Thoughts on FEH's fanservice

[Johann]

18 minutes ago, thanny said:

And if he dislikes the sexual fanservice, that's completely fine. My point is that it's trivial to point that out when it's his taste as an individual. Like the straight male target audience you've stated, there are women and gay people who enjoy these things too, even if it's not directly catered to them.

How is it trivial to point out his opinion as a straight man? For the most part, the industry and community has a tendency to assume that a straight man wants these things. It's never trivial to mention who you are when discussing your thoughts and feelings about a subject.

18 minutes ago, thanny said:

Characters are most certainly expressing themselves by the way they are designed, and these characters are created for different perspectives and different people to interpret and critique. Sure, it might not be their foremost intention, but people can also view these female characters as positives such as empowering, not just sexually objectifying in a negative way. Hawkeye is a character that doesn't wear a shirt, probably to show off his strength and might, but what if there are people who are not comfortable with men shirtless? What if people sexually objectify him? But God forbid women be sexually depicted.

Characters don't express themselves; their creators express themselves using the character. Every single thing a character does, from their appearance, voice lines, identity, is the way it is because the creators made them that way. A real life person doing the same thing is completely different, because they have the agency to decide what they want to do with their appearance, etc. For what it's worth, I've never heard anyone say they've considered character designs like with Camilla or Kagero to be personally empowering, but you're free to find one person who actually feels that way.

Hawkeye is not sexually objectified. He might be probably the single best example of people missing the point about what a sexually objectified male would look like. Coincidentally, there's something called The Hawkeye Project (named for the Marvel character) where artists draw male characters in the same outfits and poses that female comic characters are put in, to highlight how absurd and normalized these design choices are for women, and how men really aren't even close to that. Check it out sometime.

18 minutes ago, thanny said:

I very much agree to your point that people should not be berated and called prude or anything for voicing their complaints and distaste for these sexual fanservice aspects of the game, and it certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. But... FEH is in no way shoving these design choices in our faces. People who don't enjoy the content are no way forced to consume them, most of the time this franchise provides a means to avoid them. When @Alkaid mentions Aversa and Loki fighting over the player character in Foraging Bonds, you do not have to read it, there is a skip button and is not detrimental or important to the overall plot of the story. If you simply don't like the sight or owning scantily dressed women as units, you can bench, fodder or ignore them. You are not forced to use them. Aside from Loki, I cannot think of a single character who even dresses as scandalous as her in the main story, and constantly fawning over you. (Loki does have a set mysterious goal, and is also interested in us because we have the power to summon heroes from any universe, don't forget)

Keep in mind that sexual objectification and other sexist design choices go beyond revealing clothing. Body language, for instance, also factors into it. For example, take a look at Loki's poses, which emphasize her chest and butt. Now, you could argue there are things players can do to reduce the amount of exposure to this, but you can't always avoid it. Go up against these units as enemies, see it in banners/trailers, randomly pull such a unit, someone on your friend list has 'em, and so on. It's in the game and people have to decide whether they can accept that or not. Of course, you won't hear people here say they don't accept it, because the people who choose not to play this game aren't coming to these forums.

Another side note; lore reasons are not a valid argument against criticisms of design choices, because the lore reasons are themselves design choices. Like with the characters, everything in-universe exists as it does because somebody decided to make it that way. Creators have the capacity to do virtually anything with both their characters and their world.

18 minutes ago, thanny said:

When people insult anime characters with big boobs, how would people with actual big boobs feel? Is it better if they gloom about it, or is it better if they look at characters like Camilla and Kagero and not give a single damn about what others think, and be proud of their body like the characters? Anyone can be uncomfortable with anything, not just boobs or raunchily dressed girls with flirtatious personalities.

My experience listening to people with big boobs is that they are usually also mocking those character designs, saying things like "her poor spine" or "give that girl a sports bra" or "she looks really disproportionate". If you want a real answer, try asking people who have big boobs, but please let me get popcorn first.

[Alkaid]

38 minutes ago, Johann said:

My experience listening to people with big boobs is that they are usually also mocking those character designs, saying things like "her poor spine" or "give that girl a sports bra" or "she looks really disproportionate". If you want a real answer, try asking people who have big boobs, but please let me get popcorn first.

Not to butt in, but I have a number of female friends that play FE, and only one dislikes fanservicy designs in most cases(at least for women, she's all for the male fanservice instead). A couple of the ones playing Feh even actively pull for Camillas and enjoy her design, and same for Loki or others. If you want to use anecdotal evidence to dismiss his point, I could just as well confirm it the same way. Both kinds of people exist and should be taken into account, either way. Your ending sentence there sounds like you assume he'd just confirm your point if he actually asked a woman, but that's a narrow assumption.

Really, I find some of the fanservice criticism and sensitivity a bit much in the community, when Feh is an extremely mild game in that regard for the most part. There's only a few outliers like Loki, and if that's enough to make some people's head spin they might pass out at the majority of gacha games.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Alkaid

[Johann]

10 minutes ago, Alkaid said:

Not to butt in, but I have a number of female friends that play FE, and only one dislikes fanservicy designs in most cases(at least for women, she's all for the male fanservice instead). A couple of the ones playing Feh even actively pull for Camillas and enjoy her design, and same for Loki or others. If you want to use anecdotal evidence to dismiss his point, I could just as well confirm it the same way. Both kinds of people exist and should be taken into account, either way. Your ending sentence there sounds like you assume he'd just confirm your point if he actually asked a woman, but that's a narrow assumption.

Really, I find some of the fanservice criticism and sensitivity a bit much in the community, when Feh is an extremely mild game in that regard for the most part. There's only a few outliers like Loki, and if that's enough to make some people's head spin they might pass out at the majority of gacha games.

Not sure if you intended to quote that part since it was about what big boob people think about big boob characters, not necessarily whether women who play FEH like designs Camilla, Loki, etc. I won't dismiss that there are, no doubt, plenty of women who like those designs, but take note that it's perfectly reasonable to both like something and also criticize it (as we all do with other aspects of Fire Emblem). There are a lot of people who will use anecdotes like yours to dismiss criticisms and attempt to shut down the discussion, though.

It's also important to remember that a criticism of [thing] isn't meant to be a personal attack on anyone who likes [thing]. I don't think anyone is being overly sensitive for criticizing or not liking something, but anyone definitely is if they see personal attacks where there are none. For the most part, I think there are a notable number of people who enjoy fanservicey stuff who don't really understand or listen to the people who criticize it, and are instead just looking for ways to tell them, in so many words, to shut up.

[Alkaid]

3 minutes ago, Johann said:

Not sure if you intended to quote that part since it was about what big boob people think about big boob characters, not necessarily whether women who play FEH like designs Camilla, Loki, etc. I won't dismiss that there are, no doubt, plenty of women who like those designs, but take note that it's perfectly reasonable to both like something and also criticize it (as we all do with other aspects of Fire Emblem). There are a lot of people who will use anecdotes like yours to dismiss criticisms and attempt to shut down the discussion, though.

It's also important to remember that a criticism of [thing] isn't meant to be a personal attack on anyone who likes [thing]. I don't think anyone is being overly sensitive for criticizing or not liking something, but anyone definitely is if they see personal attacks where there are none. For the most part, I think there are a notable number of people who enjoy fanservicey stuff who don't really understand or listen to the people who criticize it, and are instead just looking for ways to tell them, in so many words, to shut up.

Well specifying "my big-boobed friends" out of them seemed rather ridiculous so I didn't. And I used an anecdote to reflect your own, that was the point. You just did exactly that to @thanny, and with a bit of cheekiness at the end so maybe you didn't realize it.

Indeed, it's fine to criticize things, and everyone's welcome to. I just find some of the more intense reactions like disgust or embarrassment odd for how mild the game's content is.

[eclipse]

1 minute ago, Alkaid said:

Indeed, it's fine to criticize things, and everyone's welcome to. I just find some of the more intense reactions like disgust or embarrassment odd for how mild the game's content is.

Different standards, and different strokes for different folks.  What's mild to you may be less so for someone who consumes different types of media than you.

[DefyingFates]

4 hours ago, thanny said:

I was just simply kinda itched at the "scantily clad women throwing themselves at you is how you keep your esteem high, fine." remark.

In hindsight, that was a low blow so I'll change it.

4 hours ago, Johann said:

How is it trivial to point out his opinion as a straight man? For the most part, the industry and community has a tendency to assume that a straight man wants these things. It's never trivial to mention who you are when discussing your thoughts and feelings about a subject.

Characters don't express themselves; their creators express themselves using the character. Every single thing a character does, from their appearance, voice lines, identity, is the way it is because the creators made them that way. A real life person doing the same thing is completely different, because they have the agency to decide what they want to do with their appearance, etc. For what it's worth, I've never heard anyone say they've considered character designs like with Camilla or Kagero to be personally empowering, but you're free to find one person who actually feels that way.

Hawkeye is not sexually objectified. He might be probably the single best example of people missing the point about what a sexually objectified male would look like. Coincidentally, there's something called The Hawkeye Project (named for the Marvel character) where artists draw male characters in the same outfits and poses that female comic characters are put in, to highlight how absurd and normalized these design choices are for women, and how men really aren't even close to that. Check it out sometime.

Keep in mind that sexual objectification and other sexist design choices go beyond revealing clothing. Body language, for instance, also factors into it. For example, take a look at Loki's poses, which emphasize her chest and butt. Now, you could argue there are things players can do to reduce the amount of exposure to this, but you can't always avoid it. Go up against these units as enemies, see it in banners/trailers, randomly pull such a unit, someone on your friend list has 'em, and so on. It's in the game and people have to decide whether they can accept that or not. Of course, you won't hear people here say they don't accept it, because the people who choose not to play this game aren't coming to these forums.

Another side note; lore reasons are not a valid argument against criticisms of design choices, because the lore reasons are themselves design choices. Like with the characters, everything in-universe exists as it does because somebody decided to make it that way. Creators have the capacity to do virtually anything with both their characters and their world.

My experience listening to people with big boobs is that they are usually also mocking those character designs, saying things like "her poor spine" or "give that girl a sports bra" or "she looks really disproportionate". If you want a real answer, try asking people who have big boobs, but please let me get popcorn first.

I agree with everything you've said thus far in this thread. Thank you for being so eloquent.

[Wonderie]

2 hours ago, eclipse said:

Different standards, and different strokes for different folks.  What's mild to you may be less so for someone who consumes different types of media than you.

Fire Emblem Content is pretty mild; and if someone, as you described found FE to be wild due to different consumption type of media, than FE might as well be R16. 
 

Unless you were speaking on a general term than your reply is pretty invalid since this topic regards to FE content. 

[Flere210]

I am Between a rock and a hard place because i despise fanservice but i am also not a fan of the complains againist it. I just don't find it all encompassing as it was in the past, and it's fairly easy to avoid if it bothers you so much(wich in my case it does). At this point seems almost a battle to eradicate it entirely from the places it still exist rather than a battle to simply tone it down.

I don't like that the JRPG genre as a whole decided to focus on it,  but right now it appeal mostly to otakus so it had to be expected. Things may change if it goes really mainstream again. 

The mobile market is driven by trying to suck all money they can from horny whales, so i am not expecting anything past the lowest common denominator from it in the first place. Heroes is still one of the less bad and this speak volumes about how screwed the gacha scenery is. 

 

[Ephraimx]

isn't that fire emblem in general though cracking the fanservice up since awakening.

was pretty non existent in pre awakening titles just like most games.

Than again It does have some uses for people that want some extra material in terms of personalities and such if it wasn;t given in the original games they are coming from. so in that aspect you cant blame people if they really are a fan of certain characters and want more.

did it hurt the series? really depends.

if you liked the classic series than yes it could be a downgrade however the newer games added a ton of qol things and stats to make a character op just like a ton of other rpg's + a ton more supports conversations and activities not to mention tree houses giving it that persona esk school life vibe while keeping some of the original gameplay elements of the older games

if you liked the old series I can't blame you for being mad, but people that accept change or hated the gameplay of the older games do really enjoy the new games even if fanservice is the main thing why sales have increased by this much.

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by Ephraimx

[Jingle Jangle]

I'm fine with Heroes fanservice, big boobs and all. Even though some of the alts can be questionable. It's better for the series for the exotic designs to be self contained in Heroes than to bleed into the mainline entries.

[Venmi]

9 hours ago, thanny said:

I completely understand and respect your views and opinions. I was just simply kinda itched at the "scantily clad women throwing themselves at you is how you keep your esteem high, fine." remark. I completely agree with you though, I definitely prefer fully fleshed out relationships between characters over characters worshiping self-insert characters any day!

Then I'm glad I got my point across clearly, so thank you for saying that! Now if only IS would take the best for both worlds and flesh out relationships between characters, a lot of people would be happy...

[eclipse]

10 hours ago, Wonderlandie said:

Fire Emblem Content is pretty mild; and if someone, as you described found FE to be wild due to different consumption type of media, than FE might as well be R16. 
 

Unless you were speaking on a general term than your reply is pretty invalid since this topic regards to FE content. 

The point is to understand where the other person is coming from, and respect that.  Which the second paragraph fails at, in a most spectacular manner.

6 hours ago, Ephraimx said:

isn't that fire emblem in general though cracking the fanservice up since awakening.

TIL that miniskirts and boob plates aren't fanservice.

[Midnox]

Fire Emblem has plenty of gorgeous ladies. I like the fanservice, but I can live without it

[Wonderie]

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

The point is to understand where the other person is coming from, and respect that.  Which the second paragraph fails at, in a most spectacular manner.

TIL that miniskirts and boob plates aren't fanservice.

I see what you mean if you are trying to comprehend where people are coming from. 

And I agree, I spectacularly fail to emphasize that said perspective because the fuss over the mild content that is Fire Emblem is pretty dramatic.

19 hours ago, Johann said:

How is it trivial to point out his opinion as a straight man? For the most part, the industry and community has a tendency to assume that a straight man wants these things. It's never trivial to mention who you are when discussing your thoughts and feelings about a subject.

Characters don't express themselves; their creators express themselves using the character. Every single thing a character does, from their appearance, voice lines, identity, is the way it is because the creators made them that way. A real life person doing the same thing is completely different, because they have the agency to decide what they want to do with their appearance, etc. For what it's worth, I've never heard anyone say they've considered character designs like with Camilla or Kagero to be personally empowering, but you're free to find one person who actually feels that way.

Hawkeye is not sexually objectified. He might be probably the single best example of people missing the point about what a sexually objectified male would look like. Coincidentally, there's something called The Hawkeye Project (named for the Marvel character) where artists draw male characters in the same outfits and poses that female comic characters are put in, to highlight how absurd and normalized these design choices are for women, and how men really aren't even close to that. Check it out sometime.

Keep in mind that sexual objectification and other sexist design choices go beyond revealing clothing. Body language, for instance, also factors into it. For example, take a look at Loki's poses, which emphasize her chest and butt. Now, you could argue there are things players can do to reduce the amount of exposure to this, but you can't always avoid it. Go up against these units as enemies, see it in banners/trailers, randomly pull such a unit, someone on your friend list has 'em, and so on. It's in the game and people have to decide whether they can accept that or not. Of course, you won't hear people here say they don't accept it, because the people who choose not to play this game aren't coming to these forums.

Another side note; lore reasons are not a valid argument against criticisms of design choices, because the lore reasons are themselves design choices. Like with the characters, everything in-universe exists as it does because somebody decided to make it that way. Creators have the capacity to do virtually anything with both their characters and their world.

My experience listening to people with big boobs is that they are usually also mocking those character designs, saying things like "her poor spine" or "give that girl a sports bra" or "she looks really disproportionate". If you want a real answer, try asking people who have big boobs, but please let me get popcorn first.

If you look at the picture alone, Hawkeye is showing abs, his buffed arms and his whole upper body which media often define these factors as "appealing and attractive" upon males. What makes you conclude he isn't someone who isn't looked at as mere meat, per say. How do you consider male as sexually objectified? Because what you said about Hawkeye can be said about Loki. Is this design something we should also consider criticizing due to the amount of skin that is revealed? 

You say Loki's poses emphasize her chest and butt; but Hawkeye's pose and the lack of upper clothing also emphasizing his abs, chest and arms. 
Why is it ok for a man to show skin while if a female does it, it's suddenly a sin?

As someone who have the same body type as Camilla (from FEFates) I did not mock or belittle the character that was shown in Fire Emblem. In contrast it was finally nice to see a character with relatable body type within a game. (Just because you know someone with big boobs say what you described, doesn't mean there isn't any other woman who will say otherwise.) 

From a personal experience, trust me when I say: even if I am fully clothed people will ASSUME I am being a hoe asking to be a victim of something vicious. Just like how you just ASSUME in  your last paragraph to whoever you were replying to while getting your popcorn.

[thanny]

17 hours ago, Johann said:

How is it trivial to point out his opinion as a straight man? For the most part, the industry and community has a tendency to assume that a straight man wants these things. It's never trivial to mention who you are when discussing your thoughts and feelings about a subject.

I'm a male and I think it's trivial to mention your gender about a subject.

17 hours ago, Johann said:

Characters don't express themselves; their creators express themselves using the character. Every single thing a character does, from their appearance, voice lines, identity, is the way it is because the creators made them that way. A real life person doing the same thing is completely different, because they have the agency to decide what they want to do with their appearance, etc. For what it's worth, I've never heard anyone say they've considered character designs like with Camilla or Kagero to be personally empowering, but you're free to find one person who actually feels that way.

19 hours ago, thanny said:

Characters are most certainly expressing themselves by the way they are designed

I don't understand what you're trying to disagree with here. You literally just reworded what I said.

It's virtually the same, if a real life actor's values do not align with the creator's creative vision, there'll be another to take up the mantle to make the product happen.

I have, and their fan base consists of more than just people who like what they're physically presented with, but you're free to believe the characters and their designs offer nothing more than eye candy and fanservice.

17 hours ago, Johann said:

Hawkeye is not sexually objectified. He might be probably the single best example of people missing the point about what a sexually objectified male would look like. Coincidentally, there's something called The Hawkeye Project (named for the Marvel character) where artists draw male characters in the same outfits and poses that female comic characters are put in, to highlight how absurd and normalized these design choices are for women, and how men really aren't even close to that. Check it out sometime.

19 hours ago, thanny said:

Hawkeye is a character that doesn't wear a shirt, probably to show off his strength and might

I never said he was intended to be sexually objectified. I said his with his character design he COULD BE sexually objectified, not that he isn't already because God bless artists and the Internet.

Also, you've completely skipped out on my question. What if there are a group of people are uncomfortable with topless men? Why do we not criticize and condemn the way Hawkeye is designed, is it because of the societal norm to allow males to be depicted like that? If so, then why is it all of a sudden rallies and pitchforks when females are presented in a scanty or sexualized way?

I don't know where you're going with mentioning this Project to me, 'cause I have no problem with men being sexualized or dressed in absurd outfits. You're telling Superman wearing tight, muscle defining full body spandex, wearing a red underwear on top is not absurd to you? Women aren't the only ones being put in weird costumes and exaggerated body images.

17 hours ago, Johann said:

Keep in mind that sexual objectification and other sexist design choices go beyond revealing clothing. Body language, for instance, also factors into it. For example, take a look at Loki's poses, which emphasize her chest and butt. Now, you could argue there are things players can do to reduce the amount of exposure to this, but you can't always avoid it. Go up against these units as enemies, see it in banners/trailers, randomly pull such a unit, someone on your friend list has 'em, and so on. It's in the game and people have to decide whether they can accept that or not. Of course, you won't hear people here say they don't accept it, because the people who choose not to play this game aren't coming to these forums.

I don't know why you're explaining sexual objectification to me, as I'm fully aware of and acknowledge their existence within the game. In regards to sexist designs, I don't think anyone holds the authority to decide what is sexist for everyone.

If you see you're up against Loki, tap the screen while you're battling Loki and the battle instantly ends without seeing her battle art, assuming you don't want to turn the battle animations off. If you see her in trailers, you can skip to her skills or completely. If she's on a banner, I don't know why you'd be looking directly at breasts when she has a face and there are other units being promoted. If you pull her randomly, bad luck and as I've said before, bench, fodder and ignore her after. If you cannot stand looking at mini boobs on a chibi sprite, then I don't even know what to say at this point.

If an individual cannot handle at the sight of boobs and butts, then it is a personal problem. A game shouldn't have to tippy toe around someone because they can't stand the mere sight of breasts.

17 hours ago, Johann said:

Another side note; lore reasons are not a valid argument against criticisms of design choices, because the lore reasons are themselves design choices. Like with the characters, everything in-universe exists as it does because somebody decided to make it that way. Creators have the capacity to do virtually anything with both their characters and their world.

Sounds like you just don't like the idea of Loki having interests in us other than the fact we're the self insert character.. Me bringing up Loki's other motivations is a perfect argument to your criticisms regarding her as a character and design choice.

If that's the case, then let them..? It's their franchise and they can do whatever they want as long as it's not harming anyone.

17 hours ago, Johann said:

My experience listening to people with big boobs is that they are usually also mocking those character designs, saying things like "her poor spine" or "give that girl a sports bra" or "she looks really disproportionate". If you want a real answer, try asking people who have big boobs, but please let me get popcorn first.

I don't think dismissing my opinions on the matter based on your personal experiences and assumption of people's opinions on characters proves anything. That popcorn would indeed come in handy for you when reading a more wide range of opinions on the Internet.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Wonderlandie said:

I see what you mean if you are trying to comprehend where people are coming from. 

And I agree, I spectacularly fail to emphasize that said perspective because the fuss over the mild content that is Fire Emblem is pretty dramatic.

The second paragraph implies that you don't really believe the first.  Division isn't healed by dismissal.

[Johann]

Are we going all in? I'll try to behave. Forgive me, @eclipse

1 hour ago, Wonderlandie said:

If you look at the picture alone, Hawkeye is showing abs, his buffed arms and his whole upper body which media often define these factors as "appealing and attractive" upon males. What makes you conclude he isn't someone who isn't looked at as mere meat, per say. How do you consider male as sexually objectified? Because what you said about Hawkeye can be said about Loki. Is this design something we should also consider criticizing due to the amount of skin that is revealed? 

You say Loki's poses emphasize her chest and butt; but Hawkeye's pose and the lack of upper clothing also emphasizing his abs, chest and arms. 
Why is it ok for a man to show skin while if a female does it, it's suddenly a sin?

As someone who have the same body type as Camilla (from FEFates) I did not mock or belittle the character that was shown in Fire Emblem. In contrast it was finally nice to see a character with relatable body type within a game. (Just because you know someone with big boobs say what you described, doesn't mean there isn't any other woman who will say otherwise.) 

From a personal experience, trust me when I say: even if I am fully clothed people will ASSUME I am being a hoe asking to be a victim of something vicious. Just like how you just ASSUME in  your last paragraph to whoever you were replying to while getting your popcorn.

Sexual objectification is very in-depth discussion that merits its own thread, though I think I would check with the mods before creating such a thread to ensure that it meets the site's guidelines, since there's a lot of content to be discussed that could potentially cross lines, and it's a subject that some people get pretty heated about.

Hawkeye, and many buff male characters like him, are not sexually objectified. He is not rendered a sexual object by the artist. A man without a shirt is not inherently sexual. His large muscles are more in line with the male power fantasy of strength than anything sexual. Furthermore, worldwide, men have more social power than women in practically all fields, so there's not the same impact in showing a half naked man compared to a half naked woman. There is a lot more to this than I can express here, and if you genuinely are interested in learning about sexual objectification and why skin exposure is not a 1:1 comparison between men and women, you should seek out people who have written much more and brilliantly than I can on the matter, due to their research and understanding.

Going from the second half of your post, you misunderstand me if you think this is a judgment towards women in any kind of revealing clothing. On the contrary, I support all women in their right to express themselves however they want. I'm not here to police how you feel about content, but to help stand up for people who are argued at or belittled to the point where they aren't comfortable joining the conversation. To be honest, I'm surprised that you'd look at Camilla and say "finally, a woman with big boobs" when there are countless examples in all media forms (let alone FE) of women having above average boobs that predate her, even by decades. If those are your feelings, that's fine, and if I've upset or offended you, I apologize. Please understand that there are a lot of people who argue in bad faith over these subjects simply as a means to harass women, so I'm accustomed to dealing with those kinds of people by being very direct, sometimes to the point where I may seem condescending.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

I'm a male and I think it's trivial to mention your gender about a subject.

A person's identity can shape who they are. How is that trivial, especially in a subject that is heavily influenced by gender? If you think it's trivial, then don't bother giving such an empty response.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

I don't understand what you're trying to disagree with here. You literally just reworded what I said.

It's virtually the same, if a real life actor's values do not align with the creator's creative vision, there'll be another to take up the mantle to make the product happen.

I have, and their fan base consists of more than just people who like what they're physically presented with, but you're free to believe the characters and their designs offer nothing more than eye candy and fanservice.

On the contrary, our statements are completely at odds. Expression exists only from the creator. Character actions and designs can do virtually anything, but none of it exists in a vacuum-- it depends on the creator to make those choices. It's really as simple as "it's what the creator wanted", whether those design choices have depth or are shallow. Characters do not make their own choices. Camilla or Loki or whoever doesn't "decide" to dress or behave as they do because they aren't real. Someone chose to make them dress and behave as they do. And to be clear, there are plenty of reasons people can enjoy these characters, even for those qualities, but that doesn't disqualify the criticisms against those design choices and their impacts.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

I never said he was intended to be sexually objectified. I said his with his character design he COULD BE sexually objectified, not that he isn't already because God bless artists and the Internet.

Also, you've completely skipped out on my question. What if there are a group of people are uncomfortable with topless men? Why do we not criticize and condemn the way Hawkeye is designed, is it because of the societal norm to allow males to be depicted like that? If so, then why is it all of a sudden rallies and pitchforks when females are presented in a scanty or sexualized way?

I don't know where you're going with mentioning this Project to me, 'cause I have no problem with men being sexualized or dressed in absurd outfits. You're telling Superman wearing tight, muscle defining full body spandex, wearing a red underwear on top is not absurd to you? Women aren't the only ones being put in weird costumes and exaggerated body images.

To sexually objectify Hawkeye would require a person to do so on their own, but understand that there's a difference between the creators of a game that has a major global platform vs a fan drawing art of him or even just viewing him as some sort of piece of man meat.

Here's the thing about shirtless men; culturally, it is something we are used to. When it comes to shirtless women, it depends where you go. Some countries/places allow women to be topless in public, whereas others do not. I personally think that women shouldn't be denied the ability to be topless, or in another way to view it, punished for exposure. Now, despite your hyperbole about rallies and pitchforks, you should keep in mind that there are different reasons why people would be uncomfortable with sexualized way. Some are in the puritan "think of the children!" camp, while others do not want to see female characters degraded to objects of sexual desire, which is something present in all forms of media worldwide. In most instances of sexualized fanservice, that objectification is present and it upsets a lot of people to see their characters treated that way. The issue is that the objectification is widespread for female characters. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who are vocal about it in this thread are criticizing the objectification, not any puritanical viewpoint.

I mentioned the Hawkeye Project (upon checking it again, it's actually called the Hawkeye Initiative) because it showcases how stark the contrast is between designs of male and female characters. The idea is to get you to notice the trends in design choices and the disparity between genders. As a much more mild example, go through your Catalog of Heroes and observe how many female characters have exposed thighs, and then how many men. I'm not trying to stoke outrage here, but to get you to think hard about why it's such a recurring design choice.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

I don't know why you're explaining sexual objectification to me, as I'm fully aware of and acknowledge their existence within the game. In regards to sexist designs, I don't think anyone holds the authority to decide what is sexist for everyone.

If you see you're up against Loki, tap the screen while you're battling Loki and the battle instantly ends without seeing her battle art, assuming you don't want to turn the battle animations off. If you see her in trailers, you can skip to her skills or completely. If she's on a banner, I don't know why you'd be looking directly at breasts when she has a face and there are other units being promoted. If you pull her randomly, bad luck and as I've said before, bench, fodder and ignore her after. If you cannot stand looking at mini boobs on a chibi sprite, then I don't even know what to say at this point.

If an individual cannot handle at the sight of boobs and butts, then it is a personal problem. A game shouldn't have to tippy toe around someone because they can't stand the mere sight of breasts.

I explain these concepts because it seemed like you didn't understand them. But judging from the next sentence, it seems more like you don't like the idea of people even talking about it. If nobody is allowed to conclude that something is sexist, then all discussion about sexism is therefore dismissed. People have to be able argue for why something is sexist, or else everything is beyond reproach, and therefore sexism perpetuates.

The problem with stuff like Loki art isn't so much a "ahh, I looked! My eyes! Bring the holy water!" situation, but a constant reminder that this is what's the norm. If you were, say, a woman who deals with sexist shit all day and wants to escape from it all by playing a little Fire Emblem, then you're out of luck if you find that kind of design condescending to your entire gender. Part of the issue is that there isn't an alternative per se, whether you want to play Fire Emblem specifically, or just a strategy game on your phone, as these kinds of designs are everywhere.

Incidentally, I dunno if you've heard of it, but Final Fantasy had an issue where a male character was designed with revealing clothing, but was changed because of the extreme outcry. Go figure.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

Sounds like you just don't like the idea of Loki having interests in us other than the fact we're the self insert character.. Me bringing up Loki's other motivations is a perfect argument to your criticisms regarding her as a character and design choice.

If that's the case, then let them..? It's their franchise and they can do whatever they want as long as it's not harming anyone.

I'm going to defer you to The Thermian Argument, because that's what using in-universe details to defend design choices is. The point is that Loki's design and personality exist as they do because the creators chose to make her that way, and not due to a consequence of the story or or constraint of FEH's in-universe rules.

As for it not harming anyone, here's the thing-- sexist portrayals in media help reinforce sexist notions and worldviews. This is, like the subject of sexual objectification itself, a thread worthy subject, but the bottom line is that the media we are exposed to has influences on how we perceive things and think. There are global problems with how women are treated, including socially, professionally, and so on. Media of all forms have been and continue to be shaped by these problems, and in turn play a key role in maintaining the norms that perpetuate those issues. Through criticism, we can become aware of the influence media has upon us, to mitigate the negative and reinforce the positive. It's not to say people are bad for enjoying that stuff or anything that features it, but if you're paying attention to it and able to criticize it (or listen to criticism), then you'll be more self-aware of how it's affecting you and others.

59 minutes ago, thanny said:

I don't think dismissing my opinions on the matter based on your personal experiences and assumption of people's opinions on characters proves anything. That popcorn would indeed come in handy for you when reading a more wide range of opinions on the Internet.

I brought it up because I have read a wide range of opinions on the internet, and it's overwhelmingly critical. As for the popcorn remark, well, that's what I get for trying to be cheeky on the internet, but I stand by the notion that you will see a lot of opinions in support of what I've said.

[eclipse]

@Johann you're fine.  Dunno if I want another topic about fanservice in SD, since it tends to bring out all sorts of terrible arguments (and then I have to do my job as a mod).

[Interdimensional Observer]

14 minutes ago, Johann said:

To be honest, I'm surprised that you'd look at Camilla and say "finally, a woman with big boobs" when there are countless examples in all media forms (let alone FE) of women having above average boobs that predate her, even by decades.

The "Venus" of Willendorf (it predates the myths of Venus by tens of thousands of years- it's just a name those who found it gave it). Nobody knows what this Paleolithic figurine of a woman means, or any of the many other similar ones means, nor who made them, this was looooooooong before the invention of writing. But, you can see what it is and what it emphasizes. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Interdimensional Observer

[Sunwoo]

@Interdimensional Observer I thought that was a potato at first.

[SwordsDude]

I mean if where talking mini skirts and armoured breastplates yes i agree that's some fanservice but it is so minor that most people might not even bat an eye for that really. than again though zelda also has fanservice since ocarina of time and that actually did have some impact.

every game has some kind of fanservice but it was pretty minor in the older games really even in radiant dawn and path of radiance.

and yes some conversations in older games like shadow dragon aswell but not much really. personally it had less of an impact for me and it fitted the story. yea sure that's some fanservice aswell but pretty much every game has some kind of fanservice.

If where talking FE Genealogy of the Holy War with kids etc the new generation. It's pretty rough to call that fanservice since it actually made sense for a medieval story instead of a high school experience in tree houses to train units. I highly doubt people where into FE4 for the romance but I could be wrong.

Besides I do have to agree that in awakening onwards the fanservice increased by allot. doesnt need to be a bad thing it saved the series after all but it is kinda hard to see why it hasnt have increased.

Personally pre awakening era you had to look pretty hard for fanservice. and in all honesty it was pretty missable and depending on the player you might never bother with it at all, also pretty minor when you did find it. in awakening it became noticable also by the players who usually didnt care for the story.

Mini skirts are only really a bit notable in path of radiance and radiant dawn. and can we not forget that radiant dawn slaughtered the support system and that said system in a ton of fire emblem games in the past was very limited and a very minor part of the games. also path of radiance support conversations I mean Ike is not really the guy that wants to be wed people literally making jokes about him being gay if where going by that route. the support conversation in path of radiance where pretty minor. I'd say sacred stones or shadow dragon had more romantic conversations. and yes in shadow dragon caeda was the one that lured/attracted new recruits in but even when all those things are said pretty minor stuff really. I'd put radiant dawn and older games on about the same lvl as zelda fanservice some risky stuff going on in those games aswell. again some fanservice ain't bad and it can add to the experience every game has some. 

It's however pretty save to say that awakening onwards iccreased fanservice by quite a bit.

The whole support part got bigger and that is an understatement

and than there was fates we all know what that game had and I'm not even talking about camilla that game even had a feature to look characters up in scandelous clothing even when censored in the west. and even tree houses while toned down we have a whole high school simulation vibe to train our units. kinda hard to see that fit the theming of fire emblem and while it isnt a part of the whole story it's an interesting trade off if where talking fanservice compared to fates. I wouldt say it was decreased.

Again nothing wrong with fanservice but denying that the fanservice hasn't increased by allot when awakening came around is pretty hard. we literally have an avatar that can date any of the opposite or same gender these days after all. is that a bad thing no but again it's an increase.

obviously fire emblem warriors. kinda hard to deny that that game aint fanservice. or the wedding outfits in feh heroes

Yes feh heroes is pretty minor in fanservice compared to other gacha's but if where going games and especially it's origins it's kinda hard to say that the fanservice of the older games is in the same league as it is with the modern games awakening but especiallty fates onwards and obviously mobile game fe heroes.

Take my words with a grain of salt these are no facts after all just an opinion

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by SwordsDude

[Ice Dragon]

3 hours ago, Johann said:

On the contrary, our statements are completely at odds. Expression exists only from the creator. Character actions and designs can do virtually anything, but none of it exists in a vacuum-- it depends on the creator to make those choices. It's really as simple as "it's what the creator wanted", whether those design choices have depth or are shallow. Characters do not make their own choices. Camilla or Loki or whoever doesn't "decide" to dress or behave as they do because they aren't real. Someone chose to make them dress and behave as they do. And to be clear, there are plenty of reasons people can enjoy these characters, even for those qualities, but that doesn't disqualify the criticisms against those design choices and their impacts.

If a woman is allowed to dress herself up however she wants in order to express herself, why, then, is it wrong that an artist is not allowed to dress up one of their characters however they want in order to express themselves? Or a writer? Or a sculptor?

As for fictional characters not having their own agency, ignoring for a moment whether that is true or false, fictional characters do, however, have personalities and motivations. These are still constructed by their creators or designers, but designing how a character dresses is still fully dependent on those features if the character is to be in any way believable. So while characters may or may not be able to "decide" how they want to dress, they can, however, dress in a way consistent with their personality.

Now, the thing is that the personality traits that Camilla and Loki have are still traits that exist in real life, and how they end up dressing is realistically consistent with how we understand those traits to exist in reality.

 

And now I also want to discuss whether or not fictional characters have agency. Characters, after all, are not just a drawing on paper or pixels on the screen, as characters in literature don't necessarily even have those forms.

The place where agency blurs is in the case of avatar characters. I'm not talking about the video game concept of an avatar, though. I mean a fictional character that is fully intended to be a representation of its creator (or an aspect of its creator). Functionally speaking, this character's thoughts and decisions are one and the same as those of its creator. So can this character decide how it wants to dress? My belief from my own experiences is "yes".

 

3 hours ago, Johann said:

I mentioned the Hawkeye Project (upon checking it again, it's actually called the Hawkeye Initiative) because it showcases how stark the contrast is between designs of male and female characters. The idea is to get you to notice the trends in design choices and the disparity between genders. As a much more mild example, go through your Catalog of Heroes and observe how many female characters have exposed thighs, and then how many men. I'm not trying to stoke outrage here, but to get you to think hard about why it's such a recurring design choice.

As an example of why your argument is absurd, how about you go through your Herodex and count how many female characters are wearing a wedding dress and then how many males. Also count how many male characters have fully exposed chests and then how many females.

There's an obvious reason why exposed thighs, exposed chests, and wedding dresses have extremely lopsided distributions between genders. There are design choices that simply aren't as appealing on the opposite sex and design choices that are less socially acceptable on the opposite sex. Males in modern Western society typically do not wear clothing that exposes their thighs in public except in specialized cases, such as swimming and bodybuilding. It is usually socially unacceptable in modern Western society for females to expose their nipples in public whereas it is acceptable for males.

It is ridiculous to believe that outfits designed for men should never look absurd when worn on women and that outfits designed for women should never look absurd when worn on men. If an outfit designed for women looks absurd when worn my a man, there can be a multitude of explanations for it that aren't all "the disparity between genders". You are using evidence to support a conclusion of your choice but have not yet ruled out other potential conclusions. In science, this is essentially the same as failing to run a negative control to rule out confounding factors.

 

3 hours ago, Johann said:

The point is that Loki's design and personality exist as they do because the creators chose to make her that way, and not due to a consequence of the story or or constraint of FEH's in-universe rules.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. While Loki's design and personality do exist as they do because of how the creators chose to design her, that is not in any way mutually exclusive to being designed as a consequence of the story or universe. Her name, for example, is a direct product of the fact that the universe takes strong inspiration from Norse Mythology, and her personality similarly also takes strong inspiration from her namesake. It was obviously up to the character's designers to determine what to do with that inspiration, but ultimately there is still a lot of influence that preexisting world-building has on character designs.

Also, I don't think anyone in this thread has actually used a Thermian argument yet, so I don't know why you felt the need to bring that up other than to preemptively get the high ground. No one here is saying that Camilla and Loki were not designed to be appealing to a specific audience or that the designers had no hand in determining the character's appearance or personality, i.e. that they decided how they wanted to dress of their own volition completely independently of their character designers.

Edited February 5, 2020 by Ice Dragon

[Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Ice Dragon said:

If a woman is allowed to dress herself up however she wants in order to express herself, why, then, is it wrong that an artist is not allowed to dress up one of their characters however they want in order to express themselves? Or a writer? Or a sculptor?

It is wrong to say the character/script/sculpture is expressing itself. The creator is expressing themself.

1 hour ago, Ice Dragon said:

And now I also want to discuss whether or not fictional characters have agency. Characters, after all, are not just a drawing on paper or pixels on the screen, as characters in literature don't necessarily even have those forms.

Fictional characters are not sentient and so cannot have agency. /discussion

However, there exists the suspension of disbelief. Can I become invested in their character arc despite it being fictional? For Heroes characters in particular, can they make me ignore the fact that they are designed to emotionally manipulate me into spending money? I find any kind of fanservice makes that extremely difficult to ignore.

[KMT4ever]

I would point out that this entire game is designed to be fanservice (in a more general sense of the word). At long last we get to bring all of our favorite FE characters from across the series together and use them in battle. Spotpass from Awakening was a similar idea, but there we were just getting facsimiles, not the actual characters. We're not playing Heroes for the enthralling story, we're playing for the gameplay and the chance to make like Pokemon trainers and collect 'em all.

With that in mind, I'm fine with the current fanservice (as the OP describes it). The seasonals in general give us a chance to see FE characters in a more "natural" setting where war and fighting aren't a problem. Nino and Jaffar celebrating Christmas? Roy and Lilina spending time together at a Valentine's festival? Fun at the beach is a logical continuation of that. I can see why people are uncomfortable with specific examples like Summer!Ursula or Summer!Laegjarn (who does make me rather uncomfortable), but as a whole I really don't see any problem with swimsuits. Young!Tiki being in a bathing suit (and a typical "kids" one at that) is exactly as bad as Tak-Tak going around in swim trunks, which is to say not bad at all. Maybe somewhat less so with the bunny suits for Easter, but then again that gave us Alfonse in a bunny costume and regular Alfonse's reaction.

"I'm so sorry, other Alfonse..."

After two years I still chuckle whenever I remember that line. I certainly would like more "casual wear" alternate costumes along the lines of the Picnic banner, but what we have now is fine by me. It should stay out of the main games as much as possible, but Heroes is meant to be more fun and less serious by design.

[Ice Dragon]

4 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

Fictional characters are not sentient and so cannot have agency. /discussion

Is an avatar character as I have described it fictional?

The depiction of a person in a video or photograph (or mirror), for example, is typically considered to be "real". The person depicted typically identifies the image of them as themselves (e.g. "my thoughts are the person in the image's thoughts and my feelings are the person in the image's feelings because the person in the image is me"). This case is unambiguously not fictional.

An avatar character is still identified as the person being depicted (e.g. "my thoughts are the character's thoughts and my feelings are the character's feelings because that character is me"), but that character's appearance can be entirely fictional and exist in fictional spaces that the person cannot exist in with their physical body.

As a relatable example, this is typically the case when a person uses an animated avatar of themselves talking in videos instead of real video of themselves talking (think Extra Credits or Gaijin Goombah).