouldn't have gone with it.

The original movie however, actually has the Major end up naked quite a lot of the time, and it's a great creative decision. Sure it's "justified" by the in-universe explanation of her stealth camo being built into her skin, but it's also a great decision on its own merits. Whenever the Major strips, it's usually before some kind of body-horror sequence. Either the head exploding in the intro, the brilliant sequence where we see her cybernetic body get put back together, the agent getting his limbs broken in that pool of water, or that great sequence at the end where she jumps on the tank and literally tears her body apart trying to open the hatch. I'm sure these images are supposed to titillate and look edgy (and if 90s anime movies were anything, they were fucking edgy) but there's a solid artistic rationale for all of them. It's not just there for dudes to leer at.

And then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have the original manga by Masamune Shirow, who is as much a pornographer as he is a mangaka. The original Ghost in The Shell manga was openly exploitative and silly, and it was obvious that a lot of the nudity and sex wasn't there to make a statement or extend the story, it was there because Shirow likes drawing robot lesbians. Dude made no apologies for that, and I respect that. I'm a huge fan of his work.

 

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

Wait, I don't play the MGS games, but is the explanation for Quiet seriously supposed to be that she breathes through her skin? Was she created with amphibian DNA or something?

It was based off the same techinques that "The End" in MGS3 used to stay alive for a century, nearly completely mask his presence in battle by blending into his environment as well as do that annoying as fuck 100% heal move.
It works by making her part plant via a special type of parasite which bonds to her skin.
While I still thought it was contrived, it was a bit better then what I was expecting, considering there is actually a pretty good reason why she would need new skin given in game.

OT: This is very much a "Case by Case" basis with me in relation to character design.
I mean, I understand the nature of sex appeal and whatnot, but sometimes going out of your way to explain why the female characters all look like pin up models just makes it more obvious.

Besides, the actual black ops outfit you can unlock for Quiet that's based off the people who attack you at the start of the game looks pretty cool and makes me wish that was her actual design.

 

[DEAD34345]

Wait, I don't play the MGS games, but is the explanation for Quiet seriously supposed to be that she breathes through her skin? Was she created with amphibian DNA or something?

Don't be ridiculous. She was merely a perfectly ordinary secret agent assassin who got burned almost to death but was revived by being infected with a modified strain of a parasite which used to live inside the body of a photosynthetic sniper from the cold war.

Duh

OT: I always heard that the Dragon's Crown character actually had a (flimsy) excuse, that it was linked to early fertility goddesses or something. Maybe it was just the fans that were coming up with that justification, though.

I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't have to justify their characters being scantily clad or anatomically impossible or whatever, but if developers do feel the need to they could at least come up with more reasonable lies. Most excuses I've heard are just embarrassingly transparent.

 

[Dalisclock]

I think the Major's outfit in Stand Alone Complex is easily the worst part of an otherwise fantastic show. But at least they never made up a bullshit excuse for it.

In fact, in one episode of SAC(I think it's the one about the guy with the sex doll robot, early in the season), the Major goes off on a rant about sex dolls and how sexist they are. One of the other members of Section 9 a comment that the major is being kind of a hypocrite.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I don't give a fuck they are all hot. I already spent my time with their 'ahem' Fanart.

 

[kajinking]

This reminds me of how in Daily Life with a Monster girl they explain that larger boobs are common on the bigger Monster Girl species since their babies are bigger as well and need more milk. If I remember right the science doesn't quite back it up according to someone on the wiki but it's a half-way clever idea that would explain why the tiny Harpy is flat and the giant Centaur has a J Cup.

 

[Areloch]

So today I learned that there should never be an in-universe justification for anything people may not like.

Gotcha.

This is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if the character's written like this, they were made by a writer, and therefor it's _____ist".

If a character is sexist, that's because the writing is sexist. I'm not seeing how that's a controversial statement.

So is a character like The Major from Ghost in the Shell sexist? She spends most of the series walking around in a unitard, and the sum total of the justification seems to boil down to "the character likes to wear that".

This is actually an interesting question since Ghost in the Shell covers the entire spectrum of these kinds of decisions.

I assume you're talking about the Stand Alone Complex TV series rather than the movies? I don't know if I'd call the Major's outfit design in that series "sexist" but I do think it was a pretty bad design. There's some scenes where she's in a room full of military types and she's dressed like she's going to a swim meet. It's an odd design and if I had creative control of the series, I wouldn't have gone with it.

The original movie however, actually has the Major end up naked quite a lot of the time, and it's a great creative decision. Sure it's "justified" by the in-universe explanation of her stealth camo being built into her skin, but it's also a great decision on its own merits. Whenever the Major strips, it's usually before some kind of body-horror sequence. Either the head exploding in the intro, the brilliant sequence where we see her cybernetic body get put back together, the agent getting his limbs broken in that pool of water, or that great sequence at the end where she jumps on the tank and literally tears her body apart trying to open the hatch. I'm sure these images are supposed to titillate and look edgy (and if 90s anime movies were anything, they were fucking edgy) but there's a solid artistic rationale for all of them. It's not just there for dudes to leer at.

And then at the opposite end of the spectrum you have the original manga by Masamune Shirow, who is as much a pornographer as he is a mangaka. The original Ghost in The Shell manga was openly exploitative and silly, and it was obvious that a lot of the nudity and sex wasn't there to make a statement or extend the story, it was there because Shirow likes drawing robot lesbians. Dude made no apologies for that, and I respect that. I'm a huge fan of his work.

Yeah, I'll clarify in that I was thinking of the TV series.

And really, I can't say her outfit is really any worse than the people that go to work in an atrocious Hawaiian patterned shirt.

I mean, you say her outfit was kinda terrible, but I see plenty of girls wearing even less than that - like the booty short/bikini top combo - any time the weather is nice enough to allow it. So if a real life person can make a decision to wear skimpy clothing, why is it somehow a poor excuse if a writer writes a character to wear similar clothes?

But you also gave another good example with the nudity-stealth stuff in the movies. Whether there is further artistic justification with the juxtaposition of the body horror or no, it sounds like you acknowledge that the in-universe explanation of why she needs to get naked for the optical camo to work is decent enough.

So now it would become a question of "If some explanations are, indeed, valid, then why are some not?".

I mean, I have no doubt there's a lot of creators out there that come up with flimsy excuses after the fact, but it seems awfully presumptuous to be able to wontonly point at something and go "Nah, I don't think that explanation is good enough, clearly it and the creator are sexist."

I can dig it if you think the explanation is dumb, but I think it falls apart about the time one tries to assign secretive motives to the creators because one thinks the explanation is dumb.

 

[Makabriel]

Yeah, I have to agree with a majority of the posts here. They are only trying to "justify" design choices because they are being forced to. There was a time when these decisions were never questioned. Now every game has to justify why they are not including a gay/bi/female/trans/black/arabic/big boned/whatever character...

 

[Smoketrail]

Yeah as a couple of others have said it's odd how Cortana became more explicitly naked as the halo games went on, up to 3 I didn't really notice as her design changed and her chest gained more definition. But for some reason the addition of a navel and toes (Not to mention the effort they put into her other "assets")to the design in four makes it much more apparent that she's naked and it's kinda offputting in a weird way.

I guess she starts veering into the uncanny valley perhaps.

Who knows, maybe its because I never played any of the games after 3.

 

[Schadrach]

Wait, I don't play the MGS games, but is the explanation for Quiet seriously supposed to be that she breathes through her skin? Was she created with amphibian DNA or something?

Symbiote/parasite...thing. She also drinks through her skin and undergoes photosynthesis. The explanation is all very much MGS logic in all its glory. Also, if you pay attention, the texture they use for her skin a little..off. It's subtle, but it's there.

 

[Phasmal]

Yeah, I have to agree with a majority of the posts here. They are only trying to "justify" design choices because they are being forced to. There was a time when these decisions were never questioned. Now every game has to justify why they are not including a gay/bi/female/trans/black/arabic/big boned/whatever character...

Oh dear, let us mourn the `good old days` before women started thinkin' they could wear clothes in games. And before straight white males being the protagonist nearly all the time was ruined by all these `political` people existing as something else.

---

But yeah, I agree with the comic. Everyone can see that you're going for the horny boy demographic, to pretend otherwise just makes it look silly. Unless I'm supposed to believe that so many female characters just feel so darn empowered by gettin' dey titties out in a battlefield.
Like, it's fine. Just own up to it.

 

[RJ 17]

I like how the Sorceress' boobs magically got bigger between the 3rd and 4th panel. :3

And yeah, it's like the creator of the DoA series said in an interview when asked about the character design in that series: "I like looking at beautiful women, and so I wanted to fill my game with beautiful women." Fair enough. You might not like it and then you're free not to support it, but at least he's not pissing in our faces while telling us it's raining.

 

[The Wooster]

So now it would become a question of "If some explanations are, indeed, valid, then why are some not?".

I mean, I have no doubt there's a lot of creators out there that come up with flimsy excuses after the fact, but it seems awfully presumptuous to be able to wontonly point at something and go "Nah, I don't think that explanation is good enough, clearly it and the creator are sexist."

I can dig it if you think the explanation is dumb, but I think it falls apart about the time one tries to assign secretive motives to the creators because one thinks the explanation is dumb.

All in-universe justifications are valid, it's the creator's universe after all, but when we're talking about ARTISTIC DESIGN, we're talking about the actual process of creating work. You seem hung up on the idea of sexism, so let's run a hypothetical without any negative/positive value assigned to a creative decision.

You ask me, "Why does Erin wear Converse shoes when they clash with her core outfit?"
I say, "because she likes them."

I haven't answered your question, I haven't even engaged with your question. Erin doesn't "like" anything. She's not real. I made that decision. I'm essentially responding to your question, "why did you make that decision?," with, "because I made that decision." It's a useless non-response.

A far more useful response would be: "We chose the converse shoes because they contrast with her nerdier work ensemble in form, while reinforcing her blue/white colour scheme. The shoes are generally worn by younger people, and they clash horribly with her professional outfit, which reinforce her core character traits (namely that she's immature and she has trouble fitting in in professional environments)."

One response actually answers your question or criticism, the other doesn't.

 

[visiblenoise]

Ehh, I don't like to take video games so seriously.

Kickass character? Great! Hot? Even better! Nonsensical outfit? Fuck it, why not? I'm not the artist here.

 

[Barbas]

Hooray for boobies!

I hope this was as much fun for you to draw as it was for me to stare at!