The hilarious front line in the tragic war against ridiculous female armor
A concise and entertaining summary of how the misconception that video games are supposed to be for boys. An even more concise summary: It’s the fault of Creepy Marketing Guy.
PBS Games/Show also had a great episode about the Pink Games (ie games for girls) phenomena and how despite introducing elements like character creation but don’t generally receive credit for it.
– wincenworks
Creative Freedom – reason gratuitous female boobs and butts must be preserved at all costs in That Thing That I Like
Censorship – reason gratuitous female boobs and butts are not featured in That Thing That I Like
~Ozzie
Creative Freedom – reason gratuitous female boobs and butts must be preserved at all costs in That Thing That I Like
Censorship – reason gratuitous female boobs and butts are not featured in That Thing That I Like
~Ozzie
fandomfumblr asked:
So i’ve come across this blog of yours, and i can’t help but notice you seem to hold this ideal that showing skin is bad. I’m not saying there’s not a time and a place for everything, and i’d be quite warm to a game where someone in skimpy or silly armor got their just desserts. But i don’t see why you think these designs inherently wrong on such a level. Designers designed them for a reason. They had a vision of the character and made them a certain way. No “change” needs to be made.You’re right, designers did design them that way for a reason: to be sexy. And that’s where a change needs to be made. When everyone is “sexy”, no one is. There needs to be more variety in female character designs.You see, women are like onions. But not because they turn brown and start sprouting little white hairs if you leave them out in the sun too long: because they have layers (didn’t you see Shrek, geez). They’re also all different, though you wouldn’t guess so based on media representations of them. I’ll start accepting a designer’s vision for a sexy lady, the minute that stops being the only vision they ever have.**Also what we get isn’t always the original design as there’s sometimes pressure from editors or other outside influences to make the character “sexier”.-StaciBolded for emphasis.
Funny how no-one who says “Designers had a vision of the character and made them a certain way.” ever notice that said vision is pretty much always the same.
As a designer myself I’m REALLY tired of this argument. Art and design does not exist in the vacuum.
An idea being the artist’s “vision” does not make it inherently good or creative, in fact the first ideas that come to a designers mind tend to be the most derivative and uninteresting.On the other hand, as Staci notes, lots of designs RHA, BABD and related sites comment on aren’t actually a result of concept artist’s original idea, but a product of many revisions from the executives. And executives (unlike artists they hire) are the people whose “vision” is usually the farthest from creative.
No matter how you look at the “artist’s sacred vision” logic, it’s flawed and in no way justifies a cliched, unresearched, insonsistent design.
~Ozzie
Bringing this back as a reminder that “an artist created it, therefore it’s creative” is NOT a valid rhetoric to justify bikini armors… or anything, for that matter.
~Ozzie
fandomfumblr asked:
So i’ve come across this blog of yours, and i can’t help but notice you seem to hold this ideal that showing skin is bad. I’m not saying there’s not a time and a place for everything, and i’d be quite warm to a game where someone in skimpy or silly armor got their just desserts. But i don’t see why you think these designs inherently wrong on such a level. Designers designed them for a reason. They had a vision of the character and made them a certain way. No “change” needs to be made.You’re right, designers did design them that way for a reason: to be sexy. And that’s where a change needs to be made. When everyone is “sexy”, no one is. There needs to be more variety in female character designs.You see, women are like onions. But not because they turn brown and start sprouting little white hairs if you leave them out in the sun too long: because they have layers (didn’t you see Shrek, geez). They’re also all different, though you wouldn’t guess so based on media representations of them. I’ll start accepting a designer’s vision for a sexy lady, the minute that stops being the only vision they ever have.**Also what we get isn’t always the original design as there’s sometimes pressure from editors or other outside influences to make the character “sexier”.-StaciBolded for emphasis.
Funny how no-one who says “Designers had a vision of the character and made them a certain way.” ever notice that said vision is pretty much always the same.
As a designer myself I’m REALLY tired of this argument. Art and design does not exist in the vacuum.
An idea being the artist’s “vision” does not make it inherently good or creative, in fact the first ideas that come to a designers mind tend to be the most derivative and uninteresting.On the other hand, as Staci notes, lots of designs RHA, BABD and related sites comment on aren’t actually a result of concept artist’s original idea, but a product of many revisions from the executives. And executives (unlike artists they hire) are the people whose “vision” is usually the farthest from creative.
No matter how you look at the “artist’s sacred vision” logic, it’s flawed and in no way justifies a cliched, unresearched, insonsistent design.
~Ozzie
Bringing this back as a reminder that “an artist created it, therefore it’s creative” is NOT a valid rhetoric to justify bikini armors… or anything, for that matter.
~Ozzie
Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending there’s a good reason for naked women in videogames
For the most part, I do like the article – particularly as it’s not just Cortana’s wardrobe that’s worrying. However it does (in it’s final paragraph) make a critical error in that it assumes that somehow the marketing and promotions for a game are inherently different and separate from the creation of the game itself.
As wonderful as it would be for us to live in a world where creative teams are insulated from Creepy Marketing Guy by armies of private security equipped with electric cattle prods and canisters of mace, this simply isn’t reality. Especially not in the case of auteur productions where the person overseeing the marketing campaign is the one overseeing the game development.
Despite there being no rational reason to believe that sex actually sells, we still see plenty of examples where female characters are given ridiculous outfits in the belief it will sell a few thousand more units. Sometimes it’s in complete contradiction to the context of the product and sometimes it’s from a range of outright horrifying concepts.
It’s gotten to the extent where many of them have now pushed franchises and their own styles into a point where they have no idea how to make them less hostile to women without losing their branding. Thus enforcing the idea that women should only play games made specifically for women (which will not be treated seriously by the industry, despite sales and the industry stealing ideas from them left, right and center).
Games are a business and that, unfortunately, means that marketing will never be completely separated from production. Instead of living in denial, we should focus on pushing games to use the right kind of marketing.
– wincenworks
I also take issue with how, in its final paragraphs, the article implies that ridiculous excuses are provoked by critique which asks about consistency in female character design. And that critics should be free to criticize but also refrain from bringing extra attention to the controversies… However that’s supposed to work.
I’m glad the article says that the game developers should be honest about intentions behind their designs. And that their sexy lady justifications insult the audience’s intelligence. Still, it would be overall better analysis of the problem without taking the “let the games speak for themselves" angle.
~Ozzie
Stop insulting our intelligence by pretending there’s a good reason for naked women in videogames
For the most part, I do like the article – particularly as it’s not just Cortana’s wardrobe that’s worrying. However it does (in it’s final paragraph) make a critical error in that it assumes that somehow the marketing and promotions for a game are inherently different and separate from the creation of the game itself.
As wonderful as it would be for us to live in a world where creative teams are insulated from Creepy Marketing Guy by armies of private security equipped with electric cattle prods and canisters of mace, this simply isn’t reality. Especially not in the case of auteur productions where the person overseeing the marketing campaign is the one overseeing the game development.
Despite there being no rational reason to believe that sex actually sells, we still see plenty of examples where female characters are given ridiculous outfits in the belief it will sell a few thousand more units. Sometimes it’s in complete contradiction to the context of the product and sometimes it’s from a range of outright horrifying concepts.
It’s gotten to the extent where many of them have now pushed franchises and their own styles into a point where they have no idea how to make them less hostile to women without losing their branding. Thus enforcing the idea that women should only play games made specifically for women (which will not be treated seriously by the industry, despite sales and the industry stealing ideas from them left, right and center).
Games are a business and that, unfortunately, means that marketing will never be completely separated from production. Instead of living in denial, we should focus on pushing games to use the right kind of marketing.
– wincenworks
I also take issue with how, in its final paragraphs, the article implies that ridiculous excuses are provoked by critique which asks about consistency in female character design. And that critics should be free to criticize but also refrain from bringing extra attention to the controversies… However that’s supposed to work.
I’m glad the article says that the game developers should be honest about intentions behind their designs. And that their sexy lady justifications insult the audience’s intelligence. Still, it would be overall better analysis of the problem without taking the “let the games speak for themselves" angle.
~Ozzie
The devs of skullgirls edited animations for two characters removing SOME panty shots – not all, not even most, just some. For two characters. Without any request, it was all decided on by the artists. So of course people would be for this, right? Artistic integrity!
Here are some of my favorite reactions from steam.
Again, all of this because less than twenty frames were slightly altered.
Whoa, wait a minute, does this mean that every time gamer dudes squealed and gibbered about how “artists should be able to do what they want without criticism,” they actually didn’t mean that at all!?!?
Oh the always-conveniently-mutable “creative freedom” vs. “censorship” argument…
As Jim Sterling aptly put it in his video about the matter:
Or is it only censorship when it’s people who aren’t you, and don’t think like you, getting what they want for once instead of you?
~Ozzie
Personally my favourite part about this fiasco was this:
And yes, it’s possible they play on platforms other than Steam – but it wouldn’t explain why it took until October for them to notice a change that was made with the April 18 patch (and discussed on the main forums here).
– wincenworks