What I like about Dragon's Crown Artwork

[BlindTom]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

 

[lacktheknack]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

It's not that boobs are inherently wrong, and depicting them is wrong.

It's that they're depicted in a very specific way that just can't be described in any way other than "male-gazy". As someone on this site said, once their spine starts defying physics to hoist the boobs, you've gone too far.

<img width=400>http://assets1.ignimgs.com/vid/thumbnails/2013/05/02/d813a1676274a894a8d6452c000e4307-1367525091/frame_0000.jpg

Yep... that spine is utterly fractured.

 

[BlindTom]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

It's not that boobs are inherently wrong, and depicting them is wrong.

It's that they're depicted in a very specific way that just can't be described in any way other than "male-gazy". As someone on this site said, once their spine starts defying physics to hoist the boobs, you've gone too far.

Wasn't the poster you were responding to demonstrating that to not be the case? Weren't they describing them in a very different way?

 

[hazabaza1]

To me, it's just one of those things where I think it looks fucking horrible.

I remember someone telling me that despite my dislike of extremely heavy death metal, etc, I should appreciate it regardless due to the message and symbolism within the song. But to me, if I don't like the song, I'm not going to like it.

It's similar with DCrown. Maybe all of these pictures are filled with symbolism. Maybe it looks amazing in every way when it animates. Maybe all this, maybe not.
Either way, I want to tear my eyes out when I see it. The colours look stretched and blend together. The proportions are horrifying and make me want to vomit. Nothing looks cohesive, nothing seems to fit together. And I just don't like it.

 

[Cette]

Eh, I've kinda been growing to the opinion that if anything is wrong in video game character design it's the men.

Not as in they're poor misrepresented, objectified and sexualized monstrosities that will surely corrupt our youth in the most vile of ways. Rather as in, they're not. And they should be, sometimes.

I'd say what gaming really needs is a male character that straight men feel awkward playing. A male character that, at a single glance, conveys the absolute certainty that right now dozens of people are masturbating furiously to him.

What we need is 50 Shades of Video Games and have it be immensely popular

I think that'd really give some much needed perspective.

The closest thing I can think of is the protagonist of Clive Barkers Undying and that's way back and not incredibly well known. When they called Barker in to fix the aesthetic and story problems with that game the first thing he did was demand a new main character design from scratch. Specifically one he'd want to fuck personally. If he didn't end up being a buff dude in a chainmail thong that has as much to do with Clive Barkers taste in men and respect for the time period and setting as it does a sense of propriety.

<img width=400>http://imagenes.levelup.com/uploads/news/photos/news_photo_1233367767.jpg

 

[lacktheknack]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

It's not that boobs are inherently wrong, and depicting them is wrong.

It's that they're depicted in a very specific way that just can't be described in any way other than "male-gazy". As someone on this site said, once their spine starts defying physics to hoist the boobs, you've gone too far.

Wasn't the poster you were responding to demonstrating that to not be the case? Weren't they describing them in a very different way?

His point is that there's a lot of characterization and depth hidden in the art if you look for it.

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

He has a point, and I have one too. Our stances aren't mutually incompatible.

 

[BlindTom]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

It's not that boobs are inherently wrong, and depicting them is wrong.

It's that they're depicted in a very specific way that just can't be described in any way other than "male-gazy". As someone on this site said, once their spine starts defying physics to hoist the boobs, you've gone too far.

Wasn't the poster you were responding to demonstrating that to not be the case? Weren't they describing them in a very different way?

His point is that there's a lot of characterization and depth hidden in the art if you look for it.

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

He has a point, and I have one too. Our stances aren't mutually incompatible.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that OP's defence of free speech is hitting the nail on the head rather than being "swing and miss."

 

[lacktheknack]

You're reaching reeeeeeeally haaaaaaaard, man.

Yes I am. But art is about depth so it is up to us to look for meaning in art. If the art is just given to us as a single flash where all you need is communicated to the first moment of sight then we deprive ourselves of any possible concept of understanding the artistic process and characteristics put into the art itself.

The first glance gives us one image and we follow that up with a closer look at the concept. When they contradict each other it's always interesting and I see a lot of that in the artwork for Dragon's Crown.

And while I can appreciate that (I have to, I'm a modern art fan), I see you trying to defend the art choices that show off boobs, butts and compromising positions, and I think that's a swing and a miss.

To claim that there is something inherently wrong with depicting parts of the female body in any context, especially one that is clearly conveying some sort of depth and artistic vision, is extremely demeaning to women.

It seems that a lot of people are not giving artists credit here and just looking for excuses to be pissed off in a way that is puritanical and oppresive to the people they're protecting. I'm reminded of when everybody looked at Mass Effect, saw some side boob, and concluded that it was a "rape simulator."

It's not that boobs are inherently wrong, and depicting them is wrong.

It's that they're depicted in a very specific way that just can't be described in any way other than "male-gazy". As someone on this site said, once their spine starts defying physics to hoist the boobs, you've gone too far.

Wasn't the poster you were responding to demonstrating that to not be the case? Weren't they describing them in a very different way?

His point is that there's a lot of characterization and depth hidden in the art if you look for it.

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

He has a point, and I have one too. Our stances aren't mutually incompatible.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that OP's defence of free speech is hitting the nail on the head rather than being "swing and miss."

He wasn't... defending... free sp- ah, whatever.

All I have to say to that is that if you immerse a crucifix in urine (which totally happened) and claim that it's not meant to offend, but meant to point out the underlying problems of the public's adoption of old theology, then at the end of the day, you're still left with a crucifix immersed in urine. And then when people say that you're going for cheap shock like any other total hack of an artist, it's because you totally are.

Obviously, this is an extreme example and not entirely analogous, but it illustrates my point.

 

[JazzJack2]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

 

[Stefan Strelnieks]

Man conversations about this game sure are different on this side of the internet. I've been seeing nothing but "Dragons Crown is good/bad because " Why on earth are people basing a purchasing decision on how the art looks? You're not going to give much thought to any of that once you're a half hour into the game and mashing the crap out of a chimera's face for treasure.

 

[The Madman]

But I don't wannnnnaaaaa look closer, they're ugly and gross looking. I mean seriously, that sorceress lady looks like she's about to snap in half, her breasts are bigger than her freaking head while her waist is small enough to wrap your hands around, it's just grotesque. And she's got like that baby face going for her too, so it's like a child with some macabre caricature of a body forced to pander for a slavering audiences amusement.

It's the sort of imagery I expect to find out is a weird German porno niche thing. And while that's certainly fine with some people, as long as no one is getting hurt and everyone's having fun whatever, I still don't want it anywhere near me.

 

[lacktheknack]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

I don't buy the "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" argument. If that was the case, then why do so many people hate modern art? Art is what you make of it.

 

[lacktheknack]

Man conversations about this game sure are different on this side of the internet. I've been seeing nothing but "Dragons Crown is good/bad because " Why on earth are people basing a purchasing decision on how the art looks? You're not going to give much thought to any of that once you're a half hour into the game and mashing the crap out of a chimera's face for treasure.

If THAT were true, people would play Dwarf Fortress without graphic packs, there'd be no demand for "arty" games, Crysis never would have become a phenomena, and the industry wouldn't be pumping billion upon billions into making games look better.

People DO care how their games look, artistically AND mechanically. My top two favourite games of the moment, Myst Online and Mirror's Edge, are up there in no small part because of their eye-popping art scheme.

 

[BlindTom]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

I don't buy the "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" argument. If that was the case, then why do so many people hate modern art? Art is what you make of it.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that if "Art is what you make of it" then why is there this huge crowd of people going around calling the art "sexist" and "misogynist" and "demeaning" when in order to do that they have to be knowing what everyone ELSE is thinking about when they look at it.

I and many others don't like the insinuation that an audience can dictate the thoughts of the people viewing a piece of art. It smacks of "all people listening to this music are faggots." or "this film will make you gay".

The fact of the matter is that the art is NOT "misogynist" but there are people out there who feel that way when they look at it, feel guilty, and then claim that it's the art causing problems rather than their weird minds.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

What we need is 50 Shades of Video Games and have it be immensely popular

I think that'd really give some much needed perspective.

although I would certainly enjoy seeing that, the male identity is and what is considered attractive about them is far less about titulation than females.
On the most shalow level, female titulation is about looking fertile, big breasts, wide hips and being sexually receptive.
for males, it's mostly about dominance in one way or another, wether it be through superiority or control.
both can be harmful in their own way to either party.

creating a male character like that would be challenging, I could personally not tell you how to do it.

 

[lacktheknack]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

I don't buy the "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" argument. If that was the case, then why do so many people hate modern art? Art is what you make of it.

The issue that a lot of people are having is that if "Art is what you make of it" then why is there this huge crowd of people going around calling the art "sexist" and "misogynist" and "demeaning" when in order to do that they have to be knowing what everyone ELSE is thinking about when they look at it.

I and many others don't like the insinuation that an audience can dictate the thoughts of the people viewing a piece of art. It smacks of "all people listening to this music are faggots." or "this film will make you gay".

The fact of the matter is that the art is NOT "misogynist" but there are people out there who feel that way when they look at it, feel guilty, and then claim that it's the art causing problems rather than their weird minds.

I just think it's distasteful. And I'll say why I think so. See: Our conversation. I don't plan on saying "this artstyle is inherently misogynist", but some artstyles attract misogynists more than others.

 

[JazzJack2]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

I don't buy the "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" argument. If that was the case, then why do so many people hate modern art? Art is what you make of it.

I never said "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" what I am arguing is that they they are the only authority on the content of their art. Working with the modern art theme take for example Mondrian, people are free to hold any view they want about his work in the sense the can say they like it or they think it's drivel, however they cannot claim that their impression of the content of a particular work (I.E it's intent or meaning) has anything other than personal value (it has little intellectual value.) Where as Modrian's knowledge of the content of the same work is considerably more valuable because he did not interpret or infer rather he gave the art meaning and intent (after all the intent of a work of art is that of the artist.)


EDIT:

I just think it's distasteful.

Art has nothing to with taste (or at least not 'taste' in the way you mean)

 

[major_chaos]

Honestly (and I say this as someone who has the game preordered)trying to defend the art in Dragon's Crown is pointless. Taste in visuals is going to be totally subjective. For example, there have been a few indie darlings that I though looked like complete ass (Journy, Limbo, ect.) it all comes down to taste. If you like Dragon's Crown the best thing you can do is buy it and hope enough people do the same to keep Vanilaware in business.

EDIT: this also sums up my feelings very well:

 

[lacktheknack]

I said that the initial impression is "OMG BEWBS" (because it is), and if they truly cared about how their art came across, they'd stop the painfully obvious pandering. Again, that poor woman's spine is utterly destroyed in the marketing, because no realistic characters can physically stand like that. It's there entirely for sex appeal.

But who cares about initial impressions anyway? if someone believes their initial impression has any relevance at all and they fail to actual critically analyze something then how is it the artists fault? The fact people see the sorceress and see "OMG BEWBS" or "Misogynistic pandering" is irrelevant really because they have failed to acknowledge the real intent of the artist and have instead to decided to purport the idea that their initial impressions are of any value to other people (which they aren't) and even worse that their initial impressions override the artists intentions(which they don't)

I don't buy the "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" argument. If that was the case, then why do so many people hate modern art? Art is what you make of it.

I never said "The artist is the only authority on how their art is to be viewed" what I am arguing is that they they are the only authority on the content of their art. Working with the modern art theme take for example Mondrian, people are free to hold any view they want about his work in the sense the can say they like it or they think it's drivel, however they cannot claim that their impression of the content of a particular work (I.E it's intent or meaning) has anything other than personal value (it has little intellectual value.) Where as Modrian's knowledge of the content of the same work is considerably more valuable because he did not interpret or infer rather he gave the art meaning and intent (after all the intent of a work of art is that of the artist.)


EDIT:

I just think it's distasteful.

Art has nothing to with taste (or at least not 'taste' in the way you mean)

Yes it does. If I so choose, I can dislike a piece of art because it's distasteful.

Watch.

<sits for a minute, being annoyed by Dragon's Crown>

There you go.

Also, I didn't either claim that my opinion is somehow "higher" than anyone else's. OP was digging really deep for extra characterization, I thought he was being silly and told him so. That's all. Did I exert myself as a "better consumer" than him? Did I devalue his opinion in any way? Nope.