How is Dragon's Crown a parody?

[Euryalus]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

It makes a certain amount of sense if the author is unknown, or died without having ever commented on the meaning of their work, but to say that commentary written by the author is no more or less valuable than commentary written by anyone else is the height of arrogance. I mean, did you know that Isaac Asimov was once told "What makes you think you know what it means just because you wrote it?" When he stood up to correct a speaker at a conference who was apparently totally misinterpreting one of his books? Instead of thanking the author of the book for coming in and setting him straight, he insulted the man.

 

[CloudAtlas]

A parody might have been the intention, but, as others pointed out, how can you distinguish a parody when it looks pretty much the same as a lot of stuff that is not?

Does Dragon's Crown provide any signals that it is a parody? Does it, for instance, poke fun of the impracticality of its outfits and the impossibility of its anatomies?

It kinda actually does. Sometimes. There's a feature where you find some ex-adventurers bones and bring them back for resurrection. And besides every set of bones is a little message that adventurer left before he died. Amazon's bones might say something like "I should've worn some armor". Not sure if that counts though.
Also, sometimes Sorceress' bones might say "tell HER that I loved her".

Well, I'd say the first message certainly qualifies. The second, I don't know, aren't lesbians sort of a staple?

If it is indeed a parody and nobody realizes it, it would be a pity, really. I'm doubtful it really is, but who knows... when I first saw these designs, I thought those can't be meant serious, not in a mainstream game, but then again... the game is from Japan, and a lot of stuff in mainstream games does not look that different, especially not in games from Asia. And having real trouble to imagine that if, in the west, people already don't recognize it as parody, that people in Japan would. And if it was meant to pander to one audience but to be a parody for another, that would be... worrisome.

 

[Euryalus]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

EDIT: Aww man don't go adding more stuff on me while writing XD

Isaac Asimov's opinion doesn't hold more weight because he's the author, but because his argument and explanations are more compelling. That he's the author means little, it's only what he says that counts.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

 

[Euryalus]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

But don't you see? You are claiming that authority. You are claiming the authority (or at least reserving the right, which is another way of saying the same thing) to tell the author "no, you're wrong, this is not what your own work means. I know better because while you may have created this, you're not that great at interpreting it." The death of the author is the worst kind of critical arrogance.

 

[EternallyBored]

A misunderstood parody is still a parody, just a badly executed one. And is it a badly executed one? I never even heard that the maker of Dragon's Crown called his game a parody and I could tell you that it is one. It's not just the Sorceress, but -all- of the characters. All of the characters are designed in such extreme, yet stereotypical, ways that of course it's a satire. I got that much from looking at the Fighter alone, neverminding the rest of the cast and the way that the Dwarf and Elf are named after their race and not their class.

It doesn't have to be so extremely over-the-top that breasts literally kill a person; people just need to use their brains and stop being so overly sensitive because I can bet you that all of the people that are crying out now against Dragon Crown's design would still be crying out even with your idea.

See that's kind of the problem. Yes the characters are extremely over the top. The problem? We've got tons of characters already like that

And they're all played completely straight. It's why I find it hard to take Dragon's Crown seriously. I don't hate it or think it's offensive. I just don't think it looks very good. Just the same tired and beaten trail we've seen traversed a hundred times already.

I'll warn you now that I hate fighters enough that I simply laugh at character you've provided. Har har har. Your fighters and their character designs are always shit. /dealwithit

But no, on a more serious note, the problem that I have with what you're saying is that you're practically demanding that the line always be moved when it's not enough for you. Not only that, but you're trying really, really hard to focus only on big breasts. I get that you're a guy and all, but come on man, stop thinking with your willy for a few moments.

Wha? I'm not demanding that a line be moved. What? I'm asking how can something like the Sorceress be a parody, when something like the Sorceress has become the norm?

Look, this is off the back of the box for the game:

George Kamitani's stunning homage to classic fantasy gaming delivers over-the-top character designs....

It is a parody, Kamitani was making a conscious effort to make satirical character designs. You may not like them, but there it is.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to get across. I don't think it's a very GOOD parody.

Have you played it? I'm currently playing it. I really don't see how a statement like that can be made without significant experience with the product, either through playing it or through a LP.

I have played it quite a bit over the last two days, just got the the lost forest and have met pretty much every character shown in the art book you get for pre-ordering. Is it a parody? I don't know, I suppose it depends on what you think it's parodying. If you think it's parodying exaggerated fantasy characters and nothing else, then I can sort of see it. If you think it's actually parodying fantasy tropes that existed in works like D&D and Golden Axe, then no it fails pretty miserably. That's sort of the thing its a very shallow parody in that the only actual part of the game that parodies anything is the character design and nothing else.

The portrayal of females in the game goes far FAR deeper than just the sorceress, it's actually sort of funny and sad at the same time that the sorceress got so much flak, and she is honestly downright tame compared to many of the female NPCs you meet in the game. Out of all the female characters you meet, all of two of them are dressed in a somewhat sane manner, the princess of the kingdom and the elf player character, that's it, whether it's NPCs or enemies literally every other female character in the game is sexualized to such an overblown degree. Here's where I can see the parody if I turn my head and squint, the character design is exaggerated across the board, but while the game parodies a number of male fantasy tropes, it seems to parody only one female design (take a wild guess which one). We get exaggerations of the old wizard, the shifty politician, the grizzled old knight, the musclebound barbarian, even an evil warlock and an old hermit and beggar. When it comes to females we get: the sexy witch, the sexy Amazon, the sexy shop keeper, the sexy mermaid (also the only mermaid I've ever seen with human ass cheeks and her tail somehow attached below that), the sexy nun, the sexy spirit, the sexy fairy (that hangs out in a goblet with her legs spread towards the camera whenever you enter the tavern), a sexy vampire with see through nightgown, sexy ghosts with large breasts and see through ghost gowns, even the most bizarre rendition of a sexy harpy I've ever seen, it's literally an armless female upper body glued to the body of a giant bird from its neck down (it's actually monstrous enough that this one sort of works for me). From the way this fantasy world is set up it seems women either stop aging after 25 or they just kill any woman who starts to show wrinkles, basically a large variety of male designs get the parody treatment, but female designs only get the sexy parody treatment.

There's also the fact that it's pretty much all superfluous to the story, most of these characters are seen for all of 10 seconds, we get a moving portrait of them and three lines of text from the male narrator then we move to the next screen. It pretty much goes like this:
Male Narrator: "you see a mermaid in a pool, she points you in the direction of your next objective" screen fades to next room.
Yep, while often containing beautiful art, the scenes are pretty much superfluous to both the story and the game.

Is it a fun game? Yeah they did a good job capturing the feel of those old co-op hack and slash games like golden axe, the combat can get very cluttered, especially if multiple of the same character class are on the screen. The combat can feel clunky and very grindy at points too, and the story is pretty much a repetitive series of barely related quests that has about as much story and exposition as the original Golden Axe (I.E. almost none). The co-op also takes way too long to crop up, it takes a few hours, at least, before other people can play with you , which is annoying as hell. I'm having fun with it, but the representation of female characters so far has caused at least a few eye rolls, and unfortunately also tends to distract people of the games other problems. I don't regret buying it, it is fun, but its still a flawed game, and a very shallow parody if it is supposed to be one.

 

[Euryalus]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

But don't you see? You are claiming that authority. You are claiming the authority (or at least reserving the right, which is another way of saying the same thing) to tell the author "no, you're wrong, this is not what your own work means. I know better because while you may have created this, you're not that great at interpreting it." The death of the author is the worst kind of critical arrogance.

How does any of that matter in the face of what art is? What exactly does the author know? That he made a thing? What is it?

That definition is important. It determines whether or not an artist knows "better" about what they're talking about than someone who carefully reads or studies something.

Because if art is either of the two ideas I've already put forth, I don't see how it can be the case that the artist is inherently priviledged.

Besides you CAN have several interpretations of a work and have them both be right or have truth in them due to the complexity of the messages art sends. There can be good interpretations and bad ones, but there can be many.

And this may seem petty, but I would appreciate you stop insinuating I'm arrogant simply for holding a different definition of art than you. It's unnecessary. Even if I'm wrong that doesn't make me arrogant.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

A misunderstood parody is still a parody, just a badly executed one. And is it a badly executed one? I never even heard that the maker of Dragon's Crown called his game a parody and I could tell you that it is one. It's not just the Sorceress, but -all- of the characters. All of the characters are designed in such extreme, yet stereotypical, ways that of course it's a satire. I got that much from looking at the Fighter alone, neverminding the rest of the cast and the way that the Dwarf and Elf are named after their race and not their class.

It doesn't have to be so extremely over-the-top that breasts literally kill a person; people just need to use their brains and stop being so overly sensitive because I can bet you that all of the people that are crying out now against Dragon Crown's design would still be crying out even with your idea.

See that's kind of the problem. Yes the characters are extremely over the top. The problem? We've got tons of characters already like that

And they're all played completely straight. It's why I find it hard to take Dragon's Crown seriously. I don't hate it or think it's offensive. I just don't think it looks very good. Just the same tired and beaten trail we've seen traversed a hundred times already.

I'll warn you now that I hate fighters enough that I simply laugh at character you've provided. Har har har. Your fighters and their character designs are always shit. /dealwithit

But no, on a more serious note, the problem that I have with what you're saying is that you're practically demanding that the line always be moved when it's not enough for you. Not only that, but you're trying really, really hard to focus only on big breasts. I get that you're a guy and all, but come on man, stop thinking with your willy for a few moments.

Wha? I'm not demanding that a line be moved. What? I'm asking how can something like the Sorceress be a parody, when something like the Sorceress has become the norm?

Look, this is off the back of the box for the game:

George Kamitani's stunning homage to classic fantasy gaming delivers over-the-top character designs....

It is a parody, Kamitani was making a conscious effort to make satirical character designs. You may not like them, but there it is.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to get across. I don't think it's a very GOOD parody.

Have you played it? I'm currently playing it. I really don't see how a statement like that can be made without significant experience with the product, either through playing it or through a LP.

I have played it quite a bit over the last two days, just got the the lost forest and have met pretty much every character shown in the art book you get for pre-ordering. Is it a parody? I don't know, I suppose it depends on what you think it's parodying. If you think it's parodying exaggerated fantasy characters and nothing else, then I can sort of see it. If you think it's actually parodying fantasy tropes that existed in works like D&D and Golden Axe, then no it fails pretty miserably. That's sort of the thing its a very shallow parody in that the only actual part of the game that parodies anything is the character design and nothing else.

The portrayal of females in the game goes far FAR deeper than just the sorceress, it's actually sort of funny and sad at the same time that the sorceress got so much flak, and she is honestly downright tame compared to many of the female NPCs you meet in the game. Out of all the female characters you meet, all of two of them are dressed in a somewhat sane manner, the princess of the kingdom and the elf player character, that's it, whether it's NPCs or enemies literally every other female character in the game is sexualized to such an overblown degree. Here's where I can see the parody if I turn my head and squint, the character design is exaggerated across the board, but while the game parodies a number of male fantasy tropes, it seems to parody only one female design (take a wild guess which one). We get exaggerations of the old wizard, the shifty politician, the grizzled old knight, the musclebound barbarian, even an evil warlock and an old hermit and beggar. When it comes to females we get: the sexy witch, the sexy Amazon, the sexy shop keeper, the sexy mermaid (also the only mermaid I've ever seen with human ass cheeks and her tail somehow attached below that), the sexy nun, the sexy spirit, the sexy fairy (that hangs out in a goblet with her legs spread towards the camera whenever you enter the tavern), a sexy vampire with see through nightgown, sexy ghosts with large breasts and see through ghost gowns, even the most bizarre rendition of a sexy harpy I've ever seen, it's literally an armless female upper body glued to the body of a giant bird from its neck down (it's actually monstrous enough that this one sort of works for me). From the way this fantasy world is set up it seems women either stop aging after 25 or they just kill any woman who starts to show wrinkles, basically a large variety of male designs get the parody treatment, but female designs only get the sexy parody treatment.

There's also the fact that it's pretty much all superfluous to the story, most of these characters are seen for all of 10 seconds, we get a moving portrait of them and three lines of text from the male narrator then we move to the next screen. It pretty much goes like this:
Male Narrator: "you see a mermaid in a pool, she points you in the direction of your next objective" screen fades to next room.
Yep, while often containing beautiful art, the scenes are pretty much superfluous to both the story and the game.

Is it a fun game? Yeah they did a good job capturing the feel of those old co-op hack and slash games like golden axe, the combat can get very cluttered, especially if multiple of the same character class are on the screen. The combat can feel clunky and very grindy at points too, and the story is pretty much a repetitive series of barely related quests that has about as much story and exposition as the original Golden Axe (I.E. almost none). The co-op also takes way too long to crop up, it takes a few hours, at least, before other people can play with you , which is annoying as hell. I'm having fun with it, but the representation of female characters so far has caused at least a few eye rolls, and unfortunately also tends to distract people of the games other problems. I don't regret buying it, it is fun, but its still a flawed game, and a very shallow parody if it is supposed to be one.

I haven't actually played the game, but from what I understand the character designs is exactly it. And it's not Golden Axe or D&D, it's specifically the art of Frank Frazetta and those he inspired. I posted a link to his <link=http://frankfrazetta.net/Gallery_1.html>gallery earlier, but I'm going to post some spoilered pictures now, because apparently nobody clicked on the link. Spoilered because they're not entirely safe for work.

Spoiler: you have been warned

The reason he's famous is he was the go to guy for pulp fantasy novel covers for /decades/. Just about everything he did was either a book cover or a poster, and his paintings are a big part of why it used to be so embarrassing to get caught reading a fantasy novel or going into the fantasy section in a bookstore. The ones I linked to were the tame ones, too. Half the women seem to be totally topless, I actually had to remove one I had picked out as an example because I was afraid of getting a warning for a TOS violation because it shows nipples.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

A parody might have been the intention, but, as others pointed out, how can you distinguish a parody when it looks pretty much the same as a lot of stuff that is not?

Does Dragon's Crown provide any signals that it is a parody? Does it, for instance, poke fun of the impracticality of its outfits and the impossibility of its anatomies?

It kinda actually does. Sometimes. There's a feature where you find some ex-adventurers bones and bring them back for resurrection. And besides every set of bones is a little message that adventurer left before he died. Amazon's bones might say something like "I should've worn some armor". Not sure if that counts though.
Also, sometimes Sorceress' bones might say "tell HER that I loved her".

Well, I'd say the first message certainly qualifies. The second, I don't know, aren't lesbians sort of a staple?

If it is indeed a parody and nobody realizes it, it would be a pity, really. I'm doubtful it really is, but who knows... when I first saw these designs, I thought those can't be meant serious, not in a mainstream game, but then again... the game is from Japan, and a lot of stuff in mainstream games does not look that different, especially not in games from Asia. And having real trouble to imagine that if, in the west, people already don't recognize it as parody, that people in Japan would. And if it was meant to pander to one audience but to be a parody for another, that would be... worrisome.

Well, concerning Sorceress' homosexuality, wouldn't that be kinda funny if the most male-pondering character was lesbian? I think it's funny.
Also, game just went full-on parody by the way. The latest boss I defeated was little, fluffy, white rabbit on the mountain of knight corpses.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

A misunderstood parody is still a parody, just a badly executed one. And is it a badly executed one? I never even heard that the maker of Dragon's Crown called his game a parody and I could tell you that it is one. It's not just the Sorceress, but -all- of the characters. All of the characters are designed in such extreme, yet stereotypical, ways that of course it's a satire. I got that much from looking at the Fighter alone, neverminding the rest of the cast and the way that the Dwarf and Elf are named after their race and not their class.

It doesn't have to be so extremely over-the-top that breasts literally kill a person; people just need to use their brains and stop being so overly sensitive because I can bet you that all of the people that are crying out now against Dragon Crown's design would still be crying out even with your idea.

See that's kind of the problem. Yes the characters are extremely over the top. The problem? We've got tons of characters already like that

And they're all played completely straight. It's why I find it hard to take Dragon's Crown seriously. I don't hate it or think it's offensive. I just don't think it looks very good. Just the same tired and beaten trail we've seen traversed a hundred times already.

I'll warn you now that I hate fighters enough that I simply laugh at character you've provided. Har har har. Your fighters and their character designs are always shit. /dealwithit

But no, on a more serious note, the problem that I have with what you're saying is that you're practically demanding that the line always be moved when it's not enough for you. Not only that, but you're trying really, really hard to focus only on big breasts. I get that you're a guy and all, but come on man, stop thinking with your willy for a few moments.

Wha? I'm not demanding that a line be moved. What? I'm asking how can something like the Sorceress be a parody, when something like the Sorceress has become the norm?

Look, this is off the back of the box for the game:

George Kamitani's stunning homage to classic fantasy gaming delivers over-the-top character designs....

It is a parody, Kamitani was making a conscious effort to make satirical character designs. You may not like them, but there it is.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to get across. I don't think it's a very GOOD parody.

Have you played it? I'm currently playing it. I really don't see how a statement like that can be made without significant experience with the product, either through playing it or through a LP.

I have played it quite a bit over the last two days, just got the the lost forest and have met pretty much every character shown in the art book you get for pre-ordering. Is it a parody? I don't know, I suppose it depends on what you think it's parodying. If you think it's parodying exaggerated fantasy characters and nothing else, then I can sort of see it. If you think it's actually parodying fantasy tropes that existed in works like D&D and Golden Axe, then no it fails pretty miserably. That's sort of the thing its a very shallow parody in that the only actual part of the game that parodies anything is the character design and nothing else.

The portrayal of females in the game goes far FAR deeper than just the sorceress, it's actually sort of funny and sad at the same time that the sorceress got so much flak, and she is honestly downright tame compared to many of the female NPCs you meet in the game. Out of all the female characters you meet, all of two of them are dressed in a somewhat sane manner, the princess of the kingdom and the elf player character, that's it, whether it's NPCs or enemies literally every other female character in the game is sexualized to such an overblown degree. Here's where I can see the parody if I turn my head and squint, the character design is exaggerated across the board, but while the game parodies a number of male fantasy tropes, it seems to parody only one female design (take a wild guess which one). We get exaggerations of the old wizard, the shifty politician, the grizzled old knight, the musclebound barbarian, even an evil warlock and an old hermit and beggar. When it comes to females we get: the sexy witch, the sexy Amazon, the sexy shop keeper, the sexy mermaid (also the only mermaid I've ever seen with human ass cheeks and her tail somehow attached below that), the sexy nun, the sexy spirit, the sexy fairy (that hangs out in a goblet with her legs spread towards the camera whenever you enter the tavern), a sexy vampire with see through nightgown, sexy ghosts with large breasts and see through ghost gowns, even the most bizarre rendition of a sexy harpy I've ever seen, it's literally an armless female upper body glued to the body of a giant bird from its neck down (it's actually monstrous enough that this one sort of works for me). From the way this fantasy world is set up it seems women either stop aging after 25 or they just kill any woman who starts to show wrinkles, basically a large variety of male designs get the parody treatment, but female designs only get the sexy parody treatment.

There's also the fact that it's pretty much all superfluous to the story, most of these characters are seen for all of 10 seconds, we get a moving portrait of them and three lines of text from the male narrator then we move to the next screen. It pretty much goes like this:
Male Narrator: "you see a mermaid in a pool, she points you in the direction of your next objective" screen fades to next room.
Yep, while often containing beautiful art, the scenes are pretty much superfluous to both the story and the game.

Is it a fun game? Yeah they did a good job capturing the feel of those old co-op hack and slash games like golden axe, the combat can get very cluttered, especially if multiple of the same character class are on the screen. The combat can feel clunky and very grindy at points too, and the story is pretty much a repetitive series of barely related quests that has about as much story and exposition as the original Golden Axe (I.E. almost none). The co-op also takes way too long to crop up, it takes a few hours, at least, before other people can play with you , which is annoying as hell. I'm having fun with it, but the representation of female characters so far has caused at least a few eye rolls, and unfortunately also tends to distract people of the games other problems. I don't regret buying it, it is fun, but its still a flawed game, and a very shallow parody if it is supposed to be one.

The parody doesn't extend beyond the art style for the most part. The art direction being the center of this controversy. The player is essentially playing a DnD campaign. There is hardly any characterization anywhere. I think all the women being busty and beautiful is the DM's exasperation with players.
"She asks you to--"
"Is she hot?"
"What does that have to do with this quest?"
"I need to know if she is hot."
"Fine, yes, she is hot."
"Describe her."
"(Sigh)"
That being said, I've seen far too many people talk like they are an authority on the game when they haven't seen anything beyond trailers. That was mostly what my post was about.

 

[Euryalus]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

But don't you see? You are claiming that authority. You are claiming the authority (or at least reserving the right, which is another way of saying the same thing) to tell the author "no, you're wrong, this is not what your own work means. I know better because while you may have created this, you're not that great at interpreting it." The death of the author is the worst kind of critical arrogance.

How does any of that matter in the face of what art is? What exactly does the author know? That he made a thing? What is it?

That definition is important. It determines whether or not an artist knows "better" about what they're talking about than someone who carefully reads or studies something.

Because if art is either of the two ideas I've already put forth, I don't see how it can be the case that the artist is inherently priviledged.

Besides you CAN have several interpretations of a work and have them both be right or have truth in them due to the complexity of the messages art sends. There can be good interpretations and bad ones, but there can be many.

And this may seem petty, but I would appreciate you stop insinuating I'm arrogant simply for holding a different definition of art than you. It's unnecessary. Even if I'm wrong that doesn't make me arrogant.

Whether you personally are arrogant or not, saying the author has no idea what his work means is the height of arrogance. I just can't fathom the kind of pigheadedness needed to tell an author, to his face, that he is wrong, that his opinion on his own work doesn't matter any more than that of anyone else.

I never said he has no idea what his work is about. I'm saying he doesn't know by virtue of being the author alone. Most authors are likely the most qualified to speak on their work since they're the ones who are always thinking about it.

But that's essentially from study. Yes learning their own work.

I would really recommend reading the whole of Plato's Ion to see what I'm banging on about. We're not quite AS opposed in our ideas as you might think.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

But don't you see? You are claiming that authority. You are claiming the authority (or at least reserving the right, which is another way of saying the same thing) to tell the author "no, you're wrong, this is not what your own work means. I know better because while you may have created this, you're not that great at interpreting it." The death of the author is the worst kind of critical arrogance.

How does any of that matter in the face of what art is? What exactly does the author know? That he made a thing? What is it?

That definition is important. It determines whether or not an artist knows "better" about what they're talking about than someone who carefully reads or studies something.

Because if art is either of the two ideas I've already put forth, I don't see how it can be the case that the artist is inherently priviledged.

Besides you CAN have several interpretations of a work and have them both be right or have truth in them due to the complexity of the messages art sends. There can be good interpretations and bad ones, but there can be many.

And this may seem petty, but I would appreciate you stop insinuating I'm arrogant simply for holding a different definition of art than you. It's unnecessary. Even if I'm wrong that doesn't make me arrogant.

Whether you personally are arrogant or not, saying the author has no idea what his work means is the height of arrogance. I just can't fathom the kind of pigheadedness needed to tell an author, to his face, that he is wrong, that his opinion on his own work doesn't matter any more than that of anyone else.

I never said he has no idea what his work is about. I'm saying he doesn't know by virtue of being the author alone. Most authors are likely the most qualified to speak on their work since they're the ones who are always thinking about it.

But that's essentially from study. Yes learning their own work.

I would really recommend reading the whole of Plato's Ion to see what I'm banging on about. We're not quite AS opposed in our ideas as you might think.

Look, unless the artist created his art while sleep walking or something, there's no way for him /not/ to know better than anyone else what he meant. He created it, he had something specific in mind that he was trying to do. You can question whether or not he was successful in doing what he intended, but you really can't question the intention.

Edit: To put it another way, making art is an act of construction. Interpreting it is an act of destruction, pulling something apart to (hopefully) see how it ticks. By nature of being the one who built the danged thing, the author knows how it works and what it was supposed to do, he doesn't /need/ to tear it down. It's like someone in the early days of the steam engine found one, pulled it apart to figure out how it worked, and decided it was powered by tiny demons. Then the person who built it came along and said "what? No, it's powered by steam, I should know, I built the danged thing." The guy who built it clearly knows better than the guy who pulled it apart.

 

[EternallyBored]

A misunderstood parody is still a parody, just a badly executed one. And is it a badly executed one? I never even heard that the maker of Dragon's Crown called his game a parody and I could tell you that it is one. It's not just the Sorceress, but -all- of the characters. All of the characters are designed in such extreme, yet stereotypical, ways that of course it's a satire. I got that much from looking at the Fighter alone, neverminding the rest of the cast and the way that the Dwarf and Elf are named after their race and not their class.

It doesn't have to be so extremely over-the-top that breasts literally kill a person; people just need to use their brains and stop being so overly sensitive because I can bet you that all of the people that are crying out now against Dragon Crown's design would still be crying out even with your idea.

See that's kind of the problem. Yes the characters are extremely over the top. The problem? We've got tons of characters already like that

And they're all played completely straight. It's why I find it hard to take Dragon's Crown seriously. I don't hate it or think it's offensive. I just don't think it looks very good. Just the same tired and beaten trail we've seen traversed a hundred times already.

I'll warn you now that I hate fighters enough that I simply laugh at character you've provided. Har har har. Your fighters and their character designs are always shit. /dealwithit

But no, on a more serious note, the problem that I have with what you're saying is that you're practically demanding that the line always be moved when it's not enough for you. Not only that, but you're trying really, really hard to focus only on big breasts. I get that you're a guy and all, but come on man, stop thinking with your willy for a few moments.

Wha? I'm not demanding that a line be moved. What? I'm asking how can something like the Sorceress be a parody, when something like the Sorceress has become the norm?

Look, this is off the back of the box for the game:

George Kamitani's stunning homage to classic fantasy gaming delivers over-the-top character designs....

It is a parody, Kamitani was making a conscious effort to make satirical character designs. You may not like them, but there it is.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to get across. I don't think it's a very GOOD parody.

snip

snip

The parody doesn't extend beyond the art style for the most part. The art direction being the center of this controversy. The player is essentially playing a DnD campaign. There is hardly any characterization anywhere. I think all the women being busty and beautiful is the DM's exasperation with players.
"She asks you to--"
"Is she hot?"
"What does that have to do with this quest?"
"I need to know if she is hot."
"Fine, yes, she is hot."
"Describe her."
"(Sigh)"
That being said, I've seen far too many people talk like they are an authority on the game when they haven't seen anything beyond trailers. That was mostly what my post was about.

So basically your saying the game is this?


That... actually that is pretty fucking awesome and makes the game seriously hilarious.
Thank you for making the boring story about 1000% times better for me, now that I'm imagining all the player classes as different types of sterotypical terrible D&D players.

 

[Fox12]

I really hate to pour fuel on the fire but I was thinking about Dragon's Crown today and something hit me. I think this is the source of all the controversy, the reason people get angry about this game and the reason that people defend it so vigilantly. The creator of the characters said that he intended for them a parody of the stereotypical characters such as in Golden Axe. Some people are ok with this and defend it, while other people don't like it. And the reason I think why just hit me.

How is Dragon's Crown a parody?

Seriously, look at all of the characters and think about it. If the developer had never come out and said that it was a parody, would it have ever crossed your mind? What about Far Cry 3? If anyone had told you that Far Cry 3 was a parody would you have believed them? Because it was. Far Cry 3 was supposed to be viewed as a parody.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/12/26/why-far-cry-3-is-misunderstood/

The article talks about why people never considered that it was a parody, because we were so used to the over the top stuff that we see in games playing themselves completely straight that we assume that the game itself is playing itself straight. And that's the same problem that Dragon's Crown has. The Sorceress was supposed to be a parody of big breasted impractically dressed female character, but he did that by creating another big breasted impractically dressed female character, and we're so used to that that we just thought it was more of the same.

And really, how IS it a parody? If Far Cry 3 was a parody it wasn't a very good one, and from what I've seen of Dragon's Crown its the same. I think Yahtzee said it the best when talking about Bulletstorm. "Playing it all straight and claiming that you're being ironic." And I have to say, that isn't a very good parody. A good parody is more in the lines of Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon where everything is so over the top and balls to the walls silly you know that you're not supposed to take it seriously.

The moral of the story is that you can't really have a parody by just doing exactly what you parody. If you want to have a parody of an over-sexualized female character, you have to do more than just make an over-sexualized female character.

You can't take Modern Warfare 3 and call it satire.

I'm not saying that Dragon's Crown is offensive, I'm not saying that it's a bad game, I'm not even trying to deny that the creator was trying to make a parody. What I'm trying to say that if it was trying to be a parody, I don't think it did a very good job.

EDIT: Actually I take that back. Thank you IllumInaTIma and AngelofBlueRoses for clearing things up for me.

Well, I think a good parody typically deconstructs bad or cliched ideas. It points out the things that don't make sense, usually through humor. A good parody can actually be very intelligent. With Dragons Crown it didn't really seem like he was deconstructing any of the old tropes. If anything it felt like a celebration of those old ideas and tropes. I don't know about what the creator said, but I was under the impression that it was a throw back to older games that was supposed to be taken seriously.

 

[Abomination]

That... actually that is pretty fucking awesome and makes the game seriously hilarious.
Thank you for making the boring story about 1000% times better for me, now that I'm imagining all the player classes as different types of sterotypical terrible D&D players.

I have to keep reminding people to look at the fighter's head. Look how young and pretty he looks for this giant burly mass of skill and armour.

That head? That's the head of some 12 year old goth kid. We got some Earthworm Jim shit going on here.

I honestly wish they made the Wizard have this gigantic beard that he'd occasional trip over or something and made the Elf have ears longer than her head. Just to push the stereotypes of each character to the realm that you couldn't possibly misunderstand the parody.

What's more, if it's not a parody because it keeps happening everywhere... then it's satire.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

The first question I'd like ask is why do you assume exaggerated character designs automatically mean it's a parody meant to take the piss out of female portrayal of characters in video games? All of the art in the game is exaggerated and out of proportion.

It couldn't possibly be doing something else?

As far as I can tell, the designs are very purposefully breaking the golden ratio. What that means artistically doesn't necessarily have anything to do with parody.

I don't even particularly like the art design of this game, but the way this discussion has gone is kind of annoying.

The developer came out and flat out said that the characters were supposed to be a parody of characters in the Golden Axe age. Though I still think they look stupid, quite a few commenters have cleared up some issues about them and I kinda see how they would work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

What an author intends isn't necessarily what a work of art actually says though. It doesn't matter what the author says it says because if they could say it any other way than making the art, they probably would.

There are no other "words" than what was "written"

And the death of the author is a load of postmodernist BS brought on by snobbish literature professors who were jealous that they didn't write these "great works" themselves. If the work doesn't say what the author intended, it just means the author didn't get his message across. It doesn't mean he (or she) intended some other message entirely.

That's assuming they're saying anything that's "theirs" to say. If a work of Art has Truth with a capital T in it as opposed to being subjective, then where is that idea coming from? It's a representation of reality, it has some actual truth in it. The author isn't creating that, they're just "presenting" to as they've seen it.

Just because they've seen it though doesn't mean its really understood. If a dude who's never seen an elephant before takes a picture of it, that doesn't necessarily mean he understands what it is. If someone who does know what an elephant is, then sees that picture and explains it, they know more even though they didn't take the picture.

It really doesn't matter what the artist thinks it says, only what it says.

The truth is entirely in that picture. The artist is just the dude with camera.

It sounds like it diminishes the role of the artist, but it really doesn't.

Spoiler: Socrates quote

...Then that is how we think of you, Ion, the lovelier way: it's as someone divine, and not a master of a profession, that you are a singer of Homer's praises.

-Socrates in Ion

That's basically a vast oversimplification of the kantian idea of genius but it'll suffice. An artist is more or less a conduit through which truth can show itself.

If Art is subjective, then it matters even less what the artist says it means since beauty and meaning are in the eye of the beholder, not in what the creator says or wants.

No. I categorically refuse to accept that. The author can fail in his attempt to get across his point, he may even accidentally cause people to believe the opposite of what he intended, like a bad politician scaring people off of his own party. But that doesn't make his opinion on what the work means anything but the highest authority on it -- indeed, the /final/ authority on the subject. It just means he screwed up.

Now if he's backpeddling on something after the fact -- again like a politician caught out saying something he shouldn't have -- that's different. But to just flat out ignore what the author says his work meant is both absurd and pretentious, and I mean that in the literal sense -- you are a pretender to a level of authority you have no claim to.

I'm not claiming authority D:

I haven't said anything about what I think the artwork in Dragon's crown means T^T

What I'm saying is what IS art what is it doing and what is it saying? Where does the aesthetic experience lie. If it is in objective truth, then what is the artist doing? Logically you should conclude he's a presenter of sorts.

He's presenting the thing he's seen to an audience the best that he can. The same holds for art as a presentation of the good.

The artist doesn't create those ideas. You can't make something good or true, it just is. And the artist presents that (or tries) in all its complexity.

I'm not saying the artist's word is meaningless, they probably do know it better than most through sheer virtue of being exposed to it much longer in their mind during creation, but that's not because they're the artist. That part isn't important.

If aesthetic experience lies in the perception of the viewer, if meaning and interpretation lies in the subject experiencing it, then it genuinely doesn't matter how the author percieves the work because no one can share their experience.

But don't you see? You are claiming that authority. You are claiming the authority (or at least reserving the right, which is another way of saying the same thing) to tell the author "no, you're wrong, this is not what your own work means. I know better because while you may have created this, you're not that great at interpreting it." The death of the author is the worst kind of critical arrogance.

How does any of that matter in the face of what art is? What exactly does the author know? That he made a thing? What is it?

That definition is important. It determines whether or not an artist knows "better" about what they're talking about than someone who carefully reads or studies something.

Because if art is either of the two ideas I've already put forth, I don't see how it can be the case that the artist is inherently priviledged.

Besides you CAN have several interpretations of a work and have them both be right or have truth in them due to the complexity of the messages art sends. There can be good interpretations and bad ones, but there can be many.

And this may seem petty, but I would appreciate you stop insinuating I'm arrogant simply for holding a different definition of art than you. It's unnecessary. Even if I'm wrong that doesn't make me arrogant.

Whether you personally are arrogant or not, saying the author has no idea what his work means is the height of arrogance. I just can't fathom the kind of pigheadedness needed to tell an author, to his face, that he is wrong, that his opinion on his own work doesn't matter any more than that of anyone else.

I never said he has no idea what his work is about. I'm saying he doesn't know by virtue of being the author alone. Most authors are likely the most qualified to speak on their work since they're the ones who are always thinking about it.

But that's essentially from study. Yes learning their own work.

I would really recommend reading the whole of Plato's Ion to see what I'm banging on about. We're not quite AS opposed in our ideas as you might think.

Look, unless the artist created his art while sleep walking or something, there's no way for him /not/ to know better than anyone else what he meant. He created it, he had something specific in mind that he was trying to do. You can question whether or not he was successful in doing what he intended, but you really can't question the intention.

Edit: To put it another way, making art is an act of construction. Interpreting it is an act of destruction, pulling something apart to (hopefully) see how it ticks. By nature of being the one who built the danged thing, the author knows how it works and what it was supposed to do, he doesn't /need/ to tear it down. It's like someone in the early days of the steam engine found one, pulled it apart to figure out how it worked, and decided it was powered by tiny demons. Then the person who built it came along and said "what? No, it's powered by steam, I should know, I built the danged thing." The guy who built it clearly knows better than the guy who pulled it apart.

The problem with your analogy is that it has logical meaning, as long as prerequisite knowledge is available to the viewer (that being physical properties of heated water and pressure) anyone can discern the fact and function of such a thing.

The fact is, we can only gather meaning from our own experiences. While we as a society can generally form a consensus on most things, especially when they conform to some common logic, the more abstract pieces are often extremely divisive, even if an artist is there to elaborate HIS meaning. That said, a lot of artist don't divulge their take and deliberately leave its intended meaning vague.

If an artist dies before being able to elaborate the meaning behind his work, who decides what the work means? Does it cease having meaning or is there some hierarchy to which we look to for meaning?

Suppose an artist suffers some mental damage after completing a work and confuses the original meaning of his work. Again, does it lack meaning now? Or is the new, but confused, interpretation on the part of the artist (regardless of how absurd it may be) the meaning which we acknowledge?

Suppose an artist deliberately creates something with open ended meaning and refuses to explain that fact, thereby creating a vast amount of conflicting interpretations. Does that mean the image has no meaning or are all possible interpretations valid?

This doesn't remove or change the importance of an artist. It's just a fact. We can't perceive the world through other peoples eyes or share their life experience. We can come close to emulating another's experience but we can never replicate it, at least not knowingly. At the end of the day we only see what we see ourselves, hear what we hear ourselves and feel what we feel ourselves.

Does that mean we can define things however we want? No. As said earlier there is generally a consensus on most things. We accept things, for better or worse, based off of what society as whole perceives. However values vary from person to person... this is why things change in society and no one consensus is timeless unless it can be verified beyond our own personal view on things (via science, for example).

It's primarily the abstract that we struggle to reach a consensus on. This is what Artists tend to provoke.

As an aside, there is also the ability to read into an artists mind via his work. There is psychological studies that people can perform on works of art. It's possible that, via these studies, we can learn far more about an artist and possible even come to understand, better then the artist themselves, what motivated them to do a piece. In this sense, the ultimate meaning behind a piece is derived by an astute observer and not the artist themselves.

Not all artists are critical thinkers and may not be able to dig deep into their own work or psyche (we are all mostly blind to what influences us without training or practice, but an aware observer might be able to see what makes us do certain things better then we can ourselves). They might not have the critical knowledge required to fully understand their own work. They will go at it with an intended meaning, but more may be said then the artist intends.