So, at first glance BloodRealm was just another Facebook/Android/Steam game that was doing the ever popular rip off mythologies for names and ideas while ignoring the actual stories. (And of course there’s an obligatory Red Sonja ripoff) Until I got to Nemain (the bottom image) who is supposed to be a Gaul goddess.
Now, briefly glossing over that the Gauls made such great armor that the Roman invaders incorporated aspects such as mail into their own gear – this is perhaps the worst boobplate I have ever seen.
Not only is it supposed to be “armor” that is form fitting, it actually appears to be so flimsy and thin you can see her areola underneath it… and it has this weird sliver of underboob in the middle but only on one side.
I guess maybe they figured since everything else about this game was going to painfully generic and dull… they wanted to pioneer new ways to make terrible boob armor. If that’s the case, I think they succeeded.
– wincenworks
An excerpt from the Dudebro Dictionary
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
An excerpt from the Dudebro Dictionary
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