The cover art for Elder Scrolls: Arena is embarassing.
- Thread starter LilithSlave
- Start date
You're a wee bit late to this party, I think. I've known about that terrible cover art for quite a while now, and I got into the series with Oblivion. Either way, it is pretty awful.
Clearly it's totally me.Treblaine said:
Historically speaking such clothing was worn by women around the world for purposes of battle and other martial arts. You wouldn't ever see such a thing in a fetish or bondage club, no certainly not! It's only my personal obsession that's misinterpreting her martial equipment.
I mean all the difference is in the bandanna, sword and war-paint. Just give those to someone and they can't possibly be objectified....
And her stance is without a doubt a proper stance of battle, soldiers around the world stand guard just like that. I'm just a dirty perv for even suggesting that she's thrusting out her chest and ass.
Of course! Silly me. I've noticed how you boys get when you contract a simple cold, let alone an arrow to the torso. Before I hurt someone's ego: I'm teasing.Renfield286 said:
OT: I dare any of you to Google "fantasy female warrior art" - are we going to make a fuss to all these artists? No? 'Cause I think a lot of this art is beautiful, honestly.
Except that Barbarian has the snark in the first place.Treblaine said:[All you said, just remove the snark and you can say the equivalent about this barbarian:
PS: stop being such a prude, there is nothing wrong with showing some skin for gawd sake.
That women does not.
That's the difference.
And don't get me wrong, I can't say I care that she's being objectified. It's just a completely fictional character. It happens in basically every media, it's part of life. But don't dress it up as something else.
She's objectified, she's there as eye candy. Just like those guys on the covers of romance novels. And that's a bad thing, like alcohol. But I'm an adult and as such perfectly capable of dealing with bad things in moderation. I just object to dressing it up as something else.
Holy shit. Why do I get the feeling that is what it would look like if you gave John Norman creative control over Naruto?Orcus The Ultimate said:
I read through the article and such. Most replies. Here is my opinion.
The objectifying of women is horrible.
Context is needed for that box art.
The context? The female gamer did not exist till the 2000's. Of course, I kid. Yet in all seriousness, The elder scrolls I and II had a LOT more worse in it than the box art and got away with it. It targeted older males that could afford computers that could run said game. It was also an RPG, which at the time, trust me. The stigma still exists today of who they were trying to market it to.
Is it right? No. Yet we have started making strides in the right direction. I would compare this box art to exploitation films of the 60's. If you try to scream foul now, the boat has sailed and most people just laugh at how stupid, immature and wrong we were. Even though we haven't changed much.
The objectifying of women is horrible.
Context is needed for that box art.
The context? The female gamer did not exist till the 2000's. Of course, I kid. Yet in all seriousness, The elder scrolls I and II had a LOT more worse in it than the box art and got away with it. It targeted older males that could afford computers that could run said game. It was also an RPG, which at the time, trust me. The stigma still exists today of who they were trying to market it to.
Is it right? No. Yet we have started making strides in the right direction. I would compare this box art to exploitation films of the 60's. If you try to scream foul now, the boat has sailed and most people just laugh at how stupid, immature and wrong we were. Even though we haven't changed much.
No no no, the snark is in YOUR DESCRIPTION, not in the pictures. You know what snark is, right? How does a picture have snark?Hagi said:Except that Barbarian has the snark in the first place.Treblaine said:[All you said, just remove the snark and you can say the equivalent about this barbarian:
PS: stop being such a prude, there is nothing wrong with showing some skin for gawd sake.
That women does not.
That's the difference.
And don't get me wrong, I can't say I care that she's being objectified. It's just a completely fictional character. It happens in basically every media, it's part of life. But don't dress it up as something else.
She's objectified, she's there as eye candy. Just like those guys on the covers of romance novels. And that's a bad thing, like alcohol. But I'm an adult and as such perfectly capable of dealing with bad things in moderation. I just object to dressing it up as something else.
Objectification, that's another term you might want to look up.
You claim you don't care but you think it's "a bad thing". That's caring. You're all over the place on this. All you have presented so far is that "sex = object" and that's pretty EFF'd up on your part. All you have proven is she is sexual (no shit, right?) not that she is "just an object" that I have repeatedly refuted with so many examples and in fact you hav refuted yourself with examples of objectification of removing agency, like no face and NO OTHER PURPOSE than to passively be there looking pretty.
That is OBVIOUSLY not the case here as she is one-quarter of a gang of magical warriors wielding an impressive weapon in a pose where she clearly intends it use it herself... not just hand it over for someone else to use. She is not an object. She is an active agent. THAT is right there in glorious 16-bit colour.
But if all you see is tits and ass well... that's your problem, not a problem with the art.
Why can you not realise your obsession over her sexuality is blinding you to what is actually there! Or acting as if her sexuality voids all other martial accoutrements and violent intentions!?!?!?
Are you seriously telling me that you really consider a thong, mini bra, stockings, bandanna, war paint and sword to be perfectly normal martial equipment fitting in with the rest of the adventuring party?Treblaine said:
That all that stuff isn't there to serve as eye candy but that there's a genuine completely logical reason for her to be wearing that stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with showing off as much skin as possible?
You can continue ignoring the simple fact that she's wearing an outfit that'd be sold in a sex-shop instead of actual martial equipment if you want, but don't expect me to go along with it.
She's there for eye-candy. And that's fine. Nothing wrong with it. But don't pretend that she's perfectly fitting in with the rest of that party. Or do, just don't expect me to join you in your little fantasy world.
God i love 80's and 90's epic fantasy art....
They served metal bands has great cd cover artworks for years!!!
They served metal bands has great cd cover artworks for years!!!
The art in general for Arena and Daggerfall is pretty hilarious. If people thought Oblivion looked like a floofy renaissance fair, they should play those games. They're even worse.
I love 'em though. Or at least I love Daggerfall. Never played much Arena, since I can't activate mouselook and it doesn't have the slick interface controls that allow the (very similar and superior) Underworld games to remain playable.
I love 'em though. Or at least I love Daggerfall. Never played much Arena, since I can't activate mouselook and it doesn't have the slick interface controls that allow the (very similar and superior) Underworld games to remain playable.
Well, one major change they made was that they picked up Todd Howard after Arena.
And Arena was a game from the early 90's. I'm not surprised to see this kind of cover art from that period of time at all.
And Arena was a game from the early 90's. I'm not surprised to see this kind of cover art from that period of time at all.
Ok the avatar is one thing but "everypony?" Really?Rex Dark said:Okay, from now on, everypony in RPGs will be completely naked.M4t3us said:
What?
That way noone dies.
OT: Looks like something out of "Heavy Metal." I approve.
I was asking for you to substantiate your blatent overgeneralisation where you spoke about EVERY advert sexually exploiting women by using sex to sell. Last time I checked Coco Pops didn't have a busty blonde in the adverts, so that's at least one counter-example to your theory.Pearwood said:
(Yes, of course SOME adverts use sex to sell. But it works both ways. Remember those Diet Coke commercials?)
Old news is old?
I mean really, this game came out quite a while ago. It seems kind of silly to complain about it now. It's surely not going to change anything because things have already changed. Seriously, it seems like you think this box art came out a week ago.
I mean really, this game came out quite a while ago. It seems kind of silly to complain about it now. It's surely not going to change anything because things have already changed. Seriously, it seems like you think this box art came out a week ago.
What makes that looks bad is that the guys are clothed and she?s not. Yeah it?s kinda sleazy tho at least she is holding a sword and looking determined not sitting at the guy?s feet looking dumb like you often get in old fantasy art
Of topic: Guys were often depicted half naked in old fantasy art and movies too but at least they still end up looking strong, semi functional and doing heroic things. Girls? Not so much. Girls get treated like a prize, even the ?strong? women often end up doing very little, getting captured and usually go on about how the hero will come for her. *sigh*
Of topic: Guys were often depicted half naked in old fantasy art and movies too but at least they still end up looking strong, semi functional and doing heroic things. Girls? Not so much. Girls get treated like a prize, even the ?strong? women often end up doing very little, getting captured and usually go on about how the hero will come for her. *sigh*
Nope.Hagi said:
Never did I ever say or even hint it was "normal". It's very weird, almost like something out of a work of Fantasy... in fact this IS a fantasy adventure. It's as crazy as wizards shooting lightning from their fingers and dragons and anachronisms.
Oh no, it IS there for aesthetics or "eye candy" as you so crudely put it, I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with that. And that being sexually alluring doesn't automatically make a woman a mere object. And what does logic have to do with this, it is a FANTASY ADVENTURE?!!? God... you wouldn't complain about the physical impossibility that a dragon could fly in terms of thrust to weight ratio, why are you picking this nit?
I have no idea what they sell in a sex shop, I've never been in one. Have you?
Face the facts, if it was an oiled male barbarian in nothing but a loincloth and sporting pythons like Arnie in his prime no one would suggest he wouldn't "fit in", even if it was for a work specifically targeted to women or gay men. You have said you are fine with her being sexual but seem to be on terms that just must not "fit in" whatever the hell that prejudice is supposed to mean.
Oooh I get it, because she is a sexual WOMAN that makes her an "outsider" that excludes her from everyone else. Sexism much? Women can only be part of society if they cover up and stop distracting us noble-hearted men, eh? Pah! I guess by your standards the only place women can be sexual is in their husband's bedroom, is that right? Is that the way you'd have it?!!? Please, explain yourself! Precisely on what terms does she not "fit in" with the party?
This character is the Amazon archetype where she fits in PERFECTLY. The trope is they DO dress like that, just like how a druid dresses in robes and the elf has to have a bow, and the dwarf has to have a hammer/axe or some other end-heavy weapon, the barbarian in loincloth. It is not based on ultra-realistic pragmatism, it is based on aesthetics. This is Elder Scrolls, not ARMA.