Gaming, Media, Boobies and Poorly Thought-Out Responses: Oh My!

[Hagi]

As far as I'm concerned there's nothing inherently wrong with art like this, provided there are alternatives. Pretty much the stance in the PA report article.

The reaction from the creator is pretty freaking idiotic though. It's fine to make and enjoy art like that, but it's also perfectly fine to criticize it. Let's not start pretending art like this is somehow deep or impressive. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing really right about it either. It's just a drawing, nothing more.

Spoiler: I will say though, that given the two choices presented here, I will choose the warrior without any doubt.

 

[oreso]

Spoiler: This is they, for reference.

I kinda like the style a lot. Colourful, exaggerated and powerful-looking. He's drawing both genders with a variety of body types with a variety of scantily-cladness.

More diversity is good. It could be even more diverse, sure. But this is far from the worst.

 

[Paragon Fury]

There is one important thing I need to clarify here that is causing some confusion here, and that is WHY women's appearance matters more than men's.

It didn't ALWAYS used to be that way; roll back the clock far enough, we get to the earliest humans, where the physical appearance of men and women would've been equally important in determining their fitness for achieving our ultimate goal (reproduction and survival). Big, strong men and strong, well-looking women abound and were the standard by which everyone would be judged.

But then something happened; civilization. Things like trade, large-scale agriculture, technology. And this had a an effect on the gender dynamic - men's usefulness and importance to the society suddenly were no longer tied to our physical appearance. Obviously the change didn't occur overnight, but did occur. Man no longer needed to look like he could chase down and strangle dinner with his bare hands in order to appear attractive and able to fulfill his half of the deal in providing to society and taking care of any children he might (help) produce.

Unfortunately for women, their part of said deal didn't change, because the act of childbirth is inexorably linked to their physical appearance; to the point of where it could've determined life or death for the woman and child. And its been true ever since; technology and science have not come close to removing the link between a woman's body and her reproductive fitness (except that now it simply means the difference between say, a $1,000 hospital bill and a $10,000 dollar hospital bill rather than death) so their physical appearance is still important even today.

And as for the original story, I think a lot of people are forgetting that it comes from Japan, a country and culture where gender roles and expected appearances/behaviors are still very much taught, expected and enforced. People seem to be forgetting that to much of the world the idea of "gender equality" and breaking down of expected gender behaviors/differences is a largely Western or American concept, and it confuses the shit out of people from other countries and cultures.

 

[Zeles]

Uuuuuuuuuuggghh. You know what I want to see?

If I were looking for a game to play, and I had a choice of avatars, I would pick a female that made me feel like a badass while playing her. That's it. I feel badass when I'm swinging around swords or spells, in something practical, but still nice. Maaayyybee showing a LITTLE midriff if I'm in that kind of mood. I want an avatar that makes me feel strong, like I can take on the world!

The sorceress doesn't make me feel like that. The Barbarian doesn't make me feel like that. The Ranger... I dunno, maybe.

My point is, if there are avatars that make the males feel badass, why can't there be female one's too?

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

One word that sums this up for me: odd.

Just plain odd. I've played and own many games by Atlus and Vanillaware and knowing that they are both developing this game, I find that the way they chose stylized all the main characters in this game (tall, somewhat thin, top heavy, and extremely proportional) is just plain odd.

I just can't believe that after developing character designs like this,

Spoiler: Persona 4

this,

Spoiler: Odin Sphere

and this,

Spoiler: Muramasa: The Demon Blade

they went ahead and decided this for the cast of Dragon's Crown.

Spoiler: Seriously, Atlas and Vanillaware?

Listen, I get it. They wanted to try something new, but that still doesn't make it any less odd.

It's like when NIS let me down with Mugen Souls.

 

[Krixous]

most of atlus's flagship series have quite realistic portrayals of females i mean smt and persona are quite well designed with actual personalities not to mention nisa games they release generally have a plethora of females with out gravity defying anatomy and even when they do its generally used as a joke and the less endowed more realistic looking woman are generally much more loved by fans so i think atleast i can give atlus a pass for there KoF games and this one for that matter its kinda bullshit in this case i mean im all for more realistic women but atlus had realistic women before this was a issue for the most part.

 

[Uhura]

snip

I didn't say that it is/was as common among men. You stated that wearing suits and using hair styling stuff is pretty much the only things men have historically (I assume you meant historically since most of the examples you used for women were not from this century) done in order to look good. It was a gross underestimation, which is why responded to you.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

It's a Japanese game, allow me to act surpised. Dear lord what are the children gonna- give a shit.

Japan's culture notoriously hasn't got a very high opinion of women, but in that same instance the western world goes maniac if anything is remotley sexual. Sexuality shouldn't be getting people angry, if her powers were making sandwiches, then I'd be one of the first ones to get a flaming pitch fork.

Whilst I do admit that I wouldn't have noticed the game existed if there weren't a massive pair of gazzongas in it, it isn't going to make me reach for my wallet. If the gameplay was more to my tastes then sure, but sadly not.
Mostly because I draw my own massive boobas, oh how I weep for those poor teenage boys who can't draw.

 

[omega 616]

snip

I didn't say that it is/was as common among men. You stated that wearing suits and using hair styling stuff is pretty much the only things men have historically (I assume you meant historically since most of the examples you used for women were not from this century) done in order to look good. It was a gross underestimation, which is why responded to you.

The key words being "pretty much", which is what I was hoping to have implied and seems I have done so successfully.

It wasn't a gross underestimation, I would say it was a pretty good estimation ... it wasn't dead on the money but it's not like I said "men have never done such things", which is what an estimation is.

 

[Uhura]

The key words being "pretty much", which is what I was hoping to have implied and seems I have done so successfully.
It wasn't a gross underestimation, I would say it was a pretty good estimation ... it wasn't dead on the money but it's not like I said "men have never done such things", which is what an estimation is.

It absolutely was a gross underestimation... to me it sounds like you aren't that aware of the history of male fashion and grooming.

 

[spartan231490]

Video games are a business, they'll keep drawing characters like that as long as it sells, take ur problem up with the gamers who buy it, not the artists that make it.

 

[Queen Michael]

It was the 'journalists' interpretation that being called gay was a negative thing.

Not really, that was the entire point of the original quote and accompanying picture. What the artist was saying was basically "Jason Schreier doesn't like the sorceress or the amazon. What is he, gay?" Gayness is treated as a bad thing, or if not actually bad thing then at least the punchline to a joke. And it is homophobic to treat gayness as a punchline.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Also, this is the first time I've seen that character and holy shit, ahahahahahaha. 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. This is amazing.

You think she's bad? Have you seen the other characters?

Spoiler: This is they, for reference.

(credit for that goes to Kopikatsu from the other thread but I just don't want to spam her inbox with a quote)

Spoiler: My comment about them also from the other thread

I do like how the Barbarian classes pretty much have the same amount of cloth.

Are the bottom two the barbarian classes? If so, I think the male has more cloth. Well, that's based on my belief that the female is wearing chainmail bikini...somewhere there. The surface of both would be approximately the same, though.

But I feel compelled to ask WHAT'S WITH THEIR HEADS? The female's head is about the size of her fist. I'm not sure if the male either doesn't have a neck or his head is just halfway out of his torso like an indecisive but angry turtle.

Also, the sorceress...is there something wrong with her back? I don't think that's a natural pose, then again, with such a rack I'd imagine she probably has some spine pain/problems, so I guess that'd excuse it.

The knight just looks...unstable, I suppose. Now, I'm not really that good at anatomy or even drawing people but I'm pretty sure that the shoulders and upper torso are at least twice as big as what would be dangerous body proportions. or maybe his upper body is only 1.5/2 times the dangerous level but has really bulky armour which is still too impractical. I'm pretty sure he'll end up resembling a turtle too - just push him back once and he'll be all armoured and stuff but on his back and unable to go back on his feet.

The sorcerer and the...ranger? Seem the most normal. Although the ranger has legs that might put Bayonetta to shame (I think they are close to twice her torso) and...there is something odd about the sorcerer proportions but I can't pinpoint it. I think his head is a bit on the smaller side for his body or maybe his shoulders are a bit to wide. But among the rest he could pass for normal.

I think you're more into art than I (I suck at stick figures myself) so I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about them.

Also, I do think the sorceress looks the most ridiculous.

The only male character on there I hate is the sorcerer or whatever, because I personally can't stand that long white-haired emo dude look that is in like every anime-styled game ever. But it's not even the boobs and ass itself that creeps me out with this kind of stuff, it's those awkward painful-looking sexy poses combined with identical faces that are completely devoid of features, expression, or personality. It's super creepy and makes it pretty clear that the focus is meant to be their sexual features and not the characters themselves, and to me that's an artistic cop-out and boring.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Guys guys guys...

The fact that women are expected to look perfect all the time.

That's not a GOOD THING. It's certainly not an excuse as to why we should continue to be sex objects in video games...
Should I just go burn my two Degrees and join a beauty school then or what? I just...I can't believe the stuff people come out with sometimes.

Slams face off desk (No wait I shouldn't do that MY FACE IS IMPORTANT)

 

[Lee Oyd]

I figured I'd go and post my $.02 before this topic inevitably turns to shit. Hi, I'm a stupid newb.

We throw buzzwords around like confetti and we keep missing the point. "Sexualized." "Objectified." Doesn't mean shit. The problem absolutely IS sexism. In design philosophy.

Good character design tells you about the character it portrays. It follows what the story and background tells you about them. It fits into the art style. Unless you're specifically going for a subversion ("tougher than they look"), if you fail at these two basic tenets of character design, your design sucks. Period. No ifs, no buts. Try again.

And devs gladly follow that with male characters. When you're told Marcus Fenix spends his afternoons chainsawing aliens, you believe it. Then when the time comes to make a female character, they 180 right then. They throw it all out the window, they puke out bullshit #34 bait with one hand while jerking off with the other and they go "Oh but it's OK that her design is shit because she has a vagina."

That's sexism. That IS sexism. As a matter of fact, that's as literal, technical a definition of sexism as you can get. As if sexism didn't suck enough by itself, it breeds and maintains shitty character design. That's the problem. Always has been.

And then they protest. "But-but-but...SEKSHULLY LIBURATED!!!! DO YOU HAET SEX????" "Sexually liberated", another of those bullshit hijacked buzzwords. Liberated sexuality is sexuality beyond emptying your balls, folks. It's being able to choose a partner who'll actually put as much effort as she does into awesome sex. Not throwing her holes at any greasy jerkoff who demands it.

TL;DR -- Video games fail at character design and basic sexuality. If we don't call them out on it, look forward to shitty character design forever.

 

[Queen Michael]

Snippety snippety snip

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is exactly my problem with games (and to a larger degree, with superhero comic books, which I otherwise love.) "Hey, let's use the same design for all the women, regardless of whether it gives the right impression or not." You deserve applause.

 

[Legion]

I figured I'd go and post my $.02 before this topic inevitably turns to shit. Hi, I'm a stupid newb.

We throw buzzwords around like confetti and we keep missing the point. "Sexualized." "Objectified." Doesn't mean shit. The problem absolutely IS sexism. In design philosophy.

Good character design tells you about the character it portrays. It follows what the story and background tells you about them. It fits into the art style. Unless you're specifically going for a subversion ("tougher than they look"), if you fail at these two basic tenets of character design, your design sucks. Period. No ifs, no buts. Try again.

And devs gladly follow that with male characters. When you're told Marcus Fenix spends his afternoons chainsawing aliens, you believe it. Then when the time comes to make a female character, they 180 right then. They throw it all out the window, they puke out bullshit #34 bait with one hand while jerking off with the other and they go "Oh but it's OK that her design is shit because she has a vagina."

That's sexism. That IS sexism. As a matter of fact, that's as literal, technical a definition of sexism as you can get. As if sexism didn't suck enough by itself, it breeds and maintains shitty character design. That's the problem. Always has been.

And then they protest. "But-but-but...SEKSHULLY LIBURATED!!!! DO YOU HAET SEX????" "Sexually liberated", another of those bullshit hijacked buzzwords. Liberated sexuality is sexuality beyond emptying your balls, folks. It's being able to choose a partner who'll actually put as much effort as she does into awesome sex. Not throwing her holes at any greasy jerkoff who demands it.

TL;DR -- Video games fail at character design and basic sexuality. If we don't call them out on it, look forward to shitty character design forever.

Except you have missed the point to an extent.

You use Marcus Fenix as an example of male character who looks right, then use female examples that are in a completely different style and setting. If the female Gears in the series looked like sex objects, then the point would be valid, but using a "serious" game as an example for male characters, while using a "non-serious" game for the female example is an unfair comparison.

It's like using Daniel Craig in James Bond as an example of a male role in films, and then Kelly Brook in Piranha 3DD as an example of female roles in films. They aren't comparable, because they are completely different things.

A fair example would be a game where men and women differ in their representation. Ones where men are in sensible, believable armour and women are in skimpy bikini chainmail.

Those are the kind of games that have problems.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

As for the more attractive women = better chance of having kids.

Utter bullshit.

Do you know why Marilyn Monroe died? It's because she overdosed on painkillers due to having stage 4 Endometriosis the same as me. I won't go into detail but this horrifically painful disease causes miscarriages and infertility and it effects 1 in 20 women...

Marilyn never had any children. She tried numerous times, and became pregnant numerous times, but all her pregnancies ended in miscarriage, due to her severe endometriosis. This was one of the great sorrows of Monroe's life. She adored children, and always made friends with the children on the sets of her movies, who adored her in return, but the fact that she could never have any children of her own haunted her for her entire life.

What you look like has nothing to do with fertility and birth safety at all.