Topic: Go Make Me a Sandwich (Read 5292 times)

Büge · « **on:** July 28, 2011, 08:59:31 AM »

I think I understand what you said about Wayne Reynolds, Mongrel.

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #1 on:** July 28, 2011, 12:46:33 PM »

Quote from: Büge on July 28, 2011, 08:59:31 AM

I think I understand what you said about Wayne Reynolds, Mongrel.

I skimmed through and read a bunch of articles on that blog, and in general I just found that whole site really obnoxious. I guess it's mostly just a difference of opinion -- I value style over practicality in my video game avatars, the blog's author practicality over style. But in general I just found one or two too many instances of her showing off a picture of an unsexualized, unfetishized female character with bared skin or some manner of emphasis on her bust and an accompanying caption stating said picture failed an imaginary test with no known rules.

Ziiro · « **Reply #2 on:** July 28, 2011, 01:31:17 PM »

The author of that blog sounds like an incredibly butthurt person about the state of female representation in ~~video games~~ all media in the ~~united states~~ world.

Picking on individual artists for their style? Okay. Maybe if they were consistently incredibly offensive. I can somewhat agree with the examination of "HTK" for example, but to me that seems like a bigger problem of culture of game art in the region.

On the examination on Wayne Reynolds: Okay, so he does draw decent looking female adventures, but you're going to nitpick for the times he doesn't? Or maybe that his art has changed because some creative director or controller has said "No, take these back, we need scantily clad women"?

The more I read the more it infuriates me. She treats it like this specific artist has a problem against women. Like he's specifically out to make them look that way, giving evil cackles when he's drawing it. "YEAH, SHE'S GOING TO BE HALF NAKED. TAKE THAT, WOMEN'S RIGHTS."

Admittedly I can understand where she's coming from but this is the wrong part of the problem to criticize.

Oh god she tallied up all sorts of offensive language from gaming sites. Talk about low hanging fruit.

Brentai · « **Reply #3 on:** July 28, 2011, 01:47:59 PM »

I stopped reading when she tried to cover her ass by saying SEE THE MEN AREN'T SEXUALIZED AT ALL and posted a pic of a hunky male knight giving you The Smolder which apparently isn't the least bit provocative because his junk ain't hanging out.

I know perspective is hard but sometimes what seems to be a double standard only look that way because you have no way of knowing what straight women find attractive.

Friday · « **Reply #4 on:** July 28, 2011, 01:52:24 PM »

Not a single one of those pictures even remotely blipped on my "oversexualized" radar. Maybe that's because I'm just used to how female adventurers look, or maybe it's because the author is butthurt. What I can't understand is why she would be picking on some artist who is, at the worst, maybe a 3 on the scale of offensive oversexualization, when there is LOADS of shitty, slutty, and fetishized art out there elsewhere, loads of which can be found in most mainstream media.

I do agree with her statement of "females = mages = slutty needs to fall in a well and die", though. If I see one more playboy bunny sorc I think I will die of character design boredom. Hell, make them a seductress! Make them dark, scary, and sexy. That's still cliche as shit but at least it makes more sense than a ditzy female caster who dresses like a hooker.

(also it's way hotter)

Ziiro · « **Reply #5 on:** July 28, 2011, 01:57:23 PM »

The bitching about cleavage on the pirate character kills me.

I mean really. It's a legitimate stereotype for a female pirate character. I'll concede it would be cooler to see commanding captain-dressed female pirates, but I think that the stereotype and character shown is a legitimate character.

Classic · « **Reply #6 on:** July 28, 2011, 02:00:48 PM »

What's... strange... to me is how she describes loose clothing or the displaying of skin as bad because it's "slutty".
It reminds me of the objections of male adolescents trying to appear classy.

That said, it's clear that misogyny isn't underrepresented in the gaming repartee and I think it's a problem that needs to be combated and is edifying to catalog.

Really though, HTK's cameltoe fetishism grates on me. So I shouldn't even begin to try and dissect this stuff.

Friday · « **Reply #7 on:** July 28, 2011, 02:04:30 PM »

Don't get me wrong, the issue she's adressing is a real issue, it's just that in the linked article she was attacking a guy who isn't contributing to the issue, or is just barely a tiny bit maybe if you squint real hard.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #8 on:** July 28, 2011, 02:25:33 PM »

"There are many things that I can picture Samus doing. Being a housewife is not one of them."

christinelove: @zarawesome The date where she offers to give you Chozo home-cooking SOUNDED great, until she swallowed her first rat whole.

Also wayne reynolds are is less "sexy" and more "headbutting or footstomping the camera while ten thousand gewgaws dangle behind you"

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #9 on:** July 28, 2011, 03:44:03 PM »

... I actually really like Hyung Tae Kim. Yeah, yeah, his women look like they're constructed out of water balloons and pudding -- but it's pretty obvious it straight up really and truly is because of style and not due to artistic shortcoming. I can see how his stuff wouldn't be everyone's cup of tea, but I think his stuff is really neat to look at.

ALSO: here's the post that really got me annoyed with her whole blog. For the most of it there isn't really anything I found too grating until I got to this picture.

Quote

Now these are a little less obvious, so I've circled the problematic bits. (You might have to click through to see what I'm talking about.) All of these women are fierce, all of them are active, and all of them are in a believable environment. But all three of them are still wrong. Let female characters be awesome without having to show their tits and/or midriff!

Yeah, now that's just being an ass.

Ocksi · « **Reply #10 on:** July 28, 2011, 04:16:00 PM »

The weird thing is, decrying "sexy" (or revealing would be more accurate? but not always the case...) clothing and design as slutty and how that's a bad thing is kind of an anti-feminist stance, anyway. Slut-shaming is one of the big hurdles that movement has spent decades trying to leap.

Not sure if that's what Classic was getting at or not.

EDIT: blah, trying to word out a better explanation of that vs. objectification, but can't put the sentence together. Check back later.

Classic · « **Reply #11 on:** July 28, 2011, 04:27:39 PM »

Quote from: Ocksi on July 28, 2011, 04:16:00 PM

Not sure if that's what Classic was getting at or not.

That is exactly what I was obliquely referencing but completely forgot the someone-else-said-it-better words for. Thank you.

Quote from: Disposable Ninja on July 28, 2011, 03:44:03 PM

Quote
Now these are a little less obvious, so I've circled the problematic bits. (You might have to click through to see what I'm talking about.) All of these women are fierce, all of them are active, and all of them are in a believable environment. But all three of them are still wrong. Let female characters be awesome without having to show their tits and/or midriff!

Yeah, now that's just being an ass.

I agree with this. Especially, as has been noted, the pirate. I also don't know if you know this, but it's fucking hot under the sun on the sea basically anywhere within the 45* lines. Wearing clothes loose is just more comfortable.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #12 on:** July 28, 2011, 04:49:30 PM »

The idea that depicting a female character as attractive is necessarily objectifying is a possible indication of internalized guilt over finding the character attractive.

Disposable Ninja · « **Reply #13 on:** July 28, 2011, 04:51:21 PM »

Making practicality excuses regarding what half-naked fake cartoon people wear is pretty stupid, in my opinion. Honestly, there's never really a reason, ever, for a character to run around half-naked. Well, a good reason, anyway. You can make up reasons all you want, but in the end you're just justifying objectification.

MarsDragon · « **Reply #14 on:** July 28, 2011, 05:29:53 PM »

Quote from: Ocksi on July 28, 2011, 04:16:00 PM

The weird thing is, decrying "sexy" (or revealing would be more accurate? but not always the case...) clothing and design as slutty and how that's a bad thing is kind of an anti-feminist stance, anyway. Slut-shaming is one of the big hurdles that movement has spent decades trying to leap.

Not sure if that's what Classic was getting at or not.

EDIT: blah, trying to word out a better explanation of that vs. objectification, but can't put the sentence together. Check back later.

Yeah, that's bothering me too. Calling some cleavage "slutty" and condemning it as harshly as she does reminds me a lot of the conservative rhetoric I grew up with, and it really gives me the willies.

Not that overly sexualized art isn't a problem, but the solution isn't to insist that every video game woman only have her eyes showing. Honestly, most of those pictures are pretty happy medium to me.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #15 on:** July 28, 2011, 05:48:41 PM »

God, what a slut. Put some clothes on!

patito · « **Reply #16 on:** July 28, 2011, 06:21:03 PM »

well, she's pretty curvy looking and her armor is shaped like boobs, so I'm sure she'd complain about that too.

Büge · « **Reply #17 on:** July 28, 2011, 06:45:06 PM »

Oh wait, it was THIS that Mongrel was talking about. False alarm everyone!

Mongrel · « **Reply #18 on:** July 28, 2011, 06:55:33 PM »

Yeah, Wayne Reynolds annoys me, but not because of anything above Buge's post. It's because he knows only one pose.

JDigital · « **Reply #19 on:** July 28, 2011, 07:13:03 PM »

I once saw a Wayne Reynolds picture where the character wasn't running at a forty-five degree angle.

News:

Author Topic: Go Make Me a Sandwich (Read 5292 times)