It says something about feminism when a character having rocket-powered high heels in a video game is a hot-button issue, like this is the most important thing going for them at the moment
And these are the same tools who post shit like “gonna crush the patriarchy with my six-inch heels” too, you’d think that with Smash’s mostly-male roster they’d be in favor of it
You know there’s a difference in actual, real life women choosing what they wear, and a video game character being presented by writers in a certain way, right?
And no one is saying that Samus’s ridiculous, impractical, and laughable costume change is the BIGGEST MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER. But it is, obviously, a VISIBLE one and offers a widely accessible platform to talk about the double standard of video game costuming.
Emphasis mine.
Gotta “love” all the people who suggest that by caring about things like video game character design feminism apparently lost its priorities (and somehow, shifted all focus from any other issues, cause heavens forbid the movement cared about multiple things at once!).
It’s totally not the other way round, right? That we see the actual impact that popculture products like videogames have on the society at large and do our best to spread awareness of it!
~Ozzie
Sexually provocative armor for male characters is very important.
I know it seems kind of like “but what about THE MEN” and it can definitely end up being that when a discussion about female armor gets derailed by people jumping in and going “yeah but dudes in skimpy armor!!” and discussing that at length. That’s not appropriate to do, but as its own topic it’s really important.
The one thing that made TERA playable for me (however briefly) is that whoever designed the armor made some very deliberate design decisions on several of the male pieces—especially on Castanic males—that emphasized sexual attractiveness in a way that was equivalent to the female armor. The game was not in any way “equal,” no matter what anyone might try to argue: Having ten or so armor sets for two races that show skin provocatively on male characters does not make up for nearly every single armor set on every single female character doing the same thing. But it was something, and it was the one thing that made the game feel like it might on some level be attempting to appeal to more than just straight guys.
Even the addition of *~options~* in games where there are a few or (rarely) a roughly equal number of non-sexualized female armor sets isn’t necessarily any better. Making sets intended to be sexually appealing on one character gender and not doing the same for the other still privileges the comfort level and interests of straight male players. If having *~options~* isn’t good enough to raise their comfort level, then why should it be considered good enough for everyone else?
If you’re willing to put provocative male armor in your game, you send an important message. If sexy armor is so fun and harmless and fantasy and artistic and aesthetic and ect., then stand by that statement you insist on making and design the equivalent for male characters. I’m not talking about showing a few square inches of chest, I mean clothes that are designed equivalent to female sexy armor. Cut swathes out of it to show off their thighs and hips. Make it form-fitting and flattering to the shape, regardless of how practical it is. Highlight the character’s physical vulnerabilities—and don’t balk, that’s what 90% of sexualized female armor does. There’s a reason that shit looks like lingerie, so don’t make a couple of Conan the Barbarian sets and claim you’ve done the same thing for guys. Put a freaking peekaboo window on the small of their back right above their ass, give them a crop top. You know, the usual.
And some men will protest, and they’ll get upset. You should do it anyway, because if the discomfort of one group of your players isn’t enough to stop you, it shouldn’t be enough in this case, either. Adding the occasional set of practical, non-sexualized armor for female characters doesn’t constitute equality when so many of the others are Fredrick’s of Hollywood surprise grab bags for female characters only.
Well said. Bolded for emphasis.
~Ozzie
Isn’t it interesting how often the response to criticisms such as the armor bingo card boil down to “but I have to keep using these tired offensive cliches because creativity”? Are they even listening to themselves? Why not take it as a challenge? “How can I create beautiful and original character designs without falling back on tropes that thousands and thousands of artists have used before me?” Now that would be creative.
Defending your “right” to use offensive tropes in character design (or writing, or whatever your creative endeavor of choice) isn’t “artistic integrity”. It’s laziness.
Yup. This^ Pretty much. Emphasis mine.
Whenever someone uses those arguments I’m all like:
The above reblog belongs with this one and this one, that’s why their mutual subject, creative freedom, gets its own tag now!
~Ozzie
Any thoughts on this new Impa? She’s been a decrepit and ancient advisor, fit and muscular bodyguard, dark skinned and swift magical warrior, chubby and joyful nanny, and now she carries a sword so big and heavy she could kill somebody by just dropping it on them. Half of the posts in Tumblr seem to be about wanting to get the game for Impa, and half complains about Shia, the new member of the evil sexy ladies of Zelda (seriously Veran, armor bra?)
Also in a previous ask:
“Boobplate Witch” version 3 actually. The original Boob Witch is Twinrova and the second to appear is Veran iirc. Vera comes with metal armor, boob window and midriff showing.
Impa
I feel that Impa is just begging for someone to write a thesis titled “Secondary characters, room for artistic exploration or lazy recycling of names?”
The Warriors of Hyrule incarnation is pretty badass looking, dressed pretty consistently with male characters in Zelda and I can see why people are itching to have her bust some moves on the battlefield:
I mean we could discuss things like the open toed boots, or the eye on her boob – but overall her outfit is stylish without being ridiculous or heavily sexualized. Since armor has traditionally not been a big thing in Zelda (Link usually runs around his normal clothes) the lack of it and the presence of fantasy fueled weapons is consistent with the narrative of the setting.
It’s also pretty cool that they gave her the big bruiser sword.
Twinrova
Honestly I am not that big a Zelda fan, so Twinrova and Veran didn’t even occur to me when I saw Shia – but they don’t really lessen the wtf value of Shia in any way.
The first and most obvious difference with Twinrova to me is that “Can I fap to this?” was probably not a design priority. I mean yes, it’s a huge jump from what the sisters look like prior to combining – but mostly it seems focused on projecting the idea that they’re no longer old – they’re now young and powerful and still utterly bizarre.
There is some genius creativity that went into this image and while it’s certainly playing on some sexualized characteristics (wasp waist, boob plate, etc) it’s not something that would make me hide it from children.
Veran
Oh yeah she has an armor bra, personally I find that headpiece more terrifying – it seems an accident waiting to happen:
However, like Veran’s boss – Twinrova, there’s a lot more actual creative design here – it looks less like lingerie armor more like couture gone mad. There was also no reasonable expectation that you’d see Veran looking like this in the game, since well it was on the Gameboy Color:
So while it’s not good, and is frankly kind of weird – it’s still a fairly basic example of sexying up a villainess because she’s evil and looks like someone put some real effort into making look unique and recognizable even with the limited resolution and palette.
She also came back in 2001 and I haven’t seen any attempts to try to make her iconic in the Zelda franchise since. She was also an antagonist who operated primarily through possession and shape-changing – so no real expectation of her wearing combat armor.
So while she’s definitely part of many problematic tropes, including villainess armor – it would be disingenuous to pretend that she’s a particularly bad or outrageous offender.
Shia/Cia
This is the main antagonist in a Zelda spinoff that is supposed to be entirely about fighting on battlefields full of soldiers, using cool weapons and combos and stuff. Everything suggests this is how she will appear in game:
She’s strutting about in a gown, wearing a ball masque headpiece that has no eye-slits. And this is what happens when I go to Nintendo’s page promoting the game:
And guess what! Shia/Cia is not on the “suitable for all ages” page for Warriors of Hyrule. Also, I don’t read Japanese so I have to take a fan Wiki’s word on this translation, but this is what we’ve been told about the character:
Cia is a witch tasked with maintaining the balance of the Triforce. Although a good person at heart, she comes to harbor serious affections for Link which in turn becomes deep-seated jealousy directed towards Princess Zelda. Cia then becomes possessed by a dark force. This leads to her waging war on the kingdom alongside her companions Valga and Wizro.
Yes she was a good person but being jealous over Link has allowed her to be possessed with evil (women aren’t allowed to be evil just for themselves and are apparently prone to possession) who walks around in a costume Nintendo won’t show you (or at least English speaking audiences) on their own site. Not even an attempt at creativity – for a game that’s to be released on a console that Nintendo says:
Wii U is a brand new home videogame console from Nintendo that fundamentally changes the relationship between you and your TV and how you, your friends and family all connect.
– wincenworks