Dragon's Crown

no I was talking about the art style not the problem at hand

nsane32 wrote:well there is a ton worse games than this one which is why I find it weird that its this that gets hammered

It's not just this one, not long ago GoW: Ascension got it for its controversial "Bros before Hos" Trophy/Achievement. This is just the latest one.

The trouble that exists is that video game developers are still writing and illustrating as though they are still stuck in the 1980s even though technology has drastically improved. I don't believe in censoring stuff like this but developers have to be aware that some people are on the look-out for this sort of thing and they have to be prepared to take the heat for it. To their credit the Dragon's Crown people seem to not be wanting to make a huge fuss about this, even though some others, on both sides, unfortunately are. Which will probably help with sales, it is free marketing after all. Which brings me to another point, as long as this sort of stuff is profitable, and controversy often is, you cannot expect it to just go away unless the industry takes a unilateral stand against it.

It reminds me of the film industry and the Academy when black actors first started winning Oscars. The establishment didn't know how to react and it wasn't necessarily racism (though, I'm sure, some probably were racist) but it was just more a fact of people not knowing how to adapt to the changes. Nowadays Oscars are give out to people of varied genders, nationalities, and ethnicities all the time and we don't even bat an eye. In the end they evolved and moved on and what was the status quo 80 years ago is now unthinkable. I'm sure that gaming too will evolve, how and in what way I do not know, but it will undoubtedly change.

Frankly the art in both is pretty sexist towards women normally.  We men have our things that portray us badly as well, but generally in art women have large breasts, long hair, and pretty faces.  Maybe in japan they have pink hair and big glistening eyes in the background, while in america it's a cartoon rabbit that goes everywhere with bugs bunny.  Let's just say that things aren't as good as they can be in general and not make it be about japan, america, or madagascar in specific.

FexDS wrote:Every instance doesn't devolve into a sexism debate. And overly-ridiculous style is still open to criticism, as everything else.

Agreed.  I apologize for my use of the absolute "every."

FexDS wrote:Irrelevant. Your personal stance on the color blue/green does not change the fact the majority of people see the color blue and associate it with health.

Besides the fact that your personal stance does not represent any majority nor the intentions of the developers... Do you not see that the "extreme" of the male is their "power"  features and the "extreme" of the female are their sexual features. Defending this on the basis that it's too extreme to be empowering or sexy completely misses the point that the very design is based on sexism. Extreme male = more muscle; extreme female = more sex.

No one woman can tell you about "our" perspective either. And if you look around many males found issue with this designs too.

And this does not change the fact that what they decided to accentuate were the power features of the male and the sex features of the female. Everything you present brings back the core issue which is: males seen as power, females seen as sex. It's bs and it's being called out and defending it makes you look sad.

I never once claimed my views were representative of my entire gender.  My views were never meant to be taken as anything more than just that; my own perspective.  Those thoughts were provided on the assumption that adding history to the development of my opinions would provide better understanding on my personal perspective as opposed to just posting the first and last lines of my post and calling it a day.

As for another of these opinions that I pray doesn't grow to a point of irreversible contention between us, I will say that I find "sexy" to be its own form of power.  "Sexy" is not inherently a bad or oppressive thing.  Sexuality can be used to convey power, confidence, intelligence, kindness, and many other positive qualities infinitely more effectively for female characters than it can for male characters.  Sexuality in male characters is almost entirely limited to conveying power.  Using Dragon's Crown itself as an example, a user on another forum worded it better than I likely could:

"For example the released image of the Amazon character is a reclining pose on a rock, if studied then this image is more than massive hips in a thong on a tiny waist. The reclining nude/Venus is a long standing classical pose which artists still use today all over the world. This particular image is interesting because she has nothing behind her to support her. she is not truly reclining at all, it is an illusion of the pose, in short an illusion of being passive. The axe is held outward to the observer but low, this could be a veiled threat. The right leg is up and able to push off the rock at a moments notice. Now this all tied together with the utterly contemptuous look on her face directed at the observer completes this image as being one not of passive reclining but of a serious warning."

Maybe it's not a complete or perfect assessment, but the idea is there; the Amazon is being depicted sexually, but in a way that makes her intimidating and powerful.  Does this make me sexist, since I feel it's okay for women to be depicted as sexy in media?

FexDS wrote:I disagree with your second assessment. There is no character doing anything audacious, and the art designer was not trying to make a statement and take it to the next level. He simply made extreme design that reveal basic sexism in extreme proportions.

The implied audacity was when the subject being pushed to the extremes was sexuality.  Sexuality is not something generally meant just to be toyed with, especially so in video games since as a young medium we still haven't fully perfected how we tell stories and convey concepts to the point where we can consistently tackle deeper ingrained issues, and sexuality holds a lot of power over the human mind.  The way I interpret it, the over-the-top designs in Dragon's Crown were hoping to go so far with the extremities that the characters stopped holding any semblance with reality, and therefore people wouldn't take offense to them since they were obviously not grounded in the real world.  Hence taking refuge in the audacity that is something too sexualized to be considered genuine.  I think it's safe to assume that that didn't happen and my opinion is a minority on this though.

FexDS wrote:No, it doesn't. You are assuming that only "immature teen and preteen boys" have any desire for these overtly sexualized females. A quick google search will quickly dissuade such misconception, and further this isn't about their "marketing technique" but what is being criticized is the presentation as an art choice. Was this really the best they could come up with? Well then, how sad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

As with the first part, I apologize that my use and/or misuse of exaggerations was not effective at conveying my meaning.

FexDS wrote:I have fun with videogames all the time. I created the forum you're posting in. How about we start admitting that hey, maybe these old tired tropes and this deeply engrained sexism is out of date and should start moving out?

You have no idea how much I owe you for having made this wiki and these forums.  For almost 3 years you have given me a community I can be a part of, with people I love and respect, a place to voice things about myself I never could in real life, and meet like-minded individuals I never would have elsewhere.  It is out of that love and respect, combined with my having seen how arguments usually go after continuing past my general response to the patterns started by this particular segment of your comment, that I choose not to comment on this.

When I first saw the game, I interpreted its design as a complete and utter 'throwback'. I saw it as earnestly homaging the mechanics and intensity of old school games, while satirically honing their ridiculous physical design.  Then again, I am a man, and thus also the target to buy into this s*** to begin with.

Now, I'm not saying that one should or shouldn't be offended - misogyny and sexism have long plagued videogames, and everybody has the right to feel whatever way they do about it - but if the issue is, in fact, misogyny and sexism in game design, isn't it a little odd to focus so much on a game that is openly and awaredly referencing a time when gaming was even more 'macho'?

I'm not saying that fact automatically gives it a complete pass, but personally, I find it more frustrating that, say, GTAV has no playable female protagonist. There have been SIX entire grand theft auto games and TWO expansions that have all had different protagonists, ranging from Italians to African-Americans to Eastern Europeans to Jews to Hispanics (so, clearly diversity has been an aim of theirs), and now that there are THREE completely different, playable characters, you'd think that, somewhere, they could fit in a strong female. Hell, if they couldn't fit one in, you'd think they could at least steal one from The Last of Us.

So yeah, that's just my opinion, and being a man, my opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight...but, whereas one new game is trying to be referential, and succeeding in spite of that reference being controversial, I find it infinitely more frustrating and disappointing that new games supposedly trying to push real boundaries, knowingly aren't.

I like what you said, Johnny. Now the question is, if Dragon's Crown is going "throwback" which game will be the one to go "progressive" and turn these tropes on their proverbial heads?

WhatDoesThePendantDo? wrote:I like what you said, Johnny. Now the question is, if Dragon's Crown is going "throwback" which game will be the one to go "progressive" and turn these tropes on their proverbial heads?

 well there already is a few The last of us is a good recent example somthing a bit older would be D&D shadow over mistara it had 2 strong reasonably clothed women so there you go I could think of more but im too tired

Reaperfan wrote:Agreed.  I apologize for my use of the absolute "every."
I never once claimed my views were representative of my entire gender.  My views were never meant to be taken as anything more than just that; my own perspective.  Those thoughts were provided on the assumption that adding history to the development of my opinions would provide better understanding on my personal perspective as opposed to just posting the first and last lines of my post and calling it a day.

Understood. however please understand that when you use a "to me personally" to discuss a societal issue it will be frowned upon since it has no relevance to the argument, even if it adds background to your persona.

Reaperfan wrote:As for another of these opinions that I pray doesn't grow to a point of irreversible contention between us, I will say that I find "sexy" to be its own form of power.  "Sexy" is not inherently a bad or oppressive thing.  Sexuality can be used to convey power, confidence, intelligence, kindness, and many other positive qualities infinitely more effectively for female characters than it can for male characters.  Sexuality in male characters is almost entirely limited to conveying power.  Using Dragon's Crown itself as an example, a user on another forum worded it better than I likely could:

"For example the released image of the Amazon character is a reclining pose on a rock, if studied then this image is more than massive hips in a thong on a tiny waist. The reclining nude/Venus is a long standing classical pose which artists still use today all over the world. This particular image is interesting because she has nothing behind her to support her. she is not truly reclining at all, it is an illusion of the pose, in short an illusion of being passive. The axe is held outward to the observer but low, this could be a veiled threat. The right leg is up and able to push off the rock at a moments notice. Now this all tied together with the utterly contemptuous look on her face directed at the observer completes this image as being one not of passive reclining but of a serious warning."

This is a common fallacy when these issues are brought up: oh but the female has all the power because she has the sex! - It is not the case as the purpose of the exercise is to entice the male "gaze" or that primeval "look at my sex" instinct. See quoted post is sad apologism. I'm sorry but the reclining Venus is not a joker card, as it is just another male eye candy from another time. Created by men, for men. All of the further impressions on how her posture indicates this or that and how she can represent power are just impressions of the viewer and they cannot take away the fact she is wearing a bikini which is specifically there because female = sex and bikini shows it off more. You are aware some males enjoy and are enticed by "powerful" women giving them sex right? Or taking sex from them? This is *STILL* a male fantasy and it still relegates the female to sex. It would be for the benefit of everyone to stop trying to justify this.

Reaperfan wrote:
Maybe it's not a complete or perfect assessment, but the idea is there; the Amazon is being depicted sexually, but in a way that makes her intimidating and powerful.  Does this make me sexist, since I feel it's okay for women to be depicted as sexy in media?

Women can be depicted as sexy. They shouldn't be "only" depicted as sexy and currently there is such a large vast immense majority of sexy that there is absolutely no need or space for more of it. Women aren't sex.

Reaperfan wrote:The implied audacity was when the subject being pushed to the extremes was sexuality.  Sexuality is not something generally meant just to be toyed with, especially so in video games since as a young medium we still haven't fully perfected how we tell stories and convey concepts to the point where we can consistently tackle deeper ingrained issues, and sexuality holds a lot of power over the human mind.  The way I interpret it, the over-the-top designs in Dragon's Crown were hoping to go so far with the extremities that the characters stopped holding any semblance with reality, and therefore people wouldn't take offense to them since they were obviously not grounded in the real world.  Hence taking refuge in the audacity that is something too sexualized to be considered genuine.  I think it's safe to assume that that didn't happen and my opinion is a minority on this though.

If they tried to do that they failed miserable and as such have lost any claim to it. "We were trying to be funny with the lynch a black person joke" isn't gonna excuse the behavior.

This game is getting called out because the art choice was bad, and we are starting to see more media reactions to such propositions and challenges to these stereotyping that I very much welcome. As I said earlier, I hope in the future the developers can come up with something better.

FexDS wrote:snip

And yet, despite the problems that sexism causes in society, and I probably agree with you more than you think on those, I can't bring myself to care about one videogame. Trends in media, sure, are causes for concern. But crying sexism on an individual basis, not even on a game but on a character, (taken alone the Sorceress's design is rather sexist, yes, but her comrades include a heavily muscled and not conventionally attractive woman, and an elf girl who is not sexualized in the slightest.) seems like overkill to me. Yes, the sorceress alone implies that women=sex, but the Amazon certainly does not equal sex, nor does the Elf. Not every character or every piece of media needs to be politically correct or socially responsible, even in a perfect society. Even if it oversteps the bounds of taste, Dragon's Crown is still a unique game for its design, which adds color and flavor to the game market. 

Every time I hear the argument that fantasy objectification leads to real world objectification, the arguments of the radicals who claim that game violence leads to real violence ring in my ears. I can't help but see things like this as symptoms and not causes of a sexist society, and I have faith in the ability of the vast majority of people to distinguish fantasy from reality, to not let their consumption of socially irresponsible media make them socially irresponsible people.

JohnnyHarpoon wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that one should or shouldn't be offended - misogyny and sexism have long plagued videogames, and everybody has the right to feel whatever way they do about it - but if the issue is, in fact, misogyny and sexism in game design, isn't it a little odd to focus so much on a game that is openly and awaredly referencing a time when gaming was even more 'macho'?

People's attention was drawn to this because it was overt. The whole homage to sexism is still sexism... it's not offensive per se it's simply saddening.

JohnnyHarpoon wrote:I'm not saying that fact automatically gives it a complete pass, but personally, I find it more frustrating that, say, GTAV has no playable female protagonist. There have been SIX entire grand theft auto games and TWO expansions that have all had different protagonists, ranging from Italians to African-Americans to Eastern Europeans to Jews to Hispanics (so, clearly diversity has been an aim of theirs), and now that there are THREE completely different, playable characters, you'd think that, somewhere, they could fit in a strong female. Hell, if they couldn't fit one in, you'd think they could at least steal one from The Last of Us

I find that frustrating too. But just because I'm frustrated about something else it won't stop me commenting on what is at hand.

JohnnyHarpoon wrote:
So yeah, that's just my opinion, and being a man, my opinion probably doesn't carry that much weight...but, whereas one new game is trying to be referential, and succeeding in spite of that reference being controversial, I find it infinitely more frustrating and disappointing that new games supposedly trying to push real boundaries, knowingly aren't.

I believe males have an equal right to opine and should give due thought and consideration to these matters. Some day your daughters are going to be out and around, do you want them to be constantly concerned for their image, think themselves powerless, perceive sex as their one and only tool in life? Because that is the message being churned out through all kinds of media constantly, and as much as we try to deny it and counter it, in the end you have 9 year old girls with anorexia and 18 year old girls who honestly believe sex is power. And yes, one videogame affects things, everything is an unison and we should talk and debate and think about what is and what can be made better because every one instance has the power to eventually change the whole.

Ghadis_God wrote: And yet, despite the problems that sexism causes in society, and I probably agree with you more than you think on those, I can't bring myself to care about one videogame.

Then why are you here defending it?

Ghadis_God wrote:Trends in media, sure, are causes for concern. But crying sexism on an individual basis, not even on a game but on a character, (taken alone the Sorceress's design is rather sexist, yes, but her comrades include a heavily muscled and not conventionally attractive woman, and an elf girl who is not sexualized in the slightest.) seems like overkill to me. Yes, the sorceress alone implies that women=sex, but the Amazon certainly does not equal sex, nor does the Elf. Not every character or every piece of media needs to be politically correct or socially responsible, even in a perfect society. Even if it oversteps the bounds of taste, Dragon's Crown is still a unique game for its design, which adds color and flavor to the game market. 

You are cherry picking and apologetic of the blatant fact that the design choices for the game place the female characters as sex objects. Maybe not your sexual fantasy, but the fact that they are scantly clad and overly sexualized is undeniable. You can defend the game for its gaming aspects, but my points about it stand and I still belive they could have made better choices on the art department and thus not gotten criticized for their poorly thought out choices.

Ghadis_God wrote:
Every time I hear the argument that fantasy objectification leads to real world objectification, the arguments of the radicals who claim that game violence leads to real violence ring in my ears. I can't help but see things like this as symptoms and not causes of a sexist society, and I have faith in the ability of the vast majority of people to distinguish fantasy from reality, to not let their consumption of socially irresponsible media make them socially irresponsible people.

That's another fallacy. This argument reminds me of that argument and that argument is not true so this one must not be true either!

While denying the obvious and real influence on entertainment and media on the real life impressions of real people about woman, are you also going to argue that virtual child pornography is not harmful because its virtual? Cause you know where that will lead.

FexDS wrote:Understood. however please understand that when you use a "to me personally" to discuss a societal issue it will be frowned upon since it has no relevance to the argument, even if it adds background to your persona.

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.

FexDS wrote:This is a common fallacy when these issues are brought up: oh but the female has all the power because she has the sex! - It is not the case as the purpose of the exercise is to entice the male "gaze" or that primeval "look at my sex" instinct. See quoted post is sad apologism. I'm sorry but the reclining Venus is not a joker card, as it is just another male eye candy from another time. Created by men, for men. All of the further impressions on how her posture indicates this or that and how she can represent power are just impressions of the viewer and they cannot take away the fact she is wearing a bikini which is specifically there because female = sex and bikini shows it off more. You are aware some males enjoy and are enticed by "powerful" women giving them sex right? Or taking sex from them? This is *STILL* a male fantasy and it still relegates the female to sex. It would be for the benefit of everyone to stop trying to justify this.

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?

FexDS wrote:Women can be depicted as sexy. They shouldn't be "only" depicted as sexy and currently there is such a large vast immense majority of sexy that there is absolutely no need or space for more of it. Women aren't sex.

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.  

FexDS wrote:If they tried to do that they failed miserable and as such have lost any claim to it. "We were trying to be funny with the lynch a black person joke" isn't gonna excuse the behavior.

This game is getting called out because the art choice was bad, and we are starting to see more media reactions to such propositions and challenges to these stereotyping that I very much welcome. As I said earlier, I hope in the future the developers can come up with something better.

You're misunderstanding the concept of the trope, I think.  Or at least the magnitude of it.  Just making a joke about lynching a black person isn't taking it off-the-wall enough to break past the audiences' previously-established issues.  You have to take the joke, say it, mess up the punchline, spend 10 minutes rambling trying to remember it, finally salvage it, and then spend the next 5 minutes explaining it after it was told.  The effect is that the person then telling the joke is obviously incredibly inept and completely unable to comprehend their actions, therefore making the actual joke itself, despite being about something terrible, not something anyone cares about.  The insensitive joke becomes moot in the face of the ineptitude with which it was told.

Actually, here's a really good example of the trope done right:

Warning: strong language ahead:

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.

FexDS wrote:
You are cherry picking and apologetic of the blatant fact that the design choices for the game place the female characters as sex objects. Maybe not your sexual fantasy, but the fact that they are scantly clad and overly sexualized is undeniable. You can defend the game for its gaming aspects, but my points about it stand and I still belive they could have made better choices on the art department and thus not gotten criticized for their poorly thought out choices.

That's another fallacy. This argument reminds me of that argument and that argument is not true so this one must not be true either! 
While denying the obvious and real influence on entertainment and media on the real life impressions of real people about woman, are you also going to argue that virtual child pornography is not harmful because its virtual? Cause you know where that will lead.

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. 

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. 
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. 

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

what you saying was correct back in the 1990s but now the media has the largest effect on the young than anything els and combine it with the fact that this generation of children seems lacking in intelligence it will have all the more effect. This game in particular wont have that big of an effect because its not mainstream media and will most likely be played by fans of the old D&D beat em up but the principle still remains

Actually some media does cause people to be more inclined towards sexism, but not what you think.

Sitcoms with families in them actually often drive men into believe in a matriarchy.  It is a weird study, but due to the formula of dumb dad, troublesome son, smart but angry mother, and perfect daughter, some people end up feeling that their gender is targeted and will lash out at others over it. It's a very strange thing, but just like how Mario Kart causes aggression in people while call of duty on average does not, Sitcoms actually can cause men to hate women.  Mainly due to the fact that it is a very common thing in shows in america, that formula is used in the majority of sitcom families.

So can we talk about the game in here? Or is this thread just for whining about sexism and satire?

Feel free to talk about the game.

Though you probably shouldn't talk about the current topic in such a way.  Just a heads up.

nsane32 wrote:what you saying was correct back in the 1990s but now the media has the largest effect on the young than anything els and combine it with the fact that this generation of children seems lacking in intelligence it will have all the more effect. This game in particular wont have that big of an effect because its not mainstream media and will most likely be played by fans of the old D&D beat em up but the principle still remains

That's ridiculous, the new generation isn't any stupider than the last, you were just too young to realize how stupid the last generation was. People also do a thing called maturing. A 12 year old might talk about how awesome it is to run over a hooker in GTA and how much he wants to do it in real life but he won't have the same opinion in ten years.

Here is my input about the current topic:  look at my signature and tell me what you think my stance is on DC's artistic direction.

Does anybody have any good gameplay videos?  I saw something explaining the different classes.  I am kind of bummed that Warrior and Dwarf are classed as 'easy.'  I was looking forward to throwing guys around the screen as the Dwarf, but if he ends up being too easy I'll probably stick to other characters.  Hopefully he's just easier to pick up and learn and in late-game content Warrior/Dorfo are about as challenging to play as the other classes.

@Ghadis God: I think running over hookers is pretty cool. A quick math check tells me that I've got another year to go, though. We'll see how I feel about playing bumper cars with prostitutes then.

Saturday-Saint wrote:So can we talk about the game in here?  Or is this thread just for whining about sexism and satire?

I'm good at multitasking. 

Which class do you think you want to play? Apparently it's an important choice since you can't switch midway. I think I'm leaning toward the Wizard for now- I like his sprite quite a lot and I enjoy raining magical death on my opponents. As a bonus, he's supposedly tougher to play as, which will hopefully alleviate the low difficulty I heard this game has for the first two playthroughs.

https://youtu.be/0UdxgvM11o8

ENB has a review which shows off the gameplay well enough it seems.

yes please start talking about the game now

Ghadis_God wrote:Apparently it's an important choice since you can't switch midway.

I think you can, but once you switch you're back to level 1 or something. At least that's what I remember hearing, I haven't looked into it THAT much.

Ghadis_God wrote:I think I'm leaning toward the Wizard for now- I like his sprite quite a lot and I enjoy raining magical death on my opponents. As a bonus, he's supposedly tougher to play as, which will hopefully alleviate the low difficulty I heard this game has for the first two playthroughs.

I'll probably go with Sorceress at first. If it turns out that support magic type stuff turns out to be useless, I may switch to Wizard. Also looking into Elf/Amazon, as they seem to have fun combat mechanics, primarily the Elf. Dorf for throwing stuff and messing around. Warrior is my last priority I think. I'll give them all a shot and see how I like them, though.

Saturday-Saint wrote:Here is my input about the current topic:  look at my signature and tell me what you think my stance is on DC's artistic direction.

Does anybody have any good gameplay videos?  I saw something explaining the different classes.  I am kind of bummed that Warrior and Dwarf are classed as 'easy.'  I was looking forward to throwing guys around the screen as the Dwarf, but if he ends up being too easy I'll probably stick to other characters.  Hopefully he's just easier to pick up and learn and in late-game content Warrior/Dorfo are about as challenging to play as the other classes.

@Ghadis God:  I think running over hookers is pretty cool.  A quick math check tells me that I've got another year to go, though.  We'll see how I feel about playing bumper cars with prostitutes then.

Note the "and wants to do it in real life", that was the real point. Unless of course you  really feel the need to pancake some sex workers out on the streets, in which case I advise you not to get caught, it would be a blow to our community.