Dragon's Crown

I'm watching ENB's video and holy **** the Warrior is a helicopter.

Reaperfan wrote:
 This logic ultimately means that all discussion on societal or cultural issues is moot though.  Nobody can ever provide anything but their own individual perspective.  Even if there are raw, factual statistics or data, everyone can interpret different effects from the same data because nobody views society through the same lens.

No, it means that arguments about societal issues ought to be discussed with your personal likes and dislikes aside, as they are anecdotal and unrepresentative of the argument. They are often used as red herrings or the drop of salt and as such frowned upon in a proper debate.

Reaperfan wrote:Since tone is difficult to convey through text in posts, I want to preface this with the guarantee that these questions are asked with genuine curiosity looking for an alternative perspective and are not meant to be challenging in any way.

Besides sexuality, what is a prominently inherent female trait that could be used more often to make compelling female characters in media that could not also be applied equally as effectively on male characters?

And yes, I will be the first to admit that this question is tempered by the my own ignorance and reinforced by the lack of variety being used in media.  And as scared as I am to type this since I know it has infinite potential to be taken the wrong way but I pathetically lack the ability to phrase it to myself any other way, when I see sexuality as the strongest and most diverse tool a female character has for development and empowerment, I have to ask myself why women want to take away this potential they have at their disposal that men and male characters don't, and what do they want instead?

It continues to make me sad to know this is an honest question. Can you understand that you are asking me what defines me besides my tits and ***? because what other obvious thing about Fex can make Fex? In the online world, people always assume I'm a guy. One banned chatango member went to the length of saying I instituted female moderators because I wanted to get laid and I had a thing for girl gamers... And round and round this whole thing goes on how male is "default" and female must be "sex" ... examples abound so I won't go further into them. Either way, there are plenty of traits that can make a character herself. I do not agree at all that sexuality is the strongest and most diverse tool a female character has, and the fact that you propose it makes me wonder how you would feel if I told you your c*ck size was the strongest and most empowering trait about your persona and that I think all male characters should have half of their balls out because this makes them sexy and empowered as it makes me want sex with them. Cringe?

If you want to make a character female make it female without sexualizing it. You can give her a female voice, make her talk about herself as a girl. Draw her as a girl without giving her inviting cleavage or focusing the camera on her behind. Why must the woman be defined by her "goods" when the male get to be defined by their astutes and their prowess?

Gender does not define a person. Genders are different in many ways but we are all ruled by our brains and we are all capable of similar and equal emotions and reactions. Characters should be based on their personas, not on their gender, not on lazy stereotypes or shortcut cookiemades. I run around on my knight and you don't know if I'm female or male you just know I praise the sun. And that's how interaction should be.

Reaperfan wrote:You're right, women aren't just sex.  But what trips me up when trying to understand this is when to others it seems that sexuality being used seems to only equate to sex.  As I've said before, sexuality can be used with a character to define more than just sex appeal.

This depends on what you are referring to. Sexuality =/= sexy. A female character may have breasts and hips. This just makes the drawing female in appearance. To make it "sexual" and sexy is when those aspects are promoted, highlighted, enhanced, decorated, etc. That simply belittles the rest of the human that comes with the female form to just the female form.

Reaperfan wrote:Ultimately though, this refuge in audacity take is just how I believe things make the most sense.  Mostly because I'm optimistic enough that I refuse to believe anyone would willingly invite this kind of controversy onto themselves, even video game designers.  And yes, even though I believe this was the intent I admit it failed spectacularly.  And while I support the fight for more variety in female characters, I hate seeing a company get completely vilified simply because they happened to tell a lame joke at the wrong time.

I don't think we are vilifying the company. I am simply pointing out that was a poor choice with a pathetic focus that detracts from focusing on the game itself because when I see footage I see T&A galore. They didn't willingly invite this, they simply didn't think it through and didn't think people would object. I'm happy there's a controversy, I'm happy people are calling it out. This is how change begins.

Ghadis_God wrote:Point 1: Only one character is a sex object. Farther back you made the claim that scantily clad men aren't sex objects because they represent power fantasy and this is the same for the Amazon. She's not designed to be lusted after, she's scantily clad to show off her muscle and look powerful, exactly the same as the Dwarf save for her gender. The elf has bare arms and shows a tiny bit of leg above her thigh high boots, not to mention she's covered in a cloak. Hardly a sex object. 

Please read above. I have already explained how the "powerful" half naked woman is also a fantasy for males. And sorry, scantly clad supermacho men are not female fantasies, they are male power fantasies extremized. You are purposefully misconstruing the statements and intentionally missing the points.

Ghadis_God wrote:Point 2:You have no way to prove the influence of sexism and objectification in media on real life, other than claiming that it is "obvious and real"- I of course can't prove that sexism in media is symptomatic rather than causal, but I stand by what I said in claiming just that, because from all of my life experiences I see the trend that the vast majority of people can distinguish fiction from reality and are shaped in their views and beliefs by real life experiences far more than those from the media they consume. 

I don't need to prove the influence of media in real life, it's already all around you. Women bleaching their vaginas, men who can't get a hard on if the girl has bigger lips than they expected. Causal indeed. Your vague attempts to justify your statements do not take away from reality and I will not be dragged down into a "defend the obvious" fallacy. You seem to be inherently unaware of media impact in society and that is a whole semester of University I am not going to try to teach you on this forum. Go educate yourself.

Ghadis_God wrote:
It's not that the two arguments I'm comparing are vaguely similar, they use the exact same faulty logic.
And yes, I will argue your child porn point. The only harm caused by child porn is the harm caused to the child in its creation. Drawn or computer generated child porn is absolutely harmless and it only exists because people are attracted to children, not the other way around. 

Oh wow. You are incredibly ignorant. No. Child pornography does actually CREATE and ENCOURAGE pedophilia. This is a proven fact and the reason virtual is outlawed in so many countries. The repetition of the stimuli furthers the response, normalizes the issue and creates further ones.

Ghadis_God wrote:
Child porn does note create pedophiles. Violent games do not create violent people. Sexist media does not create sexists.

You are wrong. These examples are not equal. The direct brain response to sexual stimuli is specifically different to that of violence. People try to equate this in the evergoing fallacy on how we should allow everything.  Please go educate yourself

FexDS wrote:If you want to make a character female make it female without sexualizing it. You can give her a female voice, make her talk about herself as a girl. Draw her as a girl without giving her inviting cleavage or focusing the camera on her behind. Why must the woman be defined by her "goods" when the male get to be defined by their astutes and their prowess?

Gender does not define a person. Genders are different in many ways but we are all ruled by our brains and we are all capable of similar and equal emotions and reactions. Characters should be based on their personas, not on their gender, not on lazy stereotypes or shortcut cookiemades. I run around on my knight and you don't know if I'm female or male you just know I praise the sun. And that's how interaction should be.

Almost 3am so I'm getting a little tired and won't address the full post just yet. Also probably invited that hostility through not being able to think everything through and phrase myself appropriately. Ah well.

I guess what I was asking for is more what differentiates a "strong female character" from just a "strong character." What kind of perspectives and insights could we gain from a uniquely female point of view? Modern media hasn't done well to answer that question. No matter how similar we have the potential to be, boys and girls typically aren't raised the same way or with the same societal expectations so we tend to still develop differences in how we view the world. Stand-up comics wouldn't be able to make shows about "I just don't understand how men/women think" if we didn't, ya know? Based on these bits though it doesn't sound like that differentiation matters much to you though.

Mhmm I didn't mean to be hostile towards you, please know that was not the intention - tone in written word is hard to tell. I did mean to be hostile towards Ghadis because he posted like an uneducated fool tho

I think that the whole societal construct of women liking x and men liking y and how we are all so different is due to expire.

We raise our children with outdated, sexist concepts where the men are forced to believe it's their role in life to provide for the family and women are raised to believe they ought to be pretty and their weapon in life will be witholding sex from their husbands... it's sad. People should be free to do either of those of their own volition not by societal pressure to fit into a role.

So in my opinion we do not need exclusively female or male views of the world. We need human views of the world told through the lense of specific characters. So maybe one girl is going to be an artist, the other one is going to be a nerd, the other one will have a thing for puppies, that other one will work at a supermarket... You can make it "female" through her experiences (say she'll complain these fashionable jeans are really uncomfortable, or how she hates wearing hills, or how funny you're expected to wear makeup which causes wrinkles but then you're not supposed to age). I dislike role assignment on gender as much as I dislike racial roles.

Well then I guess we found an example of the forum's 'tone' going down.

I don't care if images like that are rendered or real. You're sick if you find child characters that are sexualised attractive. I'd hope you are at least sensible enough to not share your opinion on here, if you are so unwilling to correct your ideas of what attractive is.

"I run around on my knight and you don't know if I'm female or male you just know I praise the sun. And that's how interaction should be."


I hope you don't mind if i quote this for that piece I'm working on, I quite like this quote.     

Serious_Much wrote:I don't care if images like that are rendered or real. You're sick if you find child characters that are sexualised attractive. I'd hope you are at least sensible enough to not share your opinion on here, if you are so unwilling to correct your ideas of what attractive is.

snagging this, ty serious_much

Serious_Much wrote:Well then I guess we found an example of the forum's 'tone' going down.

I don't care if images like that are rendered or real. You're sick if you find child characters that are sexualised attractive. I'd hope you are at least sensible enough to not share your opinion on here, if you are so unwilling to correct your ideas of what attractive is.

umm

he never said that he found child porn attractive? You made that up yourself.

FexDS wrote:You can make it "female" through her experiences (say she'll complain these fashionable jeans are really uncomfortable, or how she hates wearing hills, or how funny you're expected to wear makeup which causes wrinkles but then you're not supposed to age).

That's all incredibly superficial stuff though.  Gonna go on a bit of a tangent here to try to explain what I'm thinking, so bear with me.

You know why I like My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic?  For the longest time I didn't have an answer to that myself.  I just thought it was a show made with above-average writing, animation, and voice acting.  One day I was browsing Youtube watching various "explain the Brony phenomenon to non-Bronies" videos looking for a good explanation I could use in an argument I was having with someone at the time, and I stumbled across a video that phrased it very neatly.  The narrator said something along the lines of:

"All art exists to ask a question of its audience, and that question is 'what does it mean to be human?'  Now that's a big question, and one that nobody really knows the answer to, so most works tend to break it down into a smaller, more managable question about a specific part of human life.  For instance, the show Breaking Bad asks the question 'what does it mean to be a criminal?'  The movie A Bug's Life asks 'what does it mean to be an outcast?'  My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic asks the question 'what does it mean to be a girl?'"

As soon as the narrator asked that last question, it hit me as to what was so fascinating about the show to me.  It had relatable characters all with strong motivations, interests, flaws, and purposes.  I could equate a real-life friend of mine to each and every one of the show's character's personalities.  I could personally relate to some if not most of the interpersonal problems the characters had from episode to episode.  But despite all those similarities, the characters handled and approached those same personalities with those same problems in entirely different ways than I did/would have.  I knew at the time that that was something that I loved about the show, how the characters would always surprise me, but I couldn't put a label on what exactly influenced those differences in decisions.

These characters were taking on problems that weren't related to makeup or clothes or other things society tells us are "girl problems."  They were taking on surprisingly mature problems like "my friend got that job offer I really wanted but failed at.  Am I mad enough to let this separate us?" or "Your day job is working you too hard and it's affecting your health."  But they weren't solving them in the way a group of me and my guy buddies would solve them and were solving them with the emotional approach of a group of girls.  It makes the show an alien, yet understandable and intriguing, learning experience.

As human beings, we have the same potential for personalities, interests, and flaws.  But whether it's societal, biological, or some unknown factor, I can't believe there isn't at least some inherent perspective difference between men and women as groups.  I also believe whatever this difference is to be a wonderful and fascinating thing.  We should always be trying to better understand one another and better understand human nature as a whole.  By using multiple perspectives, it makes it easier to understand things by providing more outlooks on life.

EDIT:  4:30am. Sleep time.  Who woulda guessed that when I got out of school I'd spend my summer nights writing cultural analysis essays into the wee hours of the morning because I felt like it

Well that's the thing... the differences are superficial. Inside we all have souls, we all operate via our brains. Our "differences" are constructed by society and the only non-sexist approach to gender characterization would be through superficial stuff.

I shave my legs... because I think they shouldn't have hair because I'm a woman... but wait... why am I born with it? Eventually it downs on you that your own likes and dislikes have been drilled into you by the exterior. This is inevitable and needs not be malicious, but in the end it's superficial. Not unlike children's clothing and appearance.

At heart, the instincts of the genders determine very little. "Women tend to read articles twice before posting", "men tend to become overly protective of daughters" "women have a significantly higher attachment to their offspring" ... As a society we are moving past instinct towards an existence that does not require our gender roles, and the instinctual approaches are not relevant.

So yes we can make a female-lense story, and construe it within our societal influence of how the females ought to be. And there are many varied and sometimes deep impressions of what it is to be female. I can write extensively at how puzzled I am everytime someone joins my raiding guild to be shocked the leader and know it all is a woman, and how that impacts my perspectives. Or we could have a long talk about the female partners at magic circle lawfirms and their struggles to retain their identity when forced to "be one of the boys" and join the clients at the stripclub. But in the end it is all the result of exterior forces pushing onto one's genderless real self. I wish the world could eventually do away with most of that so we can have men who cry and girls punch harder than you do.

I clicked on the thread to find some ifno about the game, to help me decide if I should play it.
Especially since I see Fex post in the thread. So I thought "Hmmm, the game must be interesting. Let's see what Fex thinks about it. "

The hell have I arrived into? o_O
...
Now all I can think about is Maiden in Black, sitting in Nexus, shaving her legs.
Thanks guys. -__-

Spurgun wrote:

Serious_Much wrote:Well then I guess we found an example of the forum's 'tone' going down.

I don't care if images like that are rendered or real. You're sick if you find child characters that are sexualised attractive. I'd hope you are at least sensible enough to not share your opinion on here, if you are so unwilling to correct your ideas of what attractive is.

umm

he never said that he found child porn attractive? You made that up yourself.

I didn't specify it was about him, it was a general remark. A statement that this type of content is complete taboo and has no place here. I wasn't suggesting he partook in those concepts, but simply saying that it's inherently wrong, and there is no way anything can be said otherwise.

Sentiel wrote:
...
Now all I can think about is Maiden in Black, sitting in Nexus, shaving her legs.
Thanks guys. -__-

 TMI

FexDS wrote:

Sentiel wrote:
...
Now all I can think about is Maiden in Black, sitting in Nexus, shaving her legs.
Thanks guys. -__-

 TMI

I'm just amazed that's all he got from the last couple of pages

Sent leave that to google.

Yeah maybe we should bring back some more discussion about the game's mechanics and such.

Yes, I did. I googled it all.
Even what TMI means.

The game looks beautiful, especially some me gusta characters.
However I'm not a big fan of sidescrolling games. Not anymore at least. Also, from some reviews, I've gathered that the game is best played with other players, because AI party members are horrible. So I'll put the game on hold and prioritize Ni no Kuni for the time being.

damn... this thread...
as regards the game. I aint big on side scrollers. so meh

I love threads that beings with

"Anyone getting it?"


and ends up with these huge conversations


On the game suject, I was tempted to get one but I'm going to watch some more videos first

I found the response by Atlus about about that whole controversy regarding the Polygon review.

I still think I'm going for it. I honestly still play the older games like this. I just played through Final Fight 3 the other day. Did Turtles in Time a couple weeks ago. Super Double Dragon a few weeks before that. As far as I'm concerned throwing in some rpg elements, like the old dungeons and dragons beat em ups, but more refined, and with game mechanics from this generation couldn't be better. I'm really excited for it actually.

I am downloading this RIGHT NOW!

im going to wait and see if it gets a PC port but I really want to play it see as the old D&D beat em up are some of my all time favorite games

By the way I've heard that the Vita version gets slow down when a lot of enemies are on screen, so it might be a good idea to get the PS3 version.

By the way I've heard that the Vita version requires you to have a Vita, so it might be a good idea to get the PS3 version.