Support NeoGAF

[Haly]

Cool, shitty PA strip redeemed by Tycho's blog post.

And... no, you don't. But when it comes to worthwhile artistic criticism, some knowledge of the craft and its history is required. I don't agree with everything Ebert says (and no I do not even mean the video games as art nonsense I DO NOT CARE AT ALL) but he is a good critic because he is actually knowledgeable and understands the medium he's covering.

Yeah, I agree here. I'm just letting my anger bleed into my posts.

Criticism should be sincere and transparent to be respected and acknowledged. It is fine to criticize something for what it is. If you think it's ugly, that's a valid opinion. If there are enough people who agree, perhaps an artist will consider that his style is not particularly popular. If such a thing is important to the artist, that might trigger change. Trying to suggest that the art itself is harmful to society or something which should be actively discouraged is much more dangerous criticism, and should be considered very carefully before being applied. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't make it wrong.

Great post duckroll. I'm quoting it just so it can be seen.

 

[LiK]

Cool, shitty PA strip redeemed by Tycho's blog post.

Gabe tweeted he loves the DC art. I assume the strip was actually just making fun of the whole situation.

 

[Moral Panic]

Ebert is a critic of art. He evaluates movies from the perspective of movie making. You, Schreier, and most others are not criticizing Dragon's Crown's artistic merits, something none of you are qualified to do. Only the writer of Art-Eater has displayed any sort of knowledge of the motifs and history of art necessary to really understand a work like Dragon's Crown.

Rather, you're holding it up as one of the contributing factors of sexism in the gaming industry, a real and actual problem. Fine, I agree it's a problem, and I think it should be remedied. So, my question to you is, how do we do it? What is expected of Kamitani here?

Who qualified you to say I'm not qualified to criticise Dragon's Crown? There's no difference between a film critic saying that a certain film's depictions of black people are troubling and offensive and me complaining about certain imagery in Dragon Crown. There's no accreditation for becoming a critic, all you need is an audience (which Screieir obviously has).

What is expected of Kamitani? What is expected of any artist or developer when faced with criticism? I don't think it is any different in this case. All we want is for him to hear what we are saying, after that its up to him what he wants to do.

 

[Akainu]

I don't fancy the Dragon's Crown designs myself. I find them exaggerated, silly, and somewhat ugly. I definitely prefer the designs in Grim Grimoire and Odin Sphere. But that's a personal opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with having childish designs in games, which are childish things to begin with. Trying to argue that it is "embarrassing" to play a game which looks a certain way or that it is "harmful" for the industry tells me two things about the person arguing it. One is that the person is probably too self-conscious or insecure about his or her hobby, and another is that the person thinks the game is more important than it really is.

Why don't you like or find it ugly? I haven't played Grim Grimoire but I'm seeing the same type of character types in this as in Odin's Sphere.

 

[Remachinate]

I feel there's a fallacy in trying to condemn an art style that doesn't appeal to oneself by twisting the argument into something about a greater evil. It's somewhat disingenuous and honestly insulting to the actual social issue being used to champion what is ultimately an issue of taste.

I don't fancy the Dragon's Crown designs myself. I find them exaggerated, silly, and somewhat ugly. I definitely prefer the designs in Grim Grimoire and Odin Sphere. But that's a personal opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with having childish designs in games, which are childish things to begin with. Trying to argue that it is "embarrassing" to play a game which looks a certain way or that it is "harmful" for the industry tells me two things about the person arguing it. One is that the person is probably too self-conscious or insecure about his or her hobby, and another is that the person thinks the game is more important than it really is.

Criticism should be sincere and transparent to be respected and acknowledged. It is fine to criticize something for what it is. If you think it's ugly, that's a valid opinion. If there are enough people who agree, perhaps an artist will consider that his style is not particularly popular. If such a thing is important to the artist, that might trigger change. Trying to suggest that the art itself is harmful to society or something which should be actively discouraged is much more dangerous criticism, and should be considered very carefully before being applied. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't make it wrong.

Can't one be totally into the aesthetic of the game and be aroused by the overt sexuality of some of its characters, while also recognizing the potential social impact of these design decisions? Is it fair to question and propose a certain level of social responsibility of creators?

 

[Mr.Monitor]

The artwork and game both look great. People need to take things for what they are and learn to cope if they can't deal with something so trivial. Besides, the fuck did people expect from Vanillaware?

 

[Gutsy Frog]

I honestly just wanted an excuse to complain about the American cover; I know that anything anime-like or cutesy gets made fun of in the mainstream vidya community.

Well I'm glad you weren't falling into the /v/ pitfall of "oh, it's okay for girls to fight practically naked, but if they're wearing decorative bits of metal? That is TOO MUCH for my suspension of disbelief, armor should be serious!" (and funnily enough the game does humorously lampshade this by giving a 'magical protection, the supposed armor is just silly fashion' explanation to it).

I do think Solange is the least-creative design. But not because of 'realism' or 'believability' or whatever (and she's still well drawn, really - it's just that she's conceptually pretty generic).

 

[Delusibeta]

Cool, shitty PA strip redeemed by Tycho's blog post.

It’s very weird to pull up a story about a game with frankly visionary art and hear why it shouldn’t exist, or to hear what I supposedly fantasize about, or what kind of power I supposedly revere, and any attempt to defend oneself from these psychotic projections or to assert that creators may create is evidence of a dark seed sprouting in the heart. It’s an incredible state of affairs. They’re not censors, though - oh, no no. You’ll understand it eventually; what you need to do is censor yourself.

Yuuuuup. Pity that in the sidebar is Ben doing his circling wagons act.

 

[duckroll]

What don't you like? I haven't played Grim Grimoire but I'm seeing the same type of character types in this as in Odin's Sphere.

I like Kamitani's costume designs, the fabric patterns and color design are usually rather striking and appealing. I think he is pretty poor at anatomy though, similar to many western comic artists or novel illustrators. The previous Vanillaware games used main character designs which leveraged well on the costumes and armor. Dragon's Crown focuses more on pure anatomy with less clothing so to speak. I don't think it works as well and is less appealing to me as a result.

 

[Haly]

Who qualified you to say I'm not qualified to criticise Dragon's Crown? There's no difference between a film critic saying that a certain film's depictions of black people are troubling and offensive and me complaining about certain imagery in Dragon Crown. There's no accreditation for becoming a critic, all you need is an audience (which Screieir obviously has).

It's poor criticism that appeals to mob sentiment in a grab for hits, rather than one that is a personal nuanced look

What is expected of Kamitani? What is expected of any artist or developer when faced with criticism?

Well for developers, usually, people have some idea of how they want things to be changed and they will go to some lengths to explain their viewpoint. For example, in the Skullgirls thread, people are angry at the lack of men in the roster, and say that Skullgirls' popularity might hinge on its mainstream appeal. Whether or not their argument is valid is inconsequential to my point, which is that when gamers criticize games, for the most part, they know what they want changed and aren't afraid to say it.

This is the state of modern gaming; design by committee for better or for worse.

I don't think it is any different in this case.

It's very different but keep pretending it isn't.

All we want is for him to hear what we are saying, after that its up to him what he wants to do.

He did, he publicly apologized. So, now that your mission is accomplished, what are you still doing here?

Or maybe there's something more to your objection to Dragon's Crown?

Dare I say you have some sort of... "hidden agenda"?

 

[Giolon]

Tycho knocks it out of the fucking park:

Source Post

Apparently [Dragon's Crown]’s not everybody’s heartsong! That’s what I read. They don’t like the game’s ridiculously, freakishly, borderline scarily rendered “woman” and to a certain extent I can understand why.

You probably don’t have to guess how I feel about this latest round of compulsory swaying and fainting, so much like an old timey Tent Revival, complete with its hopping devil and its perpetually put upon holy warriors. But let’s try to look at what’s actually here on the plate.

What would Vanillaware do with something that isn’t as readily interpreted through a cultural lens, say, a piece of text like the words “Dragon’s Crown”? I’m connected to a global network whose language is light; it’s not hard to find out.


<Image of Dragon's Crown Logo>


I think it’s fair to say that if it weren’t for the words “Dragon’s Crown” etched at the bottom, many people wouldn’t understand that they were looking at language. Imagine the same refracting prism applied to people, and actually you don’t have to imagine it, because that’s literally the whole game.

The only characters here who aren’t fucking mutants are the Elf and the Wizard, who are there to calibrate the player; everybody else is some fun-house exponent of strength or beauty stretched into some haunted sigil. Iconic isn’t even the word - they don’t evoke icons, they are icons. They’re humans as primal symbols.

It’s very weird to pull up a story about a game with frankly visionary art and hear why it shouldn’t exist, or to hear what I supposedly fantasize about, or what kind of power I supposedly revere, and any attempt to defend oneself from these psychotic projections or to assert that creators may create is evidence of a dark seed sprouting in the heart. It’s an incredible state of affairs. They’re not censors, though - oh, no no. You’ll understand it eventually; what you need to do is censor yourself.

I'd bold the relevant portions, but then I'd have to just bold the entire thing.

 

[Karsticles]

What don't you like? I haven't played Grim Grimoire but I'm seeing the same type of character types in this as in Odin's Sphere.

Since the primary topic of conversation is about the Sorceress, it's apt to note that her archetype has existed in nearly every VanillaWare game:

Dragon's Crown:

Grand Knight History:

Odin Sphere:

Muramasa:

GrimGrimoire:

Princess Crown might be the one exception, but I'll gladly be corrected since I never played it.

 

[Neuromancer]

Psst hey

Will this game have online co-op or local only?

 

[djplaeskool]

It&#8217;s very weird to pull up a story about a game with frankly visionary art and hear why it shouldn&#8217;t exist, or to hear what I supposedly fantasize about, or what kind of power I supposedly revere, and any attempt to defend oneself from these psychotic projections or to assert that creators may create is evidence of a dark seed sprouting in the heart. It&#8217;s an incredible state of affairs. They&#8217;re not censors, though - oh, no no. You&#8217;ll understand it eventually; what you need to do is censor yourself.

Psst hey
Will this game have online co-op or local only?

Local, ad-hoc, and online.
Online play, based on the language on the Atlus site, may be restricted by platform.

 

[Corto]

Can't one be totally into the aesthetic of the game and be aroused by the overt sexuality of some of its characters, while also recognizing the potential social impact of these design decisions? Is it fair to question and propose a certain level of social responsibility of creators?

No. Best art is subversive. Though if a creator choses to use his/her art as a social commentary and be social responsible that's their prerogative.

 

[Data West]

Psst hey

Will this game have online co-op or local only?

play as left breast and right breast

 

[Gutsy Frog]

Gabe tweeted he loves the DC art. I assume the strip was actually just making fun of the whole situation.

Haha wow, he said exactly what I said just now (but with his usual histrionic writing style):

They’re not censors, though - oh, no no. You’ll understand it eventually; what you need to do is censor yourself.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...t-like-men-the-disappointing-conversation-and However their friend Ben Kuchera is being a nutcase again. This is the guy that brought you "DmC is a rebooted Devil May Cry with heart, social commentary, and a great combat system".

However Tycho's entry seems like it's actually going against what Kuchera said. So... that's a step forward.

 

[Dresden]

Tycho knocks it out of the fucking park:

Source Post


I'd bold the relevant portions, but then I'd have to just bold the entire thing.

Man, this is a bit too much for me.

everybody else is some fun-house exponent of strength or beauty stretched into some haunted sigil. Iconic isn’t even the word - they don’t evoke icons, they are icons. They’re humans as primal symbols.

They're caricatures, not symbols. They're not permutations, they're exaggerations.

 

[Arklite]

He did, he publicly apologized. So, now that your mission is accomplished, what are you still doing here?

He apologized for his designs? Damn.
Artists live to create and to share their creations, people shouldn't assume they live deaf and blind to criticism. Still, I'm surprised he was driven to apologize for his art style.

 

[Haly]

It's clear that Kamitani has been a horrible influence on the industry for many years.

If it weren't for hard hitting journalists like Schreier, Kamitani's dastardly ways would've never been brought to light. Even now he would've been working his dark craft, sowing the seeds of misogyny throughout the gaming world.

He apologized for his designs? Damn.
Artists live to create and to share their creations, people shouldn't assume they live deaf and blind to criticism. Still, I'm surprised he was driven to apologize for his art style.

No, he apologized for the dwarf thing, but it makes it clear that he's reading the wind and knows when to bend and when to stand against it. If he apologized for his designs I'd firebomb Kotaku HQ.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

He apologized for his designs? Damn.
Artists live to create and to share their creations, people shouldn't assume they live deaf and blind to criticism. Still, I'm surprised he was driven to apologize for his art style.

He apologized for the muscular men joke.

 

[djplaeskool]

He apologized for his designs? Damn.
Artists live to create and to share their creations, people shouldn't assume they live deaf and blind to criticism. Still, I'm surprised he was driven to apologize for his art style.

Not for the designs.
He apologized that his jest was rash and may have been taken the wrong way.

 

[Corto]

He apologized for his designs? Damn.
Artists live to create and to share their creations, people shouldn't assume they live deaf and blind to criticism. Still, I'm surprised he was driven to apologize for his art style.

Kamitani did not apologize for the art style. He apologized for the facebook post and picture directed to Jason Schreier.

"While the picture of the dwarfs was meant to be a lighthearted joke, after it became bigger than I thought it would, I reflected on the rashness of it. I am sorry. I have no hard feelings about the article."

 

[ixix]

According to this logic, if I claim a game has bad sexist writing then I am calling for censorship? Why is it different for designs?

Maybe you don't understand but there's a fundamental difference between criticism and censorship. No one is calling for the game to be cancelled or pulled off the shelf or even protesting or campaigning against the game. We are criticising it.

Calling a game's writing bad and sexist is not a call for censorship, or at least it is not one that is objectionable. Saying that a game's writing is directly harmful and, by extension, implying that it not existing would be a net societal good, is very much an objectionable call for censorship absent strong evidence for your claims of harm.

My core objection lies in that post's implication of a causative link between video games and real-world harm. To my mind, when you start declaring media harmful (as opposed to distasteful, tacky, weird, gross, or whatever) you are making claims which have to be substantively backed with independently verifiable evidence. jschreier stated that designs which appeal to teenage boys are harmful, and stated that they have a (implicitly deleterious) effect on men, women, and an indefinite concept of a gaming culture. He made no attempt to substantiate these claims, but they very much demand it.

That, really, is the crux of the issue. The rationale behind attempting to convince George Kamitani to self-censor (and, again, let's not be coy, that is what is going on here) is that the character designs of Dragon's Crown are actively harmful to living human beings, and I don't buy that. By comparison my objection to his claim that he wasn't advocating self-censorship when he totally and obviously was is small potatoes.

 

[Arklite]

I see, thank you for the corrections.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You certainly don't have to take part in the conversation. Believe me, there are plenty of organizations in this world dedicated to being 'offended' over lots of things. I love animals, but I don't support PETA (as an example). It's gradient for sure, but that doesn't mean this isn't a valid example. Obviously if people are offended by this, or think it's over the top or however you want to say it, they're entitled to say so.

Of course he can be offended about it and talk about it as much as he wants. I just hate how it's being presented as some kind of objective issue that YOU (read: everyone who is not a terrible person) should also be offended about. It's also annoying that he keeps hammering on the point that this art style is inherently juvenile and can only be enjoyed by young boys and men who like tits. We know that's just not true. We know it's bullshit. Schreier can be personally offended all he wants (I don't believe he actually is, honestly), but trying to blow this up to be some kind of issue about misogyny is just grasping, in my opinion.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Tycho knocks it out of the fucking park:

Source Post


I'd bold the relevant portions, but then I'd have to just bold the entire thing.

I'm by no means a fan of PA, but I absolutely appreciate seeing someone in the press take this stance.

Psst hey

Will this game have online co-op or local only?

It has both.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

Man, this is a bit too much for me.

They're caricatures, not symbols. They're not permutations, they're exaggerations.

The dude has a very histrionic writing style and I can't say I like him as a person overall, but he can make good points and I'm glad that an influential figure in video games is voicing these opinions.

I expect people to take the comic as making a completely unironic point about sexism and ignore his news post about it, though. Or focus on Kuchera's generic US GAMERS NEED TO GROW UP article instead.

 

[duckroll]

Can't one be totally into the aesthetic of the game and be aroused by the overt sexuality of some of its characters, while also recognizing the potential social impact of these design decisions? Is it fair to question and propose a certain level of social responsibility of creators?

I don't think there is anything wrong with the idea of there being possible moral outrage over a piece of entertainment. But I think there has to be a high standard applied, especially from paid writers who want to have credibility as a voice of reason speaking with authority in an industry, before we cry moral outrage. Otherwise it becomes a race of who can scream the loudest on any "potentially" offensive issue anywhere. It becomes a PC race. The key word here being potential. Anything can be potentially offensive to someone, but is that actually a -bad- thing? No. Someone not liking your work is not a crime.

I certainly think there are boundaries which can be crossed where bad taste becomes a controversial topic. It's important to have a conversation about such things, so we understand each other and what is acceptable and unacceptable by society. But I think if we're talking about a multiplayer sidescrolling beatemup with artwork inspired by fantasy novels which are a dime a dozen out there, and crying moral outrage over character designs where the women apparently have breasts which are too large... that is just silly. It's not just silly - to take every criticism like this seriously would be to water down the actual problem of sexism in games.

I don't think the character art in Dragon's Crown is sexist, I just think it's stupid. I also think Kamitani's response to the Kotaku article is stupid. This entire issue is stupid and only serves to give Kotaku more clicks. This is how the website works. They stir up shit and try and create controversy where there might be none because that gives them more attention on the internet, and it pays their bills. This is not a serious discussion about gender equality in games or sexist intent in art design.

 

[Honey Bunny]

Calling a game's writing bad and sexist is not a call for censorship, or at least it is not one that is objectionable. Saying that a game's writing is directly harmful and, by extension, implying that it not existing would be a net societal good, is very much an objectionable call for censorship absent strong evidence for your claims of harm.

My core objection lies in that post's implication of a causative link between video games and real-world harm. To my mind, when you start declaring media harmful (as opposed to distasteful, tacky, weird, gross, or whatever) you are making claims which have to be substantively backed with independently verifiable evidence. jschreier stated that designs which appeal to teenage boys are harmful, and stated that they have a (implicitly deleterious) effect on men, women, and an indefinite concept of a gaming culture. He made no attempt to substantiate these claims, but they very much demand it.

That, really, is the crux of the issue. The rationale behind attempting to convince George Kamitani to self-censor (and, again, let's not be coy, that is what is going on here) is that the character designs of Dragon's Crown are actively harmful to living human beings, and I don't buy that. By comparison my objection to his claim that he wasn't advocating self-censorship when he totally and obviously was is small potatoes.

Well said!

 

[Remachinate]

No. Best art is subversive. Though if a creator choses to use his/her art as a social commentary and be social responsible that's their prerogative.

Under what objective criteria do you establish what "best art" is? I think the question of the the expected role of artists in a society is a fair one, and is at the heart of the conflict in this thread. Should an artist throw his free expression out there and let it find an audience, or should he/she know the audience and craft his work accordingly? Does the answer to that question change depending on whether it's a commercial video game as opposed to "high art"?

But I think if we're talking about a multiplayer sidescrolling beatemup with artwork inspired by fantasy novels which are a dime a dozen out there, and crying moral outrage over character designs where the women apparently have breasts which are too large... that is just silly. It's not just silly - to take every criticism like this seriously would be to water down the actual problem of sexism in games.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if one wants to seriously tackle the issue of sexism in games, where else should one start than the systematic inclusion of women as sexual objects in these types of games?

 

[Haly]

I expect people to take the comic as making a completely unironic point about sexism and ignore his news post about it, though. Or focus on Kuchera's generic US GAMERS NEED TO GROW UP article instead.

At least Kuchera's readers seem to be showing more insight into this debacle than Kuchera himself.

 

[Reluctant-Hero]

I feel there's a fallacy in trying to condemn an art style that doesn't appeal to oneself by twisting the argument into something about a greater evil. It's somewhat disingenuous and honestly insulting to the actual social issue being used to champion what is ultimately an issue of taste.

I don't fancy the Dragon's Crown designs myself. I find them exaggerated, silly, and somewhat ugly. I definitely prefer the designs in Grim Grimoire and Odin Sphere. But that's a personal opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with having childish designs in games, which are childish things to begin with. Trying to argue that it is "embarrassing" to play a game which looks a certain way or that it is "harmful" for the industry tells me two things about the person arguing it. One is that the person is probably too self-conscious or insecure about his or her hobby, and another is that the person thinks the game is more important than it really is.

Criticism should be sincere and transparent to be respected and acknowledged. It is fine to criticize something for what it is. If you think it's ugly, that's a valid opinion. If there are enough people who agree, perhaps an artist will consider that his style is not particularly popular. If such a thing is important to the artist, that might trigger change. Trying to suggest that the art itself is harmful to society or something which should be actively discouraged is much more dangerous criticism, and should be considered very carefully before being applied. Just because a person doesn't like something doesn't make it wrong.

Thank you, Duckroll. What you've written is exactly how I feel and what I was trying to convey. Well done.

 

[7Th]

Well I'm glad you weren't falling into the /v/ pitfall of "oh, it's okay for girls to fight practically naked, but if they're wearing decorative bits of metal? That is TOO MUCH for my suspension of disbelief, armor should be serious!" (and funnily enough the game does humorously lampshade this by giving a 'magical protection, the supposed armor is just silly fashion' explanation to it).

I do think Solange is the least-creative design. But not because of 'realism' or 'believability' or whatever (and she's still well drawn, really - it's just that she's conceptually pretty generic).

The small amount of "hatred" Code of Princess was even more misguided because the entire concept was created by Kinu Nishimura, a female. She didn't just design the characters, she came up with the idea and the story. She wasn't "pandering" to anyone other than herself. And to be honest, I find that her art for the game is going for "pretty" rather than "sexy":

 

[duckroll]

You know what this reminds me of? When Kotaku decided to grab some random tweet from Kamiya, and blow it up as "OMG JAPANEZY DEVS NO UNDERSTAND STEAM OR PC DUHHH!" and then Kamiya tells the writer to go fuck off and eat shit. The original article was stupid. The response from the developer is stupid. And Kotaku gets another gazillion hits over the week because of fanboys on every side of the fence love to comment on this crap and keep visiting the article(s).

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

 

[Karsticles]

You know what this reminds me of? When Kotaku decided to grab some random tweet from Kamiya, and blow it up as "OMG JAPANEZY DEVS NO UNDERSTAND STEAM OR PC DUHHH!" and then Kamiya tells the writer to go fuck off and eat shit. The original article was stupid. The response from the developer is stupid. And Kotaku gets another gazillion hits over the week because of fanboys on every side of the fence love to comment on this crap and keep visiting the article(s).

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

We all ate shit.

 

[Akainu]

I like Kamitani's costume designs, the fabric patterns and color design are usually rather striking and appealing. I think he is pretty poor at anatomy though, similar to many western comic artists or novel illustrators. The previous Vanillaware games used main character designs which leveraged well on the costumes and armor. Dragon's Crown focuses more on pure anatomy with less clothing so to speak. I don't think it works as well and is less appealing to me as a result.

So you just think it's a bit more generic fantasy is that about right?

 

[Mr.Monitor]

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

yes.

 

[Neuromancer]

You know what this reminds me of? When Kotaku decided to grab some random tweet from Kamiya, and blow it up as "OMG JAPANEZY DEVS NO UNDERSTAND STEAM OR PC DUHHH!" and then Kamiya tells the writer to go fuck off and eat shit. The original article was stupid. The response from the developer is stupid. And Kotaku gets another gazillion hits over the week because of fanboys on every side of the fence love to comment on this crap and keep visiting the article(s).

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

Hmm I think you may be on to something here.

 

[Gutsy Frog]

The small amount of "hatred" Code of Princess was even more misguided because the entire concept was created by Kinu Nishimura, a female. She didn't just design the characters, she came up with the idea and the story. She wasn't "pandering" to anyone other than herself. And to be honest, I find that her art for the game is going for "pretty" rather than "sexy":

To be honest, I think that's kinda wrong; some of the designs are obviously meant to be pretty AND sexy. She can easily enjoy both. And I like when a sexualized design also also has some elegance and prettiness to it.

 

[spandexmonkey]

Under what objective criteria do you establish what "best art" is? I think the question of the the expected role of artists in a society is a fair one, and is at the heart of the conflict in this thread. Should an artist throw his free expression out there and let it find an audience, or should he/she know the audience and craft his work accordingly? Does the answer to that question change depending on whether it's a commercial video game as opposed to "high art"?

You're kind of describing the difference between industry and art. Yes the artist creates what they freely envision while the industry creates what people want/expect. Reason why I think something like Call of Duty or Battlefield should be criticisized for their lack of female soldiers when they already exist in the real world. They are large, industrial franchises, they are the mass produced examples of what people want/expect.
Dragon's Crown is a small group creating a unique vision. It's up to society to decide if it merits becoming an institution.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if one wants to seriously tackle the issue of sexism in games, where else should one start than the systematic inclusion of women as sexual objects in these types of games?

Again, lack of female protagonists, refusal of publishers to allow female leads, female soldiers in modern military games, the industry's treatment of it's female professionals. Going after any sexuality in games is just a small step away from playing morality police.

 

[duckroll]

So you just think it's a bit more generic fantasy is that about right?

I don't think my dislike for the designs are because they're "generic" per se. I just don't like how exaggerated all the proportions are because it looks silly - this applies to both male and female designs, and also how the proportions are emphasized as the main part of the design. It's like a silly Jim Lee comic cover. I felt the character designs in the previous games did a better job of using the overall design of the characters to make up for the weak anatomy which was also present. Human characters in particular always looked "off" in his artwork, but at least they looked better when there are nice costumes defining the characters instead.

 

[Reluctant-Hero]

You know what this reminds me of? When Kotaku decided to grab some random tweet from Kamiya, and blow it up as "OMG JAPANEZY DEVS NO UNDERSTAND STEAM OR PC DUHHH!" and then Kamiya tells the writer to go fuck off and eat shit. The original article was stupid. The response from the developer is stupid. And Kotaku gets another gazillion hits over the week because of fanboys on every side of the fence love to comment on this crap and keep visiting the article(s).

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

I had similar thoughts yesterday. This is the same incident all over again.

 

[Corto]

Under what objective criteria do you establish what "best art" is? I think the question of the the expected role of artists in a society is a fair one, and is at the heart of the conflict in this thread. Should an artist throw his free expression out there and let it find an audience, or should he/she know the audience and craft his work accordingly? Does the answer to that question change depending on whether it's a commercial video game as opposed to "high art"?

It's my subjective criteria. You're free to disagree.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but if one wants to seriously tackle the issue of sexism in games, where else should one start than the systematic inclusion of women as sexual objects in these types of games?

In the gaming industry workplaces. In the news outlets, in the video games studios and in the publishers companies. Let the women be in decision making positions and let them shape the industry. Discussing big juggling boobs is just dancing around the issue.

 

[Muchi Muchi Pink]

Gonna play Elf, Amazon and Dwarf.

 

[JDSN]

You know what this reminds me of? When Kotaku decided to grab some random tweet from Kamiya, and blow it up as "OMG JAPANEZY DEVS NO UNDERSTAND STEAM OR PC DUHHH!" and then Kamiya tells the writer to go fuck off and eat shit. The original article was stupid. The response from the developer is stupid. And Kotaku gets another gazillion hits over the week because of fanboys on every side of the fence love to comment on this crap and keep visiting the article(s).

I wonder which is more "harmful" to the industry. Kamitani drawing a sorceress with her huge boobs hanging out, or shitty blog sites which stir up shit under the guise of moral criticism pretending it is journalism. Food for thought.

Here is Jason's post on not waiting for Kamitani to respond to make his stance clear:

Yes, ten hours is almost eternity in Internet news time. We can't sit on an active story - a story that's being discussed on many other websites - while we wait for Japan to wake up. Like it or not, that's the reality of media (ALL media) in 2013.

That doesnt paint a good picture on him. And for the record, he waited approximately 4 hours for that answer.

 

[7Th]

To be honest, I think that's kinda wrong; some of the designs are obviously meant to be pretty AND sexy. She can easily enjoy both. And I like when a sexualized design also also has some elegance and prettiness to it.

They're definitely sexy, them not being sexy isn't exactly what I meant. I was mostly trying to draw contrast between her art and the usual sexy girls found in mainstream videogames.

 

[LiK]

ALL Kinu art is sexy as hell.

 

[Giolon]

The small amount of "hatred" Code of Princess was even more misguided because the entire concept was created by Kinu Nishimura, a female. She didn't just design the characters, she came up with the idea and the story. She wasn't "pandering" to anyone other than herself. And to be honest, I find that her art for the game is going for "pretty" rather than "sexy":

I'm melting just looking at this. Kinu is a master.

 

[duckroll]

Here is Jason's post on not waiting for Kamitani to respond to make his stance clear:


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=497024&page=223

That doesnt paint a good picture on him. And for the record, he waited approximately 4 hours for that answer.

He writes for Kotaku. I think that says enough without him having to add anything else to it. Unfortunately for him, he decided to I guess. Lol.