Jimquisition: Boob Wars and Dragon Crowns

[Gilhelmi]

I really dislike Agreeing with Jim. I find it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. But here we are again, Jim being one of the few people out there actually trying to have an intelligent discussion. If he would just be more polite about it. Oh well, too each his own style.

I like debates, I like to have them. I find (especially online) that I am enjoying a debate, but the other person is getting mad and having an argument. I never realize this until they are making threats against me or my family. I honestly do not understand, I debate so I have a better understanding of MY personal beliefs and the opposing sides beliefs. Far too often, I have observed, that if person "A" Disagrees with person "B", "A" vilifies "B" in ways that can only be called slander. Then "B" decides to up the ante, and create new (far less rational, but still fully fictional) reasons "A" is descendant of Nazis. "A" starts publishing news stories about "B" eating babies. "B" continues the cycle until the Lord Jesus Christ returns and tells BOTH sides to knock it off!!

Sorry, I got riled up about the stupidity of arguing. And how sad it is no one can have a debate anymore. I miss debates.

But that is kind of the problem. he created this really excellent character model. Everything about it is superb. Than it was all hidden behind this massive pair of independently animated breasts that are so grotesque and un ignorable that you almost cannot see the character standing behind them. And that is what is making some people uncomfortable. It wasn't just that the character has large breasts. It's that every motion of the character puts these large pink floppy beasts wobbling around on top of the avatar such that you cannot see anything else. It's just too much.

Yes, I agree with you. The character model was sexist.

I agree with Jim. I do not like agreeing with Jim because he is rude about his approach. I still agree with him though.

 

[Drummodino]

Almost every week my respect for Jim increases. I don't know how he does it but he does seem to be on of the few voices of reason in the industry these days.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

It's exactly what "vote with your wallet" means. How are those without any money supposed to vote? And how do those who have never even heard of this game vote?

Consumerism is not the same thing as democracy, so the idea of voting with dollars is fallacious to begin with. The foundation of democracy is that everybody can vote, and also that nobody has more votes than anybody else. The idea that spending money on something is equivalent to voting is ridiculous.

Yes, money does unduly affect our electoral processes. But that is not a thing to be celebrated, it it something that should be condemned.

There's obviously a limit to just how apt any analogy is, I agree with that much. With that in mind, I think you're over-analyzing what is really a colloquialism.

The skinny of it is really that Dragon's Crown is an entertainment product, it's a luxury... it's not bread. It has to justify it's existence by being appealing to enough people to pay for itself. It has no obligation to appeal to everyone, if that's even possible. It's worth noting that the game is born of another culture too.

We've all got opinions, boring, boring opinions. If you want my 2-cents(which you don't), I think that objecting to another cultures obsession with bouncy animated boobs whilst being all but indifferent to the considerably more local-developers pumping out games based on real world conflicts(ended and ongoing) is indicative of a fucked up world view.

I'm getting really bored of politics surrounding gaming.

 

[Maxtro]

The Sorceress is horribly drawn and anybody who likes her should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[The Lugz]

The Sorceress is horribly drawn and anybody who likes her should be ashamed of themselves.

try to draw a line for her spine, it's hilariously distorted and unrealistic.
also tits aren't jelly, animators should really know this by now.

I think most people agree she'd look better with a smaller bust, but then isn't that just the same pandering? that is definitely trying to sell an attractive character, where as perhaps the artist's point was a subtle self parody
who knows.

apparently people really care though.

 

[Lektrik]

It happens, it happens all the time, much like Gaijin bashing, racism, ostracism and other forms of casual bullying in Japan. Now, what I will say is that compared to the US (and bear in mind, I don't live in the US) it is much less likely to be maliciously intentioned, i.e. people are less likely to do it because they actually hate gay people, just as they don't really hate foreigners, or black people, but they will still do it, and they'll still think it's funny because they cannot understand why anyone else would find it offensive or upsetting.

Deflecting criticism by trying to homophobically bully a critic, and by extension insulting every gay person in the world is beyond bad practice, it's crossing the line into stupidville. The hatemail and negative social media attention Kamitani is recieving now is completely deserved, and while an apology (even a vague and insincere apology which makes it clear you have no idea why people are angry with you) is a good start, the damage is largely done now.

Once again, you've demonstrated that you should have enough information available to you to interpret Kamitani's "joke" in the way he intended it, and yet, again, refuse to do so. I am under the impression that homophobia requires malicious intent -- otherwise, it's not homophobia. So for you to interpret Kamitani's intent as "trying to homophobically bully", while acknowledging that he probably doesn't have the mental constructs necessary to do so is confusing. Should a statement be taken how it was intended, or how the listener would intend it, were they to speak it themselves? In communication, both the speaker and the listener have an obligation to attempt to understand each other -- but since a speaker may communicate to multiple people with the same message, they may not be able to calibrate it for each listener individually, so the burden of understanding falls more heavily on the listener.

Anyone who was offended by Kamitani's post should have at least considered that perhaps it didn't mean what they thought it meant, and given him the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming their own culture's view on homosexuality is universal. The post was on a website -- they're already on the internet, a simple search for "Homosexuality in Japan" or the like could help them achieve understanding. But most people would rather get angry than attempt to understand another.

--

I don't think we're going to see more good female characters until more women start designing them. The problem at hand is that it's mostly men designing characters, male and female both, and they haven't been given much specific direction, just complaints.

Is there a difference between a good female character, and a good male character? What are masculine and feminine qualities? To the male worldview, those qualities are primarily physical -- a female character is just like a male character, except with breasts. In the male world, women are primarily defined as women by their sexual desirability, because that's all men know about women.

We're immersed in the male worldview. We're all familiar with it, male and female both. But to men, the female worldview is a mystery -- and it seems like women haven't made much effort to change that. It's simply accepted, as part of western culture, that men are simple and boorish, and women are complex, mysterious, and inherently incomprehensible to men. I think this is perpetuated because of how it relates to existing power structures, i.e., as Pat Hulse describes:

To put it simply, rippling muscles are associated with power because people who have them are generally capable of great physical prowess. However, the reason large breasts are associated with power is because the women who have them are perceived as desirable to other people. In other words, muscles = powerful on your own, breasts = powerful through someone else (probably a man).

In particular, what is problematic is that the traits we define as masculine are inherently empowering, because they enable you to accomplish things: being strong, being assertive, being direct, etc. Traits we define as feminine are inherently encumbering, limiting: large breasts, gentleness, fragility, etc.

Many women want large breasts, and are willing to do some drastic things to acquire them. But how much is that dependent on appealing to men, on taking advantage of a form of power that hasn't been denied to women? What would women want to be, if they weren't concerned with what men thought? They'll need to tell us, to show us, rather than complain about what they don't like, and hope we eventually get it.

But it's a self-perpetuating problem. Once again, women are discouraged by our culture from being assertive, and encouraged to manipulate. To reach that point, they're either going to have to act like men, or perhaps, act like real women, whatever that may be. It's something we haven't seen, because we, as a culture, have repressed it.

 

[viranimus]

Jim... That is not an AXE.

Spoiler: THIS IS AN AXE!

Or four.

On Topic:

I stay by my position. There really is no harm in something existing for the sake of catering to its audience. Simple fact is that what should be driving the correction of behavior in the industry is NOT social engineering. It should be establishing viability in demographics.

Of the female gamers I know MANY of them are into games like Gears of War and COD that stands in direct opposition to the logic behind this sexism rift. This Overly PC abomination in our culture also insults those female gamers who in fact DO like having such "slutty" and oversexualized options. God forbid a female actually WANT to look in such a way because it "sets all women back" God forbid a woman wanting to leverage their innate advantages vs the disadvantages of a system because it is not fair to the gender as a whole and how many CANT compete on a physical level. God forbid people find ways to leverage their own advantages over disadvantages at all.

If you put it into a context of this game in question it illustrates what is actually a logical balance. The chars who are oversexualized and half naked, what are they? Two very powerful classes. Of which I think we have all seen examples where a sense of empowerment does in fact result in such exhibitions in some females. In a sense it comes down to "I dress like this BECAUSE I know I am powerful, and SHOW you how powerful I am by showing you everything you cannot have and dare you to even try. It mirrors a sentiment I have encountered with many real life females over the years that many females WOULD self exploit their own sexuality, If they felt they had the ability to justify it or back it up. Just like the girl who for example said " If I actually had the body for it, I would have at been a stripper, at least once"

What people fail to understand about all this sexism discussion is that while it is well meaning, the effects of it are pretty catastrophic. We see people wanting to destroy not just gender roles, but the concept of gender all together, such as those insanely supporting the idea of Swedens Gender neutrality.

Men have been for quite a while now frequently emasculated in essentially every walk of life and form of media, and now women are now being subjected to the same sort of behavior with this new hyper antisexism movement. It is not even for a logical purpose. We as a society are basically trying to destroy gender identity for little or no other reason than fear that someone MIGHT get their feelings hurt. When truth be told what we need to do as a species is go the other way and relearn what it means to have a thick skin or else we will all be weakened in the process.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

OMG the rampant idiocy on this thread is just STAGGERING. Bigots NEVER have "malicious intent". They never see their hurtful actions as inappropriate and are invariably quite benign about their hateful words and actions.

Homophobia, Racism, Sexism, etc do NOT require "malicious intent". They are or they aren't, and when they are they are harmful and inappropriate REGARDLESS OF INTENT.

Awesome.

Now all we need is for an unquestionable authority to set in stone the conditions under which "they are" and "they aren't" in a way that transcends geographical borders as well as every known ideology. Think you're up to the task, UrKnightErrant?

Come on, man. Only you can prevent forest fires. Get involved.

 

[Erttheking]

I agree with Jim, we need more talking and less shouting...this thread is living proof of that.

 

[faefrost]

The Sorceress is horribly drawn and anybody who likes her should be ashamed of themselves.

try to draw a line for her spine, it's hilariously distorted and unrealistic.
also tits aren't jelly, animators should really know this by now.

I think most people agree she'd look better with a smaller bust, but then isn't that just the same pandering? that is definitely trying to sell an attractive character, where as perhaps the artist's point was a subtle self parody
who knows.

apparently people really care though.

It's not really the size that is the problem. Women's breasts come in all sizes, and I don't think any reasonable complaint or offense can be taken simply on the subject of size. It's the motion and quite simply the overall presentation of them that causes the feelings of discomfort. A little bounce, a little bit of motion to add some animated life to a character model is fine... but egads. It's sorta like the difference between using a feather and using the whole chicken.

 

[Littaly]

A lot of people on the Internet, regardless of what issue they're currently arguing about, need to take this video to heart. Too often discussion becomes about winning rather than learning or understanding.

 

[The Lugz]

The Sorceress is horribly drawn and anybody who likes her should be ashamed of themselves.

try to draw a line for her spine, it's hilariously distorted and unrealistic.
also tits aren't jelly, animators should really know this by now.

I think most people agree she'd look better with a smaller bust, but then isn't that just the same pandering? that is definitely trying to sell an attractive character, where as perhaps the artist's point was a subtle self parody
who knows.

apparently people really care though.

It's not really the size that is the problem. Women's breasts come in all sizes, and I don't think any reasonable complaint or offense can be taken simply on the subject of size. It's the motion and quite simply the overall presentation of them that causes the feelings of discomfort. A little bounce, a little bit of motion to add some animated life to a character model is fine... but egads. It's sorta like the difference between using a feather and using the whole chicken.

I have seen a couple youtube videos about the sorceress, and i agree it is basically like someone strapped balloons to some random chick with penny weights on them for nipples that's about the level of realism here, so yeah.
I still think it isn't meant to be taken seriously because it's 'that' stupid i still view this as a self parody / jap thing. either way i'm clearly not the target audience so I guess I have no right to comment on it as an artistic medium. but on it's face value it is still potentially embarrassing if someone saw you playing it ^^

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

A lot of people on the Internet, regardless of what issue they're currently arguing about, need to take this video to heart. Too often discussion becomes about winning rather than learning or understanding.

A discussion is just people talking, a debate has a winner. A lot of people are not as skilled in debating as others and bring the debate down to a mud slinging war, but those people need more experience to eventually learn what works and what does not. Unless a forum or site only lets in master debaters, we'll always have inexperience turning into mud-slinging.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I remain to be convinced that using people in marketing to push a product is a bad thing though. Next thing you will say is that an advert about a Theme Park showing people having fun is also wrong, they should advertise...err...what instead? Just the theme park logo and empty/vacant rides, because showing happy smiling people having fun is simply objectifying them for the sake of bringing more people (i.e. wallets) to the place?

I don't think using people in marketing is such a bad thing (although I do generally have a low opinion of the marketing profession). Showing someone using a product how it is used in the real world is quite different than merely draping an attractive model over something for sex appeal.

Further to this point - you mentioned "air hostesses" as a "female job" that is done for the attractiveness of the workers. I thought this had died out by the 1980s. They aren't called "hostesses" anymore, I believe they are called "flight attendants" and come in both genders and all levels of attractiveness. The role is primarily about flight safety and customer service. If any airline is hiring attendants based on their attractiveness, rather than their competence, they are doing it wrong. It's actually a very demanding job, which requires awareness of safety codes, composure under pressure, long shifts, etc. Not something you just hire eye candy for.

Anyway, we're probably both coming at this from entirely different perspectives, and I don't personally begrudge yours. I just think there's little value to jobs that employ women merely for their looks, as women tend to have brains which are much more valuable than their other physical attributes.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

We've all got opinions, boring, boring opinions. If you want my 2-cents(which you don't), I think that objecting to another cultures obsession with bouncy animated boobs whilst being all but indifferent to the considerably more local-developers pumping out games based on real world conflicts(ended and ongoing) is indicative of a fucked up world view.

Can't I object to both?

I actually object more to the casual portrayal/glorification of war in gaming than I do to exaggerated boobs. But neither sits very with me. But hey, I'm a malcontent on the internet, so there's that.

There are too many fucked-up world-views to be confined to just one topic, and that's just in gaming!

I'm getting really bored of politics surrounding gaming.

I actually think it's quite an interesting and fertile area. Because unlike some other areas of politics, it hasn't matured yet and is still forming. It's one of the few areas where young people will actually respond to political subjects - because few seem to be at all interested in the actual political process of democracy and our elected representatives.

But on this particular topic, what fascinates me the most, more than any sexual politics, is the way that Jim says in his video that he's so concerned about having a proper discussion, but then refuses to participate in the discussion attached to his very own video!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

I am under the impression that homophobia requires malicious intent -- otherwise, it's not homophobia.

Yeah, that's not true at all. I'm not sure where you are getting that impression from. You might want to get better sources of information.

Homophobia requires no malicious intent towards gay people, just as arachnophobia requires no malicious intent towards spiders, or acrophobia requires no malicious intent towards elevated locations.

 

[Jodah]

Want rational discussion about gaming issues? Talk to people while in their physical presence. Wanting rational discussion about anything on the internet is a fool's errand. There are people who will argue over whether the sky is blue or cyan.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

We've all got opinions, boring, boring opinions. If you want my 2-cents(which you don't), I think that objecting to another cultures obsession with bouncy animated boobs whilst being all but indifferent to the considerably more local-developers pumping out games based on real world conflicts(ended and ongoing) is indicative of a fucked up world view.

Can't I object to both?

I actually object more to the casual portrayal/glorification of war in gaming than I do to exaggerated boobs. But neither sits very with me. But hey, I'm a malcontent on the internet, so there's that.

There are too many fucked-up world-views to be confined to just one topic, and that's just in gaming!

I'm getting really bored of politics surrounding gaming.

I actually think it's quite an interesting and fertile area. Because unlike some other areas of politics, it hasn't matured yet and is still forming. It's one of the few areas where young people will actually respond to political subjects - because few seem to be at all interested in the actual political process of democracy and our elected representatives.

But on this particular topic, what fascinates me the most, more than any sexual politics, is the way that Jim says in his video that he's so concerned about having a proper discussion, but then refuses to participate in the discussion attached to his very own video!

Hey, you're alright, man.

I don't agree with you, necessarily. But at least I see consistency.

OMG the rampant idiocy on this thread is just STAGGERING. Bigots NEVER have "malicious intent". They never see their hurtful actions as inappropriate and are invariably quite benign about their hateful words and actions.

Homophobia, Racism, Sexism, etc do NOT require "malicious intent". They are or they aren't, and when they are they are harmful and inappropriate REGARDLESS OF INTENT.

Awesome.

Now all we need is for an unquestionable authority to set in stone the conditions under which "they are" and "they aren't" in a way that transcends geographical borders as well as every known ideology. Think you're up to the task, UrKnightErrant?

Come on, man. Only you can prevent forest fires. Get involved.

Don't be an asshole. I never claimed to be any kind of ultimate authority on sexism. I was addressing the nature of bigotry.

In this instance, since I have not actually stated a position on the OP... yes, I believe that the Sorceress is an overtly sexist art asset and the developer's excuses ring exceedingly hollow to me. I completely believe they don't understand why people are all upset. I don't believe George Katamari had any "malicious intent". I also believe he is being a bigot, both with his caricature and with his overtly homophobic response to the ensuing criticism. Again, I totally believe he is too disconnected from his own bigotry to understand that it's even a problem. Most bigots are. I have no doubt he was stunned by the public response.

And no... I do not think his apology was adequate.

But this is all admittedly just my opinion.

The post you quoted is not about that. It doesn't even address it. This post is a direct response to Lektrik's assertion that, "homophobia requires malicious intent -- otherwise, it's not homophobia." THIS IS BULLSHIT. When you behave in a bigoted manner you your intent is irrelevant and the harm is the same whether you are acting from malice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, or just plain stupidity.

I'd also like to say that it has been rightfully pointed out by the freedom of expression crowd, of which I am a proud member, that the only real power art has is the power to offend. I absolutely agree with this, but it clearly does not apply in this situation. If an artist is using art to make a statement I would expect him to take responsibility for that offense and stand by it. If this was some kind of artistic expression the publisher and artist should be reveling in the offense they caused, but that's not what happened here. Instead they made a mealy-mouthed apology for it after the fact. This makes it crystal clear that the Sorceress was not an attempt to make an artistic statement. So the question clearly is not, "What is the artist trying to say?"

It's much more like, "WTF was he thinking?"

I'm not going to take behavioural advice from a poster that breezes in, declares "rampant idiocy" in the first post, and then accuses me of being an asshole in the second. You might be the "asshole" here, you know? If there are any assholes at all.

I've met bigoted people who know that their opinions are anti-social and/or wrong, but just don't give a shit that it's wrong. So I don't buy "NEVER".

I think the mistake that Kamitani made was thinking that his words weren't going to be put under a microscope. This is the biggest load of BS in this whole mess, to my mind. Why does an artist have to self-censor like you would expect a politician to? It doesn't make a lick of sense to me. "Well maybe you're gay" falls well within the boundaries of friendly ribbing, tongue firmly planted inside cheek. Even if it's not for silly shock value, there's still a kind of humour where the joke is that it's a stupid thing to say, hardy hardy har!. We're dealing with a language barrier, a cultural barrier, and the drawbacks of communicating solely in text form.

With that considered, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

"If an artist is using art to make a statement I would expect him to take responsibility for that offense and stand by it. If this was some kind of artistic expression the publisher and artist should be reveling in the offense they caused, but that's not what happened here. Instead they made a mealy-mouthed apology for it after the fact. This makes it crystal clear that the Sorceress was not an attempt to make an artistic statement. So the question clearly is not, "What is the artist trying to say?" "

Wait. So... the facebook comment is art? I believe he stands by his designs, but not a throw-away comment that was very likely supposed to be funny. That's what he apologised for. He said he already had the dwarf picture prepared as a little "fuck you" of sorts to the promoters who wanted to work the "sexy female character" angle too hard, and likely threw it in on a whim and AS A JOKE.

What was the problem again? That this guy made the mistake of publically acting the way everyday non-under-the-microscope people act? Oh, the tits, right?

"But this is all admittedly just my opinion."

Such is the nature of offence.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Can I get a Jim Sterling playable character in Dragon's Crown?
He'll be the commentator class--you know, the staple archetype that every DnD campaign can't go without.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

I'm not going to take behavioural advice from a poster that breezes in, declares "rampant idiocy" in the first post, and then accuses me of being an asshole in the second. You might be the "asshole" here, you know? If there are any assholes at all.

Guilty as charged. I'm a complete hard-ass and I don't cut anyone any slack, especially where bigotry is concerned. But if it takes one to know one you can trust me when I say that I am not the only asshole on this thread. And just FYI if you had bothered to read the entire thread you would have seen that those were actually my third and fourth posts.

Also... nitpicking nomenclature is not arguing. But if it makes you feel any better I will concede there may be few bigots who are self aware enough to know what they are is wrong and still cling to it out of sheer malice or psychopathy. Your willingness to suffer their company suggests I am speaking with one now.

I retract the word "NEVER" and replace it with "for all practical purposes never". Better?

Ok, third and fourth. I've read the thread, I wasn't running you a tally. I'm very sorry.

Have you never had a job where you've had to deal much with the public? Have you ever been to a bar and spoken to people? Do you see where I'm going with this? Speaking of malice... plenty of it in your comments. It's just the kind of baseless, assumptious, bile ridden crap that is rife in the bigotry that you claim to so loathe... it belies your superior attitude, it really does.