I recommend you Dragon´s Crown

[LemmingofGlory]

But this is Japanese, so... sexism is not a thing? I don't get it. Japan has been deeply integrated into "western" culture for seventy years now, and in close contact for the century before that. The entire genre of Japanese comics and animation grew up in an era deeply influenced by, and in dialogue with, the English-speaking world. Feminism is not a new thing to the Japanese.

The cultural context might be sufficiently different that the Japanese recognize Dragon's Crown as satirizing our expectations of fantasy game protagonists, whereas we just see it as "Oh, more badly drawn Escher Girls." Or it might not be satirical at all, just sexist. Or maybe it's sexist AND satirical.

Here's an explanation for the artwork that argues for sexism, and it comes from the Japanese gaming market itself. My understanding is that their gaming market is viewed differently: everyone is a gamer. You don't have this marketing blindness that views girls who play games as "somebody's girlfriend who happens to have picked up a controller." The female gaming demographic is its own market. The sexualization of the Dragon's Crown characters, seen in this light, might be an attempt to appeal to different subsets. Sorceress/Amazon appeal to fans of hentai. The Elf appeals to fans of more ordinary anime/manga women. Wizard/Fighter appeal to fans of pretty pretty dorito-faced yaoi princes. The Dwarf appeals to, uh, an unusually specific niche of bara fans(?). With this view, the artwork sexualizes all characters, but perhaps not in a way that we expect as a western audience as the sexual appeal is intended to cast a wide net for Japanese gamers. As a western audience, we primarily see it as using women to titillate since the fact that the men are sexualized also isn't really registering for us.

Some things get lost in translation, but thankfully gameplay isn't one of them. I really want to give this game a try. After that, I may have more of an opinion about the art style.

Are you talking to me with that comment? Or are "some people" just FIT?

I think he's saying that we have not ruled out that FIT may be a consortium.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

Ha, so now I am not even a single person, but a whole organization now? Keep rolling out the conspiracy theories, it makes for good entertainment.

[DeeBye]

I think he's saying that we have not ruled out that FIT may be a consortium.

[FireIceTalon]

And Hammer, I was probably having interactions with females before you had peach fuzz on that pea-sized nutsack of yours.

Wicked burn, bro. You clearly took him down a peg or two.

Kind of hard to do when he's already at the lowest peg.

[Hammerskjold]

Jessica Rabbit is exactly right. She is a character created to be the ultimate sex object, taken up to 11 with the power of cartoon animation. And she is precisely fit for purpose - in creating a noir/comedy/cartoon movie, she is exactly the right mix of commentary, parody, and epitomization. The trophy wife. The damsel in distress. The femme fatale, but without much fatale.

It's been a while, but didn't she shoot at the weasels to rescue Eddie at one point?

The sorceress in Dragon's Crown is *even more* hypersexualized than Jessica Rabbit. And she's supposed to be starring in an action game, which one might think would call for a different kind of character? But no.

IMO DCrown's character roster is a bit of a pastiche. Increasingly I think the name 'Sorceress' is not a great translation, 'Witch' is probably a lot closer. Looking at the conical hat, staff, and enemy turning into frog. Poe tay toe tomah toe, but maybe it would make it easier for some people to see and accept a halloween style witch. Or not.

The fighter basic design looks like an 'homage' to one of the enemies in Golden Axe. The Dwarf is sorta kinda norse like inspired, his hammer design is antiquity style Mjolnir. The Elf is pretty much a straight up lift and sex swap of a Tolkienesque elf, with some anime\manga style 'I look 16-18 but I'm really 9000 years old demihuman'. The Amazon is ancient greek style axe with Frazetta style bikini.

'Chronicles of Mystara' was a slightly more cohesive pastiche, possibly because it was Capcom licensing D&D.

But overall, DCrown's roster is a pastiche. Don't look too deep for 'world building' anymore than you would ask what actual lineage is the Princess from in Disneyland.

And you know for my coin, that's fine with me. Sometimes I want to go to an obvious 'themepark castle'.

But this is Japanese, so... sexism is not a thing?

That's so not it. Would it be clearer if I say another nation's culture\sensibilities and outlook can be different from another nation?

The entire genre of Japanese comics and animation grew up in an era deeply influenced by, and in dialogue with, the English-speaking world. Feminism is not a new thing to the Japanese.

Yes yes Ozamu Tezuka and Disney influence etc. However there are distinctive elements that shows it's from a sensibility that is not always the same as N. America. (Beat me again on the clock, darn you Lemming!11 But yeah, I pretty much share Lemming's post on the matter.)

Are we living in a pre-Alan Moore world? Has Neil Gaiman gone down the memory hole? Comics and animation left the "pitcher books and cartoons" world over two decades ago.

Here's what's on one of my bookshelf. Gaiman's 'Stardust'. Moore's 'Watchmen'. Chris Ware's 'Jimmy Corrigan'. Millers DKnight, DKnight Year1. Busiek\Alex Ross 'Marvels' Scott McCloud 'Understanding Comics'.
Mignola 'Dr Strange Dr Doom'.

Not on the bookshelf but have read and recommended to others when I try to show people comics are a medium, not a genre. Spiegelman's 'Maus'. Herge' Tintin. Asterix. From Hell. Yotsuba. Sandman (the whole thing).

One of my friends sometimes gives me one of those thick flyer\catalogues aimed for comic stores\ dealers. The majority of what was in the catalogue were the usual Marvel\DC supertights comics. Like, 80-90% majority. A few independents, and some manga, maybe a few dvds, some toys\figures and some cards. Sports and MTG type cards.

This catalog is aiming at comic store owners\dealers. And from the last time I visited the stereotype brought to life Androiddungeoncomicard shop. Aside from the near physically tangible wall of way too much testosterone that first hit me. Was the selections it had pretty much mirrored the catalog.

Which is why I usually go to a big box book store, or a more female friendly comic shop if I wanted to buy a graphic novel. Or the library. My local library has some surprisingly good selections of graphic novels.

Now having said all that. I know that I am still part of a minority group. If you say 'Avengers\Iron Man', most people would say 'R Downey Jr', or maybe Joss Whedon.

I can safely bet that in a random street questions, most people never heard of Spiegelman's Maus. From Hell? Johnny Depp was great in that. Who's Alan Moore? Dark Knight Returns, oh you mean Nolan's The Dark Knight. Yeah Heath Ledger was awesome as the Joker.

The odds can increase if you are asking those question right outside of a comic shop, but in general I know I'm in the same small auditorium (figuratively speaking) as your hypothetical Al Sharpton presidential supporters. You stand by that, I do the same in this case.

If you've got a world where everyone is ridiculously sexualized, then I haven't got any objection to that. He does look pretty awesome, in a hilarious sort of way.

Well, I think that's pretty close to what I'm trying to convey with my impression of DCrown art. Because for me, when I do look at the art I look at everything, and to me I find the Sorc as just another stylized component of this exaggerated theme park.

One can draw two conclusions from that. One is that 2d and 3d are fundamentally different, and that's the source of our problems. The other is that Rob Liefeld is a terrible artist who draws things that are both absurd and deeply sexist (both in his depictions of men and women) and that the problem lies with his character design, and not the idea of moving from 2d to 3d.*

I'm going with the second conclusion, myself.

The two conclusions can be both true you know, they don't always have to be mutually exclusive. Especially when it concerns Liefeld's 2d chars. Or Rob Liefeld. Seriously, don't spend way too much time mysterizing on our differing viewpoints. Ponder the mystery on how this man had a steady job in the artistic field, and retired but not fired. That's a far deeper and more disturbing case.

Are you talking to me with that comment?

-Jester

Well, it's not you. If it was I'd extend the basic courtesy of calling your forum name. I think we earned at least that much mutual courtesy.

Or are "some people" just FIT?

Well sir, that's quite the philosophical pondrance isn't it. I like having an episode of 'Taxi' when I ponder such deep musings. I loved watching Andy Kaufman in that show. Shame Kaufman later fell in with that jerk Tony Clifton.

---

Are you talking to me with that comment? Or are "some people" just FIT?

-Jester

He did quote me directly, so I'm pretty sure it is in reference to me.

Of course as usual he has no clue as to what he is talking about. And Hammer, I was probably having interactions with females before you had peach fuzz on that pea-sized nutsack of yours.

No one here is doing any slut shaming kid, but it is this kind of artwork that PROMOTES "slut shaming", which is part of the basis of my critique - you would see this if you could pull your head out of your ass for just a moment.

The word slut in itself is extremely reactionary, developed historically to discriminate against or describe women who dared have more than one sexual partner: typically "lower class" women, which comes from the antiquity of a male-dominated ruling class that understood women had to be limited to one sexual partner in order for their children and futures descendants to inherit their wealth. These are the historical roots of sexism, and where the context of terms such as "slut", "whore", and the like come from and how and why they are still used today.

If I'm a kid...why are you staring at my pre peach fuzz nutsack? Hey, my eyes are up here you know!

Another pamphlet? I thought you said you are ignoring me? Wait...are you...attracted to me?

HEY! Again, eyes up here! Stop looking at my male marble sack. Jeesus...some people. I know I got some nice trucknutz, but stop eye groping them.

[FireIceTalon]

Don't flatter yourself man

[Hammerskjold]

Don't flatter yourself man

Why is your emoticon smiling and looking up at my post? What did I say, eyes up here! Ugh, now I know how women feels when some pervert tries to get upskirt shots.

(edited for spelling mistake. Originally spelled 'shorts' instead of 'shots'. 'Cause I was wearing one while typing and I think some pamphleteer tried to upshort me with his emoticon.)

[gronbek]

So, anyone reached the higher levels of ToM yet? Or even soloed the story dungeons in Ultimate?

My original intention was not to discuss the sex appearance in the game but instead the gameplay

[Jester]

Or it might not be satirical at all, just sexist. Or maybe it's sexist AND satirical.

If I'm reading the art style, it looks like they were going for satirical (in the form of a kind of loving, over-the-top homage to Golden Axe) and just ended up in sexist territory because there are just very few checks on that kind of casual sexism, in the industry generally, and even less in Japan.

Here's an explanation for the artwork that argues for sexism, and it comes from the Japanese gaming market itself. My understanding is that their gaming market is viewed differently: everyone is a gamer. You don't have this marketing blindness that views girls who play games as "somebody's girlfriend who happens to have picked up a controller." The female gaming demographic is its own market. The sexualization of the Dragon's Crown characters, seen in this light, might be an attempt to appeal to different subsets. Sorceress/Amazon appeal to fans of hentai. The Elf appeals to fans of more ordinary anime/manga women. Wizard/Fighter appeal to fans of pretty pretty dorito-faced yaoi princes. The Dwarf appeals to, uh, an unusually specific niche of bara fans(?). With this view, the artwork sexualizes all characters, but perhaps not in a way that we expect as a western audience as the sexual appeal is intended to cast a wide net for Japanese gamers. As a western audience, we primarily see it as using women to titillate since the fact that the men are sexualized also isn't really registering for us.

Could be. I think the arguments for the male characters are quite a bit more stretched than the female ones - if I wanted to make a super bishonen yaoi knight, I think I'd make it a lot less subtle than the fighter currently is. The Japanese know their super-androgynous sexy male characters, and as an example, this one isn't very extreme at all. The armour is too protective, not enough skin, poses aren't sexualized enough. Especially for a game that's supposed to be about overwhelming, fantastic exaggeration...

I think he's saying that we have not ruled out that FIT may be a consortium.

Commune.

-Jester

[shoju]

I haven't kept up with this thread, since the explosion of "OMG THAT WOMAN IS <insert whatever here".

BUt I will say this.

You guys look at the piece of art (linked on page 1. For ease, I'll refer to is as Mommy Issues, since that made me giggle), and you start dissecting the social / sexual connotations of the mommy issues piece.

I look at that sorceress piece, and I say: What teenager drew that pile of trash!? Because, that is what it is. It's trash. It's junk. It's garbage. And I'm speaking from an artistic standpoint.

Let's look at the first couple of problems.
1.) Proportions. There are none. This isn't even remotely a well thought out, well done piece from a proportionistic (even considering a hyper sexual stylized set of proprotions) standpoint. Follow the piece from Head, through chest, through back, to the butt, to the legs, this piece is enough to give a high school art teacher an anuerysm in semester 2 of introduction to art, after you've discussed style, and proportions.
2.) Consistency of style. This actually looks like it was done by 2 separate artists. One Artist doing the head, chest, and the other doing the background and legs. And it is painful to see the contrasting styles that show up in the legs, and upper exposed skin. The shading style is different. The texture of the skin is different. The muscle style is different. The legs, share more in common stylistically with the skeleton, than with the rest of the figure that they are attached to.
3.) Pose. The first thing that you are taught when you start going through any type of art education, and get to dealing with a creature / human figure, is the authenticity, of a believable pose. There is nothing like that here. The head, chest, torso, is a believable pose by itself. But the butt, legs, feet, coupled with that, turns the piece into a surreal contortionist idea. The pose is bad. It's really bad.

I could go on, but that's enough critiquing of an artist who makes money, by an artist who doesn't make money on his art. I'm just saying, from a technical standpoint, that piece is pure juvenile crap, that would draw the ire of a high school art teacher, let alone a higher education professor.

As far as games, and sexualization of the females, I will say, that is one thing that Path of Exile has done remarkably well. The PC fems, are almost too prude, for a game of this style. The Witch's "Sexyness" comes in the tattered short length of her dress. The Ranger, is not sexualized at all. The Scion is regal, and when not wearing armor, there is a hint of "cleavage" through the shirt, but even then, it would be rated G compared to anything else.

Now, I will say, that there are a few monsters in the game (tentacle breasted monsters come to mind) that are sexualized, but it's not like you are going to stare at them for jollies. UNless you happen to be interested in near naked woman who have no arms, but tentacles instead that fire hot lava at you.

[Bolty]

My original intention was not to discuss [other topic that has hijacked my thread]

Welcome to the Lurker Lounge!

[Hammerskjold]

I look at that sorceress piece, and I say: What teenager drew that pile of trash!? Because, that is what it is. It's trash. It's junk. It's garbage. And I'm speaking from an artistic standpoint.

Shoju, since you have a background in graphics (so do I by the way, hello fellow brother of the arts). Ever seen\remember the early works of Pablo Picasso?



^
|
|

Pablo Picasso's earlier work. This guy can handle representational style, at a fairly young age if I remember my art history right.


Now here's one of his later pieces.



^
|
|

"Girls of Avignon". Same artist. Later period.


There's other examples of artists using\developing different styles. Sometimes it doesn't go from abstracted, to a representational 'realism' as the end goal. To me the path is not a pre-scribed road, where the end goal is a complete replication of our 3d reality in 2d space.

Picasso is a famous example of one, but he wasn't\isnt the only one. It still continues today.

As a viewer, I don't always want artists to be the human equivalent of a camera. I absolutely agree with you that it's very important for artists to study and understand the foundations.

However sometimes I don't want them to give me a trompe l'oeil, with the highest compliment being it looks so 'real', it looks just like a photograph.

Sometimes, I want artists to give me what no camera can. And that can only be done with bending, sometimes breaking certain rules, while keeping other rules intact.


Doing that isn't a 100% hard science, which is why it's art, and requires artists. Artists who understands the foundations so well, they know when and where to break certain rules to get a desired effect, such as caricature or pantomime.

And since this is an art form, I understand there are no guarantees of successful communication, and there is always the subjective element of personal taste etc.

I mean I like Tex Avery cartoons. But there is no real life, 3d wolf that can do wolf whistles while wearing a tuxedo or drive a car, do cartoony wild takes that stretches or even breaks cartoon anatomy.

And that's fine with me. Since I don't want a perfectly rotoscoped, perfectly motion captured, I can't tell if it's a real wolf footage or animation, when I'm watching a Tex Avery 'Red Hot Riding Hood'.

I want to see Tex Avery's imaginative, caricatured ideas and animation and artwork. Not a frame by frame recreation of National Geographic: Wolves of Alaska.

Myself, I usually put aside my requirement for our 3d world logic and rules, when I enter Tex Avery's (or many others, including DCrown) 2d world.

[gronbek]

No problem Bolty. Its quite fun to read anyway

[Hammerskjold]

I think he's saying that we have not ruled out that FIT may be a consortium.

Commune.

-Jester

Or...could it be. Gasp! A...Corporation?



Think of it. This 'FIT' character, is so over the top when it comes to communism, I start to wonder if it's not some Corporation's idea of a Marxist Communist. There isn't anything that -could not- be linked back to communism, that it starts resembling an infomercial or an episode of 'The 700 Club'.

There is a real person behind the screen sure, but they rotate on daily\weekly\monthly shifts to play this character. It's closer to someone playing Ronald Mcdonald vs The Dread Pirate Roberts, but same diff.

Jeebus, I wonder if this corporation is using outsourced, slave wages labor to play this FIT character.

Some poor schlub in Bangalore is being used as a Corporate sock puppet, to peddle a repellent and deliberately twisted version of communism (the one thing that can save us all), to get us disinterested in the -real- Communism! (The One True thing that can save us all!)

Hmmm....better look at some youtube videos of Dragon Crown Cooking minigame, to help me mull over this disturbing hypotheses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86YRLGMkFVw

[shoju]

Shoju, since you have a background in graphics (so do I by the way, hello fellow brother of the arts). Ever seen\remember the early works of Pablo Picasso?



^
|
|

Pablo Picasso's earlier work. This guy can handle representational style, at a fairly young age if I remember my art history right.


Now here's one of his later pieces.



^
|
|

"Girls of Avignon". Same artist. Later period.


There's other examples of artists using\developing different styles. Sometimes it doesn't go from abstracted, to a representational 'realism' as the end goal. To me the path is not a pre-scribed road, where the end goal is a complete replication of our 3d reality in 2d space.

Picasso is a famous example of one, but he wasn't\isnt the only one. It still continues today.

As a viewer, I don't always want artists to be the human equivalent of a camera. I absolutely agree with you that it's very important for artists to study and understand the foundations.

However sometimes I don't want them to give me a trompe l'oeil, with the highest compliment being it looks so 'real', it looks just like a photograph.

Sometimes, I want artists to give me what no camera can. And that can only be done with bending, sometimes breaking certain rules, while keeping other rules intact.


Doing that isn't a 100% hard science, which is why it's art, and requires artists. Artists who understands the foundations so well, they know when and where to break certain rules to get a desired effect, such as caricature or pantomime.

And since this is an art form, I understand there are no guarantees of successful communication, and there is always the subjective element of personal taste etc.

I mean I like Tex Avery cartoons. But there is no real life, 3d wolf that can do wolf whistles while wearing a tuxedo or drive a car, do cartoony wild takes that stretches or even breaks cartoon anatomy.

And that's fine with me. Since I don't want a perfectly rotoscoped, perfectly motion captured, I can't tell if it's a real wolf footage or animation, when I'm watching a Tex Avery 'Red Hot Riding Hood'.

I want to see Tex Avery's imaginative, caricatured ideas and animation and artwork. Not a frame by frame recreation of National Geographic: Wolves of Alaska.

Myself, I usually put aside my requirement for our 3d world logic and rules, when I enter Tex Avery's (or many others, including DCrown) 2d world.

I wont argue too much with your points. There is a lot of merit. I will say this though. If, we are supposed to view this creation in the same manner as Looney Tunes, Tex Avery, Picasso, Rembrandt, Munch, Dali, Etc... Then the failure falls on the presentation.

The presentation of the image I'm talking about, is supposed to evoke a sense of desire, lust, etc... from a male (and homosexual females), and from hetero females, it is presented as a hyper sexualized aspiration. Both in the game footage, and in the stills that I've seen. The presentation falls short for me.

This is further exacerbated by the perspective / proportions / pose of the character. While Jessica Rabbit (another mention in this thread) was an over the top character, created with titillating sex appeal in mind, and her proportions were skewed to the extreme, you never saw her out of whack proportions mixed in with out of whack pose, and perspective.

The same holds true for Picasso, and Dali (to an extent). Some rules are broken, in an effort to make thought provoking ideas spring from their 2d work. But very rarely, do they actively aspire to break "all the rules" so to speak. Even in the picasso piece that you linked, While the figures have changed so dramatically, from his earlier representational piece, the pose, and proportions (to an extent) aren't marred to the point of leaving you scratching your head at just how in the world those people achieved that pose.

And that's really where my problem lies with the piece. It's not that it broke rules, and that it went out of it's way to be hyperstylized. It's that it broke SO MANY rules at the same time, that the piece just ends up falling short in a lot of ways to me. If he would have just broken proportions, yet not strapped some a contorted pose on it, meant to evoke a maximum desire response, it might not be so bad. Or, if he would have used more "normal" proportions, yet worked with the same angling of the pose, it could have been interesting. But it's almost as if it is done in a fisheye, or even a panorama perspective, while also pushing the proportions to the hyper stylized.

For me, it's an abject failure.

[kandrathe]

Hmmm....better look at some youtube videos of Dragon Crown Cooking minigame, to help me mull over this disturbing hypotheses.

Mmmm. Did you see the ears on that bunny?

More seriously... When it comes to assessing video games, wouldn't it be more accurate to judge the entire integrated game experience including the visual, aural, mental challenge, and kinetics? Sometimes the artwork is superfluous to the entire experience, like "Insanely twisted shadow planet". Maybe the "mommy issues" are better understood in context and perhaps male distraction is her super power?

I guess I'd reserve a final aesthetic judgment until I play tested the game (when my wife isn't watching).

[Bolty]

Think of it. This 'FIT' character, is so over the top when it comes to communism, I start to wonder if it's not some Corporation's idea of a Marxist Communist. There isn't anything that -could not- be linked back to communism, that it starts resembling an infomercial or an episode of 'The 700 Club'.

Perhaps derailing this thread further: say what you will about FIT, but I can't help but notice something. FIT started off in this thread with no mention whatsoever about Communism, and it was you that brought it into the conversation. Yeah, I understand that you fight all the time on this board in general, but let's keep this thread on the general topic of the game and its art. Thanks!

[Hammerskjold]

Perhaps derailing this thread further: say what you will about FIT, but I can't help but notice something. FIT started off in this thread with no mention whatsoever about Communism, and it was you that brought it into the conversation. Yeah, I understand that you fight all the time on this board in general, but let's keep this thread on the general topic of the game and its art. Thanks!

Point taken, I'll keep it above the belt.

[Tal]

Wow when this thread was first posted I was certain it was a spam advert. o.O

[FireIceTalon]

Yes, I work for a profit-seeking corporation whose sole purpose is to promote a theoretical framework that is antithetical to its own interests, and said corporation employs hundreds of wage slaves all the while preaching for communism! Yes, you've figured me out! *sarcasm mode off now*

I have to give Hammer some credit - this guy has the wildest imagination I have seen in very long time. I say let him say what he will, the conspiracy theories that this guy conjures up make for great entertainment and comedy. I mean, the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush, or Alex Jones have nothing on this fellow. I suppose the next thing he will muster up is that I belong to a church which promotes atheism?

--Your local corporate communist signing out