It's particularly frustrating as the gameplay actually looks fairly solid, buuut those character designs, man. I don't want to support that.
My Dragon's Dogma character is currently running around in short shorts and two metal cups over her breasts and I am trying my hardest to find some armour that actually covers me up because it's kind of difficult to argue that this is a mature and respectable industry when titillation is the norm.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not everyone needs to be included in everything, no.
But making more than 5% of games (charitable!) inclusive would be swell, particularly when likely the majority of your potential audience is something other than white, straight, cisgendered and male. It's good from a societal point of view, and it's also good from purely business point of view.
And there's nothing stop you, a cisgendered, white, straight, male (which I assume from your posts you are) from teaming up with these supposedly "oppressed" groups to make the game you want. That doesn't justify telling others how THEY should develop or design their games. As the old saying goes, if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.
So would you hold that a lack of female representation and acceptance in the industry is not a problem?
Is this in reference to female representations in videogames, or female presence in the industry itself? If it's the latter, then no, it's not a problem. It's not like it's some "boys only no girlz alowed!" deal. It's a male dominated industry because it's the kind of industry that predominantly appeals to males more than females. Same situation with the fashion industry - Far more females than males doing that kind of thing, and it's not because of some malign agenda - Just gender.
We're not supposed to be talking about that in this thread anymore, but hey, why not join us over here? Lots of actual concrete examples and testimonies from women in the industry about that very subject.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not including everyone is theoretically fine. Actively excluding people, maybe not as good. Twilight never pretended that boys who like action movies are stupid cave men who would never read books about vampires in the first place.
I can understand a gay Vanillaware fan being hurt by the artist's response.
I would recommend reading the whole article I linked; it's rather illuminating.
Where did Dragon's Crown pretend that girls don't like video games. Where did anyone say that other than your unverifiable anecdotal "evidence"?
It's particularly frustrating as the gameplay actually looks fairly solid, buuut those character designs, man. I don't want to support that.
My Dragon's Dogma character is currently running around in short shorts and two metal cups over her breasts and I am trying my hardest to find some armour that actually covers me up because it's kind of difficult to argue that this is a mature and respectable industry when titillation is the norm.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of games where I'd be embarrassed if someone saw me playing them. That outfit you're describing is pretty much the pinnacle of that.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not everyone needs to be included in everything, no.
But making more than 5% of games (charitable!) inclusive would be swell, particularly when likely the majority of your potential audience is something other than white, straight, cisgendered and male. It's good from a societal point of view, and it's also good from purely business point of view.
And there's nothing stop you, a cisgendered, white, straight, male (which I assume from your posts you are) from teaming up with these supposedly "oppressed" groups to make the game you want. That doesn't justify telling others how THEY should develop or design their games. As the old saying goes, if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.
So would you hold that a lack of female representation and acceptance in the industry is not a problem?
Is this in reference to female representations in videogames, or female presence in the industry itself? If it's the latter, then no, it's not a problem. It's not like it's some "boys only no girlz alowed!" deal. It's a male dominated industry because it's the kind of industry that predominantly appeals to males more than females. Same situation with the fashion industry - Far more females than males doing that kind of thing, and it's not because of some malign agenda - Just gender.
We're not supposed to be talking about that in this thread anymore, but hey, why not join us over here? Lots of actual concrete examples and testimonies from women in the industry about that very subject.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not including everyone is theoretically fine. Actively excluding people, maybe not as good. Twilight never pretended that boys who like action movies are stupid cave men who would never read books about vampires in the first place.
I can understand a gay Vanillaware fan being hurt by the artist's response.
I would recommend reading the whole article I linked; it's rather illuminating.
Where did Dragon's Crown pretend that girls don't like video games. Where did anyone say that other than your unverifiable anecdotal "evidence"?
I don't think you're reading very carefully.
I didn't say anything about Dragon Crown and women. I was referring to how the artist's comment was exclusionary to gay people, as was said by Mr. Nutt.
Am I overreacting, though? Whenever this topic comes up, people good naturedly suggest that -- and, in my view, that's adding insult to injury. It wasn't that bad, was it? Well, sure -- if it doesn't affect you, it isn't that bad.
At my heart I'm just a gay dork who likes video games way too much, and on that level -- that's where it stings. Not the journalist, of course. Not the professional. Not the guy who knows that things are changing in the real world day by day.
But I'm a gay nerd. For Kamitani, that's apparently half okay and half impossible. And you don't want the people you respect to negate you. It's that simple.
There's more, of course, but you'd need to read the article.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not everyone needs to be included in everything, no.
But making more than 5% of games (charitable!) inclusive would be swell, particularly when likely the majority of your potential audience is something other than white, straight, cisgendered and male. It's good from a societal point of view, and it's also good from purely business point of view.
And there's nothing stop you, a cisgendered, white, straight, male (which I assume from your posts you are) from teaming up with these supposedly "oppressed" groups to make the game you want. That doesn't justify telling others how THEY should develop or design their games. As the old saying goes, if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.
So would you hold that a lack of female representation and acceptance in the industry is not a problem?
Is this in reference to female representations in videogames, or female presence in the industry itself? If it's the latter, then no, it's not a problem. It's not like it's some "boys only no girlz alowed!" deal. It's a male dominated industry because it's the kind of industry that predominantly appeals to males more than females. Same situation with the fashion industry - Far more females than males doing that kind of thing, and it's not because of some malign agenda - Just gender.
We're not supposed to be talking about that in this thread anymore, but hey, why not join us over here? Lots of actual concrete examples and testimonies from women in the industry about that very subject.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I suppose my counter argument to that would be "does it really matter if everyone feels included?". Yes, it was stupid of the artist to say that, but this brings up the wider issue of whether or not everyone should be a games target audience. Twilight does not interest me because it is aimed at teenage girls. The film "Tree of Life" does not interest me as it is aimed as cineophiles. Why do RPGs simply have to appeal to everyone under the sun?
Not including everyone is theoretically fine. Actively excluding people, maybe not as good. Twilight never pretended that boys who like action movies are stupid cave men who would never read books about vampires in the first place.
I can understand a gay Vanillaware fan being hurt by the artist's response.
I would recommend reading the whole article I linked; it's rather illuminating.
Where did Dragon's Crown pretend that girls don't like video games. Where did anyone say that other than your unverifiable anecdotal "evidence"?
The concern is that by depicting females in an exaggeratedly sexualized way, Dragon's Crown (and many other games) can be offensive and off-putting to women, and send a clear message that said games are targeted squarely at a male audience.
Males are not designed with a heavy slant towards sex-appeal? I think they are. Most if not all of them.
Can we just shut this argument down early.
Acting like women have some singular taste in men is pretty silly. Making his feminine ideal an aesthetic that's relatively unpopular in the west so he can pretend that conventionally-attractive superheroes don't appeal to women is even sillier. But the absolute silliest thing about this comic requires some context: it was part of the whole internet shitstorm over the depiction of Starfire in Lobdell and Rocafort's Red Hood and the Outlaws.
On the right are some examples of how Rocafort likes to draws men. The non-Superboy ones are from Red Hood and the Outlaws itself. And while the fat/balding/unattractive guy who opposes the cartoonist's beliefs is written as feeling uncomfortable, in reality it didn't even inspire comment, let alone outrage, while the comics enthusiast-press flipped their shit over how supposedly objectionable Rocafort's Starfire illustrations were. Ironically, if anyone had given a shit about Rocafort's depiction of men, Willis might have heard about it and not used as his example a style already fulfilled by the exact same artist and series that inspired the comic in the first place.
Of course, Dragon's Crown has the whole spectrum, from bishies:
To the opposite extreme:
With the Fighter to split the difference:
Bishonen and bear are niche attractions in the west. The look of those characters won't stop the complaints.
This is the third time that I am pointing out that this isn't a general feminism thread. I don't think it's therefore unreasonable of me to assume that the people ignoring that fact are doing so deliberately and sic Geth upon them. This is the last warning and the next step will be jailings.
The only thing that really puts me off about Dragon Crown's character designs are the tiny, tiny heads. Yuck.
As for the other designs, as Tycho observes, they run the gamut from heavily sexualized to comedic in their over-the-top displays of strength. The Sorceress is the only female design that I would call "over-sexualized" in the traditional sense. The Elf is pretty well clothed, and the Amazon doesn't appear to have been designed with sex appeal as the primary objective. Sure, she's barely clothed, but she's almost grotesquely muscular. Same goes for the Dwarf. There's a balance, so I am not too perturbed.
I think my biggest problem with Tycho's newspost is that he's framing censorship as a kind of bogeyman.
He's a guy who loves art a lot and really values expression of dissenting opinions. Misuse of that word feels almost intentional.
Yeah I'm just dissapointed, I feel like his whole post (and mike's tweets) are based on the idea that we're somehow "past" sexism, so these things are okay, since it's equally rediculous for some of the male characters.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Tycho/Gabe and I are kind of the same mind on this, I'm realizing: we like this game/this art and we have a lot of people telling us we shouldn't because X. It's natural to get defensive in situations like these. The problem is, the topic of sexism and what is and isn't is a bit of a minefield. Lots of valid thoughts and opinions on the matter, but also a lot of passion and people quick to anger.
Anyway, I'm done here. I might go continue in the thread designated for the purpose of discussing sexism and whatnot.
People need to get over it. Dragon's Crown is just as much a criticism of the industry as the comic is. The only difference between the comic and game is an explicit joke and giant balls, because that'd be over the line in a game. I say that giant weapons/armor are equivalent to giant balls in our society, in that they both are a display of alpha-ness.
Linked from PA report, a Mr. Nutt on how he feels as a gay Vanillaware fan after that "hur hur you must be gay" bit
Excerpt:
The picture is of large, muscular, bearded guys. Gross, right? Who could be sexually attracted to that? Well, me, for starters. While the actual picture in question doesn't do it for me, that's broadly the type of guy I like. So now I feel stupid because George Kamitani thinks this is ridiculous.
So here's where I'm at when I see his comment. Normal morning, and then suddenly, I find out that the creator of a game I'm looking forward to thinks I'm invisible to him, then that I'm ridiculous to him, too. And my immediate reaction is to feel betrayed.
I am a gay man who had about the same response to the picture of those dwarfs as this except I wasn't offended at all. I read the article and I have to say that with just the information in the article about the comments by George Kamitani, I think being offended by them is silly. Personally I judge a person by their intent and I reserve judgement on them until I can accurately judge their intent.
I think that picture along with the comment could be taken three ways. It could be like the article said and this Kamitani guy could have said that without thinking any gay person would read it. But it could also be that he just didn't care that a gay person would read it because he doesn't care for gay people. That would be most offensive to me. On the other hand it could also be that he didn't care that a gay person would read it because he just thinks people in general shouldn't be offended so easily and just doesn't care about offending anyone in particular. This I can actually relate with. Maybe it's just the culture I grew up in but I just wish people would grow thicker skin. I don't think being offended by the tiniest thing actually helps the feminist or the lgbt agenda all that much.
+1
Options
White MageTrained Magic DoctorRegistered Userregular
IOn the one hand, I love over-sexualized depictions--men and women--and this game seems to have both to some degree (though, obviously, it leans toward women in that regard). I also loved Muramasa and D&D Arcade game this is inspired by.
On the other, I agree that sexism is still relevant and problematic today, and even more insidious because so many feel it's an issue we've already solved.
Why do you have to choose? Why should liking imaginary, fantasy characters somehow cheapen a very real-world concept? It's fantasy! Who is to say that it's not socially acceptable to wear chainmail bikini and have large boobs. I'd do it if I could!
It just feels wrong to say that fantasy has to follow the same social norms as real life. This entire thread is like saying that we have to ban books that show magic being used in them because talking about magic cheapens the laws of physics.
i did not find kamitani's response to be nearly as offensive as Nutt since, you know, kamitani is putting what is effectively bara-reminiscent fanservice in dragon's crown.(the dwarf). That inclusiveness indicates to me that the response isn't centered around disgust but instead, "If that sexualized character design is wrong, what about this one?" It is still phrased to be significantly homophobic, but Nutt is definitely overreacting.
It's disappointed by the whole thing, particularly the decision to equate criticism with censorship.
To be fair, some of the criticism from less reputable gaming sites has essentially amounted to "I"m not trying to censor this guy, but the Sorceress's design just isn't acceptable and the artist has the mental age of a child", which frankly reeks of censorship. I can see why Tycho responded in the way that he did.
When you say nasty things about someone's ideas, that's criticism. When you prevent them from speaking in the first place, that's censorship. Lumping the two together just seems like a way to smear the opposition without having to engage their arguments.
As far as the depiction of women I find it gross, but I don't think taking offense to it is an appropriate response. People should be entitled to their gross wank fantasies as long as they can separate them from reality. If you want women to be able to indulge in their own gross wank fantasies as much as men, that's great. I agree. But shaming straight men for their gross wank fantasies is no way to go about doing that.
There's also the problem of most games being gross wank fantasies, whether in regards to violence, sex, or both. But trying to shame the people who just want to create their gross wank fantasies isn't going to create other types of games. Less gross wank fantasies doesn't mean more other types of games.
It's particularly frustrating as the gameplay actually looks fairly solid, buuut those character designs, man. I don't want to support that.
My Dragon's Dogma character is currently running around in short shorts and two metal cups over her breasts and I am trying my hardest to find some armour that actually covers me up because it's kind of difficult to argue that this is a mature and respectable industry when titillation is the norm.
Back when I played WoW, my Holy (healing) spec paladin was strong, beautiful, devout, heroic... and always wore the best-looking full plate I could find at her level. "Bikini armor" bugs the #$%^ out of me.
(Then again, possibly important distinction - she was always a heroic fantasy to me, not a sexual one. To the point that I think I'd feel wrong having such thoughts about her.)
I'm out of the loop here, but I though that this games character designs were a deliberate caricaturization of JRPG design norms. They aren't really meant to be taken as legitimate "oh this is sexy!" are they? I mean...they are ridiculous even by JRPG standards. The whole thing looks like a satire of Queen's Blade.
Unfortunately, no. The artist responded to criticism of the Sorceress by calling someone gay and then drawing some gay dwarves for them.
You're leaving out the part where the guy who criticized him did it in a childish manner, calling the artist a 14 year old because he was too blind to understand that there was a reason the characters looked like they did. Please don't twist the facts to make them look worse, it only makes your argument suffer.
Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but it is definitely far fucking worse to hurl gay in an insulting (or non-inclusive, if you prefer) fashion (which clearly the artist was) than it is to call someone immature in so many words.
When you say nasty things about someone's ideas, that's criticism. When you prevent them from speaking in the first place, that's censorship. Lumping the two together just seems like a way to smear the opposition without having to engage their arguments.
I may be misreading things, but the Kotaku article which kicked this whole shitstorm off gave me the impression that the writer thinks designs like the Sorceress shouldn't exist. The Kotaku article wasn't criticism, just an attempt to smear somebody for drawing a scantily clad lady with big knockers: "If you like drawing sexy ladies, you must be a child!" The response here, on the other hand, is actual criticism.
Censorship is when the government bars you from creating or disseminating something by law.
if I say "your art sucks and you shouldn't have made it" that isn't censorship. That's me saying your art is for shit.
While I'm not saying that anybody here is trying to censor the artist of Dragon Crown, censorship can be enacted by private as well as governmental actors.
the point is censorship is a prior restraint, not telling somebody their art sucks.
The kotaku article doesn't smear the guy, it just calls what he had drawn immature. He responded, natch, in a flagrantly immature way. Whether he apologized afterward is irrelevant to me.
Further, this idea that the characters as drawn represent some kind of ironic or critical take on male and female stereotypes strikes me as ridiculous.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
it would arguably be censorship if say, disney prevented something created on its behalf as work-for-hire from being published, or if they used their economic leverage to prevent the release of information that would be damaging. This does not meet a strict legal/political definition of the term but is probably a fair colloquial use.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's particularly frustrating as the gameplay actually looks fairly solid, buuut those character designs, man. I don't want to support that.
My Dragon's Dogma character is currently running around in short shorts and two metal cups over her breasts and I am trying my hardest to find some armour that actually covers me up because it's kind of difficult to argue that this is a mature and respectable industry when titillation is the norm.
DD really felt like it made the player go out of their way to find Vallejo inspired armor. My characters are all pretty solidly clad in cloth and steel to the point where there's no flesh visible on my pawn, she could be a robot. Look into things for the clothing slot, not the armor slot. That's where you wear under layers like chain mail under plate, cloth under leather etc. I think towards the end you can scavenge up some light cloth that's sort of racey, well, racey in a party of people clad in giant steel armor.
The original Kotaku article was troll bait for hits, and having played their previous games like Odin Sphere, the ladies were a pretty broad cross section from flat and covered to chesty and flaunting with the heroic leads being a pretty even keeled middle ground although the reddish themed girl was wearing stockings or something? I do remember a general of some sort that looked like he escaped from this game, with tiny waist and legs and a giant bare chest. In summary, "El Oh El, you got trolled by Kotaku?" and if you don't like the art, don't buy the game.
Could you give an example of non-governmental censorship? Short of violence or the threat of violence I have no idea what private censorship would be.
these forums are a good example. mods and admins will sometimes infract or ban posters for making certain kinds of posts that break forum rules or violate the edict or otherwise reflect poorly on the poster (ie he or she was being a dick). they can also edit posts which violate those same rules. the PA forums are privately owned, and the owners are well within their rights to allow or disallow content based on their own principles. no government actor is involved in this.
another kind of censorship might be, say, a private company firing a worker for publicly stating things which might be damaging or embarrassing to the company.
these are examples of a limited kind of censorship, but they are censorship nonetheless.
I strenuously disagree with the first, but I'll agree on the second. Of course, neither are applicable in this case, so the claims that there is censorship going on continue to be confusing.
Could you give an example of non-governmental censorship? Short of violence or the threat of violence I have no idea what private censorship would be.
As an example, I read an article in the NYT a few months back about "standards committees" in orthodox Jewish communities in New York City which defined what stores could and could not display in their storefront windows. I don't recall exactly what they used as an enforcement mechanism, but I think it combined the threat of boycott and perhaps violence as well. In any case, it's certainly censorship, albeit with a less solid enforcement mechanism than the law.
Check out the ACLU definition of censorship; it probably explains the notion of private censorship much better than I can.
The kotaku article doesn't smear the guy, it just calls what he had drawn immature. He responded, natch, in a flagrantly immature way. Whether he apologized afterward is irrelevant to me.
The Kotaku article certainly did smear the artist. It called him a hormonal fourteen-year-old boy. The article author doesn't say "oh, I don't like this art because it reinforces negative portrayals of women in video games"; he resorts to a direct, personal attack on the artist. That's smearing.
The artist's response was no more mature or respectful, of course; both sides should have engaged in a constructive dialogue rather than launching cheap personal attacks.
You strenuously disagree this forum uses censorship? Cause it absolutely does. Which isn't a bad thing. It's part of what keeps it an enjoyable environment.
Posts
My Dragon's Dogma character is currently running around in short shorts and two metal cups over her breasts and I am trying my hardest to find some armour that actually covers me up because it's kind of difficult to argue that this is a mature and respectable industry when titillation is the norm.
And there's nothing stop you, a cisgendered, white, straight, male (which I assume from your posts you are) from teaming up with these supposedly "oppressed" groups to make the game you want. That doesn't justify telling others how THEY should develop or design their games. As the old saying goes, if you want it done right, you gotta do it yourself.
Where did Dragon's Crown pretend that girls don't like video games. Where did anyone say that other than your unverifiable anecdotal "evidence"?
Yeah, I'm not a fan of games where I'd be embarrassed if someone saw me playing them. That outfit you're describing is pretty much the pinnacle of that.
I don't think you're reading very carefully.
I didn't say anything about Dragon Crown and women. I was referring to how the artist's comment was exclusionary to gay people, as was said by Mr. Nutt.
There's more, of course, but you'd need to read the article.
The concern is that by depicting females in an exaggeratedly sexualized way, Dragon's Crown (and many other games) can be offensive and off-putting to women, and send a clear message that said games are targeted squarely at a male audience.
Bishonen and bear are niche attractions in the west. The look of those characters won't stop the complaints.
As for the other designs, as Tycho observes, they run the gamut from heavily sexualized to comedic in their over-the-top displays of strength. The Sorceress is the only female design that I would call "over-sexualized" in the traditional sense. The Elf is pretty well clothed, and the Amazon doesn't appear to have been designed with sex appeal as the primary objective. Sure, she's barely clothed, but she's almost grotesquely muscular. Same goes for the Dwarf. There's a balance, so I am not too perturbed.
Those heads, though. It's unsettling.
He's a guy who loves art a lot and really values expression of dissenting opinions. Misuse of that word feels almost intentional.
I am surprised that anyone else is surprised at the designs in this game, though. Did they just forget about these characters in Muramasa?
Yeah I'm just dissapointed, I feel like his whole post (and mike's tweets) are based on the idea that we're somehow "past" sexism, so these things are okay, since it's equally rediculous for some of the male characters.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Anyway, I'm done here. I might go continue in the thread designated for the purpose of discussing sexism and whatnot.
STEAM
I am a gay man who had about the same response to the picture of those dwarfs as this except I wasn't offended at all. I read the article and I have to say that with just the information in the article about the comments by George Kamitani, I think being offended by them is silly. Personally I judge a person by their intent and I reserve judgement on them until I can accurately judge their intent.
I think that picture along with the comment could be taken three ways. It could be like the article said and this Kamitani guy could have said that without thinking any gay person would read it. But it could also be that he just didn't care that a gay person would read it because he doesn't care for gay people. That would be most offensive to me. On the other hand it could also be that he didn't care that a gay person would read it because he just thinks people in general shouldn't be offended so easily and just doesn't care about offending anyone in particular. This I can actually relate with. Maybe it's just the culture I grew up in but I just wish people would grow thicker skin. I don't think being offended by the tiniest thing actually helps the feminist or the lgbt agenda all that much.
Why do you have to choose? Why should liking imaginary, fantasy characters somehow cheapen a very real-world concept? It's fantasy! Who is to say that it's not socially acceptable to wear chainmail bikini and have large boobs. I'd do it if I could!
It just feels wrong to say that fantasy has to follow the same social norms as real life. This entire thread is like saying that we have to ban books that show magic being used in them because talking about magic cheapens the laws of physics.
To be fair, some of the criticism from less reputable gaming sites has essentially amounted to "I"m not trying to censor this guy, but the Sorceress's design just isn't acceptable and the artist has the mental age of a child", which frankly reeks of censorship. I can see why Tycho responded in the way that he did.
Like a terrible, perverted Tigger?
There's also the problem of most games being gross wank fantasies, whether in regards to violence, sex, or both. But trying to shame the people who just want to create their gross wank fantasies isn't going to create other types of games. Less gross wank fantasies doesn't mean more other types of games.
I kind of imagined it more like pole vaulting
Back when I played WoW, my Holy (healing) spec paladin was strong, beautiful, devout, heroic... and always wore the best-looking full plate I could find at her level. "Bikini armor" bugs the #$%^ out of me.
(Then again, possibly important distinction - she was always a heroic fantasy to me, not a sexual one. To the point that I think I'd feel wrong having such thoughts about her.)
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Sure two wrongs don't make a right, but it is definitely far fucking worse to hurl gay in an insulting (or non-inclusive, if you prefer) fashion (which clearly the artist was) than it is to call someone immature in so many words.
I may be misreading things, but the Kotaku article which kicked this whole shitstorm off gave me the impression that the writer thinks designs like the Sorceress shouldn't exist. The Kotaku article wasn't criticism, just an attempt to smear somebody for drawing a scantily clad lady with big knockers: "If you like drawing sexy ladies, you must be a child!" The response here, on the other hand, is actual criticism.
Really, it depends on the mood he is in.
if I say "your art sucks and you shouldn't have made it" that isn't censorship. That's me saying your art is for shit.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
While I'm not saying that anybody here is trying to censor the artist of Dragon Crown, censorship can be enacted by private as well as governmental actors.
The kotaku article doesn't smear the guy, it just calls what he had drawn immature. He responded, natch, in a flagrantly immature way. Whether he apologized afterward is irrelevant to me.
Further, this idea that the characters as drawn represent some kind of ironic or critical take on male and female stereotypes strikes me as ridiculous.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
DD really felt like it made the player go out of their way to find Vallejo inspired armor. My characters are all pretty solidly clad in cloth and steel to the point where there's no flesh visible on my pawn, she could be a robot. Look into things for the clothing slot, not the armor slot. That's where you wear under layers like chain mail under plate, cloth under leather etc. I think towards the end you can scavenge up some light cloth that's sort of racey, well, racey in a party of people clad in giant steel armor.
The original Kotaku article was troll bait for hits, and having played their previous games like Odin Sphere, the ladies were a pretty broad cross section from flat and covered to chesty and flaunting with the heroic leads being a pretty even keeled middle ground although the reddish themed girl was wearing stockings or something? I do remember a general of some sort that looked like he escaped from this game, with tiny waist and legs and a giant bare chest. In summary, "El Oh El, you got trolled by Kotaku?" and if you don't like the art, don't buy the game.
these forums are a good example. mods and admins will sometimes infract or ban posters for making certain kinds of posts that break forum rules or violate the edict or otherwise reflect poorly on the poster (ie he or she was being a dick). they can also edit posts which violate those same rules. the PA forums are privately owned, and the owners are well within their rights to allow or disallow content based on their own principles. no government actor is involved in this.
another kind of censorship might be, say, a private company firing a worker for publicly stating things which might be damaging or embarrassing to the company.
these are examples of a limited kind of censorship, but they are censorship nonetheless.
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
As an example, I read an article in the NYT a few months back about "standards committees" in orthodox Jewish communities in New York City which defined what stores could and could not display in their storefront windows. I don't recall exactly what they used as an enforcement mechanism, but I think it combined the threat of boycott and perhaps violence as well. In any case, it's certainly censorship, albeit with a less solid enforcement mechanism than the law.
Check out the ACLU definition of censorship; it probably explains the notion of private censorship much better than I can.
The Kotaku article certainly did smear the artist. It called him a hormonal fourteen-year-old boy. The article author doesn't say "oh, I don't like this art because it reinforces negative portrayals of women in video games"; he resorts to a direct, personal attack on the artist. That's smearing.
The artist's response was no more mature or respectful, of course; both sides should have engaged in a constructive dialogue rather than launching cheap personal attacks.