Tag: reply

Posted on

jerving-deactivated20181204:

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of female cosplayers that perpetuate the horribly designed costumes prevalent in comic books and video games? Now that I’ve been enlightened by your blog (thank you, btw), I cringe any time I see cosplayers that wear costumes that display the problems you discuss. I can appreciate the effort and craftsmanship that goes into their costumes, but I wonder if they think about the bigger issue.

Our opinion is that cosplayers are people with their own agency, acting on their initiative and (hopefully) not putting themselves hence they’re entitled to dress as sexy as they like.

If the choices of cosplayers heavily influenced studios then Harley Quinn would still wear her full body outfit and mainstream media would have a lot greater diversity in character race (eg cosplayingwhileblack ), body types (eg chubby-cosplay ) and gender expression.

Women who cosplay already have to deal with the Fake Geek Girl Myth, explain that Cosplay is NOT Consent and receive unsolicited criticism for not meeting society’s unrealistic beauty standards (even the ones who are also professional models).  Women who cosplay in some outfits display superhuman costume construction skills and spectacular personal confidence. We nothing but sincere respect for the effort and courage it takes to wear many a bingo breaking costume to a convention.

Women in sexy cosplay don’t decide that the media will focus almost exclusively on conventionally attractive women when talking about cosplay. Women in sexy cosplay don’t sit in on design meetings and write notes on concept art with a red marker. Researchers don’t create focus groups of sexy cosplayers to test marketing ideas. Having sexy cosplayer booth babes doesn’t guarantee sales or even a memorable product.

The problem isn’t even that sexy female characters exist (let alone that some people want to cosplay them). There actually are potentially good reasons for the sexy outfits.  The problem is that modern media has standardized making female characters sexy to the extent it’s assumed to be a top priority.

More important than telling the story.  More important than making the character interesting and unique.  More important than expanding your audience outside of straight white cis men. More important than making the character human or relate-able.

This mentality is upheld by myths such as sex sells, only boys play video games and that focus groups of straight white men can reflect everyone’s opinions.

The decisions are made by executives, marketers, creative directors and occasional auteurs who make these decisions on behalf of businesses that need to sell millions of units to stay in business.  They’re re-enforced by media about fantasy art and loud groups who are dedicated to halting all progress.  

Sexy cosplay ladies are not a big enough demographic to keep a AAA title in business and they’re generally not respected by society – they have no more say in what goes in mainstream media than slash fiction writers, furries, let’s players or anyone else who has a hobby related to popular culture.

– wincenworks 

more about cosplay on BABD

Posted on

Just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of female cosplayers that perpetuate the horribly designed costumes prevalent in comic books and video games? Now that I’ve been enlightened by your blog (thank you, btw), I cringe any time I see cosplayers that wear costumes that display the problems you discuss. I can appreciate the effort and craftsmanship that goes into their costumes, but I wonder if they think about the bigger issue.

Our opinion is that cosplayers are people with their own agency, acting on their initiative and (hopefully) not putting themselves hence they’re entitled to dress as sexy as they like.

If the choices of cosplayers heavily influenced studios then Harley Quinn would still wear her full body outfit and mainstream media would have a lot greater diversity in character race (eg cosplayingwhileblack ), body types (eg chubby-cosplay ) and gender expression.

Women who cosplay already have to deal with the Fake Geek Girl Myth, explain that Cosplay is NOT Consent and receive unsolicited criticism for not meeting society’s unrealistic beauty standards (even the ones who are also professional models).  Women who cosplay in some outfits display superhuman costume construction skills and spectacular personal confidence. We nothing but sincere respect for the effort and courage it takes to wear many a bingo breaking costume to a convention.

Women in sexy cosplay don’t decide that the media will focus almost exclusively on conventionally attractive women when talking about cosplay. Women in sexy cosplay don’t sit in on design meetings and write notes on concept art with a red marker. Researchers don’t create focus groups of sexy cosplayers to test marketing ideas. Having sexy cosplayer booth babes doesn’t guarantee sales or even a memorable product.

The problem isn’t even that sexy female characters exist (let alone that some people want to cosplay them). There actually are potentially good reasons for the sexy outfits.  The problem is that modern media has standardized making female characters sexy to the extent it’s assumed to be a top priority.

More important than telling the story.  More important than making the character interesting and unique.  More important than expanding your audience outside of straight white cis men. More important than making the character human or relate-able.

This mentality is upheld by myths such as sex sells, only boys play video games and that focus groups of straight white men can reflect everyone’s opinions.

The decisions are made by executives, marketers, creative directors and occasional auteurs who make these decisions on behalf of businesses that need to sell millions of units to stay in business.  They’re re-enforced by media about fantasy art and loud groups who are dedicated to halting all progress.  

Sexy cosplay ladies are not a big enough demographic to keep a AAA title in business and they’re generally not respected by society – they have no more say in what goes in mainstream media than slash fiction writers, furries, let’s players or anyone else who has a hobby related to popular culture.

– wincenworks 

more about cosplay on BABD

Posted on

re: this post on double standards of body type diversity in SMITE and Overwatch

(yellow)

cited: our first post about Zarya

(green)

CLEARLY, Zarya can not be a step in the right direction AND a token exception AT THE SAME TIME, because… Uh… It’s so not like she’s literally the only female Overwatch character who is not conventionally pretty*, thin and/or sexualzied, right?

image

…right???

image
image

How about “she’s BOTH a token exception and a step in the right direction”, then?

image

~Ozzie

Okay… well, if we limit ourselves to just athletes in say… Olympic level condition… this is a sample of the body and features diversity we might expect:

image
image

Given that Blizzard has said they’re making this game to improve representation for women in video games and even address things like “why all the bikinis?”

Zarya is currently the quick “we fixed it” response from a company with a long history of going back on their “fixes”.  They’re preaching that they want to fulfill the desire for diversity – but the sexy purple skinned assassin lady, a robot, a gorilla all got priority over so many types of real people.

Currently they are only vaguely close to meeting their stated goals due to a few isolated, individual characters.  Pretty much all the tokenism alarm bells are ringing loud and clear.

“Much good work is lost for the lack of a little more.“ –  Edward H. Harriman

– wincenworks

*Not to say that Zarya is ugly. She’s still “unconventional” in the safest way possible.

more on character design | more on Blizzard | more on Overwatch

Posted on

is it possible to create an armor that fills all the squares of the bingo? i mean one of the squares is “thong” but then another of the squares is “no underwear.” is it possible to make an armor SO AWFUL that it managed to fulfill both??? you’d need some sort of weird armor that goes into the buttcrack but doesn’t actually connect into functional panties??? this is brain breaking…

The answer is: a definite and resounding… “maybe?” ^_^’
It really depends how much you want to stretch the definitions of every square’s trope. There’s purposely some room left for interpretation with those.

The example you give was actually achieved a couple of times, cause we tend to, exactly as you say, count all things that go into buttcrack as “thong”, no matter if they look like panties or not (see, for example: the latest bingo).
Not sure about wincenworks, but I’m also pretty generous with “no underwear” square, cause lots of those things just don’t look like wearable bras/panties to me (and, you know, rarely actually go UNDER the rest of the costume).

Still, I made the bingo as a collection of the worst and most pervasive problems I noticed in female “warrior” costume design, it was never really supposed to be 100% full (and thankfully, never got to it).

But now, as we’re all in on the joke, we’re having some fun with the idea, cause why not. Stretching the boundaries of ridiculousness is the purpose of our Break the Bingo contest!

That said, everyone please remember that the contest’s deadline is 11:59 pm CET on March 31 2015!
Updated rules and FAQ for the contest can be found here.

~Ozzie

Posted on

very-powerful-creampuff-archive:

is it possible to create an armor that fills all the squares of the bingo? i mean one of the squares is “thong” but then another of the squares is “no underwear.” is it possible to make an armor SO AWFUL that it managed to fulfill both??? you’d need some sort of weird armor that goes into the buttcrack but doesn’t actually connect into functional panties??? this is brain breaking…

The answer is: a definite and resounding… “maybe?” ^_^’
It really depends how much you want to stretch the definitions of every square’s trope. There’s purposely some room left for interpretation with those.

The example you give was actually achieved a couple of times, cause we tend to, exactly as you say, count all things that go into buttcrack as “thong”, no matter if they look like panties or not (see, for example: the latest bingo).
Not sure about wincenworks, but I’m also pretty generous with “no underwear” square, cause lots of those things just don’t look like wearable bras/panties to me (and, you know, rarely actually go UNDER the rest of the costume).

Still, I made the bingo as a collection of the worst and most pervasive problems I noticed in female “warrior” costume design, it was never really supposed to be 100% full (and thankfully, never got to it).

But now, as we’re all in on the joke, we’re having some fun with the idea, cause why not. Stretching the boundaries of ridiculousness is the purpose of our Break the Bingo contest!

That said, everyone please remember that the contest’s deadline is 11:59 pm CET on March 31 2015!
Updated rules and FAQ for the contest can be found here.

~Ozzie

Posted on

I would just like to point out that WotC have addressed the state of dress that characters in the art for their cards are in, and for all of their other merchandise for that matter. They simply commission an artist to draw, say “Elf rogue in cityscape”, that the artist then hands them a female in skimpy leather armor, isn’t their fault. Essentially, they give the artists pretty free reins, and if they manage to fit the description given, it usually goes through. So blame the artists, not WotC.

I assume you’re referring to this blather where Matt Cavotta tried to explain that he didn’t want to be responsible for his decisions are Creative Lead and basically didn’t want to do his job (which is probably why he isn’t the creative lead anywhere anymore).  He also admits (Myth #5) that he doesn’t speak for Wizards of the Coast (WotC), just himself.

If you actually read it though, there’s a few very damning points here and a lot of strawmanning and standard issue rhetoric while throwing his fellow artists under the bus.  See how he keeps referencing the style guide and saying “Well they’re not doing anything they’re not allowed to… creative freedom!”

Style guides are not brief little guidelines with just a few bullet points and “be creative” in bold letters, they’re actually quite carefully constructed and complicated documents and contain many restrictions. 

image

Some examples:

  • Avoid making things look high-tech or sci-fi. Magic stretches the definition of “fantasy,” but there are limits.
  • Don’t use real-world letters or symbols. This includes religious symbols such as crosses and ankhs.
  • Keep gore at a PG-13 level.
  • Because we sell Magic cards in China, please avoid prominently representing human skulls or full skeletons.

And of course:

  • Make an effort to illustrate a variety of races, genders, ages, and body types.
  • Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they’re shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.
  • Despite all the do’s and don’ts, we want you to have fun! If you want to experiment or bend a rule, just run your idea by the art director.
image

See, art directors and their bosses are supposed to supplement guides and provide guidance to artists so that the artist creates the best possible product for the company and the artist themselves.  It helps to fix mistakes and smooth out issues, this one was an issue in 2005 when Matt made his statement and it’s continued to be one.

Now, there are several things that WotC can and should have done before 2005 to fix this.  By could I mean both as part of being a responsible company and in terms of trying to maintain brand image and profits:

  • Amend the standard style guide to be more specific about the depictions of women
  • Tell the art directors, creative leads and other creative staff to be vigilant about this issue and to pro-actively provide guidance to the contracted artists
  • Include a separate document in the artist package stating their concerns and expectations specifically depictions of female characters
image

WotC easily had the infrastructure to do this by 2000 – I know this because I worked for WotC in the early 2000s (up until July 2005 in fact) as an online chat room moderator and even in this minor role I had to sign an NDA, memorize pages of regulations and undergo supervised training.  When I left, they were not slowing down on that in the slightest.

This has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast wanting to be a cool relaxed company, or offer artist freedom or being somehow unable to make decisions on what they do and don’t publish – it’s that they simply haven’t cared to properly address this issue and set high standards for things other than being viable to sell in China and Walmart.

image

They publish things, they are responsible for the what they publish. It’s that simple. They have more power than the artists over what gets published because they have the ability to refuse, crop or edit submitted artwork – artists, on the other hand, can only get published if they meet the publisher’s expectations… and then it might get cropped or edited.

– wincenworks

Also, themystisk​, even if the nonsense you wrote somehow WAS true, it would still prove our point:

  • It would mean that Wizards of the Coast is completely irresponsible with how they conduct art commissions (because apparently they don’t care at all about what artwork is produced with their money). Such a sound business practice!
  • It would also mean that fantasy artists are by default all pervy and whenever asked to draw anything remotely female, they deliver “the sexy”, even when not asked for sexyness specifically.

Either way, it’s part of a larger problem with media’s and society’s expectations towards women. Blaming random bad artists for it is just a disingenuous, oversimplified answer and offers no solutions to the issue.

~Ozzie

Posted on

themystisk:

I would just like to point out that WotC have addressed the state of dress that characters in the art for their cards are in, and for all of their other merchandise for that matter. They simply commission an artist to draw, say “Elf rogue in cityscape”, that the artist then hands them a female in skimpy leather armor, isn’t their fault. Essentially, they give the artists pretty free reins, and if they manage to fit the description given, it usually goes through. So blame the artists, not WotC.

I assume you’re referring to this blather where Matt Cavotta tried to explain that he didn’t want to be responsible for his decisions are Creative Lead and basically didn’t want to do his job (which is probably why he isn’t the creative lead anywhere anymore).  He also admits (Myth #5) that he doesn’t speak for Wizards of the Coast (WotC), just himself.

If you actually read it though, there’s a few very damning points here and a lot of strawmanning and standard issue rhetoric while throwing his fellow artists under the bus.  See how he keeps referencing the style guide and saying “Well they’re not doing anything they’re not allowed to… creative freedom!”

Style guides are not brief little guidelines with just a few bullet points and “be creative” in bold letters, they’re actually quite carefully constructed and complicated documents and contain many restrictions. 

image

Some examples:

  • Avoid making things look high-tech or sci-fi. Magic stretches the definition of “fantasy,” but there are limits.
  • Don’t use real-world letters or symbols. This includes religious symbols such as crosses and ankhs.
  • Keep gore at a PG-13 level.
  • Because we sell Magic cards in China, please avoid prominently representing human skulls or full skeletons.

And of course:

  • Make an effort to illustrate a variety of races, genders, ages, and body types.
  • Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they’re shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.
  • Despite all the do’s and don’ts, we want you to have fun! If you want to experiment or bend a rule, just run your idea by the art director.
image

See, art directors and their bosses are supposed to supplement guides and provide guidance to artists so that the artist creates the best possible product for the company and the artist themselves.  It helps to fix mistakes and smooth out issues, this one was an issue in 2005 when Matt made his statement and it’s continued to be one.

Now, there are several things that WotC can and should have done before 2005 to fix this.  By could I mean both as part of being a responsible company and in terms of trying to maintain brand image and profits:

  • Amend the standard style guide to be more specific about the depictions of women
  • Tell the art directors, creative leads and other creative staff to be vigilant about this issue and to pro-actively provide guidance to the contracted artists
  • Include a separate document in the artist package stating their concerns and expectations specifically depictions of female characters
image

WotC easily had the infrastructure to do this by 2000 – I know this because I worked for WotC in the early 2000s (up until July 2005 in fact) as an online chat room moderator and even in this minor role I had to sign an NDA, memorize pages of regulations and undergo supervised training.  When I left, they were not slowing down on that in the slightest.

This has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast wanting to be a cool relaxed company, or offer artist freedom or being somehow unable to make decisions on what they do and don’t publish – it’s that they simply haven’t cared to properly address this issue and set high standards for things other than being viable to sell in China and Walmart.

image

They publish things, they are responsible for the what they publish. It’s that simple. They have more power than the artists over what gets published because they have the ability to refuse, crop or edit submitted artwork – artists, on the other hand, can only get published if they meet the publisher’s expectations… and then it might get cropped or edited.

– wincenworks

Also, themystisk​, even if the nonsense you wrote somehow WAS true, it would still prove our point:

  • It would mean that Wizards of the Coast is completely irresponsible with how they conduct art commissions (because apparently they don’t care at all about what artwork is produced with their money). Such a sound business practice!
  • It would also mean that fantasy artists are by default all pervy and whenever asked to draw anything remotely female, they deliver “the sexy”, even when not asked for sexyness specifically.

Either way, it’s part of a larger problem with media’s and society’s expectations towards women. Blaming random bad artists for it is just a disingenuous, oversimplified answer and offers no solutions to the issue.

~Ozzie

Posted on

teaandinanity replied to your post “Break the Bingo – A CONTEST!”

Is ‘Looks Nothing Like the Male Version’ a free space for the purposes of this contest?

Good question.

I say, the choice is up to contestant: they are free to leave out the square (without getting any negative notes for that), but inclusion of a male version for comparison is definitely appreciated as additional effort.
Using a stock image of male armor just as a placeholder for comparison is good too.

Similarly for the ‘More advanced level = skimpier’ square. Depicting more than one version of the same armor counts as additional effort, but showing just one level of the armor is fine.

~Ozzie

Posted on

teaandinanity replied to your post “Break the Bingo – A CONTEST!”

Is ‘Looks Nothing Like the Male Version’ a free space for the purposes of this contest?

Good question.

I say, the choice is up to contestant: they are free to leave out the square (without getting any negative notes for that), but inclusion of a male version for comparison is definitely appreciated as additional effort.
Using a stock image of male armor just as a placeholder for comparison is good too.

Similarly for the ‘More advanced level = skimpier’ square. Depicting more than one version of the same armor counts as additional effort, but showing just one level of the armor is fine.

~Ozzie