How do you know she's supposed to be dressed for combat? We haven't seen her in combat yet. Also, she's an evil witch, and the sexy young evil witch in revealing clothes is very much a common trope in itself. And last, but not least: fuck realism. Why is Zelda fighting in high heels in this game? Because the character designer thought it looks better, that's why.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Let's talk about fanservice in video games.
- Thread starter Kinsei
- Start date
- Status
I still don't understand what the problem with Cia is. It's in her character's nature to be sexual, I mean, one of her main goals is to seduce Link. Doesn't it make sense that she'd dress as scandalous as possible to grab his attention?
Same can't be said for Ivy/Code of Princess chick, though. Just pure fanservice in those cases (not that I find anything wrong with pure fanservice).
I don't necessarily have a problem with Cia being a sexy temptress character, I just think her outfit is tacky.
You just called it stupid and the following:
You have been making some of the most confusing posts I've ever read on gaf in this thread.
That's kinda the point: It's overtly sexual. You brought up characters who look sexy but not sexualized and that's fine. Their goals are different than Cia's; they're not out to seduce someone like Cia is.
Like I said, there are ways of contextualizing Cia's backstory where that outfit makes sense. But yo that shit is tacky.
It is stupid, but it's both stupid in both design and utility. On utility front, why would even a sorceress go out onto a battlefield where a single arrow would have the ability to take her out, it's dumb. From a design stand point, there's so little that's actually sexy about her outfit it's all just...."Look at my fucking chest! DO YOU LIKE BOOBS BECAUSE I'VE GOT'EM!" It's like what you would get if you asked a 12 year old boy to draw you a sexy lady in a sexy dress. It's so...rote. It's tacky. It's tacky and dumb and I hate it.
Cia is not a real woman out to seduce someone, some guys decided they wanted to see a woman with a plunging neckline down to her crotch and decided to make an excuse for it.
hurricanes
Member
It's about the advertisement of the game.
----------------------------
The huge fly of the page literally translate as "The only virgin of the sisters" and the introducing paragraph is basically like " Four is a serious person (etc).... and despite her sexually aggressive nature she suppress her sex drive and remain the only virgin of the sister!"
and the one introducing Zero says ""Zero have complicated sexual relationship with many men and doesn"t care!"
---------------------------
While it is Ok to have different "types" of women in games (we have playboys so why not playgrils?), branding this sh*t as the main selling point of a game is beyond disgusting
.
Haha, geeze.
I'm all for women being comfortable enough to find pleasure and comfort as they see fit but those ads are pretty gauche
So what you're saying is that because she isn't a character you like to see, she is now an object and nothing more?
I think he's saying that's how her designers feel. And he's probably right. I hope I'm wrong and they make up a backstory that illustrates why she feels that outfit is any good at all but...I think at the end of the day the designers at Koei wanted a sexy girl as a villain so they made something pretty quickly and put it out there because no one cares about the story in a Musou game so fuck it.
(I'm probably short changing the designer a bit, I know there's more to that design than JUST boobs, it's a gijinka of one of the Poe systers but...like I said early, that dress is CICO, Chest in, chest out.)
Your level of anger and hatred in this post is both frightening and nonsensical
Well, she was created to be one. If she has this amazing backstory to the point where I can understand her in such an outfit, then I'll take it back. Do you really see that happening though?
I'm not a guy.
buddha0991
Member
Drakengard 3 is like one sex/dick joke after another in a constant stream.
Isn't that a bit of a chicken, egg situation? What did they want first, a seductive character or a scantily dressed one?
Stupid is in the eye of the beholder i.e. its largely arbitrary. And an appeal to realism in a game featuring undead immortal pirates and such is laughable, if memory serves by SC4 Ivy was a super humanly competent combatant, who was immortal, an accomplished sorceress, had a magic soul sucking sword, cursed blood (and by the end an artifical soul) arguably she wears straps into battle because she gets off on it/just feels like it and is so competent is has no effect on her combat ability. Of course everyone has their own point where suspension of disbelief breaks but "it doesnt make sense" seldom serves as an argument.
I do actually agree with you about Ivy in SC4, her design had almost become self-parody at that point, really looking at the progression of the female casts design over the franchise especially in terms of bust size vs skin shown paints a pretty obvious picture.
I want really good actually sexy outfits to become the norm. I like pretty things. I'm bummed out that Hyung-Tae Kim is stuck working for Korean MMO developers.
But I already told you the motivation she has for wearing the outfit: It's to seduce Link. She probably wants to seduce Link because he has one third of the Triforce. You can say that you don't like that, but that is clear character motivation unlike Ivy or the protagonist of Code of Princess. There is something there that's more than, "She wears it because we thought it looked hot."
Apologies
You post a pic of some KoF girl in a thong as 'getting it wrong' and point to Hyung-Tae Kim? You continue to baffle
No problem. I didn't mean for it to come across as snarky or anything, just a minor correction.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Haha. Yeah, no.
Low poly models.
Roivas has mild cleavage, and you don't see Jade's but it should be there. I also mentioned the mid-riff, but anyway the point isn't to microanalyse the bits of skin, just to show that there's a difference between sexy and attractive characters and grotesque objectified ones.Uh, no. Missing the point.
That's not remotely what I said (in fact I posted examples of characters with exposed skin that look cute and interesting), but nice try.
Er.... Because she's a playable character in a musou?
Good question. She shouldn't have a boob window or a boob plate either. It's not really about realism, though. But I'm sure you know that.
And that designer is bad. It happens, unfortunately.
And I'm kind of hoping there's a weird subplot about her picking out this super tryhard outfit because she thinks it's what all guys want when it just comes off as really tacky because YO THAT SHIT IS TACKY!
By getting it wrong, I don't mean that the outfit is too sexy, LOOK AT WHAT SHE'S WEARING! fucking...weird jean chaps over a cut off tankini with rhinest-WHO DESIGNED THIS?!?!
It is comically terrible.
Hyung-Tae Kim focuses on boob windows a lot but his designs are excellent. Oh Great! does really good work too though he gets...kinda....rapey...really quickly.
And I'm kind of hoping there's a weird subplot about her picking out this super tryhard outfit because she thinks it's what all guys when when it just comes off as really tacky because YO THAT SHIT IS TACKY!
By getting it wrong, I don't mean that the outfit is too sexy, LOOK AT WHAT SHE'S WEARING! fucking...weird jean chaps over a cut off tankini with rhinest-WHO DESIGNED THIS?!?!
It is comically terrible.
Hyung-Tae Kim focuses on boob windows a lot but his designs are excellent. Oh Great! does really good work too though he gets...kinda....rapey...really quickly.
Are the all-caps "punchlines" meant to distract from how you contradict yourself?
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
And I'm kind of hoping there's a weird subplot about her picking out this super tryhard outfit because she thinks it's what all guys when when it just comes off as really tacky because YO THAT SHIT IS TACKY!
That's just you and some other people not liking it. A lot of other people (such as the designer) do like it.
I find it odd that contextualizing anything in a video game is seen as particularly relevant or important.
It seems to me that plot really doesn't function that way in this medium. Typically it's very clear that games themselves are borne of a jumble of non-narrative ideas (gameplay concepts, genre expectations, various fantasies thrown in on every level, excuses for new tech) and then, retroactively, narratives are bolted on to try and bring a sense of consistency or clarity to the player.
But the narrative rarely has much to do with the origin of any game's various elements, nor do I see why it should. I'd say that it's much more honest in this medium of digital entertainment and fantasy to simply make the game you want with all its various tropes and ideas thrown in, and not bother trying to justify anything with an added story. It typically does little to effect anything positive or negative on any level, it just floats on top as an afterthought.
It seems to me that plot really doesn't function that way in this medium. Typically it's very clear that games themselves are borne of a jumble of non-narrative ideas (gameplay concepts, genre expectations, various fantasies thrown in on every level, excuses for new tech) and then, retroactively, narratives are bolted on to try and bring a sense of consistency or clarity to the player.
But the narrative rarely has much to do with the origin of any game's various elements, nor do I see why it should. I'd say that it's much more honest in this medium of digital entertainment and fantasy to simply make the game you want with all its various tropes and ideas thrown in, and not bother trying to justify anything with an added story. It typically does little to effect anything positive or negative on any level, it just floats on top as an afterthought.
I am using color to exaggerate my point, i'm not actually angry.
I mean not liking one artists design and wish another designer who also does a lot of fanservicy work isn't a contradiction, nor is calling out a genuinely poor design. I posted the Blue Mary picture to illustrate how while MI did some things right with some character designs, that game also has some hilariously terrible ones.
Well hey, everything's subjective except death and taxes.
I think you're right for most projects, but I think that method also significantly hurts those issues. Games that don't treat things like overarching fashion or language or history as nebulous things usually feel more cohesive in the end. I'm not saying every game has to create a strict universe that they can't deviate from but it helps if the connections to thing a and thing b make sense. It helps make the whole project feel more alive.
I'm not sure why you are trying to go this route... The point of the background of the character, combined with her attire is sexualization of the woman. It's very prevalent in video games. The reason why so many video games are sexually driven, imo, with the women is pretty much the same reason romance novels written by women(both M/F and M/M, seriously go to goodreads and look these things up), people like to objectify their desires. Men are stimulated more easily by visual them women on average, and to a stronger degree, so games mostly designed for men by men focus on the phsyical sexuality and less on the mental. If you think people create these visual representation simply to have different character motivations, I think you are kidding yourself. Many "core" video games are pretty much mens romance novels, imo, and I think it's clear as day.
There is nothing inherently wrong with it if your morals are fine with sexualization of people. Individual objectification, on its own, is fine; we do it all the time in life, the problem becomes when it harms a potential market(other groups who want to get into said market), it is the exclusion of another part of the potential market, and also for those who find the sexualization to be something that gets in the way of narrative or that they personally just dont like it.
Your desire to defend motives is silly. Objectifying for the purpose of sex doesn't inherently need a defense(Men do it all the time in the gay community and most are fine with it, women do it in their romance novels, and guys do it in their video games). The problem arises when it becomes all together consistent in games, because it turns people off who are not into "romance novels" so to speak.
Games are not that bad(as a whole, imo, as I can find a lot of games with no or very little sexual objectification). However, there are enough games out there that have it, where it can get annoying.
You are so adamant about this "tacky dress" but you point to an artist that specializes in skirts shorter than the thongs under them on women with breasts that look like human growth hormone experiments.
Feel free to respond with misdirection like the "death and taxes" quote
Or prohibitive.
I suppose that's the thing I want the least. I love video games, I don't really mind if they have a little cheesecake here and there, fan service isn't inherently bad, but I don't want women to feel excluded because of how they're depicted.
But I'm a guy and I have the privilege of not really being bothered by some of the more egregious stuff (I'm more sensitive to poor designs rather than "sexist" designs). So I don't know.
Or you could look at some of his designs of women that are fully clothed in traditional outfits. Or you could look at his male designs.
Or you could continue focusing on his fanservice designs. Whatever makes you happy. His designs, cheesecake or no, are better than Cia's.
SoldnerKei
Member
I love when people thinks they know how design process work
Again, the argument against Cia's attire seems to be, "I don't like it therefore its discredited." The fact of the matter is that it is in her character to sexualize herself, to objectify herself. You can say that the developers just did that so they can sell more copies of the game, very possible, but the fact of the matter is that she does have character motivation to dress the way that she does and to try and toss that aside just because you feel as if it fits into your agenda makes you seem a wee bit stubborn.
Again, I'll admit that I like fanservice and again, I'll admit that there are times in games when it's just there even though it doesn't make much character sense. In the case of Hyrule Warriors, it's there and it does make sense. You don't have to like it, that's fine, but to say that Cia has no character or that she is the way she is solely because the developers wanted to prance boobs around is silly. I mean, if they wanted to prance boobs around, they wouldn't even have to give her a motivation to do that as plenty of female characters in games do that with no motivation.
EDIT: And you say that it's a problem when "sexualization... gets in the way of the narrative", but in this case, sexualization is an integral part of the narrative.
It's like you have both sides of the debate at hand fighting inside your own head
That line of thought makes me think that somehow, someway that the item in question is causing someone to be insecure about themselves for whatever reason. While visualization and narration of things aren't needed or even required for a good game, if something exists in real life also exists in a game, why would that automatically invalidate it and threaten someone to the point of making it unapproachable?
Uninterested I could understand and relate to for any number of reasons, but unaproachable? That just seems a bit extreme and would suggest other problems existing that have nothing to do with a game.
All of this is distinction without a difference, imo. It's like saying female authors, who write about tentacle rape of men(who learn to love it) in m/m novels are fine in doing it, because there is a clear motivation behind it... it doesnt matter what the motivation is, at the end of it all you wanted to write a romance novel about Stockholm tentacle rape. These people are creating these motivations to have a sexualized desire objectified. You are being strangly obtuse if you dont think this is the case.
Nobody is forcing them to write the woman in this way and nothing of true value would be lost if they didnt do it. That isnt to say that cant or they shouldnt objectify their sexual desires in video games, but it doesn't make it something more then what it is. The character can have all the motivations in the world to want to show her assets, and thats fine, but trying to make it into the idea that they weren't written that way, because of a certain enjoyment from sexual gratification, I find to just be a bizarre form of denial.
Nothing inherently wrong with wanting sexual gratification, but the game industry, imo, does it in a fashion where it comes across as disingenuous(as in pretending they dont mean to do it or "I isnt about us liking sexy things"). If you want to sexify your game, that is fine, honestly. However if people who like a certain genre are getting sick of or annoyed with the constant eye candy, it isnt really much of a big deal for people to voice their concerns and imo is helpful, cause the game industry from a narrative perspective, imo, has a long way to go and minimizing distractions, to me, would help.
I'm not one who personally has issue with sexual objectification in general, maybe it's cause I swing both ways, I dunno, however I find video games(And most literature if I'm being honest) sexualization to normally be more silly and dumb more so then attractive or offensive.
Metroid-Squadron
Banned
It all goes back to the idea that sexualization is bad. It isn't.
No, but its implementation is important, imo. If it becomes a constant vertain type of sexualization(of the fanservice type) I do think it negatively effects games, and I think there are enough games out there where you could point to that being the case. I think the game industry does a bad just at having sexualization in good taste or that isnt just straight up eye rolling.
So my beliefs are a bizarre form of denial, but yours are not? I mean, you do know that the game has yet to be released yet, right? Right now, I'm going off of what we know: Cia wants to seduce Link to obtain power, therefore it makes sense that she dresses very sexually. You are instead saying, "It doesn't matter because the developers just wanted walking boobs." We don't know that. You're acting as if I'm being ignorant for thinking that it's possible that they thought she would be an interesting character rather than that the developers thought they needed tits in everyone's face.
I don't see why both sides aren't possible until we're more facts get out, you know?
I wish taxes had fan service.
I can respect wanting something other then what a favorite designer/creator creates, but is anger at the developer and the designs really the answer?
(it also feels strange to presume negative traits of the developer based on their art, is that crazy of me?)
Diablohead
Member
The fanservice I hate is when it changes a design to be non functional, aka MMORPG female armor most of the time.
Your oversimplifying what I said. A plot doesnt happen on its own, everything has intentions, wanting to add sexual attraction/ect is a choice to want sex in your game, regardless of the motivations you give the game. Game of Thrones(Song of Ice and Fire) has a lot of sex in it, yes it advances the plot, but the story did not need it, he wanted it in the story(again this in and of itself is not bad).
The way you are saying it, it's like you are saying there is no way to write the story without sexual objectives(that isnt to say it shouldnt be in it). If the story is done well and the sexualization isnt eye rolling or offensive to the point of ruining the story that's fine. But I take issue with your idea that the sexualization of a character isnt premeditated.
Crash Station
Member
There's probably some really fan-servicy political cartoons out there that involve taxes.
So what you're saying is that sexualization comes before the character, rather than the character coming before sexualization, am I right?
I take issue with the fact that you can't believe that both are possible. Who's to say that they didn't have the idea of a woman corrupted by evil who wished to obtain Link and they then thought about how to design this character and realized that it'd be best to make her incredibly sexualized as that would make sense for her character?
- Status