I'll never understand why people keep trying to beat me over the head with indie releases when I keep indicating that I'm looking outside of indie to build my point about major companies not buying into a winning formula.
Terraria's about the only on that seemed to make an attempt early on to cash in on the minecraft formula, and actually got traction, but what major gaming company made any of those you listed?
I emphasize outside of indie for the simple reason that Minecraft made Notch absurdly rich, but what major company is trying to capitalize on the formula to contend on a MW/Cod rivalry level? Not even Lego who you'd think was the perfect company to contend with notch. Instead they made Minecraft lego sets.
It seemed like Minecraft was easily the biggest leader, and essentially the winner in streaming, youtube vids, etc.
Ark came in later in the break the world apart, and put it together again game, and I'll give it kudos for getting a lot of attention lately, but all in all, it doesn't seem like a high budget AAA attempt to capitalize on the minecraft formula, which made Notch obscenely rich.
Simply put the mainstream gaming industry isn't quick to latch on to everything as was being argued.
I don't believe I've ever seen a mainstream clone of the Portal Formula. I do like Quantum Conundrum for the music, and John de Lancie. Such an epic voice, and actor. Still, while being made by people behind Portal, it's puzzle solving was not the same as shooting portals.
Also there's MariO, which is a portal gun mixed with super mario bros. Stil, Indie.
Microsoft didn't try to contend with Minecraft with their own version, even with all the millions, and millions they could pour into it. Instead, they bought Minecraft.
Sony's not making any minecraft clones. Not EA, not Konami, not Capcom, no major company is trying to cash in on the Minecraft formula. If they are, they're really laying low on it which, IMO, is a terrible idea when thy could advertise it, and draw in far more people with even a simple commercial.
Yet they don't.
Has Mineraft even gotten a commercial from Microsoft? None I've seen outside of gamestop's TVs.
Same goes for Portal.
I'm not some game snob here, I like indie titles, and AAA, and everything in between, but i have a point I'm trying to make.
If you look at portal the reason it was successfull wasn't because they did anything completely new, but rather because they did something that was allready a thing, physic based puzzle games, and did it really really well.
Minecraft on the other hand, with it's focus on crafting did something more or less unique and I would say that the AAA Industry has definetly noticed.
What do you think is the reason that we now have crafting system in pretty much every single game. We do because Minecraft showed how engaging it is to "build" something of your own.
This lead to many indie games that are focused on the crafting system, which I allready listed, and it lead to AAA games which incorporated crafting systems. (No matter what AAA games are rather difficult to get outside their regular niche of Action/Shooter/RPG). Games like Assassins Creed, Fallout 4, Dragon Age Inquisition, The Witcher 3, MGS 5, Shadow of Mordor, Skyrim and more all have game mechanics based around the Idea of ressource collection and crafting, which they got from Minecraft.
Some games like Dying Light even make a real big deal of these crafting systems with breakable weapons and such.
Crafting doesn't equate to taking a part of the world, and putting it someplace else, and being able to reshape the world which is the minecraft formula. It's all of the formula, or none of it looking for comparisons.
Yes, there's crafting in games, but that doesn't equal minecraft. Crafting was a staple of gaming for a very long time, but Minecraft stands apart from simple crafting. Again, no major gaming company is contending with Minecraft in gameplay mechanics despite having a far larger budget.
You don't really have a AAA game where you can mine anywhere you want for resources, and put those resources into essentially what ever you want.
Even Fallout 4 with it's settlement building doesn't let you change the world in search for resources beyond the confines of a settlement plot, and even then you're not digging into the earth. YET even an android phone can handle minecraft pocket.
No one is copying Minecraft in the AAA mainstream. It's obviously a popular game, with a unique formula, and has changed the face of the indie world, and made absurd amounts of money, but where's the AAA stabs at that money? It's just not there, short of Microsoft outright buying Minecraft.
Crafting doesn't equate to taking a part of the world, and putting it someplace else, and being able to reshape the world which is the minecraft formula. It's all of the formula, or none of it looking for comparisons.
Yes, there's crafting in games, but that doesn't equal minecraft. Crafting was a staple of gaming for a very long time, but Minecraft stands apart from simple crafting. Again, no major gaming company is contending with Minecraft in gameplay mechanics despite having a far larger budget.
You don't really have a AAA game where you can mine anywhere you want for resources, and put those resources into essentially what ever you want.
Even Fallout 4 with it's settlement building doesn't let you change the world in search for resources beyond the confines of a settlement plot, and even then you're not digging into the earth. YET even an android phone can handle minecraft pocket.
No one is copying Minecraft in the AAA mainstream. It's obviously a popular game, with a unique formula, and has changed the face of the indie world, and made absurd amounts of money, but where's the AAA stabs at that money? It's just not there, short of Microsoft outright buying Minecraft.
Well then we seem to just disagree with each other concerning what "copying" means. For me it's taking parts of something that works well and incorporating it into your own. For you it seems to mean "copy-paste", just straight up doing the exact thing hoping it will hit twice.
Considering that there's no real point in argueing further, since I don't think that we will come to a mutual compromise that way.
I am curious how a "AAA" Minecraft would look for you, though. Because when I look at it I don't see a AAA Minecraft being actually possible. You can't have graphics and effects like a AAA game with a customisable and changeable world like Minecraft. It's just not possible from a technological Standpoint. The truly best you can do is something like Ark or Fallout were you can get ressources out of the environment and build buildings, but actually mining and shaping the world is just not possible in a AAA way.
I'm gonna say Japanese, at a guess. I have no studies to back this up, but I remember Anakin Skywalker's nipple being slyly exposed during his nightmare on Naboo, so if he's allowed to show his vestigial lactative passages, I'd say any American man is.
People are generally aware that Joel Schumacher is gay and was sneaking (well, "sneaking") in some gay campiness in celebration of all the gay jokes about Batman and Robin, right? I mean, it's not rare trivia that the two movies were made by a gay dude with the enjoyment of gay dudes in mind rather than straight women?
Crafting doesn't equate to taking a part of the world, and putting it someplace else, and being able to reshape the world which is the minecraft formula. It's all of the formula, or none of it looking for comparisons.
Yes, there's crafting in games, but that doesn't equal minecraft. Crafting was a staple of gaming for a very long time, but Minecraft stands apart from simple crafting. Again, no major gaming company is contending with Minecraft in gameplay mechanics despite having a far larger budget.
You don't really have a AAA game where you can mine anywhere you want for resources, and put those resources into essentially what ever you want.
Even Fallout 4 with it's settlement building doesn't let you change the world in search for resources beyond the confines of a settlement plot, and even then you're not digging into the earth. YET even an android phone can handle minecraft pocket.
No one is copying Minecraft in the AAA mainstream. It's obviously a popular game, with a unique formula, and has changed the face of the indie world, and made absurd amounts of money, but where's the AAA stabs at that money? It's just not there, short of Microsoft outright buying Minecraft.
Well then we seem to just disagree with each other concerning what "copying" means. For me it's taking parts of something that works well and incorporating it into your own. For you it seems to mean "copy-paste", just straight up doing the exact thing hoping it will hit twice.
Considering that there's no real point in argueing further, since I don't think that we will come to a mutual compromise that way.
I am curious how a "AAA" Minecraft would look for you, though. Because when I look at it I don't see a AAA Minecraft being actually possible. You can't have graphics and effects like a AAA game with a customisable and changeable world like Minecraft. It's just not possible from a technological Standpoint. The truly best you can do is something like Ark or Fallout were you can get ressources out of the environment and build buildings, but actually mining and shaping the world is just not possible in a AAA way.
Yeah, that's basically what I'm aiming for with comparisons. A copy/paste of the game. Or really really really close to it.
But Minecraft's main feature, IMO is the ability to break off chunks of the world,and basically play legos. AAA gaming hasn't even touched that aspect, really.reshaping the world is the something that works for Minecraft, and what set it apart.
That said, I agree, I doubt we'll meet common ground there.
I'm not looking for a "look" from AAA gaming, I'm looking for them to use the minecraft formula strongly, beyond crafting which isn't really the meat, and potatoes of minecraft, IMO. It doesn't matter if they use lego graphics, candy graphics, or pixels, or something. I don't really care how good or bad it looks, it's not really part of the issue.
I mean the WII U is getting Minecraft. The 3ds can handle knockoff minecrafts to some degree, and Terraria. An android phone can handle Minecraft pocket. I understand Minecraft is deceptively demanding, but considering some of the weakest consoles, and phones can handle Minecraft to some degree, technology isn't as much of an issue as one might think since there's obvious workarounds.
What I'm looking for is a AAA game that uses minecraft's world system. Tear parts off, and build with them like you do in minecraft.
We have gaming companies chasing GTA, and CoD, and MW trying to get their money, and while it's met with mixed results, Minecraft seems like an untapped gold mine. None of the big dogs are looking to dig in Minecraft territory, though, and that's always struck me as odd.
It seems like Lego would have, but they work more with building existing properties instead.
Ok, so concering the design that started this thread: I get why she looks the way she looks. It is to convey her character, personality and role in the plot to the audience in a quick and simple way. In designing a character, you ideally want a design that cleary conveys what the character is about with the first glance. For an example of effective character design, let's look at BlazBlue for a second.
His design is primary enforcing his main character status, hence all the red. (The red = main char/hero connotation stems from the japanese power rangers series, that's why Dante from DMC had a primarely red design as well) So a japanese person would look at him and go: ok, he is the hero/main character of the story. Furthermore, he is hotheaded, aggressive and brash, which is also complemented by the red color scheme.
His blue color scheme sets him in contrast with Ragna, to signify their opposing relationship. He is calm, collected and cold (most of the time anyway) and has ice powers, all of which contemplate with the more calm blue color. So the audience is able to look at the two and get a first impression on their characters at first glance (Hero and Rival).
Ok, tangent over. In case of Camilla, her design suggests a dark/evil seductress archetype, which fits with the more evil tone of Nohr. What I understood so far is that she is a more sexual character, and her design is supposed to contemplate that. I would imagine a seductress type wearing a brown robe covering everything would come off a bit weird, because the design and look of the character clash with the personality.
I understand that this is not realistic at all, but realistic design makes this kind of design work very hard. Realisticly, most soldiers of an army would wear mass produced armor, and good look expressing personality with that. My personal stance is that realism should be the last thing to consider when designing, especially for a fantasy games.
That said, I get the people who complain about this design, and by extension this character type, being in the game. Kind of. Fire Emblem always dealt with adult themes, and some might feel that the fanservice detracts from that. But I would say sexuality is another adult theme worthy of exploring in characters, and that this happens in other portions of the game as well (see gay marriages). I don't think that fanservice and depth of character are mutually exclusive.
Lastly, a big part of this design work is the success of Awakening. Without Awakening there would be no Fates, given that they had a Final Fantasy 1 situation going on. So it is no wonder they took the designs of that franchise savior of a game and expanded on it. The hard reality is that the oldtime fans of FE should be glad that there is a new FE at all, not complaining about the more anime-like aesthetics. Like it or not, the waifus saved FE, so take the good with the bad I guess.
Really for a male chest to have the same effect as a female one, we would need to spend a couple generations requiring men to wearing a bra when they don't have a shirt on.
Pretty sure a bra would have no effect on men if they did wear one, thus why they don't and women do. You realize that there is a practical reason for wearing bras outside of just covering up, right?
manic_depressive13 said:
Correct, breasts exist to nourish infants. This does nothing to explain the sexualisation of breasts in our culture; it only emphasises the absurdity of doing so. Breastfeeding in public, for example, is a hugely controversial issue because women's breasts are considered lewd, even though the whole point of them is to feed babies. Breasts have been perverted into something for men to furiously masturbate over, to the extent that people don't feel comfortable seeing them used for their actual purpose.
I hope you aren't saying that there is nothing sexual about breasts or by extension that they have no effect on sex itself. Because, if that is the case then I feel very bad for you/your partner.
Really for a male chest to have the same effect as a female one, we would need to spend a couple generations requiring men to wearing a bra when they don't have a shirt on.
Pretty sure a bra would have no effect on men if they did wear one, thus why they don't and women do. You realize that there is a practical reason for wearing bras outside of just covering up, right?
Yeah, that's the point. The act of covering something makes it rarer to see which causes people to tend to fantasize about it more. Eventually it would gain status as something that was naughty since we were so used to seeing them covered.
It's because Both Guys and Girls enjoy a good pair of boobs. While nobody enjoys looking at a penis, they're just gross.
The same applies to vaginas, they aren't really that appealing to look at and are pretty gross.
I mean come on, what woman would buy a product with box art of a dude with a raging boner?
Choosing boobs is ultimately a more productive marketing choice because EVERYONE likes them.
It's because Both Guys and Girls enjoy a good pair of boobs. While nobody enjoys looking at a penis, they're just gross.
The same applies to vaginas, they aren't really that appealing to look at and are pretty gross.
I mean come on, what woman would buy a product with box art of a dude with a raging boner?
Choosing boobs is ultimately a more productive marketing choice because EVERYONE likes them.
A look at any porn site anywhere proves you wrong. There are plenty of people who find genitals aesthetically pleasing and I'm sure there's a whole bunch of women who either don't like looking at breasts or who just don't care either way.
And a lot of men, while they do like boobs, find it off-putting that they get insterted in parts of a story where they thematically don't belong. It's kind of like how the people who design advertisements try to get you to buy anything by putting it next to a pair of boobs. It just makes me go 'really? you think so little of me that you have to resort to this?'
as for the raging boners (now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type...); true. Women probably wouldn't buy a product with a boner on the cover, but would men buy one with a moist vagina (outside certain stores, of course)?
Either way, it's not women they have in mind when designing box art or games in general. Muscley guys like Kratos aren't designed to appeal to women, they're designed for boys to project themselves on and fulfill power fantasies.
It's because Both Guys and Girls enjoy a good pair of boobs. While nobody enjoys looking at a penis, they're just gross.
The same applies to vaginas, they aren't really that appealing to look at and are pretty gross.
I mean come on, what woman would buy a product with box art of a dude with a raging boner?
Choosing boobs is ultimately a more productive marketing choice because EVERYONE likes them.
A look at any porn site anywhere proves you wrong. There are plenty of people who find genitals aesthetically pleasing and I'm sure there's a whole bunch of women who either don't like looking at breasts or who just don't care either way.
And a lot of men, while they do like boobs, find it off-putting that they get insterted in parts of a story where they thematically don't belong. It's kind of like how the people who design advertisements try to get you to buy anything by putting it next to a pair of boobs. It just makes me go 'really? you think so little of me that you have to resort to this?'
as for the raging boners (now there's a sentence I never thought I'd type...); true. Women probably wouldn't buy a product with a boner on the cover, but would men buy one with a moist vagina (outside certain stores, of course)?
Either way, it's not women they have in mind when designing box art or games in general. Muscley guys like Kratos aren't designed to appeal to women, they're designed for boys to project themselves on and fulfill power fantasies.
Look, I like boobs just as much as the next person. But they are clearly excessively sexualized in media. Hell, I'm not even saying excessive sexualization is a problem on the individual example scale. I often like stupid sexy designs like the one you posted (though that strap between her boobs is annoying.)
The root of the complaint is not in the amount of enjoyment men get from boobs. Believe it or not, women don't care if men like to look at boobs (in the general sense.) It is the pervasive amount of sexualization that occurs and the imbalance of sexualization, which is itself an indication of a deeper problem.
Take Fire Emblem fates. I can say with confidence that at least 4 of the women are highly physically sexualized and I could make arguments for a few more. And it isn't just boobs, the fire emblem artists seem to have a big thing for legs as well. And to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the fact that there are sexualized women. Sex is good! I like sexy legs too!
But I cannot say that for any of the male characters. Not a single male character is heavily physically sexualized. But even then, it is not necessarily a problem that only women are sexualized in this particular piece of media.
The problem is that this is a fairly universal trend. The level of physical sexualization of women vs men is very imbalanced and, as you have noted, the sexualization of women tends to exist for the enjoyment of people who are sexually attracted to women (typically men). This is an issue for several reasons, I'll touch on just one here:
Consider who characters are made for. Many female characters exist for men, where as very few male characters exist for women. Combined with the fact that there are fewer major female characters, the pool of characters that exist for women is relatively small.
And we have a winner. Shows over guys, this comment has won
Seriously though, this is the problem pretty eloquently written. It's the trend, not the individual case. And we criticize the individual cases in hopes that the trend might end.
Sexy characters aren't going to just disappear. Can we just have some more that aren't just blatant sexualisation for it's own sake please? And better written female characters while we're at it? That would be nice too.
Correct, breasts exist to nourish infants. This does nothing to explain the sexualisation of breasts in our culture; it only emphasises the absurdity of doing so. Breastfeeding in public, for example, is a hugely controversial issue because women's breasts are considered lewd, even though the whole point of them is to feed babies. Breasts have been perverted into something for men to furiously masturbate over, to the extent that people don't feel comfortable seeing them used for their actual purpose.
I hope you aren't saying that there is nothing sexual about breasts or by extension that they have no effect on sex itself. Because, if that is the case then I feel very bad for you/your partner.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you please elaborate why you feel sorry for me or my partner? What kind of effect are breasts supposed to have on sex, and how does this justify the unequal consideration of women's chests compared to men's.
I'm not sure if they count as a "major" culture, but don't let Frank Miller and Zack Snyder fool you; Spartans were into hardcore shota more than anyone. Their every honeymoon was an extended training montouge to make them straight.
I'm not sure if they count as a "major" culture, but don't let Frank Miller and Zack Snyder fool you; Spartans were into hardcore shota more than anyone. Their every honeymoon was an extended training montouge to make them straight.
Correct, breasts exist to nourish infants. This does nothing to explain the sexualisation of breasts in our culture; it only emphasises the absurdity of doing so. Breastfeeding in public, for example, is a hugely controversial issue because women's breasts are considered lewd, even though the whole point of them is to feed babies. Breasts have been perverted into something for men to furiously masturbate over, to the extent that people don't feel comfortable seeing them used for their actual purpose.
I hope you aren't saying that there is nothing sexual about breasts or by extension that they have no effect on sex itself. Because, if that is the case then I feel very bad for you/your partner.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you please elaborate why you feel sorry for me or my partner? What kind of effect are breasts supposed to have on sex, and how does this justify the unequal consideration of women's chests compared to men's.
I think they are trying to talk about erogenous zones but in doing so over rate their importance. Isn't a good argument against you because your whole body can be an erogenous zone. The human ear is a fucking erogenous zone.... Besides, nipples and breasts are an erogenous zone for men too. More straight men should encourage their partners to play with them during sex.
I think they are trying to talk about erogenous zones but in doing so over rate their importance. Isn't a good argument against you because your whole body can be an erogenous zone. The human ear is a fucking erogenous zone.... Besides, nipples and breasts are an erogenous zone for men too. More straight men should encourage their partners to play with them during sex.
If that's what they're arguing then yeah, pretty much. It's really sad how men are made to think that it's shameful for them to enjoy having their ears or nipples licked or whatever. I've seen published articles in magazines that are basically:
Erogenous zones for women - (list of body parts)
Erogenous zones for men - HIS DICK HURR HURR
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.
