Jimquisition: Boob Wars and Dragon Crowns

[Voulan]

Not that I disagree with your thoughts on this game, but answer me this what good is/has feminism even done recently? Sure the vote, but that's a given.

Well, since I'm not a feminist, I can't really say. But why would you dismiss their past accomplishment? Feminism is a social movement, not an actual organisation, so it's brilliant that its done that much.

It was necessary, to a point, but current day feminism just sounds like a lot of "first world problems" and whining.

Maybe it appears like whining because people are failing to listen to them? They are in a position of no real power, so actively making things happen is being hampered?

Perhaps these issues concerning media seem like first world issues, but feminism deals with other more horrifying issues as well. I know for a fact that there is a group campaigning for women's rights in some parts of Africa, in which women are raped and then become untouchable, have their rights stripped, are blamed for their being assaulted and are kicked out of their homes. That is a serious issue, and it happens all the time. So hearing people taking about entitled feminists trying to ruin everything makes me a little tetchy.

Not you, I'm talking about people that hate the movement in general and think its a waste of time.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist?

Er...that's almost the ENTIRE reason behind why many things have existed (other than a genuine need for invention/innovation), you kinda summed up how business works and why most businesses exist to begin with. To sell stuff.

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism. I think you are doing humans a great disservice in your comments. We have many qualities beyond simply being units of wealth.

Your comments sound as if you think humans are merely a resource to be traded.

Advertising is a constantly-evolving beast, it grows and shapes itself around what works and what doesn't - and who determines what works? Us, the consumers.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Correct, spamming is a perfectably acceptable because if people stopped clicking on those adverts, spammers would stop doing it in the first place.

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

You know the saying "vote with your wallet"? Yeah, that's exactly what has been happening...people have been voting and the results are in.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

But why should we agree that the "market" should rule everything, and the idea that "it sells" is a good enough reason for something to exist?

Er...that's almost the ENTIRE reason behind why many things have existed (other than a genuine need for invention/innovation), you kinda summed up how business works and why most businesses exist to begin with. To sell stuff.

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism.

Advertising is a constantly-evolving beast, it grows and shapes itself around what works and what doesn't - and who determines what works? Us, the consumers.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

You know the saying "vote with your wallet"? Yeah, that's exactly what has been happening...people have been voting and the results are in.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

A game that is hand-drawn is not likely to be a shovel-ware money grab. I really don't think they'd go to this kind of effort if it were a cynical project. My money is on the game being made by talented people who don't think the designs are problematic, and that it will be consumed by people who feel the same way.

 

[Yuuki]

Which is not a good enough reason to exist, unless you happen to worship at the feet of Capitalism. I think you are doing humans a great disservice in your comments. We have many qualities beyond simply being units of wealth.

Your comments sound as if you think humans are merely a resource to be traded.

We're not resources to be traded, but we have resources that we trade amongst each other and we have figured out ways to help those resources seem more appealing. Cars are often advertised by showing people driving them, clothes are often advertised by showing people wearing them, beauty products are often advertised by people utilizing them - are the people in those adverts anything more than mere tools to be used to push the primary product? Absolutely.
Is there anything morally/ethically wrong in it? I am of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

But I can see and I can understand why some people could choose to take an extreme stance on such kind of advertising (like you)...but be rest assured that those people are in the minority, because using people to market and advertise products is the bread and butter of almost every industry.

Also there are many people genuinely enjoy doing what they do with their lives and bodies. Neither you nor me have the right to tell them they should change their preferences.

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Have you ever purchased anything in your life? If you did, congratulations, you're a consumer.

God forbid you can be BOTH a human being and a consumer at the same time? Or in your opinion can people only be one or the other?

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples? Here, I'll quote myself from the previous page:

We're not talking about how people prefer to MURDER other people for entertainment, that would be unacceptable and against the law.

Lets keep up with each others' responses

What about the countless people employed in the beauty & modeling, escorts/prostitution, even stuff like being an air hostess? Are we saying that all those jobs which "use" overwhelmingly females should be disestablished despite the fact that it's the CONSUMERS who have driven all those things in the first place?

Yes.

Well, I guess that response nullifies any room for discussion in that area. Moving on.

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

The discrepancy between the rich and the poor is a completely different issue. As I said earlier, you are both a human being and a consumer - the moment you purchased up a certain product from a shelf in any store, someone somewhere took note of it and you became part of nothing more than a statistic represented by numerical values. Those numerical values will then provide a base to advertising and marketing in the future and the cycle will infinitely repeat itself. Your personality and emotions are important to you and those close to you, your "worth" as a human being is also important, but ultimately it's your wallet that speaks for you as far as the corporations are concerned. Even "good" companies like Valve don't have time to care about each individuals' personalities, to them you are consumer #9910251.

It's important to realize that you can be a human, a consumer, a statistic and a plethora of other things all at the same time (isn't being multifaceted great?) depending who is looking at you and under what circumstances.

I implore you to expand your vision, attempt to see a bigger picture

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

It's exactly what "vote with your wallet" means. How are those without any money supposed to vote? And how do those who have never even heard of this game vote?

Consumerism is not the same thing as democracy, so the idea of voting with dollars is fallacious to begin with. The foundation of democracy is that everybody can vote, and also that nobody has more votes than anybody else. The idea that spending money on something is equivalent to voting is ridiculous.

Yes, money does unduly affect our electoral processes. But that is not a thing to be celebrated, it it something that should be condemned.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Cars are often advertised by showing people driving them, clothes are often advertised by showing people wearing them, beauty products are often advertised by people utilizing them - are the people in those adverts anything more than mere tools to be used to push the primary product? Absolutely.
Is there anything morally/ethically wrong in it? I am of the opinion that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

I would disagree.

But I can see and I can understand why some people could choose to take an extreme stance on such kind of advertising (like you)...but be rest assured that those people are in the minority, because using people to market and advertise products is the bread and butter of almost every industry.

Only of industries which have no reason to exist. If your product can't sell on its own merits without some model standing beside it, then it's probably not a very good product, is it?

I'm not "a consumer," I'm a human being.

Have you ever purchased anything in your life? If you did, congratulations, you're a consumer.

God forbid you can be BOTH a human being and a consumer at the same time? Or in your opinion can people only be one or the other?

No, I'm not. A "consumer" defines a person as having their only purpose to consume. "Consumer" is a fabrication of the marketing industry. Sure, people consume things, but defining people as units of consumption is very problematic.

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples?

Spamming is against the law. You said it was perfectly acceptable. Therefore, you justified the breaking of laws.

Those numerical values will then provide a base to advertising and marketing in the future and the cycle will infinitely repeat itself. Your personality and emotions are important to you and those close to you, your "worth" as a human being is also important, but ultimately it's your wallet that speaks for you as far as the corporations are concerned. Even "good" companies like Valve don't have time to care about each individuals' personalities, to them you are consumer #9910251.

Hence, the problem.

 

[Nexxis]

I couldn't agree more, thanks for the video Jim. I DO feel limited as far as rpgs and mmos are concerned. Guild Wars 2 female spellcasters looked like strippers and TERA was obvious enough. Both solid games but I just had to put them down.

Lol, yeah. I get you. That's why I play Charr or Asura on Guild Wars 2 and I avoid TERA like the plague even though friends of mine have been asking me to play it since it has gone free to play. I tried playing Aion and, even though I did enjoy it for a bit, I couldn't play it for very long because my character looked like a slut half the time. At one point, I did have some light armor that covered the body. The next armor piece I got was an upgrade and it went from pants to a mini skirt. I immediately deleted that character and made a male, but I couldn't enjoy it as much. I had the same issue in WoW, even with the Tauren, but it got a little bit better towards the later expansions. In games where I have a choice to make a character, I like playing a female, but I get so fed up when my character looks like she's more likely to give a monster a lap dance than destroy it. I don't care that sexy characters exist. I care that there are very few other options out there for people who don't want to play as a sexy character or a character who wants to flaunt their fleshy parts.

 

[Yuuki]

So, theft is perfectly acceptable because there's a market for stolen goods? Murder is entirely appropriate because there are people who will pay big money to have someone killed?

I clearly recall mentioning something about not breaking laws, is there any reason why you resorted to using theft and murder as examples?

Spamming is against the law. You said it was perfectly acceptable. Therefore, you justified the breaking of laws.

Hmm, I didn't know that spamming was a criminal offense and is even vaguely comparable to theft or murder. But I looked it up and it indeed classifies as "cybercrime" so I'll give you that. I'll change my stance on spamming being an acceptable way to advertise, staying true to the fact that breaking any law for means of advertising/marketing is unacceptable.

I remain to be convinced that using people in marketing to push a product is a bad thing though. Next thing you will say is that an advert about a Theme Park showing people having fun is also wrong, they should advertise...err...what instead? Just the theme park logo and empty/vacant rides, because showing happy smiling people having fun is simply objectifying them for the sake of bringing more people (i.e. wallets) to the place?

As for the rest of your post, I have no further input on those points. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

 

[daxterx2005]

"The boob wars"
Sexy :3

 

[Impluse_101]

I'm just glad you didn't stab yourself Jim with that axe...and glad that we share the same opinion on the amazon.
I mean...god damn...those legs could take down a tree with how...grossly buff they there.

I think Captcha agrees too.

"well heeled"

Yep...Captcha thinks she could take down a tree with that lower body strength.

 

[Faith Meade]

This kind of thing is the whole reason I bought the new "Tomb Raider" game. It looked like an awesome game anyway (and is), but they actually made Lara look and act like a real person and I wanted to reward Square-Enix for that with my business. We don't see enough women in games that get to be real people.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

Not that I disagree with your thoughts on this game, but answer me this what good is/has feminism even done recently? Sure the vote, but that's a given.

Well, since I'm not a feminist, I can't really say. But why would you dismiss their past accomplishment? Feminism is a social movement, not an actual organisation, so it's brilliant that its done that much.

It was necessary, to a point, but current day feminism just sounds like a lot of "first world problems" and whining.

Maybe it appears like whining because people are failing to listen to them? They are in a position of no real power, so actively making things happen is being hampered?

Perhaps these issues concerning media seem like first world issues, but feminism deals with other more horrifying issues as well. I know for a fact that there is a group campaigning for women's rights in some parts of Africa, in which women are raped and then become untouchable, have their rights stripped, are blamed for their being assaulted and are kicked out of their homes. That is a serious issue, and it happens all the time. So hearing people taking about entitled feminists trying to ruin everything makes me a little tetchy.

Not you, I'm talking about people that hate the movement in general and think its a waste of time.

Those that help developing countries are fine and do not get on my nerves.

Feminists have a lot of power, they have lobbyist groups, there's also NOW, VAWA and Affirmative action forcing women into positions to appeal to feminists, whether they earned it or not. Feminists do have power, but some issues like "this character objectifies and damages all women" are just daft. Women are now superior to men under the law in many cases and that is not equality.

 

[TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY]

This kind of thing is the whole reason I bought the new "Tomb Raider" game. It looked like an awesome game anyway (and is), but they actually made Lara look and act like a real person and I wanted to reward Square-Enix for that with my business. We don't see enough women in games that get to be real people.

Women were on the dev team, If more women tried to make games that appealed to them we'd hear less "sexist" cries. Books and film have certain genres that appeal more to male or female audiences some very well made books/films can appeal to broader audiences.

 

[Ryan Minns]

Edit: Just remembered I wanted nothing to do with these types of threads so could a mod delete this.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Good handling on this one Jim.

snip

I agree on your statements about Japan, and having been there myself I can vouch for your friend's research.

But on the main topic, I'm willing to give Kamitani enough benefit to think that he isn't homophobic. Though, I'm not sure if it's cause I respect his work so much or if I just see it in his work.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I really dislike Agreeing with Jim. I find it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. But here we are again, Jim being one of the few people out there actually trying to have an intelligent discussion. If he would just be more polite about it. Oh well, too each his own style.

I like debates, I like to have them. I find (especially online) that I am enjoying a debate, but the other person is getting mad and having an argument. I never realize this until they are making threats against me or my family. I honestly do not understand, I debate so I have a better understanding of MY personal beliefs and the opposing sides beliefs. Far too often, I have observed, that if person "A" Disagrees with person "B", "A" vilifies "B" in ways that can only be called slander. Then "B" decides to up the ante, and create new (far less rational, but still fully fictional) reasons "A" is descendant of Nazis. "A" starts publishing news stories about "B" eating babies. "B" continues the cycle until the Lord Jesus Christ returns and tells BOTH sides to knock it off!!

Sorry, I got riled up about the stupidity of arguing. And how sad it is no one can have a debate anymore. I miss debates.

But that is kind of the problem. he created this really excellent character model. Everything about it is superb. Than it was all hidden behind this massive pair of independently animated breasts that are so grotesque and un ignorable that you almost cannot see the character standing behind them. And that is what is making some people uncomfortable. It wasn't just that the character has large breasts. It's that every motion of the character puts these large pink floppy beasts wobbling around on top of the avatar such that you cannot see anything else. It's just too much.

Yes, I agree with you. The character model was sexist.

I agree with Jim. I do not like agreeing with Jim because he is rude about his approach. I still agree with him though.

 

[Drummodino]

Almost every week my respect for Jim increases. I don't know how he does it but he does seem to be on of the few voices of reason in the industry these days.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

So, your worth as a human being is just the size of your wallet? Sorry, but someone's personal wealth does not equate to their value as a human. The ability of wealth to degrade people of "lesser value" is not a good thing. This is why things like the Civil Rights movement happened. Because some people were being exploited due to the larger size of other people's wallets.

That's not what "vote with your wallet" means. If you buy games, go ahead and slap your "I voted" sticker on. All it means is that you showed approval for something by buying it. That's what consumers do, they buy things, and they're human the whole time that they're doing it.

It's exactly what "vote with your wallet" means. How are those without any money supposed to vote? And how do those who have never even heard of this game vote?

Consumerism is not the same thing as democracy, so the idea of voting with dollars is fallacious to begin with. The foundation of democracy is that everybody can vote, and also that nobody has more votes than anybody else. The idea that spending money on something is equivalent to voting is ridiculous.

Yes, money does unduly affect our electoral processes. But that is not a thing to be celebrated, it it something that should be condemned.

There's obviously a limit to just how apt any analogy is, I agree with that much. With that in mind, I think you're over-analyzing what is really a colloquialism.

The skinny of it is really that Dragon's Crown is an entertainment product, it's a luxury... it's not bread. It has to justify it's existence by being appealing to enough people to pay for itself. It has no obligation to appeal to everyone, if that's even possible. It's worth noting that the game is born of another culture too.

We've all got opinions, boring, boring opinions. If you want my 2-cents(which you don't), I think that objecting to another cultures obsession with bouncy animated boobs whilst being all but indifferent to the considerably more local-developers pumping out games based on real world conflicts(ended and ongoing) is indicative of a fucked up world view.

I'm getting really bored of politics surrounding gaming.

 

[Maxtro]

The Sorceress is horribly drawn and anybody who likes her should be ashamed of themselves.