Tag: Character Design

Posted on

ms-silver submitted:

*While commonly referred to as male, It has been stated by Motiga that Tyto’s actual gender is to remain unknown.

**There’s actually another male character, but he’s currently getting a design overhaul, and as such I felt there was no need to include him.

—

Now that part of the NDA is lifted, I can feel comfortable showing the male/female character lineup for the new currently in beta MOBA, Gigantic.

While yes, the males do seem to have more of the monstrous selection, and yes, some of the females don’t have the best of attire into battle, I have to note that really I don’t get the “Look at these SeXy GiRlS!” feeling that I do from a lot of other games. Not to mention that several of the male characters also don’t necessarily have the best attire to dive into battle with as well.

Even with their characters like Xenobia, there doesn’t seem to be a major focus on the fact that she has a cleavage window, and that is even with them using her in their promotional art.

But of course, the game is still in closed beta and things can and likely will change before the game actually goes live. Here’s to hoping we get more monster-y female heroes in the future!

Another important aspect about this game is this is their line-up on their web site, to let you know what heroes are available:

image

Even using just portraits there’s a lot more diversity in the female body types and personalities than we are used to seeing. I mean compare it to Vainglory’s promotional line up:

image

And they’re not even the worst example, not by far.

Each one of the ladies in Gigantic looks like she’s got a story and personality and it’s going to be different and not be lampshading to justify sexy costumes. I like that, I like that a lot.

Please do update us when/if they add the monster lady (or ideally, ladies).

– wincenworks

edit: Minor change to how characters are placed on the graphic, so that they appear bigger on dashboards.

Posted on

Brought to our attention by superheroineworld (thank you so much for linking it in a reblog!)

This video sums up pretty damn well why any sort of “makes sense in context” justification for absurd and creepy things in fiction (like, say, bikini armors) is invalid by default.

Quotes worth highlighting:

Writers routinely alter the rules to suit their interests and the needs of their story. So, in the world outside of the diegesis, in our world, only the implications and impact of that fiction actually matter.

It’s basically a circular argument to expect that the fictional rules created specifically for the narrative will shield the narrative from being criticized on the meta level.

Criticism of a creative work is, ultimately, criticism of the decisions that people made when they were putting it together.

Which is also why “you’re slut-shaming that character" is a fail at responding to criticism. Characters are fictional constructs with no agency and the “choices” they make can be blamed solely on their creators.

You guys might have noticed, but around half of the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo is made from Thermian arguments. That’s how popular this circular logic is among skimpy armor defenders. And I’m glad we now have this video to explain why it doesn’t work.

~Ozzie

more about rhetoric on BABD

(Source: https://www.youtube.com/)
Posted on

shattered-earth:

Backstory made to fit a sexualized design vs. a design made to fit a backstory requiring a character to wear minimal clothing.

image

Thank you, shattered-earth! 

It is crucial to understand that a character design has to be informative of who the character is. And that sexualized designs do not inform us of it, just break the immersion.

Quiet’s a mercenary with a fictional condition that requires her to uncover as much skin as possible? Fine, then either make her totally nude or give her minimal clothing that is actually comfortable for her job.

Princess Zelda is royalty and a magic user, so her armor has to be fancy rather than simplistic and practical as Link’s? Sure, then make it gown-like and ornamental, just don’t leave out random patches of skin where she can be conveniently stabbed.

Charlotte is a gold-digging seductress who pretends to be innocent and demure? Then maybe instead of a boob-flaunting bikini give her a child-like costume that matches that persona?

~Ozzie

Posted on

Remember Crowfall? Since the last time we commented on it, the game grew a few more character options. Yet so far, the Assassin remains the same aggressively uncreative mix of a Warcraft elf, Black Canary and a drow. Plus (crow?) wings, splatter eye makeup/tattoo and a boob window, cause why the hell not.
With no improvement since Februrary, I thought I’d give her a try at the bingo.

I would gladly cross out “Looks nothing like the male version of the same outfit” square just by the virtue that so far most classes archetypes were designed relatively equal, but her people cheated out of it by being a female-only society.

As for the newer classes, Crowfall continues to be an uneven mix of designs that are nicely equal…

image
image

…ones that would be equal if less focus was put on female character boobs…

image

…(also why is male ranger allowed to be middle-aged while female one’s depicted as youthful and pretty?)…

image

….and this druid class, whose gender dimorphism status is stuck in the limbo until male version is revealed.

image
image

Here’s hoping the male druid would actually match her in the “vaguely forest-themed fancy fashion supermodel” department.

And since it’s an independent project that includes crowd-funding, I encourage everyone interested in becoming a backer to bring up the feedback

regarding character designs, both positive and negative, to the crew.

~Ozzie

Posted on

Rule: When analyzing or critiquing media, you can not defend a problematic aspect of media by saying that a character CHOSE to do it, and that people are allowed to CHOSE to do things.

fandomsandfeminism:

Because fictional characters do not have the capacity to make choices. Because they are not REAL people. 

Power Girl and Starfire did not CHOOSE to fight evil in skimpy, revealing outfits. It is not their PERSONAL CHOICE to wear those clothes. They are fictional characters and their wardrobes are under the control of the author and artist.

Dumbledore did not CHOOSE to stay in the closet as a personal and professional choice because that was his right as a person. He is a fictional character. The fact that his sexuality was left at only vague subtext and only revealed through word of god was a deliberate decision made by the author.

Fictional characters are fictional characters. They do not make their own choices.

Addendum to the rule: for the same reasons, you can not argue that criticism “shames” a character for their appearance or behavior.

And just for the record, seeing what kind of responses this post received before we got to reblog it: NO, the fact that fictional characters tend to grow and take a life of their own still does not mean they have agency.

No matter how developed a fictional person is, they’re still written by a real person (or people) who have their own biases and rationalizations. Just because some “choices” feel natural to the author doesn’t mean they’re objectively plausible “choices” for a character to make within the given narrative.

Sometimes the choice, like (in case of what our blog critiques) decision to wear a sexualized costume to battle, can be explained by specific circumstances. But in most circumstances or with other explanations, the same choice can be plain silly and inconsistent with the rest of established story/worldbuilding.

~Ozzie

more about character agency on BABD