Originally Posted by Article
Originally Posted by George Kamitani
It seems that Mr. JASON SCHREIER of kotaku is pleased also with neither sorceress nor amazon.
The art of the direction which likes was prepared.
That's sort of tough shit though isn't it?Originally Posted by EDarkness
I kind of agree with Kotaku on this one. The art for the game is straight up silly. It kinda crosses that line for me. The response from the George guy was all kinds of classy. Seems he doesn't like criticism.
Or you know, he's just joking around? The whole thing is silly, isn't it? I don't think George is taking the "article" (more of a blurb, really) quite seriously.Originally Posted by EDarkness
I kind of agree with Kotaku on this one. The art for the game is straight up silly. It kinda crosses that line for me. The response from the George guy was all kinds of classy. Seems he doesn't like criticism.
I'm guessing you haven't seen any of the fantasy artwork by Frank Frazetta that inspired most of the fantasy art from D&D and stuff?Originally Posted by EDarkness
I kind of agree with Kotaku on this one. The art for the game is straight up silly. It kinda crosses that line for me. The response from the George guy was all kinds of classy. Seems he doesn't like criticism.
Wow.Perhaps game development studios should stop hiring teenagers? At least they're cheap, I guess.
Maybe it is, but doesn't mean that we can't have an opinion about it. So many folks are ready to jump on someone who doesn't agree with them on this. In my opinion (as I said), I don't like it and it comes off as exploiting women a bit. You like it? Great.That's sort of tough shit though isn't it?
Who cares if it's silly? Perhaps it's supposed to be silly? It's just a big pair of tits. It's like saying Elvira is crossing a line because she's buxom.
Well it's pretty insulting if you ask me. Response seems a bit homophobic though...Originally Posted by EDarkness
I kind of agree with Kotaku on this one. The art for the game is straight up silly. It kinda crosses that line for me. The response from the George guy was all kinds of classy. Seems he doesn't like criticism.
Wait, that's how Kotaku deals with criticism about their content and its quality? That's pretty sad if true.well the argument from kotaku commenters when you ask them why they post certain weird articles is that they ARE NOT A NEWS SITE THEY ARE A BLOG.
so going with that...this shit fits perfectly.
Well then, Kamitani's reply is perfect. He also exploited the men!Originally Posted by EDarkness
Maybe it is, but doesn't mean that we can't have an opinion about it. So many folks are ready to jump on someone who doesn't agree with them on this. In my opinion (as I said), I don't like it and it comes off as exploiting women a bit. You like it? Great.
Of course I've seen his stuff, but my feeling about it is the same. I have a lot of respect for Frank's work, but I just feel like this is a different level entirely. Some people are gonna like it, but it should stand to reason that others won't.Originally Posted by Uncle Rupee
I'm guessing you haven't seen any of the fantasy artwork by Frank Frazetta that inspired most of the fantasy art from D&D and stuff?
I agree with the first part of your comment, the answer is pretty ambiguous.. The "which likes" part especially.So the response is 'Haha u r gay'? Regardless of the merits of the article, that is pretty pathetic.
And now having read the article, and seen the damn character, I can only agree with Schreier. Who would have thought that was possible?
Other people need to stop thinking that not liking a particular depiction of a character means you are gay, or that there is something wrong with that. I have no problem with the design existing, I think it's bad, but so what? But the response was pathetic.Originally Posted by SmokyDave
Blog writers need to stop assuming that the only people that sexualised characters appeal to are teenage boys. It's offensive.
It's an opinion on an art style, there will never be a right answer. Calling out someone for having an opinion is not really going to achieve much. It certainly won't convince anyone you are not a juvenile idiot when the result is an utterly juvenile homophobic bullshit comment like that.I agree with the first part of your comment, the answer is pretty ambiguous.. The "which likes" part especially.
But the "article" saying an actual art style, even caricaturish, is kiddy, when it clearly has some deep cultural roots and great aesthetics.. That was pretty ridiculous.
Is it less offensive to mock anyone who finds breasts attractive? It's "juvenile" if you like any erotic art now. Somehow it's become perfectly fine to mock people's sexuality and sexual expression if they're straight males. It's actually considered progressive.If this is supposed to be read as "You probably find men attractive, ha!", that's all kinds of offensive.