I recommend you Dragon´s Crown

[Jester]

On only a slightly more serious note. Some previous pages\posting ago you asked me (possibly hypothetically) what I would consider a fail for fanservice. At least if I read your intent right.

To me it's mostly the context. To give a concrete example, the lines of 'Disney Princess'.

(Insert nauseatingly saccharine Disney Princess image.)

1) This is aimed at young people. At an age where they might not yet fully developed the -full- awareness, context, or the subtleties of why some of those facial expressions and poses can be considered, provocative.

I personally, wouldn't do a double take if I saw anyone of age wearing a Playboy Bunny logo t-shirt. I would have serious concerns if I saw an elementary grade person doing the same. It's not necessarily just the graphic alone for me, but the context.

Maybe I'm over-reading this, but surely the problem is that presents a very stereotyped and restrictive image to young girls, rather than that some of the poses might be provocative? I don't think "don't be provocative" is a lesson I care to teach young girls. I don't want to send the message that male sexuality is something they provoke, and should be careful to avoid.

"Be a princess, dress all in pink and lavender, stand around looking pretty" on the other hand, seems to be a wretched lesson, because of what it says about girls, not because of what supposedly causes men to do.

2) Aside from something 'Stepford'-y about that gift bag graphic. I also don't like how there's something not true to the characters about it.

That's Disney Princess Mulan, at least one version of that char. As a graphic alone, without context, I don't have a problem with it.

However I've seen the movie, I know slightly about the original story it was based on, and I loved the theatrical poster of it.

It's definitely not about the idea that females can't look pretty. It's certainly not about the idea that females are not allowed to want to look pretty. It's something else here that makes me cringe. It's the character lobotomy to me. (...) With this kind of re-contextualizing however, there's something cringe inducing about it for my own sense and sensibilities.

I agree. What they have done with Mulan, and with Merida, and with all of their strong female characters, is awful. It really isn't appropriate for the context of their roles. They suddenly become pretty pink princesses, whose only emotion is a kind of placid, shiny happiness, and who do nothing except standing around being princesses.

Dragon's Crown struck me as exactly that problem. The women are supposed to be kicking ass. But they're portrayed mostly as just showing ass. There's nothing wrong with showing ass, so long as it makes sense for a particular character in a particular context. (And not all characters and contexts are interesting - see: Disney princesses.) But design should make the character match their role - or subvert it, but if you're going to do that, you have to be smart about it. "Supposedly ass-kicking character has sexy, feminine characteristics ramped up to 11" is a pretty banal subversion, and pandering to boot.

Well what does all that have to do with DCrown art?

Our 3d world context, retail space.
Here's the ESRB rating for the game.
http://www.esrb.org/ratings/synopsis.jsp...2950&Title=

To date, I haven't seen it's graphics pushed as merch in the same toy aisle as the Disney Princess. At least in my neck of the woods. Maybe in Japan they do have bento boxes for grade school kids featuring the Amazon. Dunno, I'll stick to N.America for now because that's where I live.

My objection is that it's sexist, not that it's corrupting the children. A well-raised 10-year-old should be able to process Dragon's Crown just fine. If they can't, they have more serious issues than badly-drawn boobies. I am far more concerned about uncritical, hypersexualized portrayals of women in games, and the effect that has on men and men's opinions about women and sex. That worries me more for 21 year old men than 10 year old boys.

Really exaggerated sure. I understand it can put off some people, I can grok that. Everything else in the DCrown themepark is just as exaggerated to my eyes. But for me, it does serve it's design purpose in that I can remember the chars basic general silhouette even from memory. Because they -are- so extremely exaggerated.

As I think I've said at least three times now, but might as well reiterate to wrap up: I have NO problem with exaggeration. I have a problem with sexism. There are a thousand ways that you could draw an "exaggerated sorceress." They chose to make her chest larger than her torso, to give her a spine-snapping boobs-and-butt look, and to have her breasts jiggling in the wind. They didn't show her as exaggeratedly powerful. Or cunning. Or competent. Or brilliant. Or resilient. Just exaggeratedly sexualized, in a very banal, fanservice way.

-Jester

[Hammerskjold]

Did you see what Disney did to the "princess" from the movie Brave?

I haven't seen the movie proper, yet, though I definitely want to.
I did hear of the uproar over the re-design for the 'Princess' line.

That attempted re-design, hits a little too close to home for me. Aside from the issues already mentioned, it's also the creator's rights issue.

http://www.marinij.com/ci_23224741

While I never had to deal with a situation on the same scale as Brenda Chapman, I did experience similar issues a couple of times myself.

I don't work for or at the House of Mouse. But my hunch says the 'Disney Princess' stuff is a marketing\marketing exec decision.

The actual artist(s) that did the work on both the original and attempted re-design, probably had little to no say in the matter. Chapman actually worked there, and from the info on the link seemed to confirm some of my hunches.





To Jester,

Maybe I'm over-reading this, but surely the problem is that presents a very stereotyped and restrictive image to young girls, rather than that some of the poses might be provocative? I don't think "don't be provocative" is a lesson I care to teach young girls. I don't want to send the message that male sexuality is something they provoke, and should be careful to avoid.

Not at all what I'm trying to communicate, I wrote 'elementary grade -persons-' for a reason. I'd have the same concern if it was a male child.

Personally my emphasis is on the awareness, context, and meaning part. Kid's don't necessarily have the fully developed mental defenses, or life experiences to fully process what is being marketed towards them. (As shoju's young progeny demonstrated however, their ability to sense that something might be 'off' are usually pretty good.)

For what it's worth, yeah I happen to agree that a lesson of 'don't be provocative' aimed exclusively at girls is a lesson not worth teaching. I'd go so far as saying it's actually dangerous.

From what I've experienced myself in this 3d world of ours unfortunately, I'd also have no qualms in saying that in our 3d realm. There are places, humanoids, and situations where simply being female is enough of a provocation. And that ugly side of our world, don't always exist in a static location.

Me saying those things, does -not- mean I condone, or promote them.

I am far more concerned about uncritical, hypersexualized portrayals of women in games, and the effect that has on men and men's opinions about women and sex. That worries me more for 21 year old men than 10 year old boys.

After my last job encountering many people and humanoid shaped creatures from all range including age, gender, social and economic spectrum. Many of them involving way too much 'muh cheese mo' and 'u dissing me?!' situations, including one actual serious comment of '..pfft..wimmen can't be cops..' I gotta say.

Vidyas probably don't play that much of a part in shaping some of these troglodytic minds. At least IMO.





Anyhow. I finally did get a chance to have a longer game session at a friend's house. My friend doesn't really enjoy Diablo type games, he's more of a WoWarcraft guy.

So here's my gameplay and mechanics impression of the game.

Just a point on the graphics while actually playing it. Your char can sort of disappear when the combat is in full show. Literally. Sometimes there's so much crazy effects and action that there is a rare glitch where the sprite literally disappears for a second or two. The other is chars can sometimes get obscured by the spell\skill effects and actions.

Otherwise, it usually does it's job nicely IMO contrasting between the lovely environment art.

The core gameplay\combat, is faithful to it's roots. So much so that all that's missing is an arcade cabinet.

It's basically a Capcom style 2d side brawler, with a dash of Diablo. There are some problems however. Some of them are fixed in the latest patch, some are not. IIRC the last patch is considered, the -final- patch of the game.

One thing that may be a deal breaker for some, is you have to -unlock- online mode. For a game released in 2013, this is IMO, seriously pants on head backward.

Set aside the art controversy for one second. Anyone wanting to have a big ammo to fire at DCrown -game- design, this one is it IMO.

Now I love that DCrown has local multiplayer. I love that it has online multi. I was floored that the final patch afaik, did not get rid of this 'play 2 unlock online' requirement.

The character gameplay, I found to be pretty much as it says on the box \ selection screen tips. Newbie friendly chars are Amazon, Fighter, and Dwarf. Basically the melee side of things. Advanced are the ranged side of things, Sorceress\witch, Wizard, and Elf archer.

In the actual gameplay, we had an AI controlled sorc, and she was basically wrecking monsters no problem. It definitely requires some practice, because at this point the AI controlled sorc is doing so much better than either of us. That's probably because for my friend, this game is not is really his thing and he's mostly just humoring me. I'm not an advanced level DCrown player, because I don't currently own a PS3.


Rune magic thingamabob system, not really that impressed with it. We were both confused if we needed to actually trace, or just tap the button, or what. After sorta figuring it out, I think it's not worth the gimmick IMO, and can be distracting when the real gameplay is in the combat action.

Item \gear equipping, is handled sequentially while on local multiplayer. That means players have to wait until the other player finishes inv management. This can either cement your friendships (it's just a game, is it really worth spending 5 minutes hemming and hawing while your friend is thumb twiddling?), or severely tests it. (Dude, if you're -really- my friend you'd let me OCD on this thing because I need to know if this bow is better than what I have, hold on let me look at the wikia page online..why are you shutting off the PS3?)

It can also be too faithful to an era, to a fault. Anyone who ever played 'Ghouls and Ghost' might remember when you first reach the last stage, you are sent back to repeat the levels. Because, you need this special thingamajig but mostly so we can say this game technically provides you with 40 hours of game play when in actuality it's really half that. And also, feed me quarters.

But you're ok with pallette swap monsters right, so this should be ok too. In other words, 'trollface.jpg', that's why. I loved playing Ghouls and Ghost. I get that this could possibly be a backhanded homage move to that era of gaming quirks as well.

But Srsly, Vanillaware\Kamitami, you dun pulled a mean one. This and the 'play 2 Unlock 4 online' is either a pants on head mistake, or you're pulling a Don Rickles on me.

With all that said, this is still a game that I personally would get, even with some hair pulling quirks, and possibly intentional Rickles style joke on the player, because I'm a fan of the oldskool 2d side brawlers. Really, all it needs is an arcade cabinet, and a surly guy manning the tokens \quarter booth. But definitely, YMMV.



Final comment to Bolty:

Anyway, cake rules. I think we can all agree on that.

Sure, I can and definitely agree to that. But...what's this about Lissa getting both pie -and- cakes?!?!

[shoju]

On the whole Brave, girl stereotyping, this is why I feel it is an issue, that as a father I take seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17...17704.html

For a while, in the.... oh, 50's, it was bad. Then it started to get better. And now, we're swinging back the other way. Just look at the ad. You don't have to read the whole article. But that's my point.

And while I do agree that there are far bigger issues in the way we treat women globally, This is an issue that I care deeply about, as it has direct effects, and impacts within my home. My four walls.

So, while others fight the good fight to end sex slave trades, and the like, I can lend 10 minutes of my voice a day, speaking out, about how we treat our little girls, as it relates to my own.

EDIT:
Hell, age the girl in that ad a year or two, give her brown hair and bangs, and it IS my daughter staring at you in that lego ad.

[FireIceTalon]

I never really did buy the argument that "oh, its nothing compared to the larger issues women face in the world". Ya, there is a grain of truth in the argument, in that there is a qualitative difference in something like women being sold for sex, and the sexism we see everyday. But the argument is still totally bogus. The everyday issues women face, such as constantly being objectified (either directly harassed or through games like DCrown), punished (and in a draconian fashion at that) in some cultures for committing "adultry" or other actions that go against ruling class male dominated culture, the victim blaming done against women (especially single mothers) on welfare, the stigma of prostitutes being "whores" (rather than someone who is just forced to subject themselves to gross, disgusting, sexist, and even dangerous men, thus risking their lives sometimes, in order for them to make ends meet), or even something less direct such as being paid .70 cents on the dollar for the same job compared to their male counterparts, are still numerous. To trivialize these things in itself, is sexist.

[Hammerskjold]

On the whole Brave, girl stereotyping, this is why I feel it is an issue, that as a father I take seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17...17704.html

For a while, in the.... oh, 50's, it was bad. Then it started to get better. And now, we're swinging back the other way. Just look at the ad. You don't have to read the whole article. But that's my point.

And while I do agree that there are far bigger issues in the way we treat women globally, This is an issue that I care deeply about, as it has direct effects, and impacts within my home. My four walls.

So, while others fight the good fight to end sex slave trades, and the like, I can lend 10 minutes of my voice a day, speaking out, about how we treat our little girls, as it relates to my own.

EDIT:
Hell, age the girl in that ad a year or two, give her brown hair and bangs, and it IS my daughter staring at you in that lego ad.

Slight detour with lego:

There is\was definitely something weird with Lego's marketing turn. I did have legos when I was a kid, and I don't remember Lego at least at that point, pushing the blocks as male\female sets. Mostly just sets. Here's a farm set, here's a town set, there's duplo for younger children, there's the general lego line, there's the technics line for advanced.

My parents bought some sets for me and my siblings when we were kids, because it was nearly gender neutral. (Read: easily shared among squabbling siblings. At least in theory) We can 'build our own' after we finished building the set plan, and in general it lasts nearly forever.

Short of pitching it in a fire, dipping it in gasoline, or our dog chewing it, physically it's a pretty good piece of plastic. Physically, there was one quality lego had over other brands. (At least when I was growing up.) If it says lego on it, it's 99.9% guaranteed to fit with other lego blocks.

When I first heard about the change in marketing, I was a bit surprised, because this is lego. Well I thought it was lego, I dunno what exactly the marketing turn is supposed to accomplish. The Lego I knew and grew up with was mostly gender\sex neutral, and fairly all ages. Choking hazard aside etc.

There is one other aspect that makes me go hmmm. Over time, lego sets and pieces became more specific. While you could still build things other than the included set plan, more parts became 'custom'. I learned that this might not be an accident.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/12/1...so-popular

But Lego did find a successful way to do something Mega Bloks could not copy: It bought the exclusive rights to Star Wars. If you want to build a Death Star out of plastic blocks, Lego is now your only option.

The Star Wars blocks were wildly successful. So Lego kept going — it licensed Indiana Jones, Winnie the Pooh, Toy Story and Harry Potter.

Sales of these products have been huge for Lego. More important, the experience has taught the company that what kids wanted to do with the blocks was tell stories. Lego makes or licenses the stories they want to tell.

Now when I was playing with legos, I did play out 'this is supposed to be a Luke Skywalker in his x-wing'. But I didn't have an officially branded Starwars set, so I built something sorta resembling an X wing, and made do with 'let's just pretend\imagination' that this is an X-Wing, the figure that came from another toyline was Luke.

After a while, I got bored with just re-enacting a star wars movie scene, and I started altering the story and characters. A while longer, it was altered and re-made from scratch so many times, that it was no longer starwars. It was my own story and scenarios. I doubt it would sell as big as SWars, but it was my own story.

Lego or anyone else trying to corner the market on 'official version of playing', I think is at risk of alienating an important part of playing as an exercise in developing a person's imagination muscle. That and 'too customized' pieces, frankly sucks to me.

I am curious, if I'm the only one who wanted a big box of 'generic blocks'. Because with that, I just increased my building potential vs 'customized pieces which fits best with this specific set'.

Anyhow, shoju have you looked at other lego alternatives\competition? When I was growing up I did looked at a few of them, unfortunately most of them seem to have either poor quality polymers, poor fit, or both.

Supposedly it has improved now, the patent expiry situation may have something to do with it but anyway.

There was one that caught my eye, but I read mixed reviews. (Unfortunately some of the clones\competitions seems to also want to ape legos, IMO counterproductive marketing direction as well.) Though a few seems intriguing enough that I would like to see and feel it first hand. You really only need 2 random pieces, to get a good guess on the quality of the plastic and how well the fit goes.

/just another brick in the wall

[LochnarITB]

I am curious, if I'm the only one who wanted a big box of 'generic blocks'. Because with that, I just increased my building potential vs 'customized pieces which fits best with this specific set'.

When I was a kid, those theme 'model builder' sets didn't exist. The closest we came were a few special things like a piece that was a window frame with a window in it that pivoted or one that had a wheel for making a vehicle. The rest were just straight edged blocks of various dimensions. We had big ice cream pails full of them that we had to dig through to find just the right pieces for our imagined ideas. As we got older, we graduated to Erector Sets™. They were just girders and plates and screws and nuts, with battery operated motors to make things run. Your pieces could bend out of shape and break and slice your hands all up. If you made a car and left it out in the yard, it would get wet and rust. There weren't any of the sets they have today with shaped pieces and radio controls.

We had to use our imaginations and we could go all day playing with them. When I started seeing what amounts to model sets, I just couldn't understand how they could hold the kids attention. It's no wonder we hear stuff about how kids don't have imaginations anymore. It's all been imagined for them.

Now get off my lawn!!

[DeeBye]

Now when I was playing with legos, I did play out 'this is supposed to be a Luke Skywalker in his x-wing'. But I didn't have an officially branded Starwars set, so I built something sorta resembling an X wing, and made do with 'let's just pretend\imagination' that this is an X-Wing, the figure that came from another toyline was Luke.

My brother and I did the same thing in the '80s. We made our own Star Wars models. I remember making a whole fleet of X-Wing fighters (I made two of them because we didn't have enough blocks to make more), and my brother made a rough model of the Millennium Falcon. We made our own versions of an AT-ST, some Speeder Bikes, and even an Imperial Shuttle. It was an older code, but it checked out.

I would absolutely pay money for a Bucket of Random Lego Pieces.

[Hammerskjold]

My brother and I did the same thing in the '80s. We made our own Star Wars models. I remember making a whole fleet of X-Wing fighters (I made two of them because we didn't have enough blocks to make more), and my brother made a rough model of the Millennium Falcon. We made our own versions of an AT-ST, some Speeder Bikes, and even an Imperial Shuttle.

My version of the Millennium Falcon used a piece of PVC that looked like this, because it resembled the cockpit in the movie.

http://i00.i.aliimg.com/img/pb/515/585/7...15_207.jpg

I didn't even know what it was until I googled it, a pvc 'vent cap' apparently. It wouldn't fit exactly, so I think I either used playdo as 'cement', or simply held the piece with my hands. I think I didn't like using playdough as cement for legos however.

In any case, the blaster and hyper drive sounds was not electronic, it was pure retro analog. Pew pew pew, and beep boop...Fwoosh!

It was an older code, but it checked out.

Impressive, most. Impressive.
/golf clap

I would absolutely pay money for a Bucket of Random Lego Pieces.

Does a thing even exist? I remembered the store during my childhood had a lego station, it had random generic blocks. But I don't remember seeing them for sale in general.

Some of the competitors and clones might, but I don't remember seeing lego brand generic brick packs being offered. At least, when and where I was growing up.

We should go ask\nicki nicki 9door OldManLochnar, I heard he might know. Just gotta watch out for his lawn, I heard he boobie traps it with rusty and jagged erector sets....

Hehehe, boobies. Hehehe, erector...

[Tal]

Pffft. Those thighs. "I'll have you know I can flatten steel with my thighs."

Argh, twist the knife, will you? I really miss being Dwarf.

"It's like my Da always said: 'Shut up and GET OUT'"

[shoju]

We have looked at the other bland blocks, but part of the attraction for my kids, are the "model" sets.

My son is as big of a star wars fan as myself. Thus, he has 2 different size Millenium Falcons, an Xwing, an Imperial Shuttle, random little sets, and if he has his way, this year he'll get a star destroyer set. (HOLY BALLS THAT SET IS EXPENSIVE)

He also likes the architecture sets. Big Ben, Leaning Tower, etc... He's built probably ~20 models.

My daughter started out enjoying the Lego City, but as she has gotten older, she is very much a "build her own thing." This has evolved as she has gained a love for special effects makeup. My daughter watches Face Off Religiously. I DVR it for her, because she'll be passed out by 10, but she will watch it tonight, after dinner. We went to a local craft store, and she had birthday money. What'd she buy? A mannequin head, and 20 pounds of clay. Honestly, at the rate she is going, I have a feeling I have a budding Steampunk / Cosplay / Make up effects genius in the house.

[kandrathe]

When my 1st son was about 3, he (Really)^50th power wanted these Mega blok (psudeo LEGO) castles, each about 1000+ pieces. So, being the dutiful Santa papa, I assembled one of them until 3am that Christmas. Before I awoke that morning it was demolished in a flurry of giggles and laughter, then pleas for me to rebuild it. This is a key insight into my son. In Hindi terms, he was more Shiva in spirit than Brahma.

So, over the remaining Christmas break I painstakingly re-assembled it, and two others. This time with super glue. They lasted as castles much longer this time, then as destroyed castles for awhile. And, he played with the dragons for many years.

My sons also have the giant tub of random LEGO's which they still play with occasionally. They get the kits too, and are proficient in building them without my help (or more likely a hindrance at this point).

Somewhat back to the subject of Dragon's Crown. My oldest is getting sex ed in school this year, and I just helped him complete some assignments exploring the topic of abstinence, STD's, etc which required him to interview his parents. They are late because he was too embarrassed to even discuss the topics with anyone, let alone parents. Long story shorter: I used parts of our discussion here in relaying to him the idea of our responsibility to treat people with respect, and to not only consider our consequences, but the consequences (in our actions or inactions) to everyone involved. Personally, I'm agog at what women suffer in pregnancy, and birth, and am humbled by it. When I showed the images of the sorceress to my wife, her opinion was that they were offensive to women. She is not their demographic.

[Mavfin]

And while I do agree that there are far bigger issues in the way we treat women globally, This is an issue that I care deeply about, as it has direct effects, and impacts within my home. My four walls.

The way you combat this stuff is make sure your daughter sees the rest of the story, not just the 'made for young girls' stuff. If you teach them how to deal with the world as it is, not how you want it to be, it'll pay big dividends later.

My girls (20, 17, and 16 now) all saw that same sexualized and/or girlified stuff, but saw right past it, because I didn't try to shelter them from everything else as much as many parents reflexively do. The strategy isn't to censor everything they see from the Internet and media, so that they don't see the stuff you don't want them to. It's to give them the framework to understand what is real and what has been manipulated, and why it has been done.

As nice as it would be to stop the practices in advertising and media, it's not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what we do. Changing this kind of thing takes time. What you can do in the shorter term is prepare your children to understand what's being done. Even tweens can see when they're being manipulated, if they're given the information and perspective to do so.

[kandrathe]

As nice as it would be to stop the practices in advertising and media, it's not going to happen anytime soon, no matter what we do. Changing this kind of thing takes time. What you can do in the shorter term is prepare your children to understand what's being done. Even tweens can see when they're being manipulated, if they're given the information and perspective to do so.

Over time the chic "image conscious" trends go away, then return some years or decades later. There is a huge amount of economy devoted to the glamor industry. Therefore, I fear your approach is one of the only ways to empower people (both genders) to see through it. Not only are women objectified for marketing purposes, but men are conditioned to "buy them" and are influenced by media to view women as objects.

I think only a minority of people know or care.

APA Task force on the sexualization of girls.

Video/Computer Games
The vast majority of children play video games: 87% of younger children and 70% of adolescents (Paik, 2001). A gender divide in heavy video game play exists, with 41% of boys playing games for more than an hour a day and only 18% of girls doing so (D.Roberts et al., 2005). Girls, however, spend an average of 40 minutes per day playing games online or on home systems (D. Roberts et al., 2005). Games made for specialized systems and those made for personal computers contain highly sexualized content and few strong female protagonists (Dietz, 1998). In a recent study, Haninger and Thompson (2004) sampled 80 “Teen”-rated video games from a population of 396 games in release in 2001.They observed sexual themes in 27% of games. Games were significantly more likely to depict female characters partially nude or engaged in sexual behaviors than to depict male characters in this way. When the authors expanded their definition of “sexual theme” to include “pronounced cleavage, large breasts, or provocative clothing,” the percentage of female characters so depicted rose to 46%. Beasley and Standley (2002) examined 64 games for sexualizing themes.Women were seldom depicted in any of these games (14% of all characters were female). When the clothing of female characters was compared with that of males, female characters’ clothing was more likely to expose skin. Dill, Gentile, Richter, and Dill (2005) found that in the 20 top-selling games in 1999, only female characters were portrayed as highly sexualized.

The assault on virtue has never been stronger, and the defenders of it are few and weak. And... to not confuse, I see this is as a culture thing, and not a religious thing. Most often anyone rising up to challenge this status quo is ridiculed, and soon excoriated out of the dialog (and I'm specifically thinking about Tipper Gore, and her involvement in the Parents Music Resource Center, or then Sen. Clinton and GTA4).

I'm afraid that in various quests to shatter cultural ruts and stereotypes, we've just shattered the culture, and in context to this discussion, the value of character and virtue. For example, womens liberation to me means that women should be encouraged and empowered, just as men are, to choose any (socially redeeming) path for themselves. However, it's taken some time, and brave women to reject the criticism of "feminists" who want to dictate feminism. Equally, men suffer too and are in need of liberation from cultural stereotypes (be that the bread winner, or the aggressive sexual beast). We are overworked, trained to kill or be killed, brutalized and subjected to blame and shame for being male. I've also commented before about the continuation of our workplaces remaining an enforced competitive patriarchy.

In terms of Dragon's Crown, I'd again return to the ESRB rating -- Teen (13 and up), and one could argue some of the more sexualized images might draw an M rating (17 and up). However, as I've hopefully supported with the APA study, the entire media industry flirts with the line.

Take Amelie's Cafe as an example, rated E - Everyone. Which, not only stereotypes young women (waitress), seems to be targeted toward women, and where the protagonist is also packaged as a sexualized object. I'm not a father of a tween girl, so I'm uncertain which game would be more "influential" to a young girls psyche.



... and in closing, to quote another gamer I also sort of agree with from an IGN forum...

Western game media is biased and hypocritical. If Japan has a bit of sexyness to their games (Big breasted sorceres in Dragon's Crown, Quiet in MGS5), than it's offensive and objectifies women, but if western games do it (banging slavegirls in God of War, Banging prostitutes and killing them to get your money back in GTA games, collecting sex cards for banging girls in The Witcher) then it's A-OK.

I think here we are calling out the mote(or log) in Vanillaware's eye -- and yet, there is an entire cultural problem with many mote's.

P.S. I apologize in advance for presenting the nail, which will attract the well worn old hammer (and/or sickle).

[FireIceTalon]

Not only are women objectified for marketing purposes, but men are conditioned to "buy them" and are influenced by media to view women as objects.

P.S. I apologize in advance for presenting the nail, which will attract the well worn old hammer (and/or sickle).

Somehow I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.

[Hammerskjold]

...If you teach them how to deal with the world as it is, not how you want it to be, it'll pay big dividends later.

Thank you for writing it way better than I could.

Anyway I'll just leave this here. I heard from somewhere that one's perspective can determine the context. However there is no one absolute perspective anymore than one side of a coin is the -absolute and only truth- side. I mean, is this a drawing of an old woman or a young maiden?



(file name is not the real answer. Real answer is: Yes.)

[kandrathe]

Somehow I feel all warm and fuzzy inside now.

We've always been very close in our analysis of the problems.

[LemmingofGlory]

On the whole Brave, girl stereotyping, this is why I feel it is an issue, that as a father I take seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17...17704.html

Re: Huffpo article. Why are images of young girls looking more and more like the greys? Almond shaped heads, narrow-to-vanishing chins, gigantic eyes that threaten to wrap around the sides of their heads. Mulder and Scully should be investigating this shit.

Even if toys are hitting girls with more "THESE ARE FOR YOU. BOY TOYS ARE DIFFERENT." than ever, it's still not the case that girls' toys in the '80s were much better. HuffPo's sampling is not really representative of the state of girl toys as a whole. The artwork decaying into eye-burning pink aliens is a minor change compared to everything else that goes into getting "girl presents." Female friends have told me all about how being a girl meant getting craptastic toys compared to your brothers. Your brothers got action figures or model kits or electronic toys or chemistry sets or video games. You got plastic food and a kitchen set, a toy vacuum cleaner, and a plastic tea set because you're being trained to be an in-home servant. Oh sure, maybe you got Troll dolls or MLP, but that's not fun either. They're not articulated; they're inaction figures.

The trouble is parents who don't know their own kids and their interests, and parents that don't realize teaching children "This is for girls, and this is for boys" is an inherently toxic message that perpetuates gender roles that say "Boys should not do these things, and girls should not do these things." It makes boys and girls avoid certain things, and as they grow up, that even turns into gender-centric taboos. So if you're a parent and you look at your kid and think, "What should I get her for her birthday? Well, what do GIRLS like?" you've failed. But it's not because you're teaching her to like the idea of looking like gaudy pink alien; it's because that message has already rooted. Marketing creepy pretty pink aliens to girls influences the interest of some, sure, but I think that idea takes hold most strongly in individuals who are already being taught a sense of "You are a girl, so you must like GIRL THINGS." in the home, because young girls who aren't taught that can see through the marketing b.s. at a very young age. My friends knew what kinds of toys they would find fun and which were just girly shovelware.

To me, Shoju, the fact that your kids can see through the marketing says a lot about the gender roles you're not teaching them. If you wanna test your boys' resilience to cultural gender stereotypes, find out what they think the importance of protecting one's own masculinity. There are few things as toxic to boys, I think, than the idea that someone impugning your masculinity is something to fight about. Even the idea that you are less macho for enjoying certain things serves no purpose. I know this thread is mostly a sausagefest, so I'm sure all of us have buttedheads with the idea of protecting our own personal sense of masculinity at some point. I mean, FIT even invoked this sense of masculine self-worth earlier to goad Hammerskjold by describing his underdeveloped nethers. We're all affected.

And while I do agree that there are far bigger issues in the way we treat women globally, This is an issue that I care deeply about, as it has direct effects, and impacts within my home. My four walls.

So, while others fight the good fight to end sex slave trades, and the like, I can lend 10 minutes of my voice a day, speaking out, about how we treat our little girls, as it relates to my own.

Do you actually encounter people who think that this issue should be ignored because some other issue is more prominent? That's a bizarre false dichotomy considering these are problems happening simultaneously, and both can be tackled at once.

I would absolutely pay money for a Bucket of Random Lego Pieces.

http://shop.lego.com/en-US/LEGO-Creative-Bucket-10662

They have lots of different buckets available with differing numbers of bricks.

-Lem

[FireIceTalon]

I mean, FIT even invoked this sense of masculine self-worth earlier to goad Hammerskjold by describing his underdeveloped nethers. We're all affected.

-Lem

Actually, he did it before I did when he made his snide remark implying that I have never been with a female companion before - which not only smacks of chauvinism, but also borderline homophobia and/or discrimination against those who are asexual (I'm not asexual, but that is irrelevant).

Indeed, we are all affected. Even the most left-wing of us have traits or influences from bourgeois society to some extent, because that is what we have grown up under. The difference is, some of us can recognize it, while others either cannot or don't want to, or worse yet they can but simply don't care.

[kandrathe]

Actually, he did it before I did...

How reactionary.

[shoju]

Do you actually encounter people who think that this issue should be ignored because some other issue is more prominent? That's a bizarre false dichotomy considering these are problems happening simultaneously, and both can be tackled at once.-Lem

Lem, I was responding to:

If this is a part of some crusade to make a global shift on the proper non-objectification of women, then seriously, while I care and I'm on your side, I feel we've got other more important global concerns that I'll put my efforts behind (like stopping kidnapping, and sex trade of under aged girls in the real world). Let's start with changing minds of people who think that women driving, voting, or girls going to school is a bad thing, or that "shaming" the family is an extra judicial death sentence. The Rubenesque art of voluptuous female characters in Dragon's Crown are a bit of a triviality in the world of women's oppression, in the greater scheme of oppressed women. And... while I'm thinking about it... I also think the topic smacks a bit of the political correctness trumps artistic expression and freedom of expression, which I believe each of us also hold dear. George Kamitani should have the freedom to draw his artwork, good taste or not good at all, and market it as he pleases. And, of course we should have the freedom to whinge about it on a gaming forum. Thanks Bolty.

Particularly the bolded part of the comment.