The cover art for Elder Scrolls: Arena is embarassing.

[King of the Sandbox]

I find it appealing. Very Boris Vallejo. I mean, it's swords and sorcery game in a medieval setting, not a Feminist Training guide.

Besides, I always thought it'd be a great defensive tactic for women against males. I mean, my first though looking at her isn't to rob her or shove an axe in to her head, so it's doing something right.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

Actually it's gone downhill, that was actual artwork as opposed to the more or less blank covers we've been getting. Really the only thing to complain about is to say "OMG, there is a sexy lady dressed sexy! It's an affront to political correctness!!" and that's a ridiculous attitude that I think needs to be overcome.

To be honest, I played that game, as well as "Daggerfall". One of the things that has constantly irritated me is that after "Daggerfall" Bethesda more or less sold out to the political correctness brigade, not in terms of box art (Daggerfall had a lich guy on the cover) but in terms of their general artwork and content, previously they tried to make people look good, and put a bit of sex and eye candy in their games, going so far as to put in a "child filter" for kids. When Morrowind came along everyone in the game wound up looking incredibly haggard and all of those aspects were removed. Come Oblivion, Bethesda was having conniptions over fan-made nudity patches and such.

Really, I long for a return of the hot babes to Elder Scrolls, at one time I had hoped Bethesda would be among the companies spearheading an attempt to create REAL mature-rated games with graphic sex and ultraviolence inserted into a serious game, with serious plotlines and game design, rather than it being a choice of having either a serious game, or sex and nothing but sex. Violence progressed a bit since the old days, but really I still feel there is a bit of a divide where things are made so cartoony in most cases that it loses any impact it might have had. I mean when limbs seemingly fly off in a slight breeze, it kind of reduces any impact it has.

I suppose what I'm saying is the opposite of the reaction you expected, but really posting that old box art is a reminder to an extent of how much we've lost. Is Skyrim a better game? Perhaps, technology and design experience mean a lot, but content wise is it an improvement of the "M" rating and what it means? Not really. Truthfully I can't figure out why "Skyrim" even warrents an "M" rating, there is some nasty stuff in the game, but none of it is paticularly graphic.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

That picture is also just as pornographic in nature as the one on the arena box, he could only show more if he was waving his cock at the skeleton instead of a sword.

But everyone knows that sexism is a one way street for feminists.

Because in the western civilization we have propagated the idea that women are poor victims who are oh so exploited by everyone, while men should just suck it up, this is all nicely encapsulated by the string of links posted on the first page of this thread.

You make all sorts of assumptions about what the box-art means and why it's bad, and almost all of them are completely unfounded.

Nothing like sticking your head in the sand when the topic of sexism comes up eh? Along with some wild accusations and generalisations. Or I could just assume from your avatar that you are jesting and not being serious at all.

Either way, I dare you to find any woman who is turned on by that image, that picture is just as much made for a male audience as the plethora of women in chainmail bikinis are.

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Eh, I wish I could give you that one, but I can't, even today, in several first world countries, women on a regular basis still make less money than their male peers holding the same position. And we still have to deal with them being objectified, and various other issues. While I will agree that the days of the suffrage are long gone, and we have made great advances, I wouldn't say we're quite there yet.

 

[Treblaine]

Either way, I dare you to find any woman who is turned on by that image [http://botchweed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ax_battler.jpg], that picture is just as much made for a male audience as the plethora of women in chainmail bikinis are.

"turned on by that image"

Who cares if they are or are not? What is the matter with being turned on? There is the puritanical Western (Europe, North America, anywhere touched by "Christian values") morality that sex should be for married couples to make babies and that ONLY, is that your perspective?

Because sex - in itself - what is the problem?

There IS a problem in USING SEX to deny women agency or self-worth by using sex to turn them into inherently peripheral elements.

This far more recent example is far more embarrassing, looking back over her shoulder pouting like that. Cropped over the eyeing man it's like a reflection, it's like she is bending over ready for a bumming! So IF this is your problem, I can understand having a problem with this for what this is, but not Arena's cover art... because it isn't like that.

The Arena cover art the warrioress is awesomely sexual without compromising her agency; she is dominant, assertive and in control. She flaunts her sexuality but doesn't bend over and submit. This is a powerful positive message you could see so often in the 80's and 90's, yet now pretty much the only times you see women being sexual is when they are being submissive OR the woman would obscure her sexuality to be combative.

I remember movie bob did something bit recently, he said his problem with video game sexism these days is male poses could say so much about their agency, intention and involvement in the narrative but over and over again it's "come hither" poses with women. Them being in bikinis isn't the problem, it just makes it worse!

They aren't made out as real players or agents of the events, they were just "Wife of X" or "X's girlfriend". How many escort missions have you been escorting a woman? And when you team up with a male, how often to they make a decision that hugely affect the events.

I don't think being anti-bikinis is a feminist cause. I think the path is to make more female characters who are more integral and more importantly, make it so that in the plot summary they couldn't be replaced mad-libs style with an inanimate macguffin.

Feminism as a movement, should not exist any more.

Feminism should always exist, just like "Civil Rights" should exist even after the "Civil Right Movement" is unofficially over. Feminism is most broadly "for women" and as long as there are women in the known universe that is a cause worth protecting and continuing to debate on. Because there will always be cases where it goes too far against women and that it is important that we discuss and debate and even argue over this.

I don't think it does any good saying the argument should switch to "sexual egalitarianism" as that's like asking in a trial the Defence and Prosecution lawyers drop both their sides of the arguments and both simply argue "for justice". No, everyone has a corner to fight or there is no fight at all. You can't say just the "movement" part should end either, as at the very least semantically feminism IS a movement.

The problem is that the male equivalent of feminism is called Male Chauvinism, which I suppose rather rightly has a bad reputation of taking the cause for men over women far too far, and historically have left women in an extremely unenviable position. But as long as there are men in the world then their rights will matter (though with the exception of the area of bias of paternity in separations men don't have it that bad).

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

Either way, I dare you to find any woman who is turned on by that image [http://botchweed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ax_battler.jpg], that picture is just as much made for a male audience as the plethora of women in chainmail bikinis are.

"turned on by that image"

Who cares if they are or are not? What is the matter with being turned on? There is the puritanical Western (Europe, North America, anywhere touched by "Christian values") morality that sex should be for married couples to make babies and that ONLY, is that your perspective?

Because sex - in itself - what is the problem?

There IS a problem in USING SEX to deny women agency or self-worth by using sex to turn them into inherently peripheral elements.

This far more recent example is far more embarrassing, looking back over her shoulder pouting like that. Cropped over the eyeing man it's like a reflection, it's like she is bending over ready for a bumming! So IF this is your problem, I can understand having a problem with this for what this is, but not Arena's cover art... because it isn't like that.

The Arena cover art the warrioress is awesomely sexual without compromising her agency; she is dominant, assertive and in control. She flaunts her sexuality but doesn't bend over and submit. This is a powerful positive message you could see so often in the 80's and 90's, yet now pretty much the only times you see women being sexual is when they are being submissive OR the woman would obscure her sexuality to be combative.

I can only in part agree with that, the chainmail bikini is something that always irked me as, well, it is eye candy, plain and simple, no real warrior woman would wear that as it leaves all her vital organs exposed, not to mention the double standard with many RPGs where the same piece of armour covers only one fifth on a female of what it does on a male, if you want a believable fantasy, which Elder Scrolls fortunately has changed into since that start, you want your women wearing armour highly similar to that of the men. And you can still be sexy in plate armour there are examples of that combination working out there. I could perhaps buy it if she were, say, Bayonetta, but even she only flaunts her goods during a few moments when finishing off her foes, and she is so above humans that any blow from an arrow or sword would just make her chuckle. And she is definitely both sexually confident and in charge of every situation she finds herself in.

As opposed to so called faux action girls who get introduced as tough and confident, but then get, at best, one action scene and then end up having to be rescued by the male hero anyway. This still happens far more often in fiction than I'd like.

So while I do agree you can basically be in a bikini and still be confident and powerful looking, and probably still be powerful as (par example) Chun-Li could knock someone out at the beach just as well as on the street, it'll always look silly when side by side with men in full plate, or in any setting where we're supposed to assume they're mere mortals whose skin will get punctured by swords and arrows just like our own. It just ruins immersion (for me). And it gets doubly annoying if you just know that the design was motivated by a juvenile attempt to draw the attention of men, and not to create a design or character gamers of both genders could enjoy.

 

[Treblaine]

Either way, I dare you to find any woman who is turned on by that image [http://botchweed.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ax_battler.jpg], that picture is just as much made for a male audience as the plethora of women in chainmail bikinis are.

"turned on by that image"

Who cares if they are or are not? What is the matter with being turned on? There is the puritanical Western (Europe, North America, anywhere touched by "Christian values") morality that sex should be for married couples to make babies and that ONLY, is that your perspective?

Because sex - in itself - what is the problem?

There IS a problem in USING SEX to deny women agency or self-worth by using sex to turn them into inherently peripheral elements.

This far more recent example is far more embarrassing, looking back over her shoulder pouting like that. Cropped over the eyeing man it's like a reflection, it's like she is bending over ready for a bumming! So IF this is your problem, I can understand having a problem with this for what this is, but not Arena's cover art... because it isn't like that.

The Arena cover art the warrioress is awesomely sexual without compromising her agency; she is dominant, assertive and in control. She flaunts her sexuality but doesn't bend over and submit. This is a powerful positive message you could see so often in the 80's and 90's, yet now pretty much the only times you see women being sexual is when they are being submissive OR the woman would obscure her sexuality to be combative.

I can only in part agree with that, the chainmail bikini is something that always irked me as, well, it is eye candy, plain and simple, no real warrior woman would wear that as it leaves all her vital organs exposed, not to mention the double standard with many RPGs where the same piece of armour covers only one fifth on a female of what it does on a male, if you want a believable fantasy, which Elder Scrolls fortunately has changed into since that start, you want your women wearing armour highly similar to that of the men. And you can still be sexy in plate armour there are examples of that combination working out there. I could perhaps buy it if she were, say, Bayonetta, but even she only flaunts her goods during a few moments when finishing off her foes, and she is so above humans that any blow from an arrow or sword would just make her chuckle. And she is definitely both sexually confident and in charge of every situation she finds herself in.

As opposed to so called faux action girls who get introduced as tough and confident, but then get, at best, one action scene and then end up having to be rescued by the male hero anyway. This still happens far more often in fiction than I'd like.

So while I do agree you can basically be in a bikini and still be confident and powerful looking, and probably still be powerful as (par example) Chun-Li could knock someone out at the beach just as well as on the street, it'll always look silly when side by side with men in full plate, or in any setting where we're supposed to assume they're mere mortals whose skin will get punctured by swords and arrows just like our own. It just ruins immersion (for me). And it gets doubly annoying if you just know that the design was motivated by a juvenile attempt to draw the attention of men, and not to create a design or character gamers of both genders could enjoy.

Well, you see on her right a man in full plate armour and that contrast ruins immersion for "realism".

To me, I see who is on her left, a druid. And older man wrapped in what looks like an exquisite curtain and from the sword he is unsheathing he is clearly a man for close combat yet he is in even worse attire than the woman as those robes would offer next to zero armour protection while only making him a bigger target and slowing him down. Especially in a sudden downfall where the robes could be sodden and become very heavy. Even if you can accept the magic, it defies common sense to wear such robes for fighting. Such flamboyant attire is surely only are for spiritual rituals and festivals? Right? Or maybe artistic licence should be allowed here.

So why isn't the druid in armour? Why does the barbarian have bare forearms and neckline, it's as if he is just wearing shoulder pads. If full-plate armour is good for the knight it should be good for everyone. Unless if it isn't...

Really, it's common sense that full plate armour doesn't suit everyone. Armour is of course expensive, heavy and cumbersome while it won't protect you from every assault. You should know even today that Special Forces eschew kevlar while enlisted infantry wear them as a rule.

Now this is NOT an argument that her attire is an entirely practical one, the character wears what she wears to LOOK GOOD! I'm just saying there isn't a problem with looking good. Same with the druid, only instead of awesome abs it's the robes that complete his look. Heavy Armour or a thong would just clash with that do. These artistic decisions are not unreasonable, they just go against your ideals of realism, which I think suck big time. Give me a variety of fantastic roles.

_____


PS: of the more recent Elder Scrolls games... they don't have any eye-candy. They don't have the stand out character designs or types. It's all shiny plate armour, there is such a lack of humanity when the most you can say about a character design is the intricacy and lustre of the finish. Warriors of all types balance armour's tactical effectiveness. So little of the game's visual design has any meaning or resonance to me, the character designs across the board are unremarkable and flat. Still a fun game even with a cast full of extras.

It's not just the bikini-clad amazons that are missing, it's also the druids in flowing robes, barbarians in loincloth, the dark necromancer, the mysterious ninja/assassin. You don't have a sense of rock-paper-scissors relationship between armour, magic and mobility. It's all Rock.

They have this completely foreign fantasy world yet it looks like it's trying to be slavishly faithful to boring reality, the first game set it not just on a different planet but different universe for a reason: to escape from this treacherous world's rules. Yet skyrim the design is as if set cast-iron in medieval scandanavia. Reality is over-rated.

How many times have I replayed Bioshock and Bioshock 2, loving the architecture and character designs along with other games like Painkiller, Team Fortress 2 and Diablo. The Elder Scrolls games have totally squandered what they have.

 

[MassiveGeek]

And women don't want to look like Morrigan?

Lol.

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.

Does it really matter, is the real question.

Fucks sake, this shouldn't be a big deal, because it really doesn't matter what Bethesda had on a hundred year old cover.

The fact of the matter is still that both men and women are designed to "cater" to both men and women depending on the game/movie.
To me, I think MovieBob had a very good point in his video, but for me, I still DON'T FUCKING CARE if the female character is Lara Croft with breast implants wearing only lingerie, if the character is good/useful/makes sense, then I don't give a flying fuck.

 

[Ruwrak]

Hm, as a matter of fact I did have a bad day, my girlfriend broke up with me, but that's kind of beside the point.

Sorry if that offends you so much, all I did was correct you. Take a chill pill or something...

Sorry to hear that, life can be a pain sometimes.
And actually, I am. Fruit Mentos )

Anywayho. No need to be all grumpy (both of us)