Jimquisition: Boob Wars and Dragon Crowns

[Terminal Blue]

snip

You know what, I give up..

I don't care about the sales of a game I have absolutely no interest in and never did. Whether or not it sells does not concern me. Plenty of people working in the game industry are pricks who wouldn't know PR if it beat them on the head, and yet are still able to make commercially successful games because they actually make good games, and that's fine. Most people are capable of separating human personality from the ability to make a good product.

While it's possible for a game to be overhyped because of some irrelevent feature or internet status which doesn't actually make it a good game, most people don't buy games unless they have some preexisting idea that they will be worth buying, i.e. that the gameplay will actually be good or interesting.

Thus, I suspect you're severely exaggerating the impact of a controversy over concept art and social media etiquette on actual sales data. Most people who buy games don't care about this shit. They aren't going to read some article about this controversy and go "wow, some dude implied another dude liked cock on facebook, I'd better check out this game he's making to see if it's any good". Even concept art is pretty crappy as marketing material, because it's nothingmore than an out-of-context snapshot of one particular part of the game with a very small impact on gameplay, namely the visual design.

The only thing I have seen regarding this controversy which might realistically make someone interested in the game is the gameplay footage which Jim showed in this video, and even then while there's no accounting for taste it's not exactly making me want to throw down my money. So really, we can debate the minor publicity merits of controversy all we want, but what will ultimately determine success or failure of this game, as with any game, is whether it's good and whether people are likely to enjoy playing it, because really.. what proportion of people will buy a game (an interactive experience based on gameplay) because it has tits in it, particularly when the concept art is already on the internet for everyone to wank off to for free? Now we're talking statistically insignificant.

How do we know if a game is good? Sure, the developer is going to tell us it's good, but we expect that. I mean, where can we get a second opinion of whether a game is good? Well, nowadays we can often read user reviews, but let's say we want someone with a name we can recognize and whose opinions we hold to a certain standard, well obviously we're going to find a game journalist.. you know.. like someone who writes for Kotaku or something.

There's a good reason why it's unprofessional to throw tantrums upon receiving criticism, and that's because the relationship between artists and critical journalism is to a large extent symbiotic. While game journalists and critics certainly need games to comment on, it's not like they particularly needed to comment on this one. The fact is, Kotaku was already talking about this game before Kamitani did his lolgay thing and they certainly didn't need to do that. Neither do they particularly need to follow it's development further, or indeed the development of future games from the same studio, if nothing else because it's a relatively small studio in Japan without a very strong English language media division and with a CEO who clearly doesn't understand how social media PR works in the most basic sense.

You can wheel out the cliches about all publicity being good publicity, but the reality is that any industry functions to a large extent on mutual cooperation between professionals, and that makes professional reputation important. Precisely how important, I'm not qualified to say because I don't work in either game development or game journalism, but there's a fucking good reason why any company which can afford to hires dedicated media relations professionals rather than having CEOs publicly air their farts on social media in the hopes of attracting a whiff of controversy.

So yes, there is "damage" to this kind of thing. Perhaps not in the short term, but then if behaving like an ass was really the best way to sell a product, what the fuck is this? Why write this?

I don?t harbor any ill-will to Jason Schreier for the article he originally posted about the Sorceress or his follow-up. Although it may be negative feedback, I am very thankful for having one of our titles being covered.

...

It?s okay if it was just me who was criticized, but it is not my intention to cause problems for Dragon?s Crown publisher (ATLUS) and all the other people who are involved in this project. From now on, I will limit myself about transmitting something personal out in the public.

The answer, of course, is because you have to. Professionalism is not optional.

 

[otakon17]

I'll be honest, I like all the designs. I find the Amazon, Sorceress and Elf all attractive in their own way. Then again, I have things for chicks with big thighs, huge boobs or just tall and statuesque. Hell, I don't find the male designs sexy but I do find them nice to look at. He went with several extremes with the character designs, like one being "soft", one being "hard" and one being "average". And he shouldn't have had to apologize to ANYONE for drawing those characters the way he did. Hmmm, not sure if still on topic or not. Anyway, still can't wait till the game comes out, looks awesome.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Saw this one going into meltdown on Dtoid.

I don't think the designer chap should have to apologise for his character designs as Dragon's Crown is a japanese game and they have a different view (not necessarily a positive one on the female front) on things. However, since Dragon's Crown is being sold globally, I do feel that while he's being creative, he should also be mindful of what he's creating and how they might be seen to different audiences. Sometimes an editor is a good thing.

There are female gamers as well as females that want to enter the industry. If we want to move forward it helps if they can tag along too.

Good to see some discussion come out of it, though. I feel the Kotaku chap should have done the right journo thing and approached the designer for an interview, to find out why the characters are the way they are. Its too easy to misunderstand and sound off online sometimes, without that magic word 'context'.

I hope Dragons Crown sells well. I'll be using some points on it.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Way too much arguments about this particular topic. It's the game designers choice to make the women/men how they please. If they are sexualized then fine, it's their decision.

If you don't like it then don't buy it, easy.

 

[Paragon Fury]

9) Would you hold it against someone if they decided to (or not to) buy this game for the design of 1 character and ignored the other characters.

yes(??) I don't play GoW because of Coltrane (whom i find offensive on an intellectual level), I'm not wowed by the game in general.

Actually, the Cole Train (WHOO BABY!) is actually one of the better characters in the series (along with Baird). They do a terrible job of it in the games, but in the books he is a much more-fleshed out character and a lot of his attitude in the games is made clearer by the books.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Did we REALLY have to do another episode on this? This horse has been beaten, shot, stabbed, burned, and then served as burgers.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The last Story and Xenoblade had pretty good female characters (Seiren is my favourite)

"A drop of water in a desert."
If you will pardon the pretense in that metaphor.

should it? I mean the world is funny where if know one says anything it's assumed everyone accepts the way things are.

Right out the gate, I cannot even express disgust with the topic without running into the "Silent Conformity" angle.
That is how touchy it is.

To be crystal clear: I am tired of the argumentation as it exists; where it goes nowhere or devolves into semantics and assumptions. More people are trolling with those threads than discussing the issue at hand.

And I am tired of it. It defeats the point of trying to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion when the gender card is the first thing on the table.

Kamitani's work I don't think should have sparked this whole "blargh" but at least it can bring up even more important examples.

Unfortunately I'm in a bit of a hurry right now, so I'll just ask:
Examples of what?

 

[Frission]

I like seeing these Jimquisition episodes, but I've never commented on them before. Well this ends now.

Jim, it takes a big man to admit he has made mistakes. I like your main message that productive discussion is something that's desirable, which is something I could learn from.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I try to be calm Jim I really do but some people just don't listen and that's frustrating.

As for the sorceress I didn't realise that she looked that way when she moved. That's...pretty bad. A character can be sexy and not sexualised.

As for those saying media doesn't have any effect on the way you view women, if a woman can get an eating disorder from being exposed to images like this (as someone bravely admitted earlier in this thread) it can psychologically effect men as well. Just saying.

 

[leviadragon99]

Mm, in the unlikely event that I do end up playing Dragon's Crown (given the platforms its on) I would most likely end up playing the elf...

 

[Terminal Blue]

It may be a Japanese style but it's still has western sensibilities.

And?

This (Japanese) game we're talking about is clearly (and explicitly) inspired to some degree by western fantasy artists. Like it or not, there is considerable cross-pollination between Western and Japanese art styles and in both cases there is considerable difference between characters who are meant to be attractive and characters who are meant to give the impression of physical strength or prowess.

And regardless, the point remains.. When you post a picture of a bunch of naked dwarves which you drew for your Japanese game and suggest they're closer to someone else's "direction" than a couple of female characters which you also drew for your Japanese game using the exact same art style and the exact same influences, in what way can this possibly be read as a comment on the differences between national aesthetic standards. All these characters come from exactly the same source, exactly the same culture, exactly the same aesthetic standards, exactly the same person. The only difference is that one is a half-naked woman and the other is a half naked dude (or three).

Read the apology.. seriously.. it's quite informative. Apparently, he was only getting requests for publicity images of the female characters, including blatant fan service images like female characters in swimwear so he drew a picture of sweaty dwarves in bathing suits to express cynicism at the fact that retailers were only requesting pictures of the female characters.

..incidentally, this is merely an aside, but pause at this point.

Go look at the concept art of the female characters in question and keep the above statement in mind..

Anyway, apparently he was going to post his sexy dwarf picture on facebook for the benefit of fans, but then thought about Jason Schreier's article and decided to make a "lighthearted joke", which turned out to reference Schreier's implied preference for the images over the images of women which he had also drawn.

Seriously.. join the dots.

 

[bunji]

In the beginning of the last onscreen appearance of Jim in this episode i really got the feeling there was some mad feminist pointing a gun at him from off-camera. "I didn't know I was wrong, but then they educated me, and now I know I was a horrible person. Now I have fully embraced the 's agenda, and that has made me a better man."

Also - no less oversexualized silly women, just more plain realistic ones. Everyone wins.

 

[Belated]

Once again people are pursuing the wrong target. There is nothing morally wrong with the mere existence of a sexually attractive character in a video game, even an exaggerated one. People who are attracted to her have a right to be attracted to her. That's their sexuality, and it's morally wrong to hate them for it. You don't choose what you're attracted to. And it's wrong to hate anybody for something they didn't choose, provided it's hurting nobody else.

And artists have a right to market to that sexuality. I thought this argument was already settled ages ago, that masturbation is not evil, and that puritan values towards sex are outdated and oppressive. You're supposed to explore your sexuality. You're supposed to exercise it, and indulge in things that make you horny. It's a natural urge, it doesn't make you a monster, and it doesn't make you sexist. But websites like The Escapist and Kotaku seem to hire "journalists" who have been unfrozen from the dark ages. "Oh how dare that woman expose a part of her body! It is impure! Stone her artist to death, for he is a sinner!"

The problem isn't that sexy characters EXIST, it's that they're so common, and not done evenly down the line. It's that there's not more variety. The issue shouldn't be "This one character is sexy! That's bad!" because it's not bad. The issue should be "Look at all these sexy characters across all these games. Why do all of these characters have to be sexy? Why not just half as many? And where are all the hunks and the pretty boys?" But this one witch character being sexy does not make the game sexist. This is just a writer leading a witch hunt (snrk!) because he didn't have anything better to write about.

And my fellow men, "feminazis" aren't at fault. I've had an argument with a feminist before. And I mean the kind of feminist who you knew right away was a feminist. She fit all of the stereotypes. And yet, when I had an actual debate with her, I found that her opinions were quite reasonable. I got her to admit that there is nothing morally wrong with the mere existence of sexy female characters, as long as society doesn't treat it like an obligation, as long as society doesn't act like it's the way things SHOULD be all the time. If you actually get to know your opponent and talk to them, you will often learn that their positions aren't as radical as you think. Sure, there are some feminists who flat out believe that sexiness is evil and that we should ban it all, but most of those types of feminists... are men. Men who call themselves feminists, but really just protest sexuality out of some misguided desire to "protect" women, ironically making them the most sexist out of all of us. Most real feminists don't want to put an end to all sexuality for good. Most real feminists just want equality, and to be treated not as a woman, but as a person.

Now, if anybody disagrees with the above, you are objectively wrong.

The above is verbatim what I posted on The Escapist's Facebook page about the subject, and people seemed to like it a lot so I decided to post it here as well.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I would like to have a discussion with people like me, who fit into an 'other' category. A category of 'other' that is usually depicted in a certain... negative or laughable light in media and gaming and who is tired of hearing about just men vs women and ready to talk about wiping all stereotypes clean and doing the ultra hard task of just design... and not falling back on the easy crutches.

Until then, men keep saying that breasts and butts are fair game because male chests are sexy to women too, and women keep going about how you aren't just sex objects. When we're ready to open the discussion to include the problems with everyone, I want in.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Not that I _disagree_ that people on the internet should stop being jerks and discuss things rationally, but, um... an internet video series characterized by shouting repeated insults at people in most episodes is not perhaps the proper high horse from which to admonish people for responding rudely to things on the internet.

Yep. Additionally, if he wants to have a discussion, why doesn't he participate in the comments section? At most he will post a reply or two on the front page, but as we have seen from previous Jimquisition comment threads, he doesn't show any interest in engaging with other people, and only comments to either dismiss other points of view, or agree with his own.

 

[Fiairflair]

...
Why? Because no man is an island. The nature of exchange is inclusive and exchange directly influences those who produce. The values of an artist are proliferated by the success of any one game or film or show they create. They are enabled through profits to produce more works which in turn further promote their values. Hence, we have a marketplace of ideas. No market is truly free when only those who enjoy a product are given credence. Products are not purged by criticism. Criticism is the mechanism by which produces evolve. Those unable to evolve fail.

Assuming it's on target.

Criticism without the aim to improve the particular product, but instead of replacing it with something else entirely, is worthless.

Pointlessly negative criticism is pointless. This is self-evident. However, not all criticism is either pointlessly negative on the one hand or constructive on the other.

I posit that it is essential that interested people discuss and debate the nature of games, films, and the like. The Sorceress from Dragon's Crown is an ideal example. Because of the portrayal of the Sorceress, and regardless of the intentions of the artist, many consumers may feel further isolated from the gaming market. If an artist holds the view that the objectification or overt sexualisation of women is okay, they will likely reflect that view in their work. If that work is successful, an argument is made for the promotion of material that in turn promotes the objectification or overt sexualisation of women. Rational discussion tempers that process; it allows for consumers and potential consumers to voice their preferences, which can then lead to the artist reviewing their work and changing their approach in the future. That said, there is another way to rid the market of questionable and offensive content. If a rational criticism makes readers less inclined to support the artist and that sentiment grows, the artist's work and its messages stop spreading. This is the harsher but just as effective method of ideas evolving.

A critic is not defined by the constructive nature of their criticisms but by the simple fact that they critique things. To critique something is nothing more or less than to judge that thing critically and make a critical assessment.