Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown

[nevarran]

I was sure you'll show up wearing a pair of enormous fake jiggly boobs, to attract some horny teenage viewers, hm... for... hmm, for art's sake, I mean. Pure artistic vision, that is.

 

[Mr_Terrific]

I'm not a game critic/reviewer, but if I was and was asked to or wanted to review it I would. Going into the game disliking the way they turned every female character into walking (or chained), barely clothed fanservice doesn't mean that I couldn't review it. That's a perspective, and differing perspectives are valuable when reviewing a game. If twenty other people barely acknowledged that the female designs might be off putting for a sizable number of people, one or two people who outright say that that was the case and their enjoyment was lessened by it is good for the people who feel the same way.

There's also the fact that, prior to these reviews, I was only aware of the designs of the Sorceress and the Amazon as being kind of offensive, whereas the game is filled with female characters with similar or even worse (that is, more offensive). So, reviews that point this out certainly have a purpose, as otherwise I would still be talking about the Sorceress' stripper pose and the Amazon's chainmail bikini.

Oh, I don't doubt that Polygon is funded by Microsoft, it's just that that doesn't really have any relevance unless you're pushing some conspiracy theory where some agent of Microsoft has actually told Polygon to rate PS exclusives lower than what they should be. As for their reviews, "horrible" seems a bit subjective and harsh, and giving TLoU a less than perfect score doesn't make it so.

So basically what you're saying is, if a person doesn't like horror games, that person is still capable of objectively reviewing that game? Just because you are incapable of looking beyond the cosmetics of a game does not mean your viewers are the same. It's not preference or perspective, it's bias and reviews need a lot less of that.

Also, the game is not filled with half dressed female characters. There's the Amazon, Elf, and Sorceress. If you're bothered by 2 of those characters, play the elf. Much like the two ladies that reviewed DC, you are ignoring the fully dressed Elf in favor of bitching about tits and ass. Or what of the shirtless dwarf that woman seemingly have no issue with. Or impossibly proportioned Fighter? Nope... Both the Amazon and Sorceress dress and proportions fit within the context of the game. The game goes overboard with everything and I find it ridiculous and petty to pick apart a game simply because of your own insecurities.

As for the Polygon's reviews being horrible, who are you to tell me I'm being harsh when you just lectured me about perspective? Did I mention a score? If you've played TLoU and have read the Polygon review of it, which I'm sure you haven't, you'd know that the review is filled with inaccuracies and is actually very close to what we're discussing with the Dragon's Crown review. If a game is not your cup of tea, don't review it. The whole MS angle simply makes it a better story. That is why people are critical of Polygon and the DC review. Again, I'm not pushing any conspiracies. That's a conversation you've been having with yourself. I'm merely suggesting that Jim should talk about it instead of focusing on fans who are upset with one critic's bias.

 

[s0osleepie]

Escapist doesn't have a page describing their ratings...

Snip.

I should have clarified that I think 6.5 is a very borderline score between 'mediocre' and 'good'.

So... the game scored 6.5/10, or 65%, in one review. It scored more than half marks. And this is a *bad* thing?...

Snip.

Since there seems to be a debate / confusion over how our star based review score system should be interpreted, I would love to help clarify with what each star rating currently means since we last published them:

[rating=5]
Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the crème de la crème. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

[rating=4]
Four stars. An outstanding gaming experience marred by just a few flaws.

[rating=3]
Three stars. An average game experience. You'll play it and probably enjoy it. A month from now, you'll likely have forgotten all about it.

[rating=2]
Two stars. Die-hard fans of the genre will find something to like, but anyone else will be hard-pressed to enjoy games of this quality.

[rating=1]
One star. So broken as to be unplayable. Not even worth picking up in the bargain bin.

 

[Sir. Jasper Colinwell]

I once again LOVE the analogy Jim uses with Dynasty Warriors.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

snip.

Understandable. No issues with wanting things to be of higher quality.
That said, aren't you perhaps asking a bit much of a 5-10 video? One that has a limited time to be made and released after one has done "research"(played the game). That and to pick up on all the things you would yourself first have to be familiar with them, and of course you would have to know that there are things to look for. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but perhaps not in the time that these reviews have to be made.

Plus, that isn't the main goal of the review. The goal is to find out if they can tell you if you should buy the game. As for the things Jim, Bob, and others have made, yes they aren't perfect as intellectual pieces, but that's because they also have to be entertainment too. So they will have some flaws. That said, while they aren't the best, I think there is something to having someone take a serious issue, keep it still mostly serious, but still have it be entertaining to watch.

However, I have seen more analytical works in other places(and here on the escapist even) that look deeper into gaming.
Errant Signal, EmceeProphIt, and Rob Rath of Critical Intel to name just a few.

Also, while other content may not be as in-depth, or detailed. I still think interesting ideas can come from such things, and that they do have value.

I get that they're trying to be entertaining, but I think that the way they do so, often taking pot shots at a perceived opposition, frequently does more to undermine than to stimulate reasoned, productive debate. I know it isn't possible to exhaust these topics in a five minute video, but it is possible to present a more nuanced and accurate take on the issues involved and provide a better starting point for discussion than are currently being given, and it is certainly possible to inject an element of humor into one's work without being needlessly aggressive, which causes others to stop listening and lash out, rather than engage and consider.

I can understand not wanting such aggression in the content. Bob and Jim do sometimes get a bit antagonistic.
Granted, can ya really fault people for giving sexist/racist/bigots/trolls a few pokes? Not that those are the only targets ever, but I don't really recall them going after fans of a game(who were not behaving a bit "inappropriately").

Even if ya can find a work that hasn't got the emotional elements, that doesn't guaranty you won't have dramatic and even a bit violent verbal feedback. Take for example the Tropes vs. Women series. Even those who like them(me included) have said that Anita's show is quite dry in the presentation at times, and inoffensive to the point you question if she's being a bit to basic. Until you see SOME people talking about the show.

Heck even before it was being released or even assured for production there were death threats, rape threats, and even someone who took time to make a flash game where you beat her up.

Lets cut through some bullcrap. Two major reasons this review is getting such(negative) attention, is because like Jim has said a few times in his career, people have gotten to use to just using scores to give reviews value, and have gotten to the point where people say "8/10? More like Hate/10" but actually mean it.

The other reason involves one of the reasons why the game got it's score. One of the reasons. And that is that it mentions that the way the game displays women is kind of sexist. I've read the read and seen the review. Waited a bit because everyone was talking it up as this "big doom fest of crazy feminism!"
x( As an example of that, I have to say I'm not impressed. Heck, it actually sounds a lot like the review here on the escapist, really.

And in the end it actually sounds about as positive, too. I'm still happy to play the game soon, and still dreading all the needless titillation.

As for wanting a more in-depth analysis of games? I still wholeheartedly recommend the ones in the list I gave ya, and I can tell ya that there are even more out there. Likely some that I haven't even seen yet.

Got to sleep. Goodnight, and may the rest of your week be even better!

I think the problem lies in the way they assume that everyone who disagrees with them will be sexist/racist/bigots/trolls. Given how little actual understanding of the progressive theories they claim to represent these people consistently demonstrate, I think that highly unlikely. Framing the discussion in those terms is silencing to a lot of people, and gives a lot of others the impression that they are under attack. I don't think this can be classified even as an attempt to foster discussion.

People angry about the score are almost certainly mostly as you describe. The only reason to be angry at a score is that it exists at all (as I said at first, I try to avoid even looking at them). Numerical scoring systems are utterly incompatible with any kind of art, as well as serving to cheapen the journalism to which they are attached.

As for the art of Dragon's Crown, I think it is a good deal less black and white than most people are saying on either side of the issue. I can't really talk about objectification in this context, because that would mean devising a theory on how player interaction relates to the subjectivity of characters, and I do not feel ready to do that at this time (any discussion of objectification that does not mention subjectivity or assumes objectification to be sexual in nature can safely be ignored as the work of people who need to sit down and read actual feminist criticism). There are three things that give me pause in condemning the artwork in Dragon's Crown:

1.) I can't shake the feeling that it is actually meant to be taken as a joke. DC has the least serious and complex storyline of any Vanillaware game I've seen. Besides that, the exaggerated character designs are well beyond any protagonist from their previous titles. When discussing the women, specifically, Kamitani's heroines, even as far back as his first game, tend to look like Gwendolyn from Odin Sphere or Momohime from Muramasa. No one in Dragon's Crown really has a build like that, not even the elf. Add to that, exaggeratedly 'sexy' characters in his previous games don't really look like the ones in DC. The two foxes in Muramasa are much more proportionate, as is Velvet in Odin Sphere. The closest thing to the Sorceress is that witch from Grand Knights History, and even she was less exaggerated and more clothed. Nothing in Kamitani's career would suggest that he's the type to throw these things in for sales, so I'm left thinking that these designs, along with the constant damsels in distress, are exaggerated parodies of typical fantasy art.

2.) There's a hell of a lot more body type diversity in the playable cast than in the majority of games. I do think it's a good thing to have more of that, and in that sense the DC art may actually be more progressive than a lot of big games that pass unnoticed through the sheer blandness of their art design.

3.) A decent number of the things people complain about on background characters or enemies comes straight from other sources. I find it hard to blame Kamitani for a neckline he got out of an old painting.

(As a sidenote, I think a look at some trends in current Japanese fine art might give a lot of people more context for some of this stuff. I've seen things in exhibitions and galleries which would, I imagine, shock a lot of sensibilities here.)

I think these points are at least worth discussing, but the polarizing statements people insist on making on both sides of this debate prevent any real exchange of ideas.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

snip.

Spoiler: A little...

Understandable. No issues with wanting things to be of higher quality.
That said, aren't you perhaps asking a bit much of a 5-10 video? One that has a limited time to be made and released after one has done "research"(played the game). That and to pick up on all the things you would yourself first have to be familiar with them, and of course you would have to know that there are things to look for. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but perhaps not in the time that these reviews have to be made.

Plus, that isn't the main goal of the review. The goal is to find out if they can tell you if you should buy the game. As for the things Jim, Bob, and others have made, yes they aren't perfect as intellectual pieces, but that's because they also have to be entertainment too. So they will have some flaws. That said, while they aren't the best, I think there is something to having someone take a serious issue, keep it still mostly serious, but still have it be entertaining to watch.

However, I have seen more analytical works in other places(and here on the escapist even) that look deeper into gaming.
Errant Signal, EmceeProphIt, and Rob Rath of Critical Intel to name just a few.

Also, while other content may not be as in-depth, or detailed. I still think interesting ideas can come from such things, and that they do have value.

Spoiler: A little off the top

I get that they're trying to be entertaining, but I think that the way they do so, often taking pot shots at a perceived opposition, frequently does more to undermine than to stimulate reasoned, productive debate. I know it isn't possible to exhaust these topics in a five minute video, but it is possible to present a more nuanced and accurate take on the issues involved and provide a better starting point for discussion than are currently being given, and it is certainly possible to inject an element of humor into one's work without being needlessly aggressive, which causes others to stop listening and lash out, rather than engage and consider.

I can understand not wanting such aggression in the content. Bob and Jim do sometimes get a bit antagonistic.
Granted, can ya really fault people for giving sexist/racist/bigots/trolls a few pokes? Not that those are the only targets ever, but I don't really recall them going after fans of a game(who were not behaving a bit "inappropriately").

Even if ya can find a work that hasn't got the emotional elements, that doesn't guaranty you won't have dramatic and even a bit violent verbal feedback. Take for example the Tropes vs. Women series. Even those who like them(me included) have said that Anita's show is quite dry in the presentation at times, and inoffensive to the point you question if she's being a bit to basic. Until you see SOME people talking about the show.

Heck even before it was being released or even assured for production there were death threats, rape threats, and even someone who took time to make a flash game where you beat her up.

Lets cut through some bullcrap. Two major reasons this review is getting such(negative) attention, is because like Jim has said a few times in his career, people have gotten to use to just using scores to give reviews value, and have gotten to the point where people say "8/10? More like Hate/10" but actually mean it.

The other reason involves one of the reasons why the game got it's score. One of the reasons. And that is that it mentions that the way the game displays women is kind of sexist. I've read the read and seen the review. Waited a bit because everyone was talking it up as this "big doom fest of crazy feminism!"
x( As an example of that, I have to say I'm not impressed. Heck, it actually sounds a lot like the review here on the escapist, really.

And in the end it actually sounds about as positive, too. I'm still happy to play the game soon, and still dreading all the needless titillation.

As for wanting a more in-depth analysis of games? I still wholeheartedly recommend the ones in the list I gave ya, and I can tell ya that there are even more out there. Likely some that I haven't even seen yet.

Got to sleep. Goodnight, and may the rest of your week be even better!

I think the problem lies in the way they assume that everyone who disagrees with them will be sexist/racist/bigots/trolls. Given how little actual understanding of the progressive theories they claim to represent these people consistently demonstrate, I think that highly unlikely. Framing the discussion in those terms is silencing to a lot of people, and gives a lot of others the impression that they are under attack. I don't think this can be classified even as an attempt to foster discussion.

People angry about the score are almost certainly mostly as you describe. The only reason to be angry at a score is that it exists at all (as I said at first, I try to avoid even looking at them). Numerical scoring systems are utterly incompatible with any kind of art, as well as serving to cheapen the journalism to which they are attached.

As for the art of Dragon's Crown, I think it is a good deal less black and white than most people are saying on either side of the issue. I can't really talk about objectification in this context, because that would mean devising a theory on how player interaction relates to the subjectivity of characters, and I do not feel ready to do that at this time (any discussion of objectification that does not mention subjectivity or assumes objectification to be sexual in nature can safely be ignored as the work of people who need to sit down and read actual feminist criticism). There are three things that give me pause in condemning the artwork in Dragon's Crown:

1.) I can't shake the feeling that it is actually meant to be taken as a joke. DC has the least serious and complex storyline of any Vanillaware game I've seen. Besides that, the exaggerated character designs are well beyond any protagonist from their previous titles. When discussing the women, specifically, Kamitani's heroines, even as far back as his first game, tend to look like Gwendolyn from Odin Sphere or Momohime from Muramasa. No one in Dragon's Crown really has a build like that, not even the elf. Add to that, exaggeratedly 'sexy' characters in his previous games don't really look like the ones in DC. The two foxes in Muramasa are much more proportionate, as is Velvet in Odin Sphere. The closest thing to the Sorceress is that witch from Grand Knights History, and even she was less exaggerated and more clothed. Nothing in Kamitani's career would suggest that he's the type to throw these things in for sales, so I'm left thinking that these designs, along with the constant damsels in distress, are exaggerated parodies of typical fantasy art.

2.) There's a hell of a lot more body type diversity in the playable cast than in the majority of games. I do think it's a good thing to have more of that, and in that sense the DC art may actually be more progressive than a lot of big games that pass unnoticed through the sheer blandness of their art design.

3.) A decent number of the things people complain about on background characters or enemies comes straight from other sources. I find it hard to blame Kamitani for a neckline he got out of an old painting.

(As a sidenote, I think a look at some trends in current Japanese fine art might give a lot of people more context for some of this stuff. I've seen things in exhibitions and galleries which would, I imagine, shock a lot of sensibilities here.)

I think these points are at least worth discussing, but the polarizing statements people insist on making on both sides of this debate prevent any real exchange of ideas.

Interesting points. Also, there is almost definitely some comedic parts to the art style of the women. That said, as Jim made note in a earlier video; when the joke is so much like the thing it's suppose to be making fun of, is it still really a joke? Poe's Law and all that.

I've yet to see a reviewer not take note of this bit of the game. That said, yes all of the game have a very eccentric art style, but you can't say all the characters get the same treatment with it. The Elf character in the game proves they can make a cool looking character without having to over sexualize them.

What is really troubling though is not the main characters, going off the information from the reviews though. As Lashani said, the Sorceress attire ends up making sense in the context of the game, but as for the NPC character, not so much.

It's an artistic choice, but not one I am sold on as necessary to bring out the most of the game. One could argue that so far all it's really done is distract people from the far more interesting things about the game.
For example; Today Critical Miss episode, that brings up the question of why the Elf and Dwarf(and one could argue the Amazon too) are named after their race while the others get the name of there class.

Who knows. Perhaps more people would be noticing at least a few more of the homages you mentioned, and would have time to talk about them in the reviews. If the game didn't have that one part of the art, and the reviewers didn't have to talk about the stupid amounts of titillation in the reviews.

That said, there is a lot of body type diversity. But for the women they seem to focus on certain parts of the anatomy, and that's hardly "new". The Elf is cool though.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

I think it all boils down to the overall quality of review. See, first and foremost it's a 2D RPG/beat-em-up. In case of that review reviewer but a lot of stock into particular art style quirks which are highly, highly subjective. See, all reviews are subjective but what differentiates a good reviewer is ability to determine which parts are most important. That depiction of women ties very neatly into medieval fantasy theme. A good reviewer would evaluate gameplay, RPG elements, story and such first and stuff like huge boobs second. That review reads like a whiny blog and that's the issue.
It would be all fine and good if they scored the game low based on core elements like leveling system. But on basis on some highly subjective and arguably stupid elements of art?
See Jim, the point being it's not a professional review. It's a whiny blog. If we don't stomp such "reviewers" now next thing will be Dynasty Warriors getting 1 and 2 scores because of lack of proper beard on certain characters.

This got tweeted on Jims twitter, and will/was probably showed around in the comments here already, but fuck it, because you more then anyone needs to see it: http://i.imgur.com/6GXBC96.jpg

I've seen that comment way before posting here. It doesn't really change anything. Publisher is just being polite and reasonable.

 

[Shaitan051]

As for the male side of things, don't make me go over the difference between sexual fantasy and power fantasy again

Thank you for your restraint. If I hear that overflowing crock of hypocrisy apologizing horses*** again I may end up driving my palm through my bloody skull.

 

[kazriko]

I think you need to reread that rpgamer page because they have a chart at the bottom, and it explicitly says that their previous system's 5-6/10 is equivalent to their current system's 3/5. The same for Joystiq (though without numbers obviously), where a 3/5 is a maybe (average) while everything below that is a no unless you're starved for a certain genre.

RPGamer's 1-10 scale was quite atypical in that they used the entire scale for serviceable games similar to most site's 1-5 scales. They probably went to the 1-5 scale because of this. If you look at Polygon's numbers from 5 and down, they're all talking about games that are so broken as to be practically unplayable in at least one aspect.

Even if the websites you linked didn't explain that what you consider their rating system to be isn't the case, you can't just say that, because they do it this way, the Escapist does it that way too. A 1.5/5 is not a 6.5/10 and a 3/5 is not an 8/10; if it was, the game would be considered good, great even, instead of average.

I'm just guessing what Escapist does based on what others that use a 5 star system do. I didn't say a 3/5 would be an 8/10, if anything it'd be closer to a 7 or 7.5, or C level. Still higher than Polygon's 6.5's D level. The thing about polygon is that they've apparently consistently given lower scores to Sony exclusives than cross platform games. Does Remember Me deserve a better score than The Last of Us? The rest of the internet doesn't think so. Thus, Polygon is just a little nutty and just out to either generate lots of controversy to puff up their ad revenues, or they're just anti-Sony. Either way, that's why I no longer have them on my RSS reader.

 

[kazriko]

Since there seems to be a debate / confusion over how our star based review score system should be interpreted, I would love to help clarify with what each star rating currently means since we last published them:

[rating=5]
Five stars. This is as good as gaming currently gets, the crème de la crème. This doesn't imply perfection, merely that the experience you'll have will be exceptionally enjoyable.

[rating=4]
Four stars. An outstanding gaming experience marred by just a few flaws.

[rating=3]
Three stars. An average game experience. You'll play it and probably enjoy it. A month from now, you'll likely have forgotten all about it.

[rating=2]
Two stars. Die-hard fans of the genre will find something to like, but anyone else will be hard-pressed to enjoy games of this quality.

[rating=1]
One star. So broken as to be unplayable. Not even worth picking up in the bargain bin.

Thanks for the clarification. That means that matching this up to Polygon's chart, a 5 would be a 9 or 10, 4 would be an 8, 3 would be a 7, 2 would be a 6, and 1 would be anything from 1 to 5 on their scale...

I'd love to see that linked to next to the scores in reviews, else it's hard to determine what they mean.

 

[Flunk]

Hey Jim, I think you might be taking this too seriously. 95% of gamers don't care a damn about ratings it's only that 5% of idiots complaining about it who even care.

P.S. I thought Zelda Skyward Sword was terrible, but I didn't post insults on every positive review of it.

 

[SecondPrize]

No way Jim. If people behaved with any sanity about this we'd lose the entertainment gold mine which is the comments sections on Tom Chick's reviews.

 

[Slash2x]

UUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMM so I looked at metacritic........ and the escapist gave it a 60%.................... The lowest score of all the others..........

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

You know why? Because that reviewer did not like the game.

SO WHAT people have opinions it is kind of our thing. With as many of the sites there are now just look for someone who has a similar option to you and that is the person who you should go to for your review.

 

[OtherSideofSky]

snip.

Spoiler: A little...

Understandable. No issues with wanting things to be of higher quality.
That said, aren't you perhaps asking a bit much of a 5-10 video? One that has a limited time to be made and released after one has done "research"(played the game). That and to pick up on all the things you would yourself first have to be familiar with them, and of course you would have to know that there are things to look for. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but perhaps not in the time that these reviews have to be made.

Plus, that isn't the main goal of the review. The goal is to find out if they can tell you if you should buy the game. As for the things Jim, Bob, and others have made, yes they aren't perfect as intellectual pieces, but that's because they also have to be entertainment too. So they will have some flaws. That said, while they aren't the best, I think there is something to having someone take a serious issue, keep it still mostly serious, but still have it be entertaining to watch.

However, I have seen more analytical works in other places(and here on the escapist even) that look deeper into gaming.
Errant Signal, EmceeProphIt, and Rob Rath of Critical Intel to name just a few.

Also, while other content may not be as in-depth, or detailed. I still think interesting ideas can come from such things, and that they do have value.

Spoiler: A little off the top

I get that they're trying to be entertaining, but I think that the way they do so, often taking pot shots at a perceived opposition, frequently does more to undermine than to stimulate reasoned, productive debate. I know it isn't possible to exhaust these topics in a five minute video, but it is possible to present a more nuanced and accurate take on the issues involved and provide a better starting point for discussion than are currently being given, and it is certainly possible to inject an element of humor into one's work without being needlessly aggressive, which causes others to stop listening and lash out, rather than engage and consider.

I can understand not wanting such aggression in the content. Bob and Jim do sometimes get a bit antagonistic.
Granted, can ya really fault people for giving sexist/racist/bigots/trolls a few pokes? Not that those are the only targets ever, but I don't really recall them going after fans of a game(who were not behaving a bit "inappropriately").

Even if ya can find a work that hasn't got the emotional elements, that doesn't guaranty you won't have dramatic and even a bit violent verbal feedback. Take for example the Tropes vs. Women series. Even those who like them(me included) have said that Anita's show is quite dry in the presentation at times, and inoffensive to the point you question if she's being a bit to basic. Until you see SOME people talking about the show.

Heck even before it was being released or even assured for production there were death threats, rape threats, and even someone who took time to make a flash game where you beat her up.

Lets cut through some bullcrap. Two major reasons this review is getting such(negative) attention, is because like Jim has said a few times in his career, people have gotten to use to just using scores to give reviews value, and have gotten to the point where people say "8/10? More like Hate/10" but actually mean it.

The other reason involves one of the reasons why the game got it's score. One of the reasons. And that is that it mentions that the way the game displays women is kind of sexist. I've read the read and seen the review. Waited a bit because everyone was talking it up as this "big doom fest of crazy feminism!"
x( As an example of that, I have to say I'm not impressed. Heck, it actually sounds a lot like the review here on the escapist, really.

And in the end it actually sounds about as positive, too. I'm still happy to play the game soon, and still dreading all the needless titillation.

As for wanting a more in-depth analysis of games? I still wholeheartedly recommend the ones in the list I gave ya, and I can tell ya that there are even more out there. Likely some that I haven't even seen yet.

Got to sleep. Goodnight, and may the rest of your week be even better!

I think the problem lies in the way they assume that everyone who disagrees with them will be sexist/racist/bigots/trolls. Given how little actual understanding of the progressive theories they claim to represent these people consistently demonstrate, I think that highly unlikely. Framing the discussion in those terms is silencing to a lot of people, and gives a lot of others the impression that they are under attack. I don't think this can be classified even as an attempt to foster discussion.

People angry about the score are almost certainly mostly as you describe. The only reason to be angry at a score is that it exists at all (as I said at first, I try to avoid even looking at them). Numerical scoring systems are utterly incompatible with any kind of art, as well as serving to cheapen the journalism to which they are attached.

As for the art of Dragon's Crown, I think it is a good deal less black and white than most people are saying on either side of the issue. I can't really talk about objectification in this context, because that would mean devising a theory on how player interaction relates to the subjectivity of characters, and I do not feel ready to do that at this time (any discussion of objectification that does not mention subjectivity or assumes objectification to be sexual in nature can safely be ignored as the work of people who need to sit down and read actual feminist criticism). There are three things that give me pause in condemning the artwork in Dragon's Crown:

1.) I can't shake the feeling that it is actually meant to be taken as a joke. DC has the least serious and complex storyline of any Vanillaware game I've seen. Besides that, the exaggerated character designs are well beyond any protagonist from their previous titles. When discussing the women, specifically, Kamitani's heroines, even as far back as his first game, tend to look like Gwendolyn from Odin Sphere or Momohime from Muramasa. No one in Dragon's Crown really has a build like that, not even the elf. Add to that, exaggeratedly 'sexy' characters in his previous games don't really look like the ones in DC. The two foxes in Muramasa are much more proportionate, as is Velvet in Odin Sphere. The closest thing to the Sorceress is that witch from Grand Knights History, and even she was less exaggerated and more clothed. Nothing in Kamitani's career would suggest that he's the type to throw these things in for sales, so I'm left thinking that these designs, along with the constant damsels in distress, are exaggerated parodies of typical fantasy art.

2.) There's a hell of a lot more body type diversity in the playable cast than in the majority of games. I do think it's a good thing to have more of that, and in that sense the DC art may actually be more progressive than a lot of big games that pass unnoticed through the sheer blandness of their art design.

3.) A decent number of the things people complain about on background characters or enemies comes straight from other sources. I find it hard to blame Kamitani for a neckline he got out of an old painting.

(As a sidenote, I think a look at some trends in current Japanese fine art might give a lot of people more context for some of this stuff. I've seen things in exhibitions and galleries which would, I imagine, shock a lot of sensibilities here.)

I think these points are at least worth discussing, but the polarizing statements people insist on making on both sides of this debate prevent any real exchange of ideas.

Interesting points. Also, there is almost definitely some comedic parts to the art style of the women. That said, as Jim made note in a earlier video; when the joke is so much like the thing it's suppose to be making fun of, is it still really a joke? Poe's Law and all that.

I've yet to see a reviewer not take note of this bit of the game. That said, yes all of the game have a very eccentric art style, but you can't say all the characters get the same treatment with it. The Elf character in the game proves they can make a cool looking character without having to over sexualize them.

What is really troubling though is not the main characters, going off the information from the reviews though. As Lashani said, the Sorceress attire ends up making sense in the context of the game, but as for the NPC character, not so much.

It's an artistic choice, but not one I am sold on as necessary to bring out the most of the game. One could argue that so far all it's really done is distract people from the far more interesting things about the game.
For example; Today Critical Miss episode, that brings up the question of why the Elf and Dwarf(and one could argue the Amazon too) are named after their race while the others get the name of there class.

Who knows. Perhaps more people would be noticing at least a few more of the homages you mentioned, and would have time to talk about them in the reviews. If the game didn't have that one part of the art, and the reviewers didn't have to talk about the stupid amounts of titillation in the reviews.

That said, there is a lot of body type diversity. But for the women they seem to focus on certain parts of the anatomy, and that's hardly "new". The Elf is cool though.

I would argue that it isn't 'so much like the thing it's suppose to be making fun of.' The mere fact that so many people noticed the designs in a niche title like Dragon's Crown, which would normally fly under the radar entirely, attests to the fact that the exaggeration is readily apparent. If that were not the case, wouldn't all the people who got up in arms over the DC character designs have been talking about some bigger, better publicized game instead? (How many people had really heard of Dragon's Crown until game journalists made it an issue?) And what other games have designs that look like this? Certainly, games like Dead or Alive and the new Ninja Gaiden games place an emphasis on highly sexualized depictions of female characters, but none of those designs represent nearly as great a departure from normal human anatomy. Even games like Senran Kagura that put those elements front and center don't have designs that look like the characters in Dragon's Crown. In fact, the Sorceress and Amazon are so exaggerated that even most porn artists scale their proportions back a bit.

Honestly, having played Dragon's Crown, I still can't imagine a mind set that would say the Sorceress makes sense and then get hung up on the other designs. My own opinion is that basically none of them make sense, and that that's the point. They're parodies of the bulging muscles and chainmail bikinis you'd expect to find on the cover of a Conan the Barabarian comic, taken so far that even someone used to that style is forced to acknowledge the absurdity.

I would guess the elf and dwarf thing is because that's how it was in the old D&D brawlers, which Kamitani worked on and this game makes reference to. Those games got it from old D&D, of course. By the way, since you mention Critical Miss, I'd like to point out that the actual online situation is just about exactly the opposite of the one depicted in the comic prior to the one you mention. Everyone zeroes in on the elf as the most acceptable female character because she wears the most and looks the most normal, but those same qualities make a lot of people consider her the most attractive, and it seems she might actually be more popular than the Amazon or Sorceress in that regard (especially in Japan). I'm not sure what that says, except that the other two are exaggerated enough for a lot of people to find them bizarre rather than sexy, but I think it might be a tad ironic.

I don't think it's fair to label the designs as 'focusing on just one part of the anatomy.' People who say that tend to label the sorceress as breasts, amazon as ass, and elf as zettai ryouiki, but the sorceress clearly has as much ass as she does tits (it would be insane to call her design anything other than an exaggerated caricature of T&A), the amazon is more about muscles than anything (and when was the last time a game asked you to play as a visibly muscular woman? All I can think of is some characters in SF IV), and the elf have a lot more than that going on in her design.

Honestly, I'm still not sure a lot of these designs are meant to be 'titillating,' so much as to scream 'this is a game of D&D being played by thirteen year olds,' an impression that the DM-like narrator and cookie-cutter fantasy plot serve to enhance. Certainly, there are people who find the designs attractive, but that is true of literally anything to a much larger degree than most critics are comfortable with. The game's ads certainly didn't look like they were trying to sell it with that angle. There was none of the Soul Calibur V 'magazine ad that shows only the area between the crotch and neck of a woman in a skintight outfit that barely covers her torso,' or the Ninja Gaiden 2 'sculptur of breasts stuck to a wall.' The DC ads were all narration about grand adventure and scenes from actual gameplay (the painting of the sorceress everyone got mad over was one of the pieces of character concept art they released on the official website). Whatever the intent of the designs themselves, the idea that the game was trying to sell itself based on sex appeal just doesn't hold up.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

snip.

Spoiler: A little...

Understandable. No issues with wanting things to be of higher quality.
That said, aren't you perhaps asking a bit much of a 5-10 video? One that has a limited time to be made and released after one has done "research"(played the game). That and to pick up on all the things you would yourself first have to be familiar with them, and of course you would have to know that there are things to look for. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but perhaps not in the time that these reviews have to be made.

Plus, that isn't the main goal of the review. The goal is to find out if they can tell you if you should buy the game. As for the things Jim, Bob, and others have made, yes they aren't perfect as intellectual pieces, but that's because they also have to be entertainment too. So they will have some flaws. That said, while they aren't the best, I think there is something to having someone take a serious issue, keep it still mostly serious, but still have it be entertaining to watch.

However, I have seen more analytical works in other places(and here on the escapist even) that look deeper into gaming.
Errant Signal, EmceeProphIt, and Rob Rath of Critical Intel to name just a few.

Also, while other content may not be as in-depth, or detailed. I still think interesting ideas can come from such things, and that they do have value.

Spoiler: A little off the top

I get that they're trying to be entertaining, but I think that the way they do so, often taking pot shots at a perceived opposition, frequently does more to undermine than to stimulate reasoned, productive debate. I know it isn't possible to exhaust these topics in a five minute video, but it is possible to present a more nuanced and accurate take on the issues involved and provide a better starting point for discussion than are currently being given, and it is certainly possible to inject an element of humor into one's work without being needlessly aggressive, which causes others to stop listening and lash out, rather than engage and consider.

I can understand not wanting such aggression in the content. Bob and Jim do sometimes get a bit antagonistic.
Granted, can ya really fault people for giving sexist/racist/bigots/trolls a few pokes? Not that those are the only targets ever, but I don't really recall them going after fans of a game(who were not behaving a bit "inappropriately").

Even if ya can find a work that hasn't got the emotional elements, that doesn't guaranty you won't have dramatic and even a bit violent verbal feedback. Take for example the Tropes vs. Women series. Even those who like them(me included) have said that Anita's show is quite dry in the presentation at times, and inoffensive to the point you question if she's being a bit to basic. Until you see SOME people talking about the show.

Heck even before it was being released or even assured for production there were death threats, rape threats, and even someone who took time to make a flash game where you beat her up.

Lets cut through some bullcrap. Two major reasons this review is getting such(negative) attention, is because like Jim has said a few times in his career, people have gotten to use to just using scores to give reviews value, and have gotten to the point where people say "8/10? More like Hate/10" but actually mean it.

The other reason involves one of the reasons why the game got it's score. One of the reasons. And that is that it mentions that the way the game displays women is kind of sexist. I've read the read and seen the review. Waited a bit because everyone was talking it up as this "big doom fest of crazy feminism!"
x( As an example of that, I have to say I'm not impressed. Heck, it actually sounds a lot like the review here on the escapist, really.

And in the end it actually sounds about as positive, too. I'm still happy to play the game soon, and still dreading all the needless titillation.

As for wanting a more in-depth analysis of games? I still wholeheartedly recommend the ones in the list I gave ya, and I can tell ya that there are even more out there. Likely some that I haven't even seen yet.

Got to sleep. Goodnight, and may the rest of your week be even better!

I think the problem lies in the way they assume that everyone who disagrees with them will be sexist/racist/bigots/trolls. Given how little actual understanding of the progressive theories they claim to represent these people consistently demonstrate, I think that highly unlikely. Framing the discussion in those terms is silencing to a lot of people, and gives a lot of others the impression that they are under attack. I don't think this can be classified even as an attempt to foster discussion.

People angry about the score are almost certainly mostly as you describe. The only reason to be angry at a score is that it exists at all (as I said at first, I try to avoid even looking at them). Numerical scoring systems are utterly incompatible with any kind of art, as well as serving to cheapen the journalism to which they are attached.

As for the art of Dragon's Crown, I think it is a good deal less black and white than most people are saying on either side of the issue. I can't really talk about objectification in this context, because that would mean devising a theory on how player interaction relates to the subjectivity of characters, and I do not feel ready to do that at this time (any discussion of objectification that does not mention subjectivity or assumes objectification to be sexual in nature can safely be ignored as the work of people who need to sit down and read actual feminist criticism). There are three things that give me pause in condemning the artwork in Dragon's Crown:

1.) I can't shake the feeling that it is actually meant to be taken as a joke. DC has the least serious and complex storyline of any Vanillaware game I've seen. Besides that, the exaggerated character designs are well beyond any protagonist from their previous titles. When discussing the women, specifically, Kamitani's heroines, even as far back as his first game, tend to look like Gwendolyn from Odin Sphere or Momohime from Muramasa. No one in Dragon's Crown really has a build like that, not even the elf. Add to that, exaggeratedly 'sexy' characters in his previous games don't really look like the ones in DC. The two foxes in Muramasa are much more proportionate, as is Velvet in Odin Sphere. The closest thing to the Sorceress is that witch from Grand Knights History, and even she was less exaggerated and more clothed. Nothing in Kamitani's career would suggest that he's the type to throw these things in for sales, so I'm left thinking that these designs, along with the constant damsels in distress, are exaggerated parodies of typical fantasy art.

2.) There's a hell of a lot more body type diversity in the playable cast than in the majority of games. I do think it's a good thing to have more of that, and in that sense the DC art may actually be more progressive than a lot of big games that pass unnoticed through the sheer blandness of their art design.

3.) A decent number of the things people complain about on background characters or enemies comes straight from other sources. I find it hard to blame Kamitani for a neckline he got out of an old painting.

(As a sidenote, I think a look at some trends in current Japanese fine art might give a lot of people more context for some of this stuff. I've seen things in exhibitions and galleries which would, I imagine, shock a lot of sensibilities here.)

I think these points are at least worth discussing, but the polarizing statements people insist on making on both sides of this debate prevent any real exchange of ideas.

Interesting points. Also, there is almost definitely some comedic parts to the art style of the women. That said, as Jim made note in a earlier video; when the joke is so much like the thing it's suppose to be making fun of, is it still really a joke? Poe's Law and all that.

I've yet to see a reviewer not take note of this bit of the game. That said, yes all of the game have a very eccentric art style, but you can't say all the characters get the same treatment with it. The Elf character in the game proves they can make a cool looking character without having to over sexualize them.

What is really troubling though is not the main characters, going off the information from the reviews though. As Lashani said, the Sorceress attire ends up making sense in the context of the game, but as for the NPC character, not so much.

It's an artistic choice, but not one I am sold on as necessary to bring out the most of the game. One could argue that so far all it's really done is distract people from the far more interesting things about the game.
For example; Today Critical Miss episode, that brings up the question of why the Elf and Dwarf(and one could argue the Amazon too) are named after their race while the others get the name of there class.

Who knows. Perhaps more people would be noticing at least a few more of the homages you mentioned, and would have time to talk about them in the reviews. If the game didn't have that one part of the art, and the reviewers didn't have to talk about the stupid amounts of titillation in the reviews.

That said, there is a lot of body type diversity. But for the women they seem to focus on certain parts of the anatomy, and that's hardly "new". The Elf is cool though.

I would argue that it isn't 'so much like the thing it's suppose to be making fun of.' The mere fact that so many people noticed the designs in a niche title like Dragon's Crown, which would normally fly under the radar entirely, attests to the fact that the exaggeration is readily apparent. If that were not the case, wouldn't all the people who got up in arms over the DC character designs have been talking about some bigger, better publicized game instead? (How many people had really heard of Dragon's Crown until game journalists made it an issue?) And what other games have designs that look like this? Certainly, games like Dead or Alive and the new Ninja Gaiden games place an emphasis on highly sexualized depictions of female characters, but none of those designs represent nearly as great a departure from normal human anatomy. Even games like Senran Kagura that put those elements front and center don't have designs that look like the characters in Dragon's Crown. In fact, the Sorceress and Amazon are so exaggerated that even most porn artists scale their proportions back a bit.

Honestly, having played Dragon's Crown, I still can't imagine a mind set that would say the Sorceress makes sense and then get hung up on the other designs. My own opinion is that basically none of them make sense, and that that's the point. They're parodies of the bulging muscles and chainmail bikinis you'd expect to find on the cover of a Conan the Barabarian comic, taken so far that even someone used to that style is forced to acknowledge the absurdity.

I would guess the elf and dwarf thing is because that's how it was in the old D&D brawlers, which Kamitani worked on and this game makes reference to. Those games got it from old D&D, of course. By the way, since you mention Critical Miss, I'd like to point out that the actual online situation is just about exactly the opposite of the one depicted in the comic prior to the one you mention. Everyone zeroes in on the elf as the most acceptable female character because she wears the most and looks the most normal, but those same qualities make a lot of people consider her the most attractive, and it seems she might actually be more popular than the Amazon or Sorceress in that regard (especially in Japan). I'm not sure what that says, except that the other two are exaggerated enough for a lot of people to find them bizarre rather than sexy, but I think it might be a tad ironic.

I don't think it's fair to label the designs as 'focusing on just one part of the anatomy.' People who say that tend to label the sorceress as breasts, amazon as ass, and elf as zettai ryouiki, but the sorceress clearly has as much ass as she does tits (it would be insane to call her design anything other than an exaggerated caricature of T&A), the amazon is more about muscles than anything (and when was the last time a game asked you to play as a visibly muscular woman? All I can think of is some characters in SF IV), and the elf have a lot more than that going on in her design.

Honestly, I'm still not sure a lot of these designs are meant to be 'titillating,' so much as to scream 'this is a game of D&D being played by thirteen year olds,' an impression that the DM-like narrator and cookie-cutter fantasy plot serve to enhance. Certainly, there are people who find the designs attractive, but that is true of literally anything to a much larger degree than most critics are comfortable with. The game's ads certainly didn't look like they were trying to sell it with that angle. There was none of the Soul Calibur V 'magazine ad that shows only the area between the crotch and neck of a woman in a skintight outfit that barely covers her torso,' or the Ninja Gaiden 2 'sculptur of breasts stuck to a wall.' The DC ads were all narration about grand adventure and scenes from actual gameplay (the painting of the sorceress everyone got mad over was one of the pieces of character concept art they released on the official website). Whatever the intent of the designs themselves, the idea that the game was trying to sell itself based on sex appeal just doesn't hold up.

Lashani put it this way about the Sorceress; "It even makes sense for the Sorceress, a class that's traditionally charismatic, to have sexually suggestive garb."
By which I think she meant you could "get" what they were going for at least. However, the NPC character instances were less forgivable, because at the very least the main characters had agency. Again, I just kind of don't see the point in how a fair number of the women in the game are portrayed. With the main characters I guess you could say maybe the intent was to make them so over done that people find them silly.

However, the NPC characters brought up in the reviews pretty much had "normal" body types, but were just in very little clothing, posing suggestively, or both. That said, I agree that I don't think the idea was to use sex to sell the game. As for the controversy aiding in the games notoriety? I don't think you could argue that it didn't. After all, while I still am a bit uncomfortable with the game, I did find things that attracted my attention enough that I did buy it.

All in all I guess I just don't think the portrayal of some women in the game was "needed". The Elf is not only a good example because she isn't over sexualized, but also because her form is still a bit exaggerated. A friend of mine made note of this when he mentioned the her legs were quite large and muscular compared to the rest of her body. There were also of course other interesting NPC characters who also managed to take advantage of the exaggerated art style without delving into over done titillation.

In the end though, so far I really like the game, and I just hope it is remembered as a pretty good game. Not some game filled with "sexy" women.

 

[MoeMints]

Honestly Jim? This and the Phil Fish story feels like you're rooting for the underdog at this point.
You don't use "calm down" when you're being initially, and even consistently, condescending and flippant, not as a lampshaded joke, but as you don't even care and got on the soapbox immediately.
If fans are the EA of people, you're being an EA apologist.
It implies a sense of superiority in entitlement and logic to the audience, rather the credibility to be superior.

One becomes willingly ignorant of what was the more rational of passionate opposition, and then wonders why the community is so divided.

The problem is she says the art is juvenile and sexist, saying its a problem that nameless NPCs of little long-term purpose are sexualized outright. Insulting the artist, insulting the audience, insulting those who like a little unfiltered exploitation here and then. Applying real life views and issues on a game that does not actually act hateful to women in game. Even the poking easter egg is still merely exploitative.

Honestly, its getting dangerously questionable to me that men and women project themselves or other women to nameless NPCs in the first place. Do people honestly think men (and women who actually like/don't mind) all project themselves into the strongest and prettiest football player, a slim mysterious wizard, and a dwarf with boulders for muscles as anything but escapism?

And even then, if you just change it to even a slight edit like.

This game is highly exploitative of the female body, and may be considered extremely polarizing. I personally did not enjoy it, but for those who don't mind, should find an enjoyable game....

That's it, most of the drama is gone if I'm not being just positive.
Also Sengoku Basara > Dynasty Warriors.

 

[zerabp]

I don't know if someone else mentioned this but my problem with the review was that it didn't critique just the game but it flat out insulted anyone who might enjoy the game. In other words the reviewer attacked gamers themselves. I wouldn't have cared if the gamer had kept her opinion relegated to the game but nothing in Dragon's crown justifies attacking the players who enjoy it.

It did? Sorry but would you kindly point out where the reviewer insulted the gamers that may enjoy this game?

"Dragon's Crown is a fantasy-obsessed teenaged boy's dream: crazy, violent and full of impossibly large breasts."

"Dragon's Crown is an unapologetic adolescent fantasy."

The header for the review and the header for the wrap up.

 

[MoeMints]

I don't know if someone else mentioned this but my problem with the review was that it didn't critique just the game but it flat out insulted anyone who might enjoy the game. In other words the reviewer attacked gamers themselves. I wouldn't have cared if the gamer had kept her opinion relegated to the game but nothing in Dragon's crown justifies attacking the players who enjoy it.

It did? Sorry but would you kindly point out where the reviewer insulted the gamers that may enjoy this game?

I can't believe I'm giving laziness a helping hand but...

http://gyazo.com/f1ce40e3d38234df1a1a19cc934c5285
Set ups that being juvenile is objectively bad, while calling it troublesome straight up.

Goes on to say the chaos is balanced out by the variety, requires strategy, and mechanically very well executed.
While the slowdown is minimal on the Vita. The repetitive complaints is typically considered negligible for a beat-em-up as the genre is by design that way, especially when 25 hours starts to get old for her.

Then she gives an odd specific complaint about it, but seems to be passive.
http://gyazo.com/bcbe8af51bd19af3e791a6580f7f5338
BUT THEN
http://gyazo.com/0942872f91bdad1dc0b88ec903b3e652
Gross as not a description of the aesthetic but one's view towards it, is directly saying the direction is gross.
Saying it is one sided and saying only empowered women are acceptable enforces that she takes as a main side to her opinion, which goes beyond constructive critique and simply reconfirms those who agree with her's views.

These in combination, not individually, can give one the opinion she steps ahead her own personal opinion before her role as a reviewer, saying being a male teenager is objectively bad, all of them are horny and violent asshole with no tastes, you're one if you made or appreciate this, and women must be being humiliated over purposeless NPCs outside the player's progression.

 

[MoeMints]

I really don't see any insults towards the audience of the game. It is more or less a critique of the aesthetics and presentation. There is no generalisation that you see

.....Juvenile by definition is a generalizing term.
Childish, referring to youth, to put one in the persona of a teenage child.
Its nonsensical and worthless if it refers to being a child of either gender when referring what is painstakingly done art, so the context shows to be teenage boys.

there is not even the slightest implication that juvenile influences are bad per se.

It isn't, however....How is calling something solely juvenile not a negative trait that relies on generalization?
Who doesn't use being childish on an adolescent level as an insult or accusation when it isn't clarified as not being such?
This is Vanillaware's style period, not a selling product, not a deliberate drama starter, but for a niche audience which includes themselves. The fact that the vast majority of people most likely never even heard of this game for the two years the designs were out shows this.

I would say I really don't see anything that leads to your conclusion and it just looks like people want to put on that hat, want feel insulted about liking something even if there is not the slight hint of an insult.

Lets not even pretend you tried to see it from the other view because from this statement....

And one last thing: Whoop de fucking doo. A reviewer posts her personal opinion. That is the description of every goddamn review out there.

After years after years of spectacles, events, controversy, yellow journalism, corruption, and all that other mess.
A review is just a personal opinion. Well okay, lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Lugun]

You know what Jim, all these discussions and controversy on just one game has made me realize how absolutely nightmarishly appalling the entire industry of gaming would become if Fox News had its own video game news/review/opinionated department.