The cover art for Elder Scrolls: Arena is embarassing.

Recommended Videos

Felstaff

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
191
4
23
Cover art has a long and egregious history of sexualising the female form, especially fantasy, and this is an exemplary sample of the mindset that is still apparent, although less pervasive on such a global scale. In the 80s and 90s, it quickly became a cheap marketing gimmick to appeal to the immediate pleasure receptors of the perceived gaming demographic of the time; the horny male teenager.

Although the stereotype exists, and is perpetuated constantly by the millions of horny male teenagers who game and make their voices loudest through endless misogyny, racism, homophobia and puerility, via any given gaming medium (including forums*), the wider gaming community are realising that this stereotype is a significant minority, rather than a dominating majority. This stereotype needs to stop being accepted as the status quo; slavering horny male teenagers should not be the mouthpiece for gamers per se. Much like the militant radical extremist religious nut that the media shows as representative of his religion, it's unfair to dismiss an entire culture/counter-culture on the basis of the loudest screamers.

Fortunately, the battle is being won! Imagine if that pile of turd cover was the cover of Skyrim! Would anyone take it seriously? No. There would be uproar about the sheer sexism of it all, and Bethesda realises that, whilst sex sells, outright glaring physics-defying boobage like TES1 is now so passée and generally offensive, that it's best to appeal to all gamers, whilst excluding none. And a thundering pair of norks on your front cover will, thankfully, 'cheapen' its perception (Evony Online, anyone?) and not be judged upon its merits (it's a brilliant game). There's even a strong movement to eradicate booth-babes at conventions, as it deters the key demographic--girl gamers, and instils a notion that the only thing that matters about females is that they have a hot body and great honking tits.

But anyway, the history of game covers are extensively documented on the internet. I love horrible covers! Check out such gems like Megaman:

Possibly the best ever case of 5-mins-before-deadline-shit-let's-get-Ken-the-copy-guy-to-bash-out-the-cover-art in videogaming history

Seeing as, psychologically, humanity does indeed judge a book by its cover, there is a *far* greater slice of the gaming budget dedicated to the cover of physical copies of computer games nowadays. Also, there exists an army of artists out there determined to make their mark on the industry, which is oversubscribed. Covers have shifted from design to art (although few would recognise them as Works Of Art?) and Hooty McBooberson of the Land of Double-Dees is slowly being filtered out by all but the basest of video game publishers. The last cover I saw which I had mild issue with was Torchlight, which pales in comparison.

*lost count of the number of times a member of a given community has revealed she is a female, and been told to gtf back to the kitchen. If anything it demonstrates the pathetic notion that ubermale gamers are somehow threatened that the "opposing sex" is encroaching upon their traditions of bros-only culture
 

Virmire

New member
Sep 25, 2011
174
0
0
I actually noticed this the other day when I was looking up a video of the first game.

Sex sells, that's all there is to it really. Bethesda sold out, true, but that was what a lot of fantasy marketing was like back then.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Hagi said:
Treblaine said:
Hagi said:
Batou667 said:


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.

That barbarian posted really falls completely short of objectifying men.

The guy looks powerful and strong. His posture and stance show that he doesn't need no freaking armour to beat that skeleton and bird-thing.

The Elder Scrolls woman however isn't posturing like that at all. She's posing, she's thrusting out her tits and ass so we can all get a nice good look at them.

Now if you want to see objectified men, have a look:






They're not even showing the faces of these guys...
So it's not how sexual they are that matters, its their stance and characterisation?

The Arena cover art she is wielding a fugging sword! Yes, it is quite an odd pose but no odder than fabio's pose in the above picture to accentuate certain assets. Arena at least shows her face and looking out through the 4th wall rather than just staring off into nothingness with glazed eyes.
Their stance and characterisation is a great part of what makes them sexual....

Fabio with his odd pose and lack of clothing is objectified.
That women with her odd pose and lack of clothing is also objectified.
Sooo... you retract your stance that this:



as you said "really falls completely short of objectifying men."

PS: Sexual =/= objectification

Sexual is sexual and is not necessarily objectification and you can objectify people by other means than sex. What is this weird obsession with have in the west of making out all sex as negative with spurious "objectification" as if you find someone physically attractive al of a sudden it's impossible for them to still be a sentient being.

I propose that both utterly defy the objectified label, they are NOT essentially objects because they have agency far beyond passively sitting there and looking pretty. They are warriors, they fight monsters and win loot for their own agency, and they look good doing it.
 

Pearwood

New member
Mar 24, 2010
1,929
0
0
Batou667 said:
Citation needed.
Are you just trolling or are you one of those people who always whine about feminism being evil? You don't need to go out of your way to see female sexuality being used to sell products. Besides cosmetics and films and books aimed almost exclusively at women men aren't shown that often.

Anyway I'm afraid if I stay in this conversation any longer I'll become more stupid as a result, my citation is every fucking advertisement out there.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
LilithSlave said:
Batou667 said:


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.
I dunno, maybe she uses her ass to fight the Daedra. You never know lol
 

GiglameshSoulEater

New member
Jun 30, 2010
582
0
0
Rex Dark said:
CD-ROM version?
Yes, that's embarrassing.
Why is it not on DVD?
Nothing wrong with the art though.
Its CD-ROM because it is a bloody old game.

OT: the reason the cover art was like that is because it was very closely based on Dungeons and Dragons, and thats the style d and d is in.
 

esperandote

New member
Feb 25, 2009
3,605
0
0
Rex Dark said:
CD-ROM version?
Yes, that's embarrassing.
Why is it not on DVD?
Nothing wrong with the art though.
Probably because it's under 700MB, wich would make nonesensical to use DVD. Ico and other games use CD.
 

newwiseman

New member
Aug 27, 2010
1,325
0
0
I always thought the rule in the fantasy genre is either you wear more armor than a M1 Abrams Tank, or, if your really strong, you only wear the underpants panted on your sprite ah la Conan the Destroyer.

That cover makes perfect sense to me, if anything the guy in the back has too little armor and the woman in the front too much, especially when I look at the book art for all my other games of the era.
 
Dec 14, 2009
15,526
0
0
Hey guys, I'm totally pissed off about the Normans invading England, coming over here, stealing our jobs.

What?

What do you mean that happened nearly a thousand years ago? My anger is still relevant!
 

Vrach

New member
Jun 17, 2010
3,223
0
0
HumpinHop said:
I'd much rather have that than another soldier walking slowly towards the camera.

OT: Meh, it's an old game, back in those days the marketing teams were still enjoying their "T&A>all" marketing campaigns.
 

Hagi

New member
Apr 10, 2011
2,741
0
0
Treblaine said:
Hagi said:
Treblaine said:
Hagi said:
Batou667 said:


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.

That barbarian posted really falls completely short of objectifying men.

The guy looks powerful and strong. His posture and stance show that he doesn't need no freaking armour to beat that skeleton and bird-thing.

The Elder Scrolls woman however isn't posturing like that at all. She's posing, she's thrusting out her tits and ass so we can all get a nice good look at them.

Now if you want to see objectified men, have a look:






They're not even showing the faces of these guys...
So it's not how sexual they are that matters, its their stance and characterisation?

The Arena cover art she is wielding a fugging sword! Yes, it is quite an odd pose but no odder than fabio's pose in the above picture to accentuate certain assets. Arena at least shows her face and looking out through the 4th wall rather than just staring off into nothingness with glazed eyes.
Their stance and characterisation is a great part of what makes them sexual....

Fabio with his odd pose and lack of clothing is objectified.
That women with her odd pose and lack of clothing is also objectified.
Sooo... you retract your stance that this:



as you said "really falls completely short of objectifying men."

PS: Sexual =/= objectification

Sexual is sexual and is not necessarily objectification and you can objectify people by other means than sex. What is this weird obsession with have in the west of making out all sex as negative with spurious "objectification" as if you find someone physically attractive al of a sudden it's impossible for them to still be a sentient being.

I propose that both utterly defy the objectified label, they are NOT essentially objects because they have agency far beyond passively sitting there and looking pretty. They are warriors, they fight monsters and win loot for their own agency, and they look good doing it.
I'll explain it slowly for you.

Objectification is removing all personal aspects from something and turning it purely into flesh.

That picture isn't objectification (nor is it Fabio, Fabio refers to romance novel cover models as he's the most famous one), it shows aspects of the guy's personality. He looks determined. He looks courageous. He looks like a person.


This guy doesn't show any personality. His face isn't even shown at all. He's objectified. You can't tell anything about him at all from that picture.

The woman in that elder scrolls picture is also objectified, although not quite as much. You can at least see her face. But you can't really tell anything about her personality from her stance, posture and clothing, nothing but that she has a nice ass and rack. Her facial expression is basically passive and both her stance and clothing only serves to accent her breasts and ass (better seen in higher resolution pic here [http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/5/564545_53892_front.jpg]).
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Hagi said:
Treblaine said:
Hagi said:
Treblaine said:
Hagi said:
Batou667 said:


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.

That barbarian posted really falls completely short of objectifying men.

The guy looks powerful and strong. His posture and stance show that he doesn't need no freaking armour to beat that skeleton and bird-thing.

The Elder Scrolls woman however isn't posturing like that at all. She's posing, she's thrusting out her tits and ass so we can all get a nice good look at them.

Now if you want to see objectified men, have a look:






They're not even showing the faces of these guys...
So it's not how sexual they are that matters, its their stance and characterisation?

The Arena cover art she is wielding a fugging sword! Yes, it is quite an odd pose but no odder than fabio's pose in the above picture to accentuate certain assets. Arena at least shows her face and looking out through the 4th wall rather than just staring off into nothingness with glazed eyes.
Their stance and characterisation is a great part of what makes them sexual....

Fabio with his odd pose and lack of clothing is objectified.
That women with her odd pose and lack of clothing is also objectified.
Sooo... you retract your stance that this:



as you said "really falls completely short of objectifying men."

PS: Sexual =/= objectification

Sexual is sexual and is not necessarily objectification and you can objectify people by other means than sex. What is this weird obsession with have in the west of making out all sex as negative with spurious "objectification" as if you find someone physically attractive al of a sudden it's impossible for them to still be a sentient being.

I propose that both utterly defy the objectified label, they are NOT essentially objects because they have agency far beyond passively sitting there and looking pretty. They are warriors, they fight monsters and win loot for their own agency, and they look good doing it.
I'll explain it slowly for you.

Objectification is removing all personal aspects from something and turning it purely into flesh.

That picture isn't objectification (nor is it Fabio, Fabio refers to romance novel cover models as he's the most famous one), it shows aspects of the guy's personality. He looks determined. He looks courageous. He looks like a person.


This guy doesn't show any personality. His face isn't even shown at all. He's objectified. You can't tell anything about him at all from that picture.

The woman in that elder scrolls picture is also objectified, although not quite as much. You can at least see her face. But you can't really tell anything about her personality from her stance, posture and clothing, nothing but that she has a nice ass and rack. Her facial expression is basically passive and both her stance and clothing only serves to accent her breasts and ass (better seen in higher resolution pic here [http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/bigboxshots/5/564545_53892_front.jpg]).
"Her facial expression is basically passive"

lol nope. Or you could easily say the same thing for Mr Barbarian.

"her stance and clothing only serves to accent her breasts and ass"

Yep, wielding a sword. The war-paint, the bandana. That is all somehow to accentuate her ass.[/sarc] Maybe that's just the way YOU look at here but her martial equipment also mark her out as a badass, if only YOU could see past her sexuality rather than obsess over it. Somehow women being sexual trumps all other aspects they could possibly be and even explicitly demonstrate to be.

So let ME explain this slowly to you. The art did not objectify her, YOU objectified her by ONLY looking at her sexually. Ignoring all other indicated aspects of her that ARE in the art. I don't know if you are man, woman, straight or whatever, and I don't care as almost EVERYONE does this!

Take the sword out of the barbarian's hands and he's just posing for a "gun show". How's that for "accent".
 

Herr Uhl

New member
Sep 25, 2010
48
0
0
LilithSlave said:
And about that tasteful cover art:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DK_Country_2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kirby_Super_Star_Coverart.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EarthBound_Box.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chrono_Trigger.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mega_Man_X_Coverart.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SuperMarioRPGSNESCoverArtUS.jpg

I don't know what y'all are complaining about with the 90s. Those are some of the greatest games ever made. Crazy whipper snapper games and their 1080p.
Err, apart from Chrono Trigger (and maybe Mario with one of Peach), which game would have pinups? They star children, a robot, a pink blob and apes. And apart from that we have a different demographic the games were aimed at.
 

Adellebella

New member
Sep 9, 2011
89
0
0
Back then, gaming was a Boy's Club a lot more then it is nowadays. Boobs sell. That's simply marketing to their biggest demographic: teenage boys.

I'm a female and it doesn't bother me. In fact, it's vintage Woman Muscle Boobs made me laugh. It's just how fantasy artwork portrayed women - especially warrior women - back then.

Women being scantily armored in games, especially the D&D/Fantasy genre, is just normal.

Women are better warriors, so they need less armor, amirite?
 

mrblakemiller

New member
Aug 13, 2010
319
0
0
First off, I find it funny that this topic was first broached by someone calling herself "Lilith Slave".

Why don't you tell us what criteria you're using to say this art is objectionable? Let's talk about a few things.

She's not real, she's a drawing.

She's being put in the same company as these men, not as a subordinate, but as an equal fighter.

I for one agree that this can't be construed any worse than the barbarian from the first page in the loincloth, and I've yet to hear a realistic reason as to why it's worse for the woman to be portrayed in this way than the man.

We know nothing of her character. She could have chosen this outfit for herself, and judging by her big sword and ability to stand as an equal with these powerful men, she probably did. Now we're not talking about whether her clothes are a problem, but whether her choice of clothes are a problem. I know that's some pretty heavy anthropomorphization, but if she wants to wear that into battle, why shouldn't she be allowed to? Reminds me of RanFan from DragonBall, the chick who made it to the top 8 or so of the first World Martial Arts Tournament we see because she stunned her male opponents by taking her clothes off.

In the end, if you don't like it, then it won't affect you. If it's so bad you don't want to buy the game because of it, then you're free to do that. But in the words of Phillip Pullman, "No one has the right not to be offended; no one has the right not to be shocked." It's your problem, and you have a lot of options for dealing with it, but you can't demand that it be changed for everyone, so you'll have to pick another tactic.

Is there anything I've said worth debating? I wouldn't mind a civil discussion on this.

P.S. If you say "It objectifies women," I have to disagree. It (maybe) objectifies THAT woman. There's no reason to get mad on behalf of all womandom for just this image.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Batou667 said:


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.
Forget his attire--why is he using such a wussy sword? With that physique, he should be wielding a claymore! Seriously. At least give the poor guy a bastard sword. That sword just looks completely out of place, I tell ya!
 

Renfield286

New member
Nov 16, 2011
6
0
0
Adellebella said:
Women are better warriors, so they need less armor, amirite?
or men are bigger wimps, scared of getting hurt more.

either that or (as already has been suggested) Bullet proof nudity is just one of the laws of physics in certain fantasy worlds.