Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown
- Thread starter dmr87
- Start date
spandexmonkey
Banned
I used uncomfortable to be consistent with what Bethany was saying (she used words like "discomfort" and "unwelcome"). If you don't enjoy this kind of sexuality, why are you interested in Dragon's Crown?
Sounds like you're projecting here. Who are you to decide what amount of sexual content is good for me? I personally feel that here in the US we don't have nearly enough exposure to sexuality, especially the kind that caters to heterosexual women's desires. How do we reconcile these differences in tastes?
I'm sorry, are you saying that equality isn't enough or that women shouldn't be pandered to? Again, seems like you're just not a fan of this kind of expression of sexuality, which is cool, but some of us are.
Not just on Twitter either, this has been a huge fiasco since April when he wrote the Kotaku piece. Definitely not isolated to just the Polygon review.
Kamitani is the president of Vanillaware (and founder). I'd say he's doing whatever he wants. In your opinion would DC have sold more or less if it didn't feature hyper-exaggerated proportions and crazy poses?
Err...because despite all the talk, Dragon's Crown is not a game about sex
I think Technomancer was talking about the lack of variety of sexuality, not the amount of it. However, trying to "balance it" by appealing to other tastes too doesn't really solve the issue that sexualized pandering is usually pretty dull and cheesed, as far as art and content goes (regardless of who its pandering to).
spandexmonkey
Banned
It does present it's type of sexuality as one of it's major features. It's kind of, in your face about it.
If pandering is an issue to you, don't indulge in it? I personally enjoy it, my wife likes it too, she just wants more for her. Are we part of a problem?
Edit: In regards to the Polygon review. DC isn't for everyone, so I felt her review was fair as it spoke to her, and I assume her audience's, tastes. She chose to use some incendiary language, so some of the backlash seems fair.
It's a D&D-style beat'em up game. It's not quite relevant to sexuality at all, other than them making some of the characters sexualized.
I'm...not? I don't even really care. But I roll my eyes at how game devs (especially Japanese ones) seem to not have anything else to say when it comes to female characters, or anyone else in mind except young males. As for your wife wanting more pandering for her in videogames...lol...she should post in these threads!
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Its not really sexual "content" though. Its just sexual imagery. Its just sexual imagery being used as a sales tool. Using sexual imagery without meaningful context as a sales tool is kind of what I'm talking about by sexual objectification.
Have you even played the game? With all the chaos going on in battles, it's pretty hard to see what's going on with your character, let alone whether it has boobs or not.
And how have you come to judge that the imagery has no context and is just a marketing tool?
What do you think the vast majority of artists out there are doing? Just making "art" for shits and giggles? I don't know many of them who make art not to sell it.
spandexmonkey
Banned
Seems on par for classic fantasy like Red Sonja or Conan.
I'll ask.
Doesn't really change it from a discussion on taste. I like sexual imagery with my fantasy, you clearly don't. I like the Hyborian Age more than Middle Earth.
Have you? Morgan's magic shop, lovable Tiki, and the assorted NPCs.
Weltall Zero
Member
I think the problem is simpler than that. Unfortunately, we live in a patriarchal, male-dominated society; therefore "being a man" (or "masculine") is assumed to be a positive trait, while "being a woman" (or "feminine") is considered, at best, a neutral trait, and at worst a negative one (when applied to men). In a way this in turn invokes what you mention about men having to "earn" it (since it's a "positive" trait), although there's obviously a lot of evolutionary baggage as well (alpha males, pecking order and all that).
Like I said, this is MASSIVELY oversimplified, but basically: yeah. There's a lot of stuff out there to hurt men's self-esteem, too, but there's also a way for them to "earn" their way out of being whatever negative thing they're told they are. Whereas for us women, there's no way to "earn" our way out of it. And just so we're clear: I am one billion percent absolutely NOT suggesting in any way, shape or form that this isn't incredibly damaging to men and boys or that this damage is somehow less important or anything at all like that. Again, lots more that could be said about this from a lot of different perspectives, but I'm trying to avoid turning this comment into a novel
I think it's much more damaging to boys than men, as we have much less coping mechanisms (not to mention of the maturity to realize "this is fucking silly") when we're young. It also varies by culture so I'm ready to accept that US culture glorifies masculinity (even) more than mine does.
I think we're talking about two different sources of lack of self-esteem. Fake edit: Actually, three, I just realized, as the first can be split in two in turn. The three are:
1) "I'm 'lacking' compared to society's ideals of women"
2) "I'm 'lacking' compared to other specific women" (fictitious or real), and:
3) "I'm 'inferior' compared to men" (typically, 'powerless').
The first has to do with the first paragraph in this response (society's expectations of women and falling short), while the third is what (I think) you're referring to in this later paragraph. I was actually addressing the second one mostly, i.e. the feeling of inadequacy when comparing oneself with other women. To further muddle things up, sexist portrayals can hit on several or ALL THREE of these at once, depending on the case and the person.
I was interpreting your statement of stuff like Dragon's Crown art as hurting self-esteem, as being a direct application of point two, i.e. "I'm comparing myself to the sorceress and feel inadequate". That sounds, well, highly unlikely to me (the Sorc is a barely humanoid unwoman that is, to me at least, unattractive to begin with), but perhaps you were referring to one of the other two (which I also see as affecting, i.e. "this is what society wants women to be; a huge pair of gazongas"). If this is (as most likely is) the case, it's just an interpretation error on my part.
Again, my mistake, I think I interpreted it all wrong.
I'm actually somewhat unconfortable with Dragon's Crown designs (mostly because it's the first thing that jumps out at people I show the game to), and words cannot describe how hyped I am for the game. No, seriously, my GF emails me at work daily to tell me "it's not arrived yet, sorry". If it doesn't arrive in the mail in the next few days, I might break down, buy a digital copy somehow, and give the phyisical one away when it arrives. I've been waiting for this for more than two years. Do you have an idea what a Kamitani-drawn unofficial sequel-remake of Mystara means to me?
Oh, and I'm by no means saying that the game shouldn't be this way or that Kamitani should self-censor. I want the game to be exactly what he envisioned. Hell, if you've read the recent interview with him, and how he was toiling, leasing money, living on bread ends before VanillaWare "sort of" got enough steam, and how this game has been his life's project for almost two decades, it's hard not to root for him with all your strength. I can't say how glad I am that it seems to be selling well.
He said "objectification", not "sex" or "sexuality". Two very different things. He even specifically said that sex and sexuality are OK!
What is the context in La Maja Desnuda?
I realize that I might seem like I have multiple personality disorder when I confront people from both camps; this ties into my affirmation that the issue is gray, and I've not yet decided which particular shade, so I welcome the discussion. Just try not to polarize your views, people, it never leads anywhere interesting.
It's worth noting that strongly positive video game reviews are very rarely criticized, outside of those that go absurdly beyond reason ("Oscar worthy dialogue, etc.)
This suggests that people criticizing reviews are engaged in highly motivated reasoning: they aren't criticizing the critics through the lens of objective, reasonable analysis, but through the lens of someone with a predetermined conclusion (i.e. the game in question is awesome and anyone who questions that is wrong), and attacking only negative arguments and not positive ones. The positive arguments may be unreasonable and rife with factual error, but nobody cares because those critics reached the "correct" conclusion anyway.
This doesn't mean that all the criticisms of negative reviews are wrong, but it does explain why there is such significant pressure on critics to produce scores of 8.0 or higher. Some of the pressure comes from publishers, but another significant portion of the pressure comes directly from consumers who react aggressively to the notion that a game they like is considered bad.
This suggests that people criticizing reviews are engaged in highly motivated reasoning: they aren't criticizing the critics through the lens of objective, reasonable analysis, but through the lens of someone with a predetermined conclusion (i.e. the game in question is awesome and anyone who questions that is wrong), and attacking only negative arguments and not positive ones. The positive arguments may be unreasonable and rife with factual error, but nobody cares because those critics reached the "correct" conclusion anyway.
This doesn't mean that all the criticisms of negative reviews are wrong, but it does explain why there is such significant pressure on critics to produce scores of 8.0 or higher. Some of the pressure comes from publishers, but another significant portion of the pressure comes directly from consumers who react aggressively to the notion that a game they like is considered bad.
Nymphae
Banned
What if some artists actually like drawing women?
What if they aren't all cynically trying to "use" sexualization of women to target men, but rather they have an artistic vision that includes sexualized women?
Bruce Timm draws highly sexualized, anatomically impossible comic book women. I love his art. But there is plenty of comic book style art I dislike too. The difference has nothing to do with "fairness", nothing to do with sexuality being "wrong". It only has to do with the art itself. It's good.
It seems like you are trying to talk about the art while ignoring the art. That doesn't work. Whether you like it, whether you think it has a spark of creativity, whether it is interesting to look at, all of these things matter.
Artwork depicting sexualized women is not inherently wrong at all, nor is it even necessarily symptomatic of "using" sexualization. It could be the artist drawing what they want.
Of course, it is all subjective. I find Dragon's Crown art to be enjoyable (and too exaggerated to be "sexy" in the normal sense), to have a spark of creativity, and most likely to be the artistic vision of someone who has his own company and made the game he wanted. Someone else can find it gross, and write their review accordingly. I have no problem with that.
I thought this was a great post. I feel similarly, I love the art in the game and I find myself wondering why I'm apparently not supposed to enjoy it, or why I'm immature for liking art like this.
RoninChaos
Member
When did I ignore the examples given? Further, did you read what sparked my initial question? People were acting like the only reason Dragon's Crown was getting shit was because it was made by a poor picked on Japanese developer, which is total horse shit.
Can you clarify what you mean by "disproportionate"? I don't mean to accuse you of anything, but, to be fair, this borders kind of close to "okay, ladies, you're allowed to voice your opinions, but only this often." I mean, I know you aren't saying that, but there's a lot kind of implicitly tied up in this notion of "disproportionate," don't you think?
Well, wait a minute though. My use of terms like "discomfort" and "unwelcome" was getting at two things: 1) I was trying to expand on the portions of the polygon review I found compelling (I thought it was totally legitimate for her to say she found the exaggerated style of the female protagonists "alienating," for instance, while I was less impressed with the "teenage boy fantasy" language she used) and 2) I was trying to connect these things to a broader dialogue about women and games. I'm sure you're aware of sort of this ongoing meme-type "discussion" some are having about how women who game don't "really" game, women aren't "real" gamers, women only pretend to be gamers for attention, "fake geek girl," etc., etc., etc. Or, like, every time someone mentions the ESA statistics about "who is a gamer," people immediately attack it because it includes mobile gaming, which isn't "real" gaming, and therefore women can't call themselves "real" gamers and shouldn't express, you know, so many dang opinions about games and whatnot.
There's just a lot of toxicity in this space, unfortunately, and all of this, along with game after game after game after game catering exclusively to a very specific subtype of male heterosexual desires (let's be clear: not all heterosexual men are drawn to these types of depictions and these types of games, and it's okay both to be drawn to it and NOT be drawn to it), it all does kind of tend to coalesce into a big neon "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" sign -- or at least it often feels that way to a lot of women who love games. And it's deeply frustrating on multiple levels.
"Discomfort" isn't about "enjoying" a particular type of sexualization. It's about a lot more than that. Indeed, I'm fairly sure that a lot of women who find themselves put off by the animations in this game feel that way for reasons having *absolutely nothing* to do with "sexuality."
This is also a great point.
Hahahahahaha -- yeah, simple! ;-)
I actually don't like using the term "patriarchal" anymore... I find that it tends to put a lot of people on the defensive and I've just gotten tired of trying to explain what I mean. And it's not so much that "men" dominate society (it's true in some ways and not in others) and more that oppressive gender roles dominate society. The specific ways those oppressive gender roles harm people are often easier to see when it comes to women, but they really do harm all of us.
I do agree, though, that one of the ways this expresses itself is, as you note, that masculinity is seen as an unmitigated good thing (speaking in broad cultural terms, not talking about niche philosophies), while femininity is seen as more of a mixed bag. This is one way that it's much easier to see how harmful this is for women, because we're pretty much told more or less that our gender is inherently less useful and valuable than men's. But, again, this doesn't mean that there aren't some pretty perniciously awful things that this does to men, too.
Yes and no -- and you probably have a fair point about the US as compared to European cultures, at least. Men have more coping mechanisms than boys, yes, but I'd wager that many of those coping mechanisms are psychologically unhealthy (as are women's coping mechanisms, to be clear). So while the coping mechanisms spare pain in the short- and medium-term, they very well may be compounding damage as they go along, AND the more you utilize a coping mechanism, the more literally hard-coded it becomes in your brain.
Our four weap-- no, amongst our weaponry are such elements as --
(Sorry, couldn't resist) ;-)
Cool! Yeah, I think you're pretty much hitting on what I was trying to get at, and very thoughtful insights there. Basically, yeah, in some ways it sometimes feels like #2, and that's an easy one to talk about because it's something that's pretty well understood as something that happens in society as a result of a lot of similar types of things in media. But in my view, the really interesting one is #3. This is the whole thing where you get into tropes like "The Chick" and the Bechdel test and other things like that. Basically this idea that there's like these one or two acceptable identities for women, and if you're anything else, then you're not a "woman" but just a "person," as though these are two totally distinct categories. Because XYZ are the things that "women" are good for, and why would you have a character be a woman if she's not being, you know, womany? As though the fact of being female needs to be justified by something specifically feminine that the woman contributes, or else you'll revert the character back to the default of male. In other words, a female character has to justify her existence in a way a male character doesn't, and this strikes me as saying something really horrifically awful about how society views women. And there's a lot of other stuff tied up into this and different ways it gets expressed, but basically, yeah. That's the basic gist of what I was trying to get at. Like, "even if a woman is this amazing incredible powerful warrior, she's *still* not worth thinking about or talking about or featuring in a narrative unless she's also 'beautiful' and/or feminine."
It doesn't even matter to me personally whether or not people think I'm beautiful (some do; others don't. Whatevs) -- but I hate that my being beautiful is kind of like this implicitly necessary part of my being a woman (and since being a woman is kind of a fundamental aspect of my humanity, it's a necessary part of my existing for all intents and purposes). Btw, I think something like this is subconsciously at work when indisputably gorgeous women have self-esteem problems. They will never be gorgeous enough for people to respect their fundamental humanity separate and apart from their looks/femininity.
spandexmonkey
Banned
So addressing this neon sign should we exclude or limit the certain types of games that are clearly designed for the heterosexual male or include more games that are clearly designed for the heterosexual women or both?
Dragon's Crown isn't about sex, but it's type of sexuality is clearly displayed and featured. Do you want to be included in that?
If not, there are alternative action RPGs that are more neutral in it's character portrayals, say Torchlight 2.
If so, how would you like your action RPG with extravagant sex on display designed?
Also what about games that don't feature sexuality in their art styles but are exclusive to men? Call of Duty, Battlefield, Assassin's Creed, etc. Those would seem to be far less inclusive of women than Dragon's Crown, and better targets in my opinion. I think asking for the inclusion of female options in those games wouldn't be unreasonable and wouldn't be excluding features that men enjoy.
Are they obligated to?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Are there any women who play and enjoy the game who also enjoy the art, not seeing it as sexist? I'd be interested in hearing their position, as long as it's something more insightful than "It's just a game." Also what they think about most of the attention being focused on the Sorceress and not as much on the Amazon, and what that says about what people find sexy.
As for the review itself, the only issue I had was the side-eye thrown at potential buyers by the reviewer's bolded statements.
As for the review itself, the only issue I had was the side-eye thrown at potential buyers by the reviewer's bolded statements.
Fornaximus
Member
He's right that people definitely shouldn't obsess over these things, but I don't see an issue with people calling out bad reviews as long as it doesn't fester to the point of becoming the face of the damn game. I think the reviewer at Polygon was merely invoking her inner salty feminist, but that's her choice. Usually my disgust at reviews is more about bad games getting perfect scores than good games not getting all 9's and 10's. I think the former happens more often than the latter.
meltingparappa
Member
Can you elaborate a little further with examples, including ones to the contrary? I think I simply don't understand what you're saying but am curious.
I'm confused by your question. I never suggested limiting or excluding anything.
I'm not sure what you mean by this either. I want to feel like I'm a welcome member of the gaming community. It's a much more complicated issue than whether or not any particular game "must" be designed to appeal to me. My only horse in this race is my opinion that nothing should be off-limits for a grown-up discussion that doesn't devolve into hurling insults or invectives, and that doesn't involve shaming or silencing by any side of the issue.
Targets of what? I'm not clear what you're getting at here, and there are lots of discussions about lots of games. Surely you're aware of the ongoing discussion within the community about the general desire many have for more female protagonists generally.
Your comments suggest that you're confusing my points with things you've heard others say.
In your opinion, how can that be accomplished?
Zoe
Member
I don't see it as sexist. I enjoy powerful, sexually charged women. I'm not going to hold one creator responsible for an entire industry.
I don't find excessive muscles to be sexy, so it doesn't bother me that the Amazon gets less attention
I prefer the design of the elf more than the other two though (
zettai ryoiki
I am a woman and I play and enjoy Dragon's Crown. I don't find the art sexist or offensive at all. The art style is reminiscent of renaissance art and the game play is fun. The characters, both NPC and PC and both male and female, are over the top.
I think that people who use art as a scapegoat for society's ills are doing themselves a huge disservice. It's easier to attack art than it is to get to the root of the problem. The true problem, in my opinion, is the fact that women, at least in the U.S.A., are not given proper representation or power. We often suffer at the whims of our patriarchal society by being underrepresented in both government and in the workplace. We are at the mercy of politicians who think they need to keep us in line by taking control of our healthcare decisions because they do not believe women are capable of making decisions regarding our health or our future.
This is a great point, and not just because it gets us back to what this topic is supposed to be about.
I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even bother to read reviews until they find a score they disagree with. More and more, it seems people reviews less for discerning if a product is worth their time and more for reaffirming their own prejudgments. Hell, when this thread was started, DC hadn't even been released in the States yet, is still not released in the UK, and people were already convinced the reviewer got it "wrong." Of course, this is mostly due to the sexism talk -which, troublesome headers and talk of "adolescent fantasies" aside, only talks up about a paragraph or so of the review's content - distracting from the text in the rest of the review.
Enjoy what you want, but recognize that other people may not and will possibly find the things you enjoy objectionable on some level. It's just the way things are.
Honestly? Responses like yours right here are a great start. I won't pretend to know all the steps we need to take. Maybe it involves more games with female protagonists. Maybe it involves more women working in games development. Maybe it involves more interesting and non-stereotypical female NPCs. Maybe it involves highly-sexualized depictions of women becoming a smaller percentage of the game market through operation of greater diversity. Maybe it's some combination of any of these. Maybe it's something else entirely.
I guess what I think we need to do right now is just have these discussions in a way where people don't need to worry that simply bringing attention to other perspectives will get them labeled a "white knight" or "SJW" or "fake gamer" -- or a "misogynist" or "pervert" or "immature," etc., etc. And obviously none of us individually can stop anyone else from saying nasty things (nor should we try -- ethics of such an effort aside, I'm just having difficulty with the mechanics) -- but I think there are a lot of awesome, thoughtful gamers out there right now who just avoid the discussion altogether because of how loud and vicious certain elements can be. And I think the gaming community as a whole suffers greatly from this, so much so that I'd suggest it's an abdication of responsibility for someone who considers him or herself a member of the gaming community. If you think you're a member of the community, I think it's fair to say you should feel a little bit of responsibility for helping to contribute to that community's culture in a positive and helpful way. It's not going to change overnight, of course -- but it won't change at all if the good people in our community aren't doing enough to help it improve.
I think right now it involves trying to give other people the benefit of the doubt (on all sides), trying to understand what people are saying rather than disagreeing with it outright, and speaking up when people clearly cross a line through insulting or dismissive remarks. Oh! And remembering that people, like games and broad social trends, are gray rather than black or white. So someone who presents something in a rude or dismissive manner might be saying something worthwhile but doing it in a really alienating way (for instance, the polygon review's reference to "teenage boy fantasies," or a random internet commenter's angry and reactionary response because he feels personally attacked -- both of those are expressing valid viewpoints in unproductive ways) -- and it's up to the rest of us as a community, collectively, to remember to check in with our rational selves from time to time to make sure we're keeping the level of discourse high.
I dunno. Maybe this all reads as idealistic. But that's the sort of thing that would make me feel really welcome -- just having people who are willing to thoughtfully consider my perspective when I say, for instance, that I wish there were more AAA titles with female main characters, or that I wish there were more games that had female characters that weren't somehow remarkable just for being female.
I mean, people don't even have to agree with me! I just wish that, when I expressed things like this, I didn't so frequently get a response along the lines of "yeah, well, your demographic doesn't matter because there aren't enough of you here." Like, first, I think that's kind of a denial of how many women ARE in the gaming community, because there ARE a lot of us. There really are. And then, even if there weren't, how exactly is that going to happen when so many people make it clear that our presence will be tolerated at best? (Not to mention lots of other stuff that goes into this, like the fact that men and women are all individuals and when I express my opinion, I'm speaking neither for all women nor only for women).
I'm really sorry if that reads as a non-answer. I guess it just really boils down to respect. I'd like to see more basic respect in the gaming community, and I think that if the gaming community acted more respectfully overall, a direct and natural consequence of this would be less specifically-gendered toxicity -- in addition to lots of other beneficial things for both male and female gamers.
Karsticles
Member
Plenty of women feel this way. In past Dragon's Crown threads, several GAF female posters have defended the art as well. Baroness even cosplayed as the Sorceress.
My wife plays with me and loves the Sorceress.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I don't see it as sexist. I enjoy powerful, sexually charged women. I'm not going to hold one creator responsible for an entire industry.
I don't find excessive muscles to be sexy, so it doesn't bother me that the Amazon gets less attention).zettai ryoiki
Actually with the Amazon, I was referring more to the backfield emphasis, but yeah, the muscles could be added in there too. I'm using the Amazon now, but plan to level an Elf later.
絶対領域ね～
I also think the tendency to harshly denounce negative reviews is not just confirmation bias (i.e. people have already bought the game and have a vested interest in feeling like their purchase was a good one), but also what I'd call "event bias."
Most modern, AAA games are not just marketed as games; they are advertised as events, as the next big moment in gaming culture that you just can't afford to miss out on. Part of the excitement is the shared, communal party revolving around a big new release, and nothing breaks up a party faster than negative reviews.
From this perspective, game critics providing negative reviews may or may not be wrong -- but whether they are right or not, they're party poopers. It is that quality which is so particularly maligned, I think. The sense that this game that we have all been collectively anticipating for so long is actually not all that great is a notion most human brains will subconsciously fight against.
Most modern, AAA games are not just marketed as games; they are advertised as events, as the next big moment in gaming culture that you just can't afford to miss out on. Part of the excitement is the shared, communal party revolving around a big new release, and nothing breaks up a party faster than negative reviews.
From this perspective, game critics providing negative reviews may or may not be wrong -- but whether they are right or not, they're party poopers. It is that quality which is so particularly maligned, I think. The sense that this game that we have all been collectively anticipating for so long is actually not all that great is a notion most human brains will subconsciously fight against.
I think there should be a reminder that the reviewer never called it sexist. And saying you dislike the portrayal of women does not necessarily mean you think it's sexist or that people who like it are sexist.
And I still don't get how describing a game is somehow describing the fans. Again, we use "dumb fun" all the time but no one is saying only dumb people play those games.
When something is a "silly romp", are we saying only silly people like it? When something is "ferociously violent", are we saying only ferociously violent people like it?
People really need to stop taking critique of a game as a personal slight. They're talking about the game -- not you.
And I still don't get how describing a game is somehow describing the fans. Again, we use "dumb fun" all the time but no one is saying only dumb people play those games.
When something is a "silly romp", are we saying only silly people like it? When something is "ferociously violent", are we saying only ferociously violent people like it?
People really need to stop taking critique of a game as a personal slight. They're talking about the game -- not you.
SolidSnakex
Member
There isn't a negative feeling that comes from the different types of games that you're describing. But there is something very negative about describing something as a "teenaged-boy's dream" or "unapologetic adolescent fantasy".
"Ferociously violent" is significantly more negative description of a person than "adolescent" is, is it not?
I really really really do not see how saying a game is something means anyone who plays it is also that something.
Also, I would much rather be adolescent than dumb or ferociously violent.
The amount of vitriol on display. Well I guess to be fair, it comes mostly from the usual "journalists" who post mostly shit articles just to get them clicks, but still.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
This is the general consensus, I feel. I'm a grown man, playing this game along many friends, wives, and mothers. I think it's fairly obvious that the reviewer chose those words for the connotation they carry. I feel the review of the game itself is fairly accurate, but those last barbs were unnecessary. Of course, if the reviewer were to come out and say that they had no such intentions, then it would be all good.
SolidSnakex
Member
In gaming? No. Like I siad earlier, those comments from the reviewer read very much like Schreier's comments from Kotaku where he positioned Dragon's Crown's artwork as something that would mainly appeal to and be drawn by a young teen.
You can describe your personal dislike of the games artwork without taking indirect digs at the artist or people that may like that artwork.
DoA, MGS and others.
Yes, I know what you replied to. And your reply seemed to be that it's because "mainstream games" from big devs don't have as much sexualization as DC.
I mean it's right here:
Which is BS (I'm not sure what the artstyle has to do with anything here), and what I replied to originally (DoA, MGS) - a lot of people mentioned these games and others as well. But that didn't seem to be particularly noticed or it somehow "didn't count".
Yeah, um, sounds like Jim agress with you on that point.
He said over and over that it should be part of the discussion. Just as all reviews ought to be.
He only said that the one or two or three bad reviews out of five hundred shouldn't take up 90% of the discussion, as was kind of happening with the Polygon Dragon's Crown and Last of Us reviews.
Reminds me of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko1sklmOR9E
I guess this explains your position at DualShockers, a site whose employees are routinely seen making snide comments at low review scores all around the internet. If someone's review doesn't fall in line, you can bet a Dualshockers.com staffer will be right there to jump on someone's jock.
At least you're staying...consistent.
I disagree about what's more negative but that doesn't matter. People react differently to different things after all.
But I want to ask, with that mindset (that speaking negatively of a game is speaking negatively of the fans), does this then not mean that no review should ever use negative terminology to describe a game then? If we are to consider that all negative things said about a game we like are negative things said about us personally, then to not insult anyone, reviews should never make negative remarks ever?
timetokill
Banned
Yep, that and the fact that people identify so strongly with their purchases that an attack on something they like is an attack on them personally. This is well-known within marketing which is why brand management is so important and why companies so often seem to go "overboard" in protecting their brand.
SolidSnakex
Member
A reviewer can use whatever negative terminology they want in a review. But certain comments, like those that may be perceived as implying an age group that a product largely appeals to, could cause backlash. Haven't you seen the reaction that using the word "kiddy" to describe game usually receives? I remember Morgan Webb received alot of heat for saying that Mario Galaxy was kiddy.
Really? I find that incredibly silly.
People have said a lot of negative things about games I love (way more negative than something as silly as "this is for younger audience!") but I have never taken it as a personal slight.
But I guess it can't be helped if you feel how you feel. Thanks for trying to explain it.
Well, I'd think that maybe a better comparison would be "this game is a serial killer's fantasy," and while "serial killer," for whatever reason, probably sets off fewer dog whistles than "teenage boy," I could see people who loved the game taking umbrage at that description, and I don't know that they'd be totally off-base in doing so. The very clear implication is that you enjoy a game that was basically written for the mind of a serial killer. It's not a flattering association, certainly.
So I'd say that calling a game "sexist" is actually probably less overtly offensive than calling it a "teenage boy's fantasy." To say that you like sexist things is, frankly, to acknowledge that you consume and enjoy media in a sexist culture. I enjoy a lot of sexist stuff. I don't enjoy the fact that it's sexist, but it's not like some binary quality that automatically converts media into worthless trash. We live in a real world that, like most real things, falls utterly short of perfection. We can recognize this and work on improving it while still enjoying that world very much.
Heh, see, I've actually noticed more vitriol directed in response to the journos, who, yes, started by posting some insulting characterizations, which was not great -- but then the response has included much, much worse in terms of what I've seen.
A well thought out and agreeable post. Your last sentence is a great answer. Apologies for dismissing your attempts at engaging discussion earlier.
Weltall Zero
Member
I can't speak for others, but for me, it's that pointing out specific undeservedly positive reviews is an endeavour similar to counting sand grains in a beach. Those reviews are by far the norm, and there wouldn't be time to talk about anything else. Fortunately, there's lots of discussion about the issue at large.
While put that way it, indeed, is absurd, I can't help but thing that mr Schreirer would not so easily have called mr. Kamitani a 14 year teenage if he was a stabilished figure like, say, Hideo Kojima.
Mmmm, seems to me most of the unfortunate implications in Dragon's Crown, and its perceived sexism, stem for the overly sexualized female characters. At least it's the one thing that jumps at me most obviously. Do you feel there's more to criticise aside from it?
Both are actually quite related problems, as those male "enforced roles" are of control, domination and exertion of power.
[Snipping the parts of your post that I completely agree with and have nothing to add.
]Particularly appropriate, as 1) I'm Spanish, 2) I was mentioning the Spanish Inquisition earlier in relation to the Maja Desnuda and 3) Dragon's Crown (surprisingly enough!)
has a few explicit Monty Python references
I love the Bechdel test, it's such a simple and powerful tool. It's also depressing how so many works don't pass such a seemingly easy-to-pass test. I wonder if Mass Effect (more on that below) even passes it with a male Shephard, but with a female one, it becomes a drinking game.
I think this is one of the reasons I love female Shephard so much and couldn't imagine playing Mass Effect with a male one. I've even had a good friend, sadly, say that he heard she was "basically a male character converted into a female" (he used the term "shemale" to be precise). It's sad that it's so unimaginable to many people that a female character (one in the elite military!) can behave like femshep does. For me it was a very believable and my favorite Mass Effect character (quite an accomplishment in a series that includes such great characters).
Well, that and Jennifer Hale.
All agreed. A lot if not most other guys I know value women in terms of "hot or not". I've come to assume this is guys' attitude by default (in my country at least, which is quite chauvinistic), unless they've given a few things a lot of thought.
Aside from the replies to that effect latter in the thread, a fair number of women have cosplayed Dragon's Crown characters, much as they did Bayonetta. Which, incidentally, sparked a similar controversy, although apparently most women loved Bayonetta's design; this actually shocked me a bit at first, and prompted me to examine and reevaluate a few assumptions of mine.
Even though I understand what you mean by the bolded (and even agree with you), math-challenged people might take offense at its apparent meaning.
Perhaps wording it slightly differently would be more diplomatic?Holy crap, just perfect. That is definitely the start we need. Not just not calling each other this, but simply stop mentally labeling people as such because of their opinions.
[citizen_kane_clapping.gif]
Stunningly and soberingly to the point. Congratulations, excelent post.
I too feel that a lot (and I mean a lot) of potentially insightful discussion is often being lost from:
1) People that probably hasn't such a radicalized point of view, but retreats more and more into it out of a perceived necessity to "defend" it from people with similarly apparently radicalized points of view (if this sounds disturbingly like a vicious circle, there's a good reason!)
2) People with "gray" (or "in the middle") opinions that feel intimidated by the crossfire and feel (not without reason) that all they'll get by posting their opinions is bile from both sides and support from none.
All we get instead is a firefight from two entrenched positions that have no desire, intention or capacity to entertain a single argument from the opposing side, save for the means to dismiss it. The very definition of a sterile discussion.
All is not so bad, however, and I'm learning a lot from the viewpoints of women in GAF (from both camps and in between) about this issue, which is a lot of food for thought. I wish even more women didn't feel intimidated by point 2 and posted about this, because I feel their opinion is, for obvious reasons, more relevant for this issue than, say, mine.
There is a key difference however. The phrases "teenaged-boy's dream" and "unapologetic adolescent fantasy" are not applying the terms "teenaged-boy" or "adolescent" to the source material. Indeed, a game cannot be "teenaged-boy" or "adolescent"; it can only refer to human beings, i.e. the player. On the other hand, "a silly romp" or "a ferociously violent game" do assign the adjective "silly" and "violent" to the work itself. It would be very different if you had said "a violent psycho's dream game". See the difference?