Please.
Look at the first picture ChronoDragoon posted (NSFW). How can you defend that ****?
We all know what is going on here. It's hardly the first time there was unsavory pandering to certain niche otaku demographics in a Japanese game and it certainly won't be the last.
What is he wearing on his feet? Party balloons? 
What is he wearing on his feet? Party balloons?
The heart sees what the heart wants?
Speaking of context, this line is so much better without it.
Uh...um...I'll leave it to others to decide whether "any sexualization" of this 13 year old "not really a girl probably a robot so perverted outfits on the underaged are ok" takes place only in the mind of a pervert.
https://i.ytimg.com/...xresdefault.jpg
Seeing that in a game would definitely not cause me to take out the KY.
Artwork can be based on a real person. There are also online elements to the game. There was no detail only a base accusation. While you may make assumptions as you choose to that suits your reactive proclivities -and do- it seems better to some to get clarification on such topics. Protip: There was no strawman.
Have you managed to watch that trailer?
I just want Andormeda to focus more on RPG elements and the exploration aspect
Wait.... so "Does it only become sexualization after it starts to turn you on? If a child in bathing suit is all it takes for you to see sexualization...well...that's an issue you may want to seek help for." was serious? You thought that there was a realistic chance that the answer to that question would be anything but "No, of course not, don't be silly!"?
Still haven't seen a reason to.
Agreed. It's clear that there's a really bad miscomprehension here about what sexualization involves. Sexualization does not mean that you are turned on by the subject matter. It means that you believe the intent is to arouse those feelings in certain individuals, regardless of whether or not it applies to you.
As an example, when women bring up the sexualized portrayal of other women in the media, they're not saying "these media potrayals turn us on, so we know it's sexualized".
Well put, il Divo.
The heart sees what the heart wants?
SPOILER ALERT If you haven't played yet TW3 DLC then don't read.
If you haven't played TW3 at all probably you won't understand this post.
I think one thing that came to my mind is how especially in recent games BW opted for a clear cut approach between good and evil. The good people are always right while the bad people are evil villains for the sake of being evil. They seem to keep this duality which in my opinion is kind of bad...Star Wars type bad.
I would like to bring to your attention for example one type of villain made by CDPR in TW3....the villain of the Heart of Stone DLC called Gaunter O'Dim....THAT is a villain made right. He sincerely scared the **** the out of me. If you look at him he appears a normal man, who helps you in the beginning and is quite likeable and tell wise words and even ask for your help. However the further you progress in the story the more you realize he isn't exactly what you were thinking, you question his motives, you realize he's hiding something....the more you talk to him the more you begin to be afraid of him...till you realize he is the Devil incarnate and you decide to oppose his plans (or not) at the end of the DLC. Yet he was a quite likeable character throughout the entire game.
Now compare this guy with what we got in DA:I Corypheus....Cory was just a cartoonish type villain with no real depth....he wasn't even scary at all, he looked ridiculous...I'd say TIM in ME2 was quite nice and likeable closer to O'Dim but ME3 totally ruined him and made him the boring twirling mustache villain...
So yeah I'd like BW to take note of O'Dim type villains and propose them in their games too.....they are the type of enemies that don't look scary or want to kill you straight away but are more mysterious and deceitful, playing with your psyche and your mind to achieve their own goals and agenda. I realize that fear is best achieved not through your eyes but through your mind.
Another thing I'd like BW to take note is having less clear cut good/bad decisions and more greyish options. Both options should have good and bad points to them and at the end of the day someone will inevitably suffer for your actions as it is in the real world. I hope BW realize this and tone down the evil/good duality that keep pestering their games since ever. In the same DLC I was talking about at the end of the day I was really debating with my conscience if I wanted to side with O'Dim or Olgierd, both were bad and did bad things but none was completely unreasonable and without a part of truth. The decision was hard and not easy and kudos to CDPR for being able to make the Devil sympathetic....it takes great writing skills
I think that is what BW should try to achieve too.
Now compare this guy with what we got in DA:I Corypheus....Cory was just a cartoonish type villain with no real depth....he wasn't even scary at all, he looked ridiculous...I'd say TIM in ME2 was quite nice and likeable closer to O'Dim but ME3 totally ruined him and made him the boring twirling mustache villain...
Corypheus was just a pawn who went rogue from the real villain's plans.
Corypheus was just a pawn who went rogue from the real villain's plans.
Which would have made his character far more tolerable had it not been revealed post credits and elaborated upon in a conversation at the end of a epilogue DLC. Even if we know he wasn't technically the villain in hindsight, that doesn't necessarily improve the 99% of the game that insisted he was. Everybody and their mother seemed to be quaking in their boots about Corypheus, when all I could do was sigh at how horribly mundane his character was and how laughable his whole "I'm incomprehensibly powerful!" shtick was. There's no build up to the twist, not even a small part of the story implying that maybe there's some bigger plot going on. As the player, I'm apparently supposed to take this character seriously for the whole game, but I can't because he's generic, one dimensional, and has nothing interesting to say.
Pawns can (and should) have just as adequate characterization as their puppeteer. Saren is a good example from BioWare, but if you want a closer analogue to Cory, look no further than Darth Sion from KoTOR II. Obviously his design looks dated and less intimidating now, but he's still pretty grotesque without jumping to absurdity. His motivations are fairly simple: "I hate jedi, so I will kill them all," yet there's an implication very early on that there may be more going on than we know. However, that doesn't weaken his character in the slightest; he still has some of the more intense monologues of the whole game. Heck, I don't think Obsidian managed to finish half the content they had planned for Sion on Korriban and his character is still very well rounded.
Have to say, I thought they did a pretty good job on all 3 of them. Kreia (obviously) was well done as was Sion. I know people tend to dislike Nihilus because of his limited screen time, but I enjoyed what we got which was suitably atmospheric/creepy, especially in the context of what Kreia/Visas/Tobin tell us about his abilities.
In general, KotOR 2 was great.
I think part of the problem with cory was that post skyhold he remained on the defensive for the rest of the game right up until you just got dumped right in-front of him without any final buildup to the encounter whatsoever. He wasn't terrifying as a villain, he was just your standard chaotic evil character who failed repeatedly.
The impression I'm getting from that is really that bioware is too afraid, almost to a fault, of pulling gut-punches on the player in the narrative. The risk on the other hand from doing that is that we get someone like Kai Leng who possessed infinite amounts of plot armour, for all the wrong reasons.
Have to say, I thought they did a pretty good job on all 3 of them. Kreia (obviously) was well done as was Sion. I know people tend to dislike Nihilus because of his limited screen time, but I enjoyed what we got which was suitably atmospheric/creepy, especially in the context of what Kreia/Visas/Tobin tell us about his abilities.
In general, KotOR 2 was great.
I vastly prefer it to its predecessor (though I count TSLRCM as officially part of KoTOR II), and like many of Obsidian's works, it's one of gaming's greatest stories. KoTOR II managed to create and expound upon 3 Sith lords that are in my opinion equally if not more compelling than Darth Vader himself.
I think Nihilus' character was primarily well done because of how well his character utilizes the medium. At the very least, the player sees a fairly intimidating Lovecraftian Sith entity with a cool mask, devastating powers, and a torture fetish, but if you probe Kreia and Visas enough, you get some very unique insights to his character. I think Kreia says she pities Nihilus because his vast power and practically god-like perspective on the universe have rendered him little more than a mindless beast that merely hungers. That's some top notch indirect characterization. That's not even mentioning how interestingly his character pairs with the Exile.
Wait.... so "Does it only become sexualization after it starts to turn you on? If a child in bathing suit is all it takes for you to see sexualization...well...that's an issue you may want to seek help for." was serious? You thought that there was a realistic chance that the answer to that question would be anything but "No, of course not, don't be silly!"?
Still haven't seen a reason to.
Agreed. It's clear that there's a really bad miscomprehension here about what sexualization involves. Sexualization does not mean that you are turned on by the subject matter. It means that you believe the intent is to arouse those feelings in certain individuals, regardless of whether or not it applies to you.
As an example, when women bring up the sexualized portrayal of other women in the media, they're not saying "these media potrayals turn us on, so we know it's sexualized".
Can't say that I want party balloons.
His shoes reminds me about this though:
At least you see your interpretation as a product of your own imagination. 
At least you see your interpretation as a product of your own imagination.
Well, I can't help that it was the first thing that popped up in my mind when I saw that picture. 
Like wolfhowwl said, you have to be pretty ignorant of modern otaku culture to think that example isn't obvious pandering to a certain segment of that demographic. Saying "nuh uh, you must just be turned on by it yourself!" is a pretty sad attempt at diversion from the issue by implying the people pointing it out are pedophiles. Classy.
At least localization changes it, despite how much people whine about censorship nowadays.
Considering the whining and complaining about censorship on the toggle thread it's surprising there aren't more voices against this regionalization.
Diversion isn't the point of my argument here. It's about clear defined objective sexualization that can be shown not something created from the imaginations of those that see it. A costume by itself isn't sexualization anymore than simply being naked is sexualization.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride:
If turnips were watches, I'd wear one by my side,:
If, Ifs and Ands were pots and pans,
There'd be no work for tinkers' hands.
There has to be actual sexualization not the product of imagination.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Much like the example of cognitive dissonance, it is not clear that you understand the definition of sexualization based on your use of the term.
As above, sexualization does not indicate you are attracted to the material. And it's not necessary to be attracted to the material to comment on sexualization.
In short: less poems, more clearly expressed arguments.
Much like the example of cognitive dissonance, it is not clear that you understand the definition of sexualization based on your use of the term.
As above, sexualization does not indicate you are attracted to the material. And it's not necessary to be attracted to the material to comment on sexualization.
In short: less poems, more clearly expressed arguments.
There was no attempt on my part to define sexualization as you claim. My claim was that those who are saying the censored costumes by themselves constitute sexualization is untrue and that any perceived sexualization is the product of their own imagination fueled by their own sexual urges.
Considering the whining and complaining about censorship on the toggle thread it's surprising there aren't more voices against this regionalization.
Diversion isn't the point of my argument here. It's about clear defined objective sexualization that can be shown not something created from the imaginations of those that see it. A costume by itself isn't sexualization anymore than simply being naked is sexualization.
Opposition to =/= whining about.
There was no attempt on my part to define sexualization as you claim. My claim was that those who are saying the censored costumes by themselves constitute sexualization is untrue and that any perceived sexualization is the product of their own imagination fueled by their own sexual urges.
Do you assert that sexual urges are always involved when a person perceives sexualization, or just in this instance? For instance, does every person who protests the repeated close ups of Miranda's back side in ME2 as excessive sexualization feel secretly aroused by it?
Retour en haut
