“We didn’t make any change because of external influences,” he says. “Those changes came up internally. We decided to remove that because we want the biggest possible number of people to play, and we don’t want to have something in the game that might make someone uncomfortable.”
The even better news is that those who were enraged that such an amazing act of censorship could occur have pretty much re-affirmed the point. After a month and a lot of publicity, the petition only gathered 6,300 signatures (and at least one duplicate I noticed). Most of these guys still don’t seem to believe that the developers actually decided on this change on their own…
and they’re probably all going to buy the game anyway:
I can’t imagine why the developers may choose to try to appeal to people outside of this demographic… oh wait, I can.
Today’s throwback: reminder that “self-censorship” isn’t really a thing and maybe a developer doing the bare minimum to not alienate potential audience pre-release is neither “pandering to the SJWs” nor literally a vile act of censorship? 🤔
This whole thread is definitely worth reading for a better understanding of The Creepy Marketing Guy and why so many games, particularly in early campaigns, seem to rely on generic strategies like sex sells.
So the next time you see a promotion for a game that seems to focus entirely on boobs, butts and explosions then you can be sure that it’s because the marketing guys are getting paid for the campaign, not the sales of the game, and they probably got to interfere in the process of game development, messing with the original vision of the developers, to make that happen.
Self–Censorship – entertaining the idea of adding gratuitous female boobs and butts but ultimately deciding not to because you just got a better idea.
Submitting to Harassment – Starting to add gratuitous female boobs and butts but, upon reading arguments against it in discussion topics on forums and message boards, deciding that you see where they’re coming from and you hadn’t thought of that before, so you decide to tone the boobs down a notch with a minor edit that in some cases is only noticeable in side by side comparisons.
Artist’s Wishes – This tiddy must be preserved in all its glory despite the fact that the artist wished to remove the tiddy.
In relation to an Overwatch League event two new exclusive skins were released, and one of them is an off-brand Camilla from Fire Emblem… I mean generic JRPG waifu… I mean Atlantic Mercy >_> CREATIVITY!
Unlike Camilla’s, her boobs might be all covered, but the shape and color contrast of the chest piece make sure that our attention goes to them first!
yeah but, cartoon women, any drawn women, aren’t wearing those skimpy and sexual clothes out of choice, they’re wearing it because someone drew them that way, normally for a reason. so so don’t go “oh maybe she chooses to fight crime in a bikini and high heels” bc a man sat at a desk and decided she was gunna wear those clothes, for a reason, for the audience or his gaze. so no, its not slut shaming, its creepy man shaming
*applause* A point that sadly needs to be constantly reiterated. I’ve been saying exactly this for a long time now!
We’d appreciate never again having this nonsense rhetoric thrown at us.
As a well-known cartoon woman once said:
I get it; people get attached to fictional characters. I do it a lot, too. But that doesn’t mean that they’re real and sentient. All I think of when I hear a creator justify a character design with “she chose to dress that way,” is that they probably only sees the character as an object with no actual motivations.
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:
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.
In these troubling times where our social media platforms must scramble frantically, expunging massive amounts of imagery as the only means to protect us from anything titillating it’s a comfort to know that there will at least be good wholesome content from family friendly companies like Nintendo who make games you can play in your living room or in public without it getting awkward!
As a side none, it appears that they decided to really lean into the damage sprite with her fashion sister, Loki.
Creators: INTRODUCING A BRAND NEW FANTASY WORLD The world: [Medieval European setting with knights and castles. Elves live in the forest. Dwarves yelling and drinking. Orcs just green and angry. Dragons. Boob armour.]
The world’s game trailer: [Hot mage girl. Antagonist is either a crusty old man or a sometimes sexy white woman. Fantasy war. British accents. Ugly armour. Robust character creator with multiple fantasy race options but no dark skin tones for humans. Giant spiders. A huge potion making mechanic with hundreds of recipes no one is gonna use. More giant spiders. “Only you can save the world”.]
Anyone: Why the boob armor and no people of color in this fantasy setting? Fanboys who preemptively decided to defend the game based on developer’s brand name alone: THAT’S THEIR CREATIVE FREEDOM! ALSO HISTORICAL ACCURACY™. SHUT UP AND STOP HATING FUN!
As a blog focused on criticism, there’s something we come across regularly in responses to our writing – insistence that we’re “never happy” no matter how much better a particular example is than most media we feature on BABD.
Readers (though mostly detractors) question why we can’t qualify something (mostly games) as 100% positive example if it does one thing better than the rest in its medium/genre/etc.
Samus Aran is a formidable fighter and legendary female game protagonist, so it’s totally not a big deal that with every iteration of the character she gets designed as daintier, more conventionally feminine and runs around in skin-tight undersuit and impossible heels rather than her classic power armor.
It’s quite disheartening to have the audience insist that we should settle for media to be tiny bit better than mediocre and call it a day. That a game or its creator not being as bad as they could deserve to be awarded and held up as an example for the rest of the industry.
We refuse to set our standards so low that “her battle costume isn’t a literal bikini” or “has characters who are female in it” or “shows a male butt/chest sometimes” qualify a title as good, equal gender representation with no room for improvement.
Being better than a random asset-flipping game with stolen artwork in their web ads isn’t hard. Being better than your last project and learning from its mistakes should be a given. Simply not makingasinine excuses for poor representation shouldn’t be applauded. No-one is asking for perfection, but all creators should be held accountable for the product they’re selling, with its good and bad sides.
BABD in particular, instead of doing comprehensive reviews, is focused on female costume and character design compared to male ones. Yet even such specific topic can’t be talked about from both angles without someone decrying unfairness. Does it really say more about us being negative and cynical or the fans being entitled and blind to any challenging point of view?
We must be doing pretty well lately, given that the majority of totally legit criticism we receive seems to be around the idea that there is really nothing wrong with anything… so naturally we must be deluded or clueless to think there’s some sort of issue with depictions of female characters.
(My personal favorite for this has been people rushing in to tell us since we don’t, allegedly, know enough about a male character in a scene – we clearly can’t tell if a female character’s outfit is ridiculous)
All of this, of course, coming back to the same statement when properly translated: “I am comfortable with the level and quality of representation other people are being given, so fuck them if they’re not.”
When really, the overall goal shouldn’t be to make everyone begrudgingly accepting of the state of global media. The goal should be to make everyone excited about the state of global media.
Because right now every major professionally produced piece of media has so much potential to explore long neglected opportunities and break away from painfully boring cliches. That they’re not doing that isn’t some sort of mild disappointment, it’s just ridiculous.