bikiniarmorbattledamage:

bigbardafree:

female characters 

image

can be

image

covered up

image

and objectified

image

female characters

image

can be

image

pantsless

image

and not

image

objectified

image

IT’S UP TO THE ARTISTS AND WRITERS

I dedicate this reblog to anyone who thinks that we object to women showing some skin by principle… No, we don’t. Just as we do not think covering everything up is a universal solution to the problem sexist costume designs.

The way a character is framed (visually and story-wise) makes a world of difference between just having a questionable costume and being outright objectified.

And as much as bikinis, bathing suits, cheerleader outfits etc. remain a silly wardrobe choice for an on-duty warrior/crimefighter, above here we have small sample of evidence that pants or full-body suits can actually look worse.

Let me refer back to @pointlessarguments101​’s article that I quoted waaay back:

Putting a female hero in pants does not mean she is somehow protected from an artist positioning her primarily for the male gaze. For example, Marvel Comics recently began a new ongoing called Fearless Defenders which stars Valkyrie and Misty Knight. Both of these characters wear pants and, yet, I lost count by about page five of how many times Misty’s ass took center stage in any given panel. Basically, where there’s a male gaze will, there’s a male gaze way — pants or no pants, tights or bared legs.

Preach! 

~Ozzie 

more on costume design | more on character design | more about the iconic example: Starfire

This week’s throwback: the significant difference between sexualization and showing skin. Yes, amazingly, they are not and never were the same thing.

We talked lately about how presentation/framing of the character via such things as posing and camera angles is what ultimately decides whether or not the character is objectified.

Skimpy costumes, of course, more often than not also serve female sexualization more than anything. Still, there are certain, very limited circumstances that can justify something as absurd as chainmail bikini.

Not to mention all the various non-bikini forms of partial nudity that are decidedly non-sexual and equivalent to many shirtless male power fantasies.

~Ozzie

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

bigbardafree:

female characters 

image

can be

image

covered up

image

and objectified

image

female characters

image

can be

image

pantsless

image

and not

image

objectified

image

IT’S UP TO THE ARTISTS AND WRITERS

I dedicate this reblog to anyone who thinks that we object to women showing some skin by principle… No, we don’t. Just as we do not think covering everything up is a universal solution to the problem sexist costume designs.

The way a character is framed (visually and story-wise) makes a world of difference between just having a questionable costume and being outright objectified.

And as much as bikinis, bathing suits, cheerleader outfits etc. remain a silly wardrobe choice for an on-duty warrior/crimefighter, above here we have small sample of evidence that pants or full-body suits can actually look worse.

Let me refer back to @pointlessarguments101​’s article that I quoted waaay back:

Putting a female hero in pants does not mean she is somehow protected from an artist positioning her primarily for the male gaze. For example, Marvel Comics recently began a new ongoing called Fearless Defenders which stars Valkyrie and Misty Knight. Both of these characters wear pants and, yet, I lost count by about page five of how many times Misty’s ass took center stage in any given panel. Basically, where there’s a male gaze will, there’s a male gaze way — pants or no pants, tights or bared legs.

Preach! 

~Ozzie 

more on costume design | more on character design | more about the iconic example: Starfire

This week’s throwback: the significant difference between sexualization and showing skin. Yes, amazingly, they are not and never were the same thing.

We talked lately about how presentation/framing of the character via such things as posing and camera angles is what ultimately decides whether or not the character is objectified.

Skimpy costumes, of course, more often than not also serve female sexualization more than anything. Still, there are certain, very limited circumstances that can justify something as absurd as chainmail bikini.

Not to mention all the various non-bikini forms of partial nudity that are decidedly non-sexual and equivalent to many shirtless male power fantasies.

~Ozzie

Battlerite is a recent addition to the growing popular genre of “just fight people in multiplayer” games that continue to come forth with no end in sight.  Given the starter line up in this game, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to discover a large portion of their tag on Tumblr is Rule34.

What’s interesting about Battlerite, though, is that it only released on 8 November 2017, it already has two characters added (both female).

The first was Destiny.

image

She was released with the first patch seemingly as some sort of afterthought that there may actually be people out there who wanted to play a female character who did not look like a child, was clearly recognizable as human, wasn’t in a hyper sexualized costume and appeared to turning up to the fight because was a warrior.

In December, they released Alysia… who looks kind of presentable from the waist up but has weird thigh highs. In her video she spends her time prancing and talking about being an artist.  I guess they’re trying to find a magic mix of objectification and actual good design.

It kind of makes you wonder whether someone in particular told them that hardly anyone wants actual badass warrior women or whether they just worried a certain demographic wouldn’t check out the game on opening day unless they were being pandered to.

tl;dr: Not only do they appear to be copying Smite’s core gameplay, they’re also copying their strategy regarding attempting to have their feminist cookie and gratuitous cheesecake too.

– wincenworks 

This game seems to go through some sort of visual identity crisis regarding female characters. A reader actually noted us that the white-haired lady, Jade, went through a “sexy” redesign some time ago: 

@emissaryofwind submitted: 

image

You already talked a bit about Battlerite’s Freya before, but I was looking at this character named Jade, and noticed this. On the left is her old design, notice how apart from her hairstyle everything is very practical. Low, chunky heels (I’ve been told 1" heels are better for your back than flat heels), a full-coverage coat and shirt, a mask to protect her from inhaling dust, etc. 

On the right is her current design, complete with useless-to-dangerous mini armor plates, stiletto heels, boob window, shoulder windows, and a big hole in the back of the coat making it essentially useless.

It’s sad to see that such a good design has been replaced with a generic “sexy” design.

What a waste of a design that was both practical AND much more interesting visually (just compare the silhouette!). The new one could easily just come from some random shovelware web ad. She sticks out like a sore thumb, even next to other sexualized ladies, due to a slightly different (generic and overly detailed) art style.

Battlerite is in a desperate need of rehashing its art direction to something more consistent and not at all dependent on the creepy marketing guy.

~Ozzie 

edit: Fixed link to Alysia’s video.

tidecullernami submitted (and Icy bingo’ed):

speaking of tharja/rhajat and how they’re being handled in fe:h?? uh…

i’ll leave it to you guys

image

Thank you, I think. I don’t know what I was expecting from Fire Emblem Heroes, but it was a little better than… whatever this is. I mean, Christmas is the perfect time to wear your fur-lined bikini! A person who grew up in a desert country will totally not freeze her butt off in that!

I don’t know about you guys, but I prefer characters to stay in-character even through holiday events. Especially with a grouchy, anti-social character like Tharja, there’s so much comedy potential! Like, if she was instead forced into a cheap reindeer onesie, so she would just be sulking, trying to hide her shame in the hoodie.

image

[Pictured: Tharja regretting some life choices]

But of course, that would require that they don’t just use her as a pinup, and we can’t have that.

-Icy

image

In case you thought Dahlia/Tsuki was the only problematic female character design in Xenoblade Chronicles 2… Here’s the game’s protagonist, Pyra, whose bizarre boobsocks became a meme in their own right

image

Last horizontal image found on a forum where people are discussing whether or not her in-game model actually wears thong over those short shorts… Comparing it with concept art, it seems like that’s not the case, but boy does that Tracer-style deep buttcrack and shape of the belt (?) right above it make it look suspiciously a lot like thong. 

The only positive surprise about that costume is how flat and wearable the heels of her shoes look! Despite which she still is constantly posed as if she was wearing heels two inch taller.

~Ozzie

Fire Emblem Heroes has already been getting some flack for their uninspired character design, and this is a good comparison of the changes made to Rhajat for Heroes. Her original design still has problems, primarily the nylon tech this fantasy country seems to have, but the new version (named Virghat) is just so much worse. From the wiki entry on Rhajat:

…It is revealed that her cold personality is a means to mask her loneliness due to being raised in the Deeprealms by herself.

I’d believe that description, given that this was her sprite in Fates:

image

She’s hunched over, her eyes are in shadow, and her arms are in front of and around herself protectively. But the Heroes design and posture? All I’m getting from it, is generic poker-faced cute caster. 

Oh, and of course, there’s a damage sprite, as mentioned in the comparison image.

image

Sigh.

image

-Icy

h/t: thekaizaverse