Jimquisition: Boob Wars and Dragon Crowns

cookyy2k

Senior Member
Aug 14, 2009
799
0
21
I find these sorts of videos/articles by gaming journalists to be very hypocritical. Many of them (Jim included) had a real go at the gaming community for complaining about mass effect 3's ending since it's art and that was what the artist wanted (though it's debatable if that's what they wanted or if EA told them to just slap any old ending on it but I'm not opening that one again). Then something like this comes along where it is very clearly a stialised art choice and everyone condemns the artist for it.

I'm sorry guys but I'm one of those who believes their is no "too far" when it comes to art, you'll always find someone to be offended by something. Thing should be taken as intended, if no offence is intended then it's fine. Some people will get offended but that is not because of the artist's work that's because they put their own interpretation on it. Some of the great works of art, music and film were very controversial in their day. Either everything is ok or nothing is, stop trying to draw arbitrary "do not cross" lines all over the place.
 

OtherSideofSky

New member
Jan 4, 2010
1,051
0
0
Honestly, I've almost completely given up on the discussion of gender in video games because of these shouting matches.

Yes, there are real problems, and yes, I would like to see some things change, but I'm left with no confidence that anyone on either side is actually competent to address these issues or to discuss them in a mature way. It's just an endless back and forth of wild supposition, gross generalization, vilification and heretication.

The Dragon's Crown debate confuses and irritates me because it appears not to be, in any sense, about Dragon's Crown, or even the design of the sorceress. The arguments levied against it consistently fall back on the standard image of women in video games, the (in my opinion somewhat overstated) lack of other options, and the design of female characters to cater exclusively to a demographic of heterosexual men. That being the case, it mystifies me that these people are choosing to target one possibly satirical character in a niche game which provides other options (personally, I'm going to be playing the amazon; I don't find her attractive, but I don't need to, either, and I've never seen a game which let me play as a woman who is a rippling tower of muscle before), when there are so many better targets out there. People say the design is a lazy, bog-standard marketing ploy, but looking at the rest of the art design, I find it hard to believe that any of these designs were specifically intended to please anyone other than George Kamitani himself.

I also consistently see the existence of non-standard female character designs dismissed on the basis that some men are into that, which really rings hollow to me. Some men are into pretty anything. I can go out right now and find porn sites devoted to obese women, hairy women muscular women, amputee women, women with enormous labia, and just about anything else stereotyped as unattractive or unfeminine. Every single strong, well-written, conservatively dressed woman you can dream up is going to have plenty of men who find her attractive. The same can be said of women and their interest in men. A character being considered sexually appealing by a certain group does not invalidate that character as anything other than a sex object or necessitate that they were designed specifically to appeal to that group. That sort of analysis takes the idea that a character must be designed to appeal to a heterosexual male audience as its starting point, rather than starting with the actual content being analyzed and reaching that conclusion.

Aside from that, I seriously question the extent to which a player character can be objectified. It seems to me that they must necessarily have some degree of agency, and thus subjectivity, in order for the game to function at all. In that sense, I find it intellectually problematic to consider a character like Dragon's Crown's sorceress as if she were an NPC or a character in a film, held up by the director to the passive gaze of the audience, rather than the active medium through which the audience is intended to identify and interact with the game's narrative and environment.

I would also like to stop hearing about how such-and-such character is a 'male power fantasy' for me. No one bothered to ask me what I fantasize about, and insisting that a character, image, or archetype represents my fantasies in the face of my statements to the contrary constitute a denial of subjectivity, which is a form of objectification. I do not fantasize about being a big muscle man. I do not fantasize about running around bloodily tearing things in two. I do not fantasize about no-strings attached sex with large numbers of conventionally attractive women. I fantasize about being more feminine, and my 'power fantasies' revolve around calm, methodical management from the comfort of a reclining couch. Do you know how many games cater to those fantasies? In my experience, there are pretty much none. So stop telling me that all of this shit you don't like is for me; it isn't.
 

Gigano

Whose Eyes Are Those Eyes?
Oct 15, 2009
2,281
0
0
evilthecat said:
While overall I think the message in this episode is excellent and when it comes to the so-called "boob wars" I couldn't agree more, I feel that it's somewhat incorrect to assume this controversy is simply another debate about sexualized character design. It started off that way with Jason Schreier's original comment, but that's certainly not why Kamitani got so much shit on social media. The real issue here is that you shouldn't respond to criticism (especially not by journalists whose job is to give opinion on your product) by engaging in casual homophobia.

Now, to be fair, Kamitani's "joke" would probably have been completely acceptable had it only been viewed in Japan, because casual homophobia remains perfectly acceptable in Japan. Even his "apology" makes it perfectly clear that he still doesn't actually understand why the joke was offensive, but it was. It was offensive because it implies a) that if Jason Schreier had been gay this alone would be grounds to laugh at him and b) that the wider opinions of actual gay people aren't actually important and don't have to be considered.

I think most of us can agree that Schreier's original comment was, at best, phrased badly, he's said as much himself. But as he also said, he's a critic of games. He's allowed to pass comment on the art in games, as indeed is anyone. If he doesn't like something, he can give it a public thumbs down because that's his job. Remember when Jim called the developers of Aliens: Colonial Marines liars? Would it have been appropriate for them to respond with "Lol, you just didn't like the game because there wasn't enough butsecks in it for you!"

Deflecting criticism by personally attacking a critic is bad practice. 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.
What "damage"?

An otherwise rather low profile Japanese fantasy game have gotten immense publicity over this in the western nerd hemisphere. How many people knew of "Dragon's Crown" before this controversy took off? Who'd seen - and noticed - the concept/publicity art for it?

If just 5 % of the people who've been part of the discussion end up buying the game, either because they've become interested in it on its own merits, or to spite the lust for the artist self-censoring, I'd wager it'll make far more than it would had nobody found big breasts so offensive. Controversy is an excellent marketing tool, so long as there are people siding with you/who don't care about the issue who'll see your game being argued over.

I'm pretty sure Kamitani can handle a bit of hate mail from offended people who'd never have bought the game anyway - and hence really have no business commenting on it, any more than straight men have commenting on gay porn offending them - if the pain is soothed by sales figures. The thing that actually matters.
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
can't say I like the designs ether, the Amazon just looks off, to off to find 'sexy', while most this guys male characters have always rubbed me wrong.

I liked the player character designs of Odin Sphere, those where pretty sensible over all
 

Gigano

Whose Eyes Are Those Eyes?
Oct 15, 2009
2,281
0
0
Archangel357 said:
Imperator_DK said:
What "damage"?

An otherwise rather low profile Japanese fantasy game have gotten immense publicity over this in the western nerd hemisphere. How many people knew of "Dragon's Crown" before this controversy took off? Who'd seen - and noticed - the concept/publicity art for it?

If just 5 % of the people who've been part of the discussion end up buying the game, either because they've become interested in it on its own merits, or to spite the lust for the artist self-censoring, I'd wager it'll make far more than it would had nobody found big breasts so offensive. Controversy is an excellent marketing tool, so long as there are people siding with you/who don't care about the issue who'll see it.

I'm pretty sure Kamitani can handle a bit of hate mail from offended people who'd never have bought the game anyway - and hence really have no business commenting on it, any more than straight men have commenting on gay porn offending them - if the pain is soothed by sales figures. The thing that actually matters.
And therein lies the crux.

Archangel357 said:
In storytelling, every part of a character should be relevant to the story. A villain needs a reason to be bad besides "he's an arsehole", just like a "seductress" needs more reasons to be "sexy" than "it will increase sales by 10%".
Don't think that's your call to make.

It is and remains the call of the writers and artists themselves how to create their works. Including whether or not to think commercial considerations into the development of them.

If you don't like the game, don't buy it. If you would have bought the game save for one thing, by all means send a constructive criticism to the developer, and more importantly actually buy similar games who do it right. If it's better business not to do it, then it won't be done. People who voice their interest in and support for the overall project are the only ones likely to actually be heard; For good reason, as they're the only ones who should have any potential say in it. It's they who'll be playing it, after all.

But lo and behold, it's not better business, because the people complaining about it wouldn't actually buy "Dragon's Crown" anyway, even if all female characters in it were AA-cups dressed in Burqa's[footnote]In which case a considerably larger segment probably wouldn't buy it.[/footnote]. They simply complain on the internet. Which is worth about as much as they'd pay for the game.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Archangel357 said:
*snip*

To illustrate my point: if we had a game in which sexual prowess were of no consequence to the character's goals, but a male character were, in promotional materials, artwork etc, depicted as having an enormous penis, would you have a problem with that?
All very good points, and I understand and agree with what you mean.

As for the last part that I did not cut out: No, it honestly would not bother me at all. I genuinely do not care about that kind of thing, be it males or females being used.

Would I be interested in the game? Probably not, but I also don't tend to like games with sexualised women either. I do not defend them because I like them or play games that include them, but because I don't see them as harmful, and therefore do not see them as an issue.

BreakfastMan said:
It isn't her body type that is the problem; it is the fact that she as portrayed as a sex object in a way all the other characters in the game aren't. This wouldn't be bad if it wasn't so common for crap like that to happen. It isn't necessarily sexualization that is the problem; it is the lack of diversity, and what that does to reinforce traditional gender roles. Ben Kochera had a pretty good article on such things on the PAR a while back.
No argument there, I have always strongly believed that the lack of diversity is the issue, not the actual sexualisation itself. Although as for the first sentence, I'd say that having one character as more sexual than the others, is showing diversity. There are more sensible characters, and there are characters with disturbing shaped bodies, so it's not like a message is being made that women should look a certain way.

The different being, you are not expected to act such ways IRL. Grabbing a shotgun and curb-stomping cops is looked down upon in society. The problem is about roles that society pushes people towards and encourages. Society generally doesn't encourage being a sociopathic criminal.
A very good point, although I'd say the cause and affect are the other way around. Sexualised media exists because of attitudes that already exist, they do not exist because of the media creating them.

Sex sells because people like sex. People don't like sex because sex is sold.

If people want to complain that sexual media reinforces or encourages these already existent beliefs, I can accept their point, although I'd disagree purely because I believe most people can easily differentiate between fiction and reality.

Although perhaps I am being too optimistic.

I disagree; Violent media often shows acts that are stupidly impossible. Sexualization often shows images that are at least probable (yes, I have met women with breasts bigger than their head IRL. No, I don't know how they walk).
Absolutely, it happens both ways, but I will bring up a point I have made in other discussions.

There are different "types" of fiction. There is fiction such as Halo, where it tries to stay grounded and "believable", where you are supposed to happily suspend your disbelief. In these stories, they try and keep things logical as much as they can. The troops wear realistic armour, when a person does something impossible, there is an in-universe explanation for it (like the Spartan's armour) and the game has a consistent logic to it.

Games with overly sexualised women very rarely fit that description. They are not grounded, or the kind of game that is trying to be "believable". They are more like fantasies, where things don't have to make sense or be explained. Like how in anime, characters often have unrealistic hair colours, and nobody bats an eyelid. That kind of thing is considerably less common in "serious" ones, but in light hearted or over the top ones you will see it more often.

There are always exceptions of course, and I am by no means saying that all sexualised characters are okay, but I strongly believe that there is a large divide between fiction and reality, and that a lot of people tend to blur it too much when it comes to their criticisms.

Only if you afford me the same courtesy. XD
Of course. I am many things, not all of them good, but I try my hardest not to be a hypocrite.
 

ConanThe3rd

New member
Jul 3, 2012
72
0
0
^I could have sworn she wore some sort of trousers in the game proper.

The problem is that the moment one side lowers their metaphorical sword it's not viewed as an attempt to open dialogue as-so-much as it's viewed as it is to gesture "I've lost, please lob my head off".

It's the Golden Balls problem; Both sides would rather lose than take half the "money" and noting short of people's heads flying for it is going to stop it from happening.

On the upside, I'm sure Atlus will get a whole load of sales off this.