Right, switched arguments AGAIN, now you are claiming false advertising as it implies going armourless is not an option in the game... when it is! It affects your movement and your magic and you start off with usually nothing. Is that all you have left?
Yeah, maybe she's a mage who picked up a very valuable katana, ditched the robes for encumbrance reasons, and is currently taking the katana back to the mudcrab merchant. Of course, nobody is going to get on her case about running around with no robe because she's still wearing shoes. In other news, it would be hilarious if TES cover art actually depicted what goes on in TES games.
Treblaine said:
Again with the "sex-shop" and crude "teenageboyicus" slander. That's all you have, smears. Not a sound argument. Though it seems to be the only consistent argument you have made, that you disapprove on puritan moral standards, that she is sexy and in itself that is unacceptable. They never said this about Conan the Barbarian, oh yeah, because he's a male character! Sexism lol.
Sorry, what? You seemed to have confused me with a different poster. I'm not saying "oh noes this offends me," I'm saying that the chainmail bikini thing is incredibly silly. It's also sexist, but EvilTheCat is already covering that end of the argument very well.
Treblaine said:
PS: So because the celts didn't completely and utterly dominate the Roman army that makes them utterly compromised? Against the vast wealth, manpower and resources Rome had at its disposal? Romans were masters of military logistics, hell they INVENTED military logistics! But need I remind you Rome was eventually overthrown by unarmoured barbarians!
"tactical impact of Celtic warriors leaving their pants at home was minor at best"
So you admit it makes no difference either way? Yet you still base this as grounds to object?
Sorry, what? Other than an urge to shake my fist at your primary school history teachers (and your debate coaches, if applicable), I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from this argument. The point was that there was basically no tactical advantage, and some marked tactical disadvantages, [http://www.tonicfab.com/uploaded_images/471696cause-of-death-718627.gif] with going into battle without clothing or armor.
The most famous time Celtic warriors did that was recorded by Polybius - standard Romans vs. Celts scenario. Some of the Celts took off their clothes to rally their soldiers and intimidate the Romans with a "I don't need pants to fight you!" statement. The Romans promptly massacred them, because they weren't wearing anything to protect themselves with. Go figure.
You have to consider the cultural norms back then. It was a looser, edgier time in the 80's and 90's, when children's cartoons and movies had blood, death, and sexual innuendos up the wazoo:
The fantasy genre was still riding high on the Conan wave as well, and it was natural to try to cash in on its success by aping its visuals, which included scantily clad women.
Finally, Arena was originally going to be a gladiatorial RPG with multiple party members (hence its name), but over time it changed to the open-world RPG format the Elder Scrolls series became famous for. The box art reflects the original idea of a party of gladiator badasses. In most fantasy settings, badass women go light on the clothing.
I disagree, but that's a discussion for another time.
Treblaine said:
I think you are being sexist, no one gets a free pass as it's the same as "I've got a black friend...". You laden this character with the burden of invasive cosmetic surgery when she is in a fantasy world where biology and physics are pushed to the limits of ridiculousness, that is sexist whoever says it.
Sorry, is cosmetic surgery a burden? I think that's coming from you, not from me.
You're missing the key point about both cosmetic surgery and this image, which is that they're done for the benefit of a predominantly male audience, but whereas the people who have cosmetic surgery are and remain real people a constructed image is purely a fantasy, there's no issue of self image, no issue of a person's right to feel good about themselves, it's purely to provide masturbation material so that men will buy a product.
I find nothing necessarily wrong with that when it's an open and honest process, but forgive me if I find something a little sinister in denial. If you're going to spend your life drawing tits or looking at pictures of tits, accept that you're doing it for yourself and that it's a fantasy. You're not empowering fictional women, you're certainly not empowering real women.
You know when you dropped the "silocone implants" will the full intent of a hostile characterisation. You yourself characterised it as "sexist" and called it "invasive surgery" to "appeal to people like you". I like you think it is something no women should feel obliged to, for the affection of a lowly mortal like me... but a fictional character in a fantasy world where such magic exists? Yeah, rather a twirl of a quill than the slash of a knife. Surgery, in the real world, is something I wouldn't want just for... me?!
I completely agree with you that her design IS to be sexy... but I have always argued that that is at NO unreasonable compromise and there is NOTHING to be embarrassed about. Yeah, it is for my fantasy, but there is a distinct line between drawings and dreams and the guilt of pressuring a woman into undergoing an operation she doesn't really want or need.
Treblaine said:
I mean you bring up the "fetish scene" for no reason other than muck-spreading dropping in scandalous terms. You've certainly made the first definitios up as it's broad enough to include anything "overtly sexy or slutty".
I went fetish clubbing regularly for a few years. I have worn skin tight leather myself, which is why I know how difficult it is to move around in. The definition is broad by design out of respect for the fact that people have a wide range of sexual fantasies. The difference between a fetish outfit and a halloween costume, however, is that the former must be in some way sexual (not necessarily to anyone else, but at least to you).
If you think anything I've said is 'muck spreading', then maybe reconsider where the muck is actually coming from.
No. Sorry. You can't just say "all things sexual are fetishistic" I am going to pick this nit, as you know full well how most people interpret the word "fetish" as something that is "wrong" and different in an unacceptable way. There is IMAGERY accociated that goes beyond anything here, such terms seem to distract the debate.
[small](do you not think it might be thigh high leather "fetish" boots are like designer shoes... they put appearance and cost cutting above comfort and practicality? In a fantasy world The Elder Scrolls anyonecan have the best of everything: look great, feel great, be great!)[/small]
Treblaine said:
Some leather clothing does not a leather-fetish make.
This is really not difficult, I can only presuppose some form of complete and wilful denial prevents you from seeing that it is clearly designed to look sexy. Look at the lines and detailing. If you can't see that, look at the pose. That's not a combat pose, it's an underwear modelling pose designed to show profile.
I've said this before but her combat pose is nigh on IDENTICAL to the male knight immediately behind her. Though I will admit, it does look sexy... but not in the way you seem to be implying. It's not a subservient inviting stripper pose, it is sexy and assertive. Her physique contrasts with the man's in a striking way, I can't say it's the way I'd do it but she is confident, assertive and front and centre and female. I'm struggling to think of pox art that has done the same in the last few years.
It's not like the San-Andreas/Vide-City box art that REALLY DOES have a woman in a stripper pose
it's the "oooh Monsieur, en mah butthole?" expression that does it. I don't want that. Not really my thing. Because THIS is something to be embarrassed about.
Treblaine said:
As if in so many people's brains a woman cannot be "sexual" and "warrior" at the same time. The classic oiled body-builder Conan the Barbarian can be sexually virile AND warrior, but it seems the prejudice against women is they cannot be both.
I wasn't aware that female readers queued around the block to buy Conan the Barbarian books because of his tight abs and sexual escapades. You need to learn the difference between an identification fantasy and a sexual fantasy.
For that matter..
Yes, I'm totally sure that Conan readers are only becoming sexually aroused by his tight loincloth and strong arms. This is in no way about selling a particular power fantasy in which musculature, manliness and violence equates to the ability (or presumed ability) to have sex with large numbers of submissive women.
Men do not generally identify with female characters, so what does wearing very little generally signify for a female character? Does it raise the image that she can have sex with anyone she wants and is really cool or that anyone who wants to can have sex with her and that's hot? I'll give one guess.
Seriously, this is an unbelievably blatant example.
Well. I'll confess I've never read a conan book in my life, what I meant was the oiled-barbarian type who is certainly not absent or out of place in this genre, typified by Conan. Though I think some have pointed out certain "conan-a-likes" in certain "ladies' literature" and to be rather more frank than I usually am, I can see where they are coming from. And I accept that, even the WAY they present themselves.
And I personally think I identify more with female characters... when they aren't being utter fools giving the limelight to "stock hero guy #248" at the first opportunity. Even if I'm playing stock-hero-guy #248. Like why can't cortana possess a mech or something, or an empty power-armour. This may be just me talking, and I like the idea that I could play the TES Arena warrioress or have her as a comrade in arms not as a trophy. I mean I have written fan-scripts of gender-swaps of Uncharted series, I always wondered what a "Natalie Drake" would be like. Such a lack of female protagonists in games, but this game shows a woman front as centre on the game, not some guy soldier walking slowly towards the camera, or Marcus Fenix looking all "deep and meaningful and stuff".
So many games where I can basically play "Hicks from Aliens" but none where I can play Vasquez. Or a even Ripley!
I know some people are going to go "huh" at this but I really liked Rochelle from Left 4 Dead 2 and I really do not get why people don't like her. OK she isn't wacky and is rather reserved but she's got so many little things, maybe that's how I ended up putting 250 hours into that game.
Treblaine said:
The prejudice seems to be with most men: "this isn't a beautiful fighting comrade, but my future wife" and with some women: "oh she won't be a fighter, she'll just hitch up with a man" and so on.
* Female beauty is more constructed, it doesn't stem from perceived competence but requires a degree of artifice to create.
* Female beauty is always assumed to exist for male enjoyment.
This is the world we live in, you can't simply place your post-feminist fingers in your ears and pretend it's different.
If you want a female character to be read as competent, you have three options, you can either embrace the slightly fetishistic sexuality inherent in the idea of the beautiful/competent woman, or you can deliberately not construct a character as sexual (or even beautiful if you're willing to go that far).
I see no inherent problem with either of those things if done well. However, what you're taking is the disturbing middle road of 'oh, she's dressed in sexy outfits but it has nothing to do with the male gaze, women totally want to look like that and it has nothing to do with any kind of social pressure to appeal to men'. Ironically, by doing that you're erasing the very thing you claim to care about, which is agency, you're grafting the male gaze onto female volition, and that's kind of dodgy..
I'm fine with beautiful/competent woman if you are OK with it. Sexy, beautiful AND POWERFUL women are AWESOME! The kind of "Arena Cover Warrioress" I think wouldn't presented herself like that for social pressure, but it is to appeal. To have an Awe inspiring effect, but not a submissive "take me beefcake", because to hell with that.
And I get the "deliberately not construct a character as sexual" Like Alyx from Half Life 2, quite a tomboy but she is just amazing. Or Bioshock 2 Emily Lamb - your character's badass daughter was such a cool girl. I couldn't see her sexually, maybe because I really got into the role as father, but she was still feminine while saving my ass more times than I saved her... I liked how she had far more agency in the story and I was ultimately there to enable it and that really it wasn't about me. The story went on with her and I was glad it did.
Really wish there was a Bioshock 3 were I could play Emily, though she is pretty much supergirl by the end so it would be a bit OP.
So that's my feeling on the matter. I admit I may have gotten carried away at some points, not really made myself clear. But I think I hold a stance that most other blokes do, or at least I hope they do. Because there is nothing more depressing that a subservient, dependant and weak willed woman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg
Take a look at it right here.
Do you see that? Of course you know what I'm talking about.
That lady, right there in the front. She's wearing almost nothing. That looks like porn.
And the whole thing just looks crass and bad. But especially the fact you have three fully clothed dudes in the back, and a half naked girl for "tee nund eeh" on the front. Right up front.
I am sure glad Bethesda learned their lesson and stopped doing this right away. All the other cover art for their others looks cool, like an old book. And not downright sleazy like this.
I mean, good Lord.
Just thought you Skyrim fans might like to see just how far the franchise has come in terms of cover art.
I personally really like the cover, I like the artstyle and the character designs, even if the womans "clothing" is silly compared to the dudes in the back.
I don't really care about stuff like this, and I'm certainly not embarassed about it. There's really nothing wrong with overly sexy designs of women and men. Because miraculously, men get to wear almost next to nothing as well;
Except, y'know, Conan is just as well male fantasy fulfilment, men want to be the musclebound Cimmerian, showing his mighty torso to all the ladies. Most women aren't even fans of such musculature. So one way or the other, such covers are male fantasy fulfilment.
They didn't exactly make Superman or Batman muscled to draw in females either. =p
Oh God, look at this disgusting box art! It's like some pervy girl's sordid dream. Don't boys and young men have enough pressure put on them to conform to aesthetic ideals? This is basically pornography! It's so undermining! They could have had the guy wearing a nice sensible sweater, a cardigan maybe, but noooooo, it had to be pecs out for the girls. What kind of sick female chauvinist do you think drew this pathetic fantasy scene? You can bet it wasn't a man.
Because a topless guy in a fairly bottom covering loincloth, showing off his muscles which honestly only appeals to a few fetishists, and is mostly just to look strong and at the same time mildly savage, is comparable to a woman, up in front, with a slim figure and itty bitty shoulders that could hardly fight a thing, in a g-string, while the men behind are ultra-clothed.
Right... yeah. No, it's not at all the same.
The man is showing off his barbarian muscles. She's showing off her ass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg
Take a look at it right here.
Do you see that? Of course you know what I'm talking about.
That lady, right there in the front. She's wearing almost nothing. That looks like porn.
And the whole thing just looks crass and bad. But especially the fact you have three fully clothed dudes in the back, and a half naked girl for "tee nund eeh" on the front. Right up front.
I am sure glad Bethesda learned their lesson and stopped doing this right away. All the other cover art for their others looks cool, like an old book. And not downright sleazy like this.
I mean, good Lord.
Just thought you Skyrim fans might like to see just how far the franchise has come in terms of cover art.
I personally really like the cover, I like the artstyle and the character designs, even if the womans "clothing" is silly compared to the dudes in the back.
I don't really care about stuff like this, and I'm certainly not embarassed about it. There's really nothing wrong with overly sexy designs of women and men. Because miraculously, men get to wear almost next to nothing as well;
Except, y'know, Conan is just as well male fantasy fulfilment, men want to be the musclebound Cimmerian, showing his mighty torso to all the ladies. Most women aren't even fans of such musculature. So one way or the other, such covers are male fantasy fulfilment.
They didn't exactly make Superman or Batman muscled to draw in females either. =p
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg
Take a look at it right here.
Do you see that? Of course you know what I'm talking about.
That lady, right there in the front. She's wearing almost nothing. That looks like porn.
And the whole thing just looks crass and bad. But especially the fact you have three fully clothed dudes in the back, and a half naked girl for "tee nund eeh" on the front. Right up front.
I am sure glad Bethesda learned their lesson and stopped doing this right away. All the other cover art for their others looks cool, like an old book. And not downright sleazy like this.
I mean, good Lord.
Just thought you Skyrim fans might like to see just how far the franchise has come in terms of cover art.
@both of you: Do you have any idea how old that game is? I wouldn't be surprised if it was older then any of you. And yes, Rex, there was a time when games came on CDs, instead of DVDs, like they do now. This might blow your mind, but there was a time before that, back in 80s and 90s (you know, the stone age, when people still hunted mamoths, and watched tv by the light of the torch in their cave) when games, and software in general, came on diskettes. And a time before that when... eh, i'll not get into that.
Also, this thread is ridiculous. Are you new to fantasy games, and video games in general? Out of all the scantilly clad females in all of gaming, one from a game made last century ignited your outrage? This is beyond silly. I thought people would be used to this by now. Sure, it might not be 100% ok, but i would have thought this would be far from surprising by now.
Oh, and there have been far more degrading/mysoginistic/etc things in gaming than a fantasy female in revealing clothing. Lol! Kids these days! )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elder_Scrolls_Arena_Cover.jpg
Take a look at it right here.
Do you see that? Of course you know what I'm talking about.
That lady, right there in the front. She's wearing almost nothing. That looks like porn.
And the whole thing just looks crass and bad. But especially the fact you have three fully clothed dudes in the back, and a half naked girl for "tee nund eeh" on the front. Right up front.
I am sure glad Bethesda learned their lesson and stopped doing this right away. All the other cover art for their others looks cool, like an old book. And not downright sleazy like this.
I mean, good Lord.
Just thought you Skyrim fans might like to see just how far the franchise has come in terms of cover art.
@both of you: Do you have any idea how old that game is? I wouldn't be surprised if it was older then any of you. And yes, Rex, there was a time when games came on CDs, instead of DVDs, like they do now. This might blow your mind, but there was a time before that, back in 80s and 90s (you know, the stone age, when people still hunted mamoths, and watched tv by the light of the torch in their cave) when games, and software in general, came on diskettes. And a time before that when... eh, i'll not get into that.
Also, this thread is ridiculous. Are you new to fantasy games, and video games in general? Out of all the scantilly clad females in all of gaming, one from a game made last century ignited your outrage? This is beyond silly. I thought people would be used to this by now. Sure, it might not be 100% ok, but i would have thought this would be far from surprising by now.
Oh, and there have been far more degrading/mysoginistic/etc things in gaming than a fantasy female in revealing clothing. Lol! Kids these days! )
...I know...
Don't people understand sarcasm anymore unless you type "/sarcasm" at the end of a post?
What I mean is that the art isn't that embarrassing at all.
And that game's from 1994.
In case you were wondering about my age in comparison, I'm from 1991.
Oh God, look at this disgusting box art! It's like some pervy girl's sordid dream. Don't boys and young men have enough pressure put on them to conform to aesthetic ideals? This is basically pornography! It's so undermining! They could have had the guy wearing a nice sensible sweater, a cardigan maybe, but noooooo, it had to be pecs out for the girls. What kind of sick female chauvinist do you think drew this pathetic fantasy scene? You can bet it wasn't a man.
Oh God, look at this disgusting box art! It's like some pervy girl's sordid dream. Don't boys and young men have enough pressure put on them to conform to aesthetic ideals? This is basically pornography! It's so undermining! They could have had the guy wearing a nice sensible sweater, a cardigan maybe, but noooooo, it had to be pecs out for the girls. What kind of sick female chauvinist do you think drew this pathetic fantasy scene? You can bet it wasn't a man.
Because a topless guy in a fairly bottom covering loincloth, showing off his muscles which honestly only appeals to a few fetishists, and is mostly just to look strong and at the same time mildly savage, is comparable to a woman, up in front, with a slim figure and itty bitty shoulders that could hardly fight a thing, in a g-string, while the men behind are ultra-clothed.
Right... yeah. No, it's not at all the same.
The man is showing off his barbarian muscles. She's showing off her ass.
This [http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/09/22/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/] could be an interesting read for you.
No desire to get into the debate again, already said my piece. But it should be noted that not all women who look sexual are embracing their sexuality, some might in fact be the exact opposite.
Morrigan Aensland from Darkstalkers?I wouldn't imagine so, the back problems that Succubus get must be something else. Or you could mean the Dragon Age Morrigan, but in either case, they are designed to cater to pubescent males, which is the major difference.
...except it's already been said plenty of times over the last 17 years. You aren't exactly the first person to see this and say "Wow, what an awful cover."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
