Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown
- Thread starter dmr87
- Start date
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I don't know, the other piece referenced in this thread is , again, a fully clothed woman who people are saying is offensive just because she has her legs open.
I find it strange that the most evidence piece of fanservice is just accepted because they are enpowered women and then she goes all berserk with way more artistic approached artwork.
I'm not saying that there sexists and offensive bits in the game, I'm saying that there way more than that, it's a beautifully cradted art with inspiration from many classic and modern works, and is a strange thing to be extremely agressive with the game and it's audience, when it's in no way worst that many and many other games with zero artistic value.
Call of Duty is way more offensive than this game, God of War is way more offensive than this and I could keep going, but only Dragon's Crown got his score lowered because of being offensive. Is biased and hypocrite review.
Htown said:
30 seconds later a Barbarian is getting his nipples touched, but I guess that would undermine your point...
I'm not offended by the touching segments; I do however, think they are extremely weird, and they are off putting to me, not just the chained up women who is being touched, but also the muscle bound Barbarian and Goblin cook. I just don't really feel that these were needed in anyway to improve the game.
meltingparappa
Member
If there were no eccentricity in game design than Metal Gear Solid 3 wouldn't even exist.
Giolon
Member
They aren't really segments. The target of the cursor is supposed to be the A or B dialogue choice. Frankly, I think it far more amusing that they made the background characters respond instead of just doing nothing when being touched by the cursor. You're right - they aren't necessary. In fact, you don't even have to touch them! Just click the dialogue response and move on.
I think it's little whimsical details like this that make the entire package more interesting. And I'd still say that if they only had Barbarian touching.
and you don't see the difference between the way the woman reacts when she's touched and the way the barbarian reacts?
I mean if you think the stuff that's in there is cool, that's fine (I actually don't have a huge problem with it, it's just kinda weird), but let's not act like we're not seeing what we're seeing
TaroYamada
Member
Both react with sexually-implicative moans, the only difference is the woman shivers. I'm not seeing some grand sexist conspiracy, looks like the treatment is fairly even handed.
Giolon
Member
I see the same.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
Atlus's response (if you're interested)
Whoa, this is real? I applaud them heartily.
Karsticles
Member
But does the Orc get turned on as well? That's the real test of equality.
Watched the video, Jim is 100% right.
I personally have 0 problems with the game's artstyle (infact, i think it's brilliant), but stop bitching about one random person's opinion not being exactly like yours, it's idiotic.
It's the internet though, every little thing has to become major drama, i'm so tired of it.
I personally have 0 problems with the game's artstyle (infact, i think it's brilliant), but stop bitching about one random person's opinion not being exactly like yours, it's idiotic.
It's the internet though, every little thing has to become major drama, i'm so tired of it.
Video games have art and graphics, people have opinions about it.
polyh3dron
Banned
I never realized that the graphics in the Soul Edge/Calibur series were hand drawn.
In actual gameplay graphics, here's Sophitia's ending in the first Soul Edge/Blade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btEi5RYvJU0
That drawing comparison would have you think there was a progressive amount of sexualization in the series over time when it was just technology allowing for more detail. The sexualization was there from the beginning.
Correct! But if you base a game that well is meant to be played before even taking the sound, style/art and feel and outright disregard that because it is too Japanese other people will have opinions too! For me gameplay is king and any form of politics come second I usually expect that from a VIDEO GAME reviewer and why I respect only so few of them. Don't care about the score she gave it either but it will keep "those" kinds of people out and everybody wins.
That is the American way it seems.
He says in the video that is ok to discuss and critique the review/opinion itself, but that making it the center point of the game's dialogue and to stir a huge shit storm, is stupid.
At the end of the day it's just one opinion, people do get very worked up about stuff like this, and the Uncharted, Zelda and other notorious examples of this are plentiful.
So what he does in his reviews then?
polyh3dron
Banned
"Gameplay is king" doesn't subtract from the fact that videogames are multimedia and incorporate different disciplines and art forms in one product. If you are only concerned with game mechanics, there are plenty of other types of games you could play or comment on. Commenting specifically on videogames means taking all of the media forms in, not just one.
What reviews? You mean Jimquisitions? Well, he also acknowledges the irony of talking about this subject, giving i further attention, in the video.
He, however, doesn't directly tackle the Dragon's Crown issue specifically, he talks about it from the angle of people freaking out, using even other examples (Uncharted 3 etc) so it's really shedding light on a very different issue than the Polygon's review itself (i.e.: the fan's reaction to single, dissenting opinions even in a sea of general consensus).
That is why I said gameplay is king to me (for the most part) and it is all that matters. Different people, different opinions. If I were to nitpic over everything a game had to offer I'd be a guy that goes to movies to find holes in them WHILE I am watching them and telling people that I don't agree with all the camera angles and then make review out of it. Or how the main character's blue hair didn't cater to my insecurities as a brunette offended by all the glorious freedom said character has. So yes basically stupid shit. But yeah let's take it all as a whole. (opinions)
I meant his reviews over at Dtoid. Like Kid Icarus or Vanquished. Also his videos center about freaking out about things or overreacting so yeah plenty of irony there.
It's good you're not seeing a grand sexist conspiracy. Because there isn't one. Not even the writer suggested as much. She focused on the part that bothered her the most personally and nothing more. The only conspiracy insertion being done here is by you.
Just because something similar happens to a barbarian doesn't make it OK. Two wrongs don't make a right, despite what you may have been told by the ham-fisted internet trolls in discussions about sensitive issues related to gaming.
Both scenes are equally unpleasant. That one is being used to excuse the other shows you off as being one of our great hobby defenders who feels personally assailed by questioning the things they like.
You could always let someone have a different opinion on the matter and leave it be instead of trotting out false logic to try and make that opinion wrong.
Pretty much. Kinda like telling him his opinion is wrong? (which totally is because groping a picture is unexceptable regardless of the digital person's sex and therefore...BOOM HEADSHOT YOLO!
But this is exactly what some movie critics do, and it's fine. in fact, stuff like that in the early days of cinema is what pushed the medium forward.
So is any game reviewer out there allowed to critique the artwork and graphics in a game? Because the first post I responded to from you seemed to say "No"
Tell me where the failure in logic is exactly in saying that one wrong doesn't negate another and I will gladly retract.
But given that you skipped over that part of my statement entirely and made assumptions about my character as an individual means I shouldn't expect one. You haven't exactly demonstrated a willingness to engage in civil debate.
Giolon
Member
I don't agree with the premise that any of the poking is wrong. It is hypocritical though that the only thing being complained about is poking the woman. Though I applaud you for at least being consistent, while most seem to be sweeping the barbarian touching under the rug completely.
michaelius
Banned
It might be one review but it has repercussions like metacritic rating which affects some people buying decisions.
So i find it extremely unfair when good game has to suffer because it was reviewed by someone who should be working feministgamerbigot website.
Wha? I agreed with your comment but also his. Also what constitutes civil? How dare you make assumptions about me! Actually no that is your opinion and you can totally do that.
Yes. They can do anything they want! A review is a personal opinion after all! However we all have one of what constitutes a solid review and for me focusing on these things is a bit weak.
I'm sorry i'm not following you, what about those reviews?
Yeah, one vote against tens of others.
If you're so sensitive about metacritic that you're not gonna buy a game because it has ONE bad vote, you're either an idiot or you weren't going to buy that game anyway.
And feeling obligated to change your review/opinion just because you don' want to slightly lower someone's metacritic score is down right absurd.
The game doesn't suffer from ONE not so great review, the game suffers from butthurt people freaking out over it, making it the only story worth talking about, when it comes to the game.
Read em when you got time to kill. Also I agree with your second post.
Yes, because all reviewers must remain in lock-step with each other for the good of the medium, right? A differing opinion is an unwanted blight on our gaming culture! BURN THE WITCH!!
I mean, SERIOUSLY?! It's hard to figure out what folks in this thread are crusading against anymore.
People who aren't offended use arguments like freedom of expression, that games should be whatever the creator wants them to be (which I agree with) and free from ramifications (which is impossible)... and then I see shit like this where people argue against the same freedom of expression that everyone was all for a second ago... you'll forgive me for finding there to be a total lack of consistency in the debate being presented against this review.
Yeah, I'm out. But before I go...
When men are sexualized in 90% of the media and men become a semi-marginalized portion of the society, then yes, I'm sure tons of men would stand up and have a huge fucking problem with this.
But that's not the society we live in. And people will find certain things more immediately distasteful than others because of the culture we're surrounded in. It does not make other things not equally distasteful, just not as immediately concerning to them. As someone who finds it ridiculous that inclusions of gay characters have in the past automatically warranted an M rating by the ESRB, it's hard to argue that culture doesn't effect what offensive things draw our attention first or what we deem offensive at all, for that matter.
People different from you enjoy videogames and have opinions, as well. It wouldn't be a "meta score" if you are excluding opinions that you don't agree with.
By all means criticise the review, but can we at least lose the justification of 'but casual readers of Polygon might come away with the idea it's a bad game!'
I'd imagine people who
A) are possibly interested in niche Japanese brawlers with distinctive art styles and
B) are disinterested enough to read one, and only one, US-based site for their computer games news, rather than ones that cover such games with more regularity, and
C) are regularly put off by a single mainstream critic of the art styles of their niche tastes in computer games
Are a very, very small minority.
Why not just be honest and say you didn't like the review laying into the art style, rather than trying to claim some moral stance of stopping some imaginary people who aren't as informed as you from being conned? It doesn't say much about your opinion of Polygon readers to infantilise them in such a manner, forumites often assume everyone who doesn't spend hours discussing things online is an idiot, but it's simply not true. People that read online reviews, on reading a middling review of something that looks interesting, know that a second opinion is two clicks away, it's not like those who only take their book reviews from a particular print publication.
An awful lot of Japanese games end up with a wide array of scores in western media, not just because of sexualisation, but for all kinds of issues, if we kicked off every time a JRPG took a shoeing from a single critic, it would never end. One outlying 'average' review in a sea of praise is nothing, if anything it's a good thing, it shows that the whole shebang of games journalism isn't just a hype train. If GAF was entirely made up of consenting opinion rather than a few, er, 'interesting' takes on things, we'd have much less to discuss.
I also don't think reviewers have any responsibility to help the sales of niche games beyond making readers aware of their existence. Just by featuring it they do enough, as it makes their readers aware of them, and such readers can then go off and look up more info. However, beyond that I'd rather they were on the side of their readers and published what they believed to be their considered opinion, otherwise what's the point, there needs to be a divide between editorial and marketing. Considering that a wide array of opinion is available for free and opinions that are far outside of popular understanding are usually flagged up as such and discussed online, I really don't see a problem with that. So a female reviewer didn't like the art. So what. It doesn't make her opinion invalid, it just means she didn't agree with some other journos. They aren't a monolithic block and the press would be in an even worse state if they were.
Finally, seeing as it isn't even out yet, I'm not really sure how the other complaints of repetitive grinding can really be criticised yet either. How people manage to whip themselves up into a frenzy of thinking the opinions regarding gameplay of people who have actually played a game are invalid based on them looking at trailers and art released by the marketing department is beyond me.
I'd imagine people who
A) are possibly interested in niche Japanese brawlers with distinctive art styles and
B) are disinterested enough to read one, and only one, US-based site for their computer games news, rather than ones that cover such games with more regularity, and
C) are regularly put off by a single mainstream critic of the art styles of their niche tastes in computer games
Are a very, very small minority.
Why not just be honest and say you didn't like the review laying into the art style, rather than trying to claim some moral stance of stopping some imaginary people who aren't as informed as you from being conned? It doesn't say much about your opinion of Polygon readers to infantilise them in such a manner, forumites often assume everyone who doesn't spend hours discussing things online is an idiot, but it's simply not true. People that read online reviews, on reading a middling review of something that looks interesting, know that a second opinion is two clicks away, it's not like those who only take their book reviews from a particular print publication.
An awful lot of Japanese games end up with a wide array of scores in western media, not just because of sexualisation, but for all kinds of issues, if we kicked off every time a JRPG took a shoeing from a single critic, it would never end. One outlying 'average' review in a sea of praise is nothing, if anything it's a good thing, it shows that the whole shebang of games journalism isn't just a hype train. If GAF was entirely made up of consenting opinion rather than a few, er, 'interesting' takes on things, we'd have much less to discuss.
I also don't think reviewers have any responsibility to help the sales of niche games beyond making readers aware of their existence. Just by featuring it they do enough, as it makes their readers aware of them, and such readers can then go off and look up more info. However, beyond that I'd rather they were on the side of their readers and published what they believed to be their considered opinion, otherwise what's the point, there needs to be a divide between editorial and marketing. Considering that a wide array of opinion is available for free and opinions that are far outside of popular understanding are usually flagged up as such and discussed online, I really don't see a problem with that. So a female reviewer didn't like the art. So what. It doesn't make her opinion invalid, it just means she didn't agree with some other journos. They aren't a monolithic block and the press would be in an even worse state if they were.
Finally, seeing as it isn't even out yet, I'm not really sure how the other complaints of repetitive grinding can really be criticised yet either. How people manage to whip themselves up into a frenzy of thinking the opinions regarding gameplay of people who have actually played a game are invalid based on them looking at trailers and art released by the marketing department is beyond me.
but you don't have to do it.
It isn't stupid shit.
Video games are appealing because of their visual presentation as well as their gameplay.
When a game is expertly crafted in its art and graphics direction as a casual observer the game looks fun as the visuals intuitively inform you on gameplay.
Dragon's Crown is just another beat em up game but it immediately became a must buy for me when I saw the Gametrailers review and just how amazing the art direction was pulling me into a fantasy world that is unlike anything I've seen in other fantasy worlds.
This game is a clear of something that can be praised and hated on its art direction because it is a big factor on how you will enjoy it.
Wait. You don't think the part about a woman being depicted spread eagle wouldn't be a reason for people to get emotional?
SolidSnakex
Member
Here's a blog posted by Erin Fitzgerald, the voice actress for the Sorceress
http://erinfitzvo.com/are-bosoms-in-video-games-offending-you/
http://erinfitzvo.com/are-bosoms-in-video-games-offending-you/
Now see don't you get it, it's clear this woman doesn't know what she's talking about. Were going to need more men to speak on her be half and for all women to determine whether or not this is sexist. And the audacity of her to bring up real social and sexist issues during a sensitive and controversial time like this, geesh, there are more concerning issues like boobies to get up raged over.
It's possible for both to be raised as topics of conversation- sexism existing doesn't mean that nobody can disagree on art style while it is still an issue.
While I agree with her argument that women face far greater problems in the industry than the aesthetics on a niche game, I don't expect a staffer who worked on the game and actively states that she wants more female voice acting work in future to actually call out her latest work- it's not as if she has a vested interest in it or anything is it, and I wouldn't expect Nolan North to start laying into Naughty Dog if a reviewer and a handful of forumites see a problem with Uncharted either.
On the other hand, it's rare to see someone be so frustrated with the inequality of hours given to male/female voice acting even before release here, but that's a slightly different issue to the creative work itself, and one less likely to see her quoted consistently for it and have it come back to haunt her. I find that far more of an interesting issue and one I'd like to see the games press follow up. Is it that Vanillaware just require female voices to be female and sexy, but male voices to imply differing characteristics? Or was it just a budgeting discrepancy? Interesting stuff.
One person's opinion, be it the voice actor or the reviewer, doesn't make something sexist or not sexist, if anything it's good that we see women discussing games more and more. They are allowed to disagree too rather than each one being assumed to speak for all women and their arguments taken as a completely final word. We don't to that to male reviewers, actors and developers.
While I agree with her argument that women face far greater problems in the industry than the aesthetics on a niche game, I don't expect a staffer who worked on the game and actively states that she wants more female voice acting work in future to actually call out her latest work- it's not as if she has a vested interest in it or anything is it, and I wouldn't expect Nolan North to start laying into Naughty Dog if a reviewer and a handful of forumites see a problem with Uncharted either.
On the other hand, it's rare to see someone be so frustrated with the inequality of hours given to male/female voice acting even before release here, but that's a slightly different issue to the creative work itself, and one less likely to see her quoted consistently for it and have it come back to haunt her. I find that far more of an interesting issue and one I'd like to see the games press follow up. Is it that Vanillaware just require female voices to be female and sexy, but male voices to imply differing characteristics? Or was it just a budgeting discrepancy? Interesting stuff.
One person's opinion, be it the voice actor or the reviewer, doesn't make something sexist or not sexist, if anything it's good that we see women discussing games more and more. They are allowed to disagree too rather than each one being assumed to speak for all women and their arguments taken as a completely final word. We don't to that to male reviewers, actors and developers.
michaelius
Banned
There's nothing wrong with diffrent opinions when they are based on GAMEPLAY and technical aspects of game not when they are made from ones own bias toward big boobs in gaming.
If you have problem with art style then make a point about it in text but reducing score because of ones own agenda is bullshit.
Reminds me of first Neptunia Eurogamer review.
Hang on, good or bad art can't ever improve/detract from a game? What about other non-gameplay aspects like story, voice acting, user interface or music?
Take breasts out of it for a moment. A healthy amount of regard for Wind Waker is probably because of the gorgeous artwork that stands up well a decade later, as well as the freedom and originality of the ocean. Same for Borderlands, or Valkyria Chronicles- the art definitely adds to their unique appeal. Games are media, and I don't think they should only be judged on mechanics, but on the cohesive impact they have on the player. Mechanics are a huge part of that seeing as its an interactive medium but there's a reason a large part of the budget goes on art and music too.
Games are visual. Reviews are opinions. Opinions about visuals are valid.
I don't know where this notion that art can't be critiqued comes from. Art in all forms everywhere since the beginning of time has been critiqued. (In fact, it was not so long ago that DmC was being destroyed on this forum by critique against Dante's artistic change.)
Book reviews talk about how the book is written and how it reads. Movie reviews talk about how it was shot and the quality of visual effects. The way a game looks is just as valid a point to discuss as anything else.
I'm glad for Polygon's review. It was a different opinion and a different perspective. I don't know why people are so crazy about it that they're literally calling for censorship because someone doesn't like the same art that they do.
People cry all the time for better reviews and when we start to branch out to different perspectives, giving reviews more depth, everyone goes crazy that not all reviews are exactly the same. Uncharted, Last of Us, Dragons Crown, it doesn't matter what it is. If someone reviews different, conspiracy theories about "click bait" and mass rage fill the forums. It's really immature and frankly it's pathetic how so many of you can't accept that people have different opinions in a civilised way.
Even Atlus, who would be directly affected by a low review score and negative text, said the review was totally valid and cool. But the forum gamer is still shouting about how this one review they don't like for a game they haven't played yet is like totally the worst thing to ever happen ever.
And that has become the narrative. I don't even know what the other review scores are. As Jim said, the focus is totally on this one 6.5 Polygon review. And whenever I think of Dragon's Crown, I think of that review. I literally do not know any other score from any other site that Dragon's Crown has gotten. But I sure know that it's 6.5 because it's repetitive, lacking a bit in content, and has a negative portrayal of women.
I don't know where this notion that art can't be critiqued comes from. Art in all forms everywhere since the beginning of time has been critiqued. (In fact, it was not so long ago that DmC was being destroyed on this forum by critique against Dante's artistic change.)
Book reviews talk about how the book is written and how it reads. Movie reviews talk about how it was shot and the quality of visual effects. The way a game looks is just as valid a point to discuss as anything else.
I'm glad for Polygon's review. It was a different opinion and a different perspective. I don't know why people are so crazy about it that they're literally calling for censorship because someone doesn't like the same art that they do.
People cry all the time for better reviews and when we start to branch out to different perspectives, giving reviews more depth, everyone goes crazy that not all reviews are exactly the same. Uncharted, Last of Us, Dragons Crown, it doesn't matter what it is. If someone reviews different, conspiracy theories about "click bait" and mass rage fill the forums. It's really immature and frankly it's pathetic how so many of you can't accept that people have different opinions in a civilised way.
Even Atlus, who would be directly affected by a low review score and negative text, said the review was totally valid and cool. But the forum gamer is still shouting about how this one review they don't like for a game they haven't played yet is like totally the worst thing to ever happen ever.
And that has become the narrative. I don't even know what the other review scores are. As Jim said, the focus is totally on this one 6.5 Polygon review. And whenever I think of Dragon's Crown, I think of that review. I literally do not know any other score from any other site that Dragon's Crown has gotten. But I sure know that it's 6.5 because it's repetitive, lacking a bit in content, and has a negative portrayal of women.
meltingparappa
Member
If the discussion was framed about disagreement over her displeasure with the artstyle, that would be a loaded enough topic as is. People bringing an arbitrary review score into it as ammo, or calling people out on doing so, is I think totally beside the main point of this issue.
TOO BAD this Jimquisition is all about that, but I'd imagine he's exhausted about the other argument at this point.
RoninChaos
Member
Anybody have a link to this? I'd like to see it.
RoninChaos
Member
It got much much worse with the later games. I actually stopped playing it at IV (maybe it was 3) when Taki was basically nude but had a color texture added to her. Her tits bounced like fucking basket balls and it was very obvious how big her nipples were. At that point I was out.