I like that people are starting to catch on how dishonest "I just want them to think about it" is. Regardless of point of view, I'm pretty disgusted when someone denies what they really mean.
Is that a dig at me? Because if it is, you should revise your notion that talking about the problem of gender and race inequalities in the industry and representation is "dishonest" or in denial of "what they really mean" (whatever the fuck that is).
I think there's something wrong in your head if you somehow are of the idea that you know my own personal intentions and motivations better than me. So please stop that.
Well, it's a pretty outdated thread (there are newer Dragon's Crown threads) and there is nothing really else to talk about other than the "dumb" design of the sorcerer. I'm fine with Lime bringing up some points about the effects of over sexualized characters and whatnot, because really this thread would be on page 10 without the discussion.
But it'll be mighty annoying if people are trying to have this discussion in say, the OT on release week.
Don't worry, I'll stop after this post and leave everyone to be. And I won't be in the OT talking about the design - it's your Christmas, I'm not going to shit on it
Okay then explain why they also put a short girl in with very small breasts and other girls who are all strong in their own ways? Your argument makes no sense because
a)it's focusing on ONE character/archetype of many different archetypes present within the game
b)you're saying that even though the girl's design and powers make perfect sense and are not completely unrealistic, they don't belong in the game because some people might see artistic vision as a "symptom of a larger problem"
You're telling us right now that even though large breasted girls can be strong and respectable, they don't belong in media anywhere because some people can't see how said female is a strong character and only focus on her physical assets?
In other words your saying "this example is fine in itself but it shouldn't be in a game because of certain mindsets". Which is essentially a call for censorship so not to offend certain sensibilities/warped mindsets.
No, no, no. That is not what I am saying. I am trying to explain the reasons why some find this design an example of a problem in the games medium. It's not about the justifications within the actual game, but the design in itself which without playing the game or character can seem a bit symptomatic of an over-arching problem within the games industry.
Just a few posts ago you said "white male." Why did you broaden your definition to include all males? Was it because the game's Japanese origin was pointed out to you?
I don't get this.
Also, do you seriously think that no females like this design? If you do, you're already calling a few posters in this very thread liars.
No, although my claim rests on some assumptions on how people would react to this, I think it's quite probable and likely that most people would find the design tasteless based on its overtly sexualized nature without having played the game or being aware of the context it is presented within.
Why do you get to decide the target audience? You're all but saying that females "aren't allowed" to like these designs. By doing so, aren't you being even more patronizing than the very designs you're criticizing, and culture that you claim them to be symptoms of, simply by telling people what they should or shouldn't like based on their gender?
No, I am saying that the design characteristics seem to be appealing to heterosexual men (or LB women) - however that is my interpretation ,but I think it's a very probable one (alternatively read Fine Ham Abounds' take on the targeted effects of the design)
Everyone here is posting opinions. You really should stop acting like you know everything and that your opinion is fact somehow.
I think people are conflating the discussion on sexism and clarification on why some people find the design in bad taste or a symptom of a larger problem. I am giving reasons why people are motivated to have a problem with this design. These reasons for motivation are factual, i.e. that representation matters.
I don't know that I could ever think something is exempt from criticism. That's like saying no one should have an opinion on something.
It was mostly addressing people who didn't like Schreier's article and think he should stop writing about such perspectives on the topic at hand.
We've sort of been over this already in here, but after you've educated me a bit more, I suppose I'd still maintain this style embraces exaggeration along the lines of caricature, and I base this on the thematically consistent art direction present throughout the game, and the over the top fantasy context. I also don't feel that the sorceress is a character who in this game world would not choose to be portrayed as she is. I do not feel that she is a virtual victim being exploited solely for the base impulses of the audience. I'm fairly confident though that she is on some level being exploited for the base impulses of the artist, but I'm not sure how to approach that in an argument. I personally do not consider her design offensive because of all of this.
I think both you and I would be unable to definitively provide good reasons when we haven't experienced the depiction of the character in its entirety (cutscenes, dialogue, all mechanics, fictional and procedural development, etc.). That being said, my point of departure for this discussion is only in relation to how there are many valid reasons for some people (like Jason Schreier) to feel that this specific design is a symptom of a larger problem in the games industry when being confronted with this specific design in a screenshot or in a trailer. As such, I think it's quite understandable why some people are criticizing it, despite lacking the context of actually playing the entire game.
The game is most definitely trying to appeal to a certain demographic, I'm just not sure we can be as certain of the size or variety of those outside that demographic who find these characters just as appealing. I'm not convinced just because some undoubtedly find the art offensive that we can conclude it is actively excluding or marginalizing anyone, or even less so that it is intended to do so.
I agree that one can never be determinate in what type of people will like this game - as far as I'm concerned everyone are able to like whatever they like. That being said, I think there are many examples of this particular type of design being aimed at a certain audience and I think it's probable that some people are put off by the design (regardless of demographic).
Do you think that I'm just splitting hairs and on a practical level I'm just being an apologist?
No, not at all. In fact, I think you are trying to give excellent reasons for why the design contributes to less harm and I value the discussion.
Not a counter to your efforts or evidence, but couldn't all of this data support an argument that people would live better lives if not exposed to any media or only exposed to carefully engineered media?
No, it doesn't. You're making a false conclusion on the provided data and arguments - it's not about denying or completely abandoning the whole endeavour about
human communication. And it's not about "carefully engineered media", but being aware as both creator and consumer that there are certain real-life (harmful) effects of the content one produces and consumes and that one would be moral if one paid respect to these aspects of a multi-cultural society*.
I think maybe Lime should concede their argument at this point.
Guys and girls both like sorceress because she's strong and hawt. Nothing wrong with that at all.
Lime thinks that media can portray them but that they also shouldn't. He's advocating excluding certain physical archetypes because some people are sexist.
I'm sorry, darkkyo, but I think you're misunderstanding my points. It's about how this design can easily be interpreted as a symptom of a larger problem (which is what Schreier did).
Oh I know Lime, you're my hero, fight on brother/sister, fight on
I don't see any reason to be derogatory? You don't think information about continuous marginalization through media is significant to talk about?
