Thoughts on FEH's fanservice

[Humanoid]

2 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Playing as Corrin in Warriors and having her run on gravel or cobblestones makes my feet hurt just watching it.

Shaka Zulu executed warriors who dared to wear sandals instead of fighting barefoot.

[Baldrick]

2 hours ago, Wonderie said:

I can look at Hawkeye and believe he's sexy while you may think its empowering. You see skimpy clothes and large breast to appear to titillate men while I can look at it as lady confident in their own body.

The question is, who is with the majority? The thing about fanservice is the more general the appeal, the more sales it will generate. Pent being stereotypically popular with women means, like Loki with men, it’s likely he was designed specifically to appeal to them.

[Benice]

28 minutes ago, Humanoid said:

Shaka Zulu executed warriors who dared to wear sandals instead of fighting barefoot.

Shaka Zulu was one of the finest world leaders the world has ever seen. Forgetting your spear to practice was punishable by death, as was having a girlfriend. I have suggested multiple times that the government legalize this for swim teams, bands, orchestras and other groups which involve bringing tools.

[Wonderie]

Just now, Baldrick said:

The question is, who is with the majority? 

Exactly.

 

8 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

The thing about fanservice is the more general the appeal, the more sales it will generate. Pent being stereotypically popular with women means, like Loki with men, it’s likely he was designed specifically to appeal to them.

Once again the word stereotypical. Please read what @Alkaid have said previously. This is going in circles.

[Baldrick]

1 hour ago, Wonderie said:

stereotypical.

Fanservice makes use of stereotypical ideas such as men like big breasted women, or women want an emotionally supportive man. The former tends to produce badly developed characters, the latter tends to produce decently developed characters. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Baldrick

[Ice Dragon]

5 minutes ago, Baldrick said:

The former produces badly developed characters, the latter decently developed characters. 

No, the former allows for less character development than the latter, but there is nothing physically preventing the former from getting just as much character development.

[Wonderie]

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

Fanservice makes use of stereotypical ideas such as men like big breasted women, or women want an emotionally supportive man. The former tends to produce badly developed characters, the latter tends to produce decently developed characters. 

What is your argument? My argument is regarding the double standard. 

The double standard is absurd as Hawkeye is allowed to be shirtless due to what you justify as empowerment, while someone like Camilla is looked down upon as nothing more than a “fan service.” When she too, could be empowering to women. 

What Im saying is, perspective differs and what you may see as “fanservice” ie Camilla, may not appear so for someone like me. Hawkeye seems empowering to you, however to me he appears as eyecandy.

Fire Emblem have successfully executed both genders to be appealing to both parties or however many parties there is, and people going crazy about Camilla etc pessimistically, while the male characters are seen as empowering as norm, seems rather odd to me. The double standard is there and I disagree at this very reason.

You bringing up character development and so on, is very off topic for me. 

Have you gone through what @Alkaid have commented regarding your previous reply?

It will be helpful if you didn’t just highlight the word stereotypical to reply to me and explain what women and men wants in their characters and how it effects the character development. 🙃  

Also I like buffed men; please don’t assume for the rest of women out their that there taste is with someone like Loki. You can’t just “stereotypically” assume us to like one particular type; sure someone may have the taste for a guy like him but not every women. And there is a lot of women in this world. 
 

Business won’t just “stereotypically” assume what the consumers wants and design the character off stereotypical assumption either. However that is a whole new topic that I won’t touch and stay with the double standard debate. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Wonderie

[Johann]

20 hours 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?

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".

You misunderstand if you think this is as binary as "right or wrong". Ultimately what matters are things like whether people like it or not, and what kinds of impacts it may have on how we think. This is the case for all art forms. For instance, you say Camilla and Loki's behavior and attire is realistic, but is it? Do you see people do that in normal everyday life? Of course it happens in some situations and settings, but in most, that's not normal. You should consider taking a moment to reflect on why you are used to these design choices.

No character has agency, including a creator's avatar. They are eternally at the whim of their creator. Agency would require them having independence from their creator, which is impossible.

Quote

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.

You're missing a key point of the Hawkeye Initiative, which is to highlight how normalized certain sexualized design choices are. You bring up how some design choices are "appealing" based on gender and whether or not it's socially acceptable, but but again these are only because these ideas have been normalized for you. Some of these design choices will stand out to someone who is not conditioned to seeing them. More to the point, you should be asking why so many women would have exposed thighs while engaging in combat, riding mounts, etc (especially if they're supposed to be from a cold mountainous region like Ilia).

It's pretty disingenuous to act like there's no disparity between how many creators treat women, and that sexually objective art isn't one of the most blatant examples of this. If you're not going to talk about this in good faith, I suggest you abstain from the conversation.

Quote

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.

Referencing the mythological Loki to excuse FEH's Loki's design is still a Thermian argument. Influence is not a binding constraint.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

In our context, the women in Fire Emblem Heroes are still covered, and that's the main argument and double standards that I am presenting. I'm not going to delve into the shirtless women topic.

Like you said, if it is a societal norm to be used to men being shirtless culturally, then why can't we even normalize women wearing skimpy clothes in a video game? Even if it's for the sake of sexual objectification, I'll concede to your opinion if the female characters are being objectified unfairly in this game, but this case is simply not true when we see male characters receiving the same treatment, even if there are gender disparity ratios.

As I've said before, if a selective group of people are uncomfortable with sexual objectification, it's not the developers' jobs to cater and tippy toe around them, as they have millions of other players to please. If they simply do not like the content they are presented with, they are free to play anything else on the mobile gachapon market. And good luck, 'cause as many posters have pointed out, FEH is already on the mild side of a wildly successful industry.

Skimpy clothes on women in video games are already normalized. It's certainly possible to make female characters with exposed skin and not sexualize or objectify them, but it's not something designers are particularly good at doing. Nudity isn't inherently sexual, as you know, so if an artist doesn't want to be criticized for sexualizing their female characters, then it's on them to learn how to avoid doing it.

Side point, but pointing the financial success of the industry (which is largely exploitative in many ways) does nothing to deflect the criticism. Rather, it gives cause to criticize the industry further.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

I'm quoting this separately because it highlights the double standards vividly.

So why does male sexual objectification get brushed to the side and mainly ignored? Why does no one rally or raise their pitchforks when men (or in our context), male characters get sexually objectified, or at least properly identified as a problem worldwide? Why is it only when women are in the position of objectification, it creates such a hot topic?

One fiiiiiiiiine ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) example would be when Geralt (Henry Cavill) is bathing in the Witcher Netflix series, weren't majority of women swooning and fetishizing him to the point they wish they were his bath water? And why is such a fine, steamy scene allowed to put on air? Probably because most men simply don't care if they are being sexualized or objectified (obviously I cannot speak for everyone). If women can faun over the sight of wet Aquaman (Jason Mamoa) coming out of the water topless, or Magic Mike strippers grinding the floor til there's a hole. Men are perfectly in the right to have the same pleasure.

Either everyone gets the same treatment, or no one can have any fun. Which ain't fun, is it? The world and society are constantly evolving and developing (excluding countries that I will not name), women are not the only ones facing sexism or being objectified, not to mention there are increasingly more medias for the female viewing pleasure. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) And if they're not into that idea, cover the eyes, change the channel and move on to something less rowdy.

Back to your paragraph, if people do not want to see their Hinokas in a bath towel, they are not forced to play or roll for her, she has her normal and Kinshi Knight alt. The game does not prominently shove Hot Springs Hinoka in their face, and there are plenty of ways to avoid or minimize their exposure to her. I understand if people don't like Summer or Easter Bunny alts, but the game has other audiences to promote to. If they were to cater only to one group who don't like skimpy female alts, it would obviously upset the others who do like them. So the obvious best and easier solution is to just try and please everyone.

I'm not sure why you're mentioning your last point, as I have no quarrel with their criticisms regarding the fanservice. I had problems however, with a rude remark to a certain group of people who enjoys said fanservice, which they apologized for it, which is all good and dandy. So now I'm just responding and having an open discussion with you.

It's not even remotely comparable how widespread the sexual objectification of women is compared to men. And further, you're continuing to make the mistake that the criticism is a sort of "no fun allowed" take. Understand that there is a significant difference between sexual and sexualized characters. Sexual characters demonstrate sexuality for themselves (like a normal person does). Sexualized characters demonstrate sexuality for the audience's sake (and not themselves). Geralt is sexual because he is a character who, within the story, has sexual relationships. Magic Mike is a clearer example, further emphasized since he is also a sex worker-- sexuality is central to his story. In FE, a character like Nina could be considered sexual since her behavior is for herself (I haven't played Fates however, so I dunno how much depth she's given). Meanwhile, a character like Aversa is sexualized because nearly everything about her sexuality is for the player's sake. Being sexual and creating sexual characters is great. Sexually objectifying characters is where things get murky at best, and often straight up bad.

Here's the thing: most visual media industries are run by men, for men. The straight male viewpoint is considered the default, to the point where "for girls" is often relegated to its own genre (eg: "chick flicks"). It's not that rare to have major lauded works feature few to no female characters at all, and often with minimal characterization. Ultimately this is because the female perspective is often considered niche or irrelevant by many male creators and audiences alike. Saying "change the channel" is easy for you when, as a man, you are being catered to on nearly all the channels. Take a moment to think about how most female characters are portrayed, and not just in FE-- idealized (like being made sexualized), victimized (like being kidnapped solely to spur the plot), or whatever else it takes to highlight either how attractive they and/or how much they need the hero/player. This doesn't happen for no reason, and it's no coincidence that the odd time it's applied to men, it's usually considered subversive or comedic.

The experience of life as a woman is not something you or I truly understand, and many women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis at work, home, at the store, on the street, wherever. Most women probably have stories about how they've been harassed in some way based solely on their appearance and availability, and it's because there are an overwhelming number of men who reduce a woman's value to simply those two qualities. And that's what it comes down to: treating women based on how attractive men find them. This is a global issue, and for it to permeate into video games (which many people would like to have as an escape from real life bullshit) shows how unavoidable it is.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

I still don't understand why you're bringing up the Hawkeye Initiative to me. Frankly I don't care if there is a contrast between how the two different genders are portrayed, because no one is preventing men from being absurdly posed or costumed like comic book women. If the author/artist doesn't want to or have the intent to draw male characters in sexually objectified way as they do with female characters, there's nothing wrong with that. Also men are also progressively being depicted and sexualized in the same way as women nowadays, which I'm all for!

I don't know what you're trying to prove here once again, there is nothing wrong with female characters exposing their thighs as a design choice, when I can literally see Summer Helbendi's giant bulge. Don't think you're stroking an outrage here though, don't worry. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Sexualizing men does nothing to address the problem for women and female characters, and if anything, makes it worse by further normalizing it.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

Making an assumption of me not knowing what sexual objectification is fine, but then your following assumption is pushing it.

I am not actively silencing or denying people from their opinions and ability to feel offended to they're presented in Fire Emblem Heroes, and especially not dismissing any discussion regarding sexism as it is still an on-going prevalent issue for both men and women. I'll just quote what I stated earlier and elaborate it further.

Everyone is entitled to deem whatever they want to be offensive (or sexist in our case), and that's perfectly fine. What is not okay is deeming something sexist and expecting everyone else to comply to what you deem sexist. Everyone has their own individual values and tolerance, no one gets to decide what is or what isn't sexist for everyone.

Also, if I didn't like to talk about anything related to people being opposed to sexual objectification, I would not be having a continuous open discussion with you lot, and immediately dismissed anything you've said regarding to the subject.

Clarifying what is and isn't sexism isn't a matter of opinion. It's not simply about whether it offends, but looking at why it offends people, which is the lack of respect, the disparity, the unwillingness to listen. Saying a person can't point out sexism means they can't discuss why something is sexist, which shuts down the conversation.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

How is it the norm though? Alfonse, Sharena, Anna, the current Book Hero (which if you haven't noticed yet, are always conservatively designed), plus the units that YOU want to use, are still the main focus of Fire Emblem Heroes, they get majority of the screen time while Loki pops in here and there to taunt or flirt with us, whether we like it or not. Even if Loki does appear frequently, what's wrong with it? Why can't we normalize women with big breasts in revealing outfits? If we limit or completely remove the exposure of said women, how do we normalize it like we did with shirtless men as a society?

Again, I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with finding Loki's or characters similar to her, designs offensive. But your hypothetical woman has no right to decide that Loki's design is condescending for her entire gender, it's the character clashing with her own personal beliefs and values. I'll repeat myself again, the game developer cannot feasibly tippy toe and please everyone.

If the designs are successful and everywhere in the video game industry and widely accepted, then where is the apparent or underlying problem? Why are we only getting the occasional articles of complaints of said sexist products? Where's the revolution to overthrow all this sexist bullcrap that is so harmful to consume? Why is it always about women? Why are you still consuming and supporting such problematic and exploitative franchise?

Hold up, did you just describe Peony's design to be conservative? Have you seen her? Like holy shit, they even gave her a big ol' tattoo across her chest in case you weren't looking.

If I hadn't made things clear with things I've said above, let me highlight something about revealing clothing: In normal everyday life, real women, who by every right should be able to dress however they like, are harassed, judged, insulted, shamed, and so on. A woman gets shit for dressing a certain way despite it being her own choice. In media, female characters, who don't make choices, are given revealing clothes and highlighted, promoted, clamored for, and so on. Why is there that double standard? At it's core, it's about respect, and both the real woman and fictional woman are treated based on their appearance. A real woman puts on a revealing outfit to express herself, Loki wears what she does to get people to play FEH, disregarding any impacts she (or the game itself) has. Real women in revealing clothing are not normalized, but in the world of video games, a character like Loki is. This doesn't make Loki a champion of big boobed or scantily clad women in real life, and normalized doesn't mean "good".

Part of the problem with describing the industry as successful is that profits do not paint the whole picture. Profitable doesn't necessarily mean a healthy industry or widely accepted content. Saying there are only occasional articles of complaints suggests you're not listening (this thread exists and grows because people are complaining). People are pushing back on this stuff, but there are also many people who don't want things to change (the ol' "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"), or aren't even aware (or willing to be aware) that there are issues. You know goddamn well why it's always about women, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous (and if you've missed it, reread everything I've written until it sinks in). It's getting harder to take you seriously with some of these responses, especially when you're throwing the "aha! playing a game that features something you think is bad!" angle in there. I'll repeat myself: It's fine to enjoy something while also criticizing aspects of it.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

Incidentally, I dunno if you've heard of it, but the Tifa in the 'Final Fantasy VII' remake had her breasts reduced because of people complaining about their 'unrealistic' size.

And what or how do I feel about either incidents? Nothing. (OK maybe that was a lie because there's nothing wrong with a skimpy poster child male character or Tifa's breasts, I like 'em) The point is, the decision ultimately lands to the creators. If they want to comply with the suggestions or criticisms, they are more than welcome to go ahead and change whatever they like. If they want to stick to their original decision and ignore everyone, more power to them. It is not us to dictate what the creators do or how they present their product, after all it is their artistic freedom. Ultimately it boils down to the sales and feedback of the said product, and it is up to the creators if they want to take in results for their future product, or stick to their established vision. I know for a fact that even if some of Tifa's booby fans are crying about her cup reduction, most of them are still going to ultimately buy and play the game, and would not affect the sales in one bit, because it is still FFVII, just chopped into three bits. (Also how wicked were those trailers though?)

But if we're talking in Fire Emblem Heroes' context, it is a wildly successful mobile app that is still raking in millions dollars of revenue every month, with hardly any controversies. So I don't know why this article is in any way relevant to our current discussion. And no, I do not have to go and figure. Thank you for the thought though!

The reason I brought it up was because when women complain about these things, either nothing happens, or it does and suddenly the outcry is "censorship!". Gaming as a whole is largely a boy's club, where women are regularly harassed, told to shut up, etc. There are a lot of things creators can do to make it a more inclusive space, which even from a strictly business standpoint is wise since it's always better to expand your market.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

I have no interest in watching that video, appreciated if you could just summarize it for me.

I'm just going to repeat myself here again, how is her ultimate motives being shrouded in mystery, and her interest in our powers to summon heroes from multiple universes not directly connected to the overall FEH story, universe and as a secondary antagonist (for now)?

I did summarize it, but you didn't get it, hence the link. It's only 4 minutes, just watch it.

Her motives and story relevance are not the point. The point is that those aspects of her do not make the design choices for her immune to criticism.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

I'm gonna try and keep this part short 'cause it's not really in our context of FEH.

If sexist portrayals reinforce sexist notions and worldviews, does violence in video games correlate to violence in society? Solely placing all the responsibility and blame on the media isn't fair, as it mainly exists as a form of entertainment. It's our own responsibility as a society to separate fiction and reality. There are consequences in real life, and yes, unfortunately some people do get away with bad things. Yes, I do not deny that women are suffering socially and professionally in society, but that can be applied to literally anybody else in society. That is called censorship.

I have been paying attention, and openly accepting different opinions regarding this discussion. You're the one who's constantly sliding in remarks.

Ah, the violence comparison is here at last. To put it simply, violence in games does not make a person more violent-- you don't pick up a gun and start shooting people because you played Goldeneye. But it can have an influence on how you think about the subject matter. Maybe a shooting game makes you develop an interest in guns, which could be perfectly safe and healthy. Maybe you begin to think about whether or not violence is more of an acceptable solution to solve complex political problems. How it affects you can depend on how these things are framed, and what your worldviews and experiences are like going into it.

Media is not just entertainment, and many of the people who create it are very much aware of the influence is has on the way people think. Media is advertising. Media is religion. Wars have been fought and millions killed because of media. It changes how we think in subtle, sometimes subconscious ways. This is why, for instance, the Pentagon provides equipment and spends millions for movies that paint the military in a good light. We like to think we're smarter than the media we see, that we can (or ought to) separate fact from fiction, but it's not always easy, and the impacts can be pretty serious (like say, the results of an election).

Criticism is not censorship. That word is tossed around so freely that I struggle to take people seriously when they talk about video game boobs getting covered  they're resisting the police in Hong Kong. Ironically, shutting down criticism is censorship, and it's extremely important that people understand that.

11 hours ago, thanny said:

If it's overwhelmingly critical, I'm sure the industry would have gone through a lot of change by now.

I know there are people who agrees with your views and I respect that, I'm just spinning your remark back to you to read some opinions that may clash with yours. And since we conveniently have a person with big boobs offer their opinion on the matter, I don't think I need to anymore, not that I had to in the first place.

The industry is changing. Parts of it, anyway. There are people who are listening.

Having found one person who agrees with your point is an awfully convenient way to dismiss the opinions of everyone else, who, not sure if you were paying attention, includes other people with big boobs.

7 hours ago, Wonderie said:

Since I want to respect the site's guideline I won't add any more onto the said subject.

How is it safe to assume he is not rendered a sexual object by the artist? By going along with the assumption the way you interpret it or have you talked to the artist himself? If his large muscles are more in line with the male power fantasy, then why can't Loki or Camilla be the same expressing their own confidence? The definition of how a character is displayed is up to the consumer and what you may think on one character may not be the same for others. The skin exposure is not a 1:1 comparison between men and women is due to the majority of society deciding what's accepted, which you have demonstrated very clearly in the beginning of your second paragraph. If men are able to be accepted for being shirtless, then ladies should be able to wear revealing attire as well. Fire Emblem have demonstrated on treating both gender fairly equally in this factor that I, for one do not see the problem with it. 

That is nice to see you support women in their right to express themselves, as I do too, including male to express themselves however they want. And that could be said same for the artist who dress's their character however they want with their freedom to choose it's personality. The double standard that have been normalized though, are which I find peculiar.

To correct you, I looked at Camilla and said "it was finally nice to see a character with relatable body type"; not "finally a woman with big boobs". Even if one is to look at women with big boobs, it does not mean they have similar body shape, legs and so on. So clearly we can see the first body part you look at when you see Camilla lol, which is fine by the way but I would prefer you not to do that to someone who isn't fictional. Yes, there maybe countless of examples in all media forms, however Fire Emblem as a whole rarely have someone such as Camilla, with her body type (bonus to having empowering personality) as one of the main character. Which is an insight to what I meant.

There's nothing sexual about Hawkeye's presentation in either FE7 or Heroes. He doesn't talk about anything remotely sexual, he doesn't behave remotely sexually. If the artist intended him to be a sexual object, they completely missed the mark. Meanwhile, Camilla and Loki's behavior is entirely designed around sex appeal directed towards the player (particularly through the avatar characters). I would hope you get a chance to read what I've said above to the others, since most of my criticisms and points about these character designs and their impacts are expressed there. Typing these long responses gets tiring, so please forgive me if this request may sound lazy or even rude.

I'm glad you genuinely enjoy the character and that the design means something to you. I do think your post might be the first instance I've seen of someone identifying with Camilla though. I hope in the future that female character designs, including body types, are further diversified to give more players a sense of representation.

[Baldrick]

Quote

The double standard is absurd as Hawkeye is allowed to be shirtless due to what you justify as empowerment, 

Hawkeye is not empowering, he is a power fantasy. Western society is patriarchal, so men have no need for empowerment. Call it absurd if you like, but it does not change the way things are.

Quote

It will be helpful if you didn’t just highlight the word stereotypical to reply to me and explain what women and men wants in their characters and how it effects the character development.

Camilla's character development, i.e. the establishment of her identity outside of a sexual object for players to lust after, is inconsistent and poorly presented. Thus the suspension of disbelief is broken.

For a counter-example, take Xena, since @daisy jane brought her up before. Like Camilla, she is not real and has no agency. However, the writers did a much better job on developing her character, and the illusion that she does have agency is maintained! Therefore, Xena is actually empowering.

 

Quote

Also I like buffed men; please don’t assume for the rest of women out there that there taste is with someone like Loki. You can’t just “stereotypically” assume us to like one particular type; sure someone may have the taste for a guy like him but not every women. And there is a lot of women in this world. 
 

Stereotypical does not mean "everyone thinks that way". It does not even mean "one should assume everyone thinks that way". It means "it is often assumed everyone thinks that way, regardless of how many people actually thinks that way".

I don't like big breasts. However, "straight men like big breasts" is still a stereotype, whether I like it or not. And FEH (and other gacha games) will continue to design characters according to this stereotype, whether anyone likes it or not.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Baldrick

[Ice Dragon]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

For instance, you say Camilla and Loki's behavior and attire is realistic, but is it? Do you see people do that in normal everyday life? Of course it happens in some situations and settings, but in most, that's not normal. You should consider taking a moment to reflect on why you are used to these design choices.

Wearing clothing that exposes skin and flirting with people you find interesting or people you want to tease is not normal?

Maybe you need to go to bars or college housing more often.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

No character has agency, including a creator's avatar. They are eternally at the whim of their creator. Agency would require them having independence from their creator, which is impossible.

I'm not sure you are understanding the type of avatar I'm speaking of, one that is not only inseparable from the person it represents, but actually is the person it represents. Or if you think the two can be separated without changing the nature of the character, then provide me answers to the questions from my previous post on the matter.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Some of these design choices will stand out to someone who is not conditioned to seeing them.

And? Is there a problem with something standing out just because you're unfamiliar with it? There are just as many conservative outfits that can stand out just as much due to people not being used to seeing them.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

More to the point, you should be asking why so many women would have exposed thighs while engaging in combat, riding mounts, etc (especially if they're supposed to be from a cold mountainous region like Ilia).

In combat, exposing skin is not as much of an issue if you have a reliable means of deflecting attacks targeted at your legs. Shields, for example, in the hands of a skilled fighter are more effective at deflecting close-ranged attacks than one might expect (if all of your experience with armed combat comes from video games) to the point where armor on the body is really only a second line of defense and not a first. Combatants on horseback will also probably never aim for your legs. Not only are your legs farther away than your torso, but it is much easier to miss a person's legs compared to their torso.

Having exposed thighs while riding a grounded horse is obviously a case of the designer wanting that design. However, if someone in real life doesn't mind being uncomfortable while looking nice, then that's up to them. Furthermore, as this is a world with the existence of magic, who knows if there is some means of producing saddles that are more comfortable for riding?

As for flying mounts, it could be easily argued with simple physics that flying mounts are less likely to chafe due to the fact that the ride would be significantly smoother. The beating of wings occurs at a significantly slower rate and over much larger distances than hooves hitting the ground, resulting in significantly less chafing.

As for temperature, I'm the kind of guy that walks around outside in cargo shorts until well into November in Wisconsin and don't have much of a problem with it. I also wear a T-shirt year round and don't usually switch from a light jacket to a winter coat until December.

 

Also, really weird fashion choices have existed all over history, too.

Also, pants are harder to produce than skirts and wear out faster than skirts due to the fact that they necessarily rub against themselves a lot and cannot repair themselves like skin can.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

It's pretty disingenuous to act like there's no disparity between how many creators treat women, and that sexually objective art isn't one of the most blatant examples of this. If you're not going to talk about this in good faith, I suggest you abstain from the conversation.

Sexually objective art of men is just as normalized as sexually objective art of women. You can see it all the time in the romance section of a bookstore or in the magazine racks in a grocery store.

The difference is the target audience. Romance literature is more commonly targeted at women. Video games and comic books are more commonly targeted at men.

 

Also BL doujins.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Referencing the mythological Loki to excuse FEH's Loki's design is still a Thermian argument.

I didn't excuse Loki's design, though. She's still obviously designed as waifu bait.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Influence is not a binding constraint.

Influence is not a binding constraint, but it does set up expectations from the audience. When those expectations are supported or subverted, the audience will take notice, and it can add or detract from the audience's experience. Furthermore, using name recognition to set up expectations is a good way of familiarizing the audience with a character without the need to waste time doing so. A character named Loki will be expected to be mischievous. A character named Merlin will be expected to be a wizard. A character named Hercules will be expected to be strong. A character named Courage will be expected to either be brave or be obviously subverted to be cowardly because it's been done so many times.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ice Dragon

[Anacybele]

47 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

Maybe you need to go to bars or college housing more often.

Just popping here to say I've lived in a college dorm before and I'm currently attending a different college and never once had a guy flirt with me at them. Nor did I see anyone flirt with others. I don't know where you're getting this.

That being said, I myself have my issues with certain design choices in FE too.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Anacybele

[daisy jane]

2 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Just popping here to say I've lived in a college dorm before and I'm currently attending a different college and never once had a guy flirt with me at them. Nor did I see anyone flirt with others. I don't know where you're getting this.

That being said, I myself have my issues with certain design choices in FE too.

 

I'm pretty sure they did. 
I think you just didn't know. (I only say this because i never know if someone is flirting with me until my friend tells me, hello dummy, he just flirted with you). it's not always as... teevee-ish as it is

[Anacybele]

1 minute ago, daisy jane said:

I'm pretty sure they did. 
I think you just didn't know. (I only say this because i never know if someone is flirting with me until my friend tells me, hello dummy, he just flirted with you). it's not always as... teevee-ish as it is

No, they didn't. I know, because no one even seemed to notice I was there, let alone spoke to me. I'm almost always the one speaking to them first if we talk at all. And if they did say something to me first, they've only said things like "do you live near here, I see you walking" or "that's really good" (I'm a graphics communication major).

[Wonderie]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

There's nothing sexual about Hawkeye's presentation in either FE7 or Heroes. He doesn't talk about anything remotely sexual, he doesn't behave remotely sexually. If the artist intended him to be a sexual object, they completely missed the mark. Meanwhile, Camilla and Loki's behavior is entirely designed around sex appeal directed towards the player (particularly through the avatar characters). I would hope you get a chance to read what I've said above to the others, since most of my criticisms and points about these character designs and their impacts are expressed there. Typing these long responses gets tiring, so please forgive me if this request may sound lazy or even rude.

I'm glad you genuinely enjoy the character and that the design means something to you. I do think your post might be the first instance I've seen of someone identifying with Camilla though. I hope in the future that female character designs, including body types, are further diversified to give more players a sense of representation.

I was referring to more in a visual aspect as opposed to diving into their personality. However I don’t recall Camilla being sexually assertive or have sexual conversation either. Her voice however (JP version) may appear sexually provocative though which, I admittedly enjoy. I did read somewhere that you haven’t played FEfates so I can see why you may not know the full details. Which is fine and one of the main reason why I was mainly referring more onto the physical appearance in case one party didn’t play the other FE platform.

The main problem is when people have sour taste to the naked cleavage, etc which is fine, but what about naked men in the series? I see no heat in that area but suddenly there is for ladies?  I disagree with the double standard  and not with the choice or the intention of character design. And it’s made clear you support both gender to dress freely so I don’t see anything to go on from there. 

I can understand it can get tiring responding and I take no offence as I can empathize where your coming from. Even deleting it took a while just to retain my part of the reply; doesn’t help I am on an IPad though. In contrast I’m glad my part is shortened. 

I agree with the last point, I like to see more diversity in body type and both genders, or all genders in the game. 

 

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

Hawkeye is not empowering, he is a power fantasy. Western society is patriarchal, so men have no need for empowerment. Call it absurd if you like, but it does not change the way things are.

Yes double standard is absurd. This is what I was referring to when I said absurd, the double standard. How can I type it in a way that will allows you to understand I am debating about the double standard? 

I’m sorry to hear that he is power fantasy and not empowering due to the patriarchal society that west have. I hope you know power-fantasy is somewhat derogatory. This is going along with what you stated and not what I know of to clear any future misunderstanding regarding patriarchy society of the west. I also wish to avoid any political debate so I will not delve deeper into this said subject. 

 

1 hour ago, Baldrick said:

Camilla's character development, i.e. the establishment of her identity outside of a sexual object for players to lust after, is inconsistent and poorly presented. Thus the suspension of disbelief is broken.

For a counter-example, take Xena, since @daisy jane brought her up before. Like Camilla, she is not real and has no agency. However, the writers did a much better job on developing her character, and the illusion that she does have agency is maintained! Therefore, Xena is actually empowering.

 

You have done exactly what I asked you not to do. But let me rephrase it in a way that may enlighten you of what I meant. When I typed:

”It will be helpful if you didn’t just highlight the word stereotypical to reply to me and and explain what’s women and men wants in their characters and how it effects character development.”

 I meant, please don’t go off topic by highlighting one word to reply so you can add in your input that have nothing to do with the main subject of debate. it is going off topic. I apologize as words of text can lead to misunderstandings however, this is what I truly meant. I am honestly not interested in diving into other topic other than how I felt about the double standard that was presented here in this particular forum.

2 hours ago, Baldrick said:

Stereotypical does not mean "everyone thinks that way". It does not even mean "one should assume everyone thinks that way". It means "it is often assumed everyone thinks that way, regardless of how many people actually thinks that way"

Yes. 

 

2 hours ago, Baldrick said:

I don't like big breasts. However, "straight men like big breasts" is still a stereotype, whether I like it or not. And FEH (and other gacha games) will continue to design characters according to this stereotype, whether anyone likes it or not.

Good for you? And is this stereotype from the west? How unfortunate for you? I believe there’s Nowi? Nah? Laura? Cordelia? Fire Emblem certainly didn’t forget to include their body type. Also Fire Emblem is from Japan so maybe your fine for now? 

I hope you find the type you like from the selection of Fire Emblem Heroes. I can’t say the same for other gacha games though. 

I only stated why I like buff men as you kept insisting that women stereotypcally likes male such as Loki. Which is not always the case which, is why it is stereotypical and it does not always stems from the truth. Like you proven my point clearly, if you see that “straight men likes big breast” is the stereotype and you say otherwise, you clearly proven my point.

 

This is going off topic once again, my main point is disagreeing with the display of double standard. I hope you sincerely understand the main debate I was having; and at this point me and you, can agree to disagree. 

[Ice Dragon]

58 minutes ago, Anacybele said:

Just popping here to say I've lived in a college dorm before and I'm currently attending a different college and never once had a guy flirt with me at them. Nor did I see anyone flirt with others. I don't know where you're getting this.

That being said, I myself have my issues with certain design choices in FE too.

54 minutes ago, daisy jane said:

I'm pretty sure they did. 
I think you just didn't know. (I only say this because i never know if someone is flirting with me until my friend tells me, hello dummy, he just flirted with you). it's not always as... teevee-ish as it is

It never happened to me because I'm a boring person in public (unless it went over my head, which it totally could have now that I think about it), but it was happening all the time in the dorm common areas as well as during study parties that my roommates and I held in our dorm room from our second year onward (since our seniority gave us apartment-style suites with a separate living room with couches and armchairs).

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ice Dragon

[Anacybele]

Just now, Ice Dragon said:

It never happened to me because I'm a boring person in public (unless it went over my head, which it totally could have now that I think about it), but it was happening all the time in the dorm common areas as well as during study parties that my roommates and I held in our dorm room from our second year onward (since our seniority gave us apartment-style suites with a separate living room with couches and armchairs).

Oh, I see... Interesting. And I would admit it'd probably go over my head half the time too if it happened to me since, well, this is an Aspie you're talking to here.

And I forgot that I actually didn't have a roommate during my time in a dorm because I was given a handicap room (it was available and no one else needed it, I guess. I would have been moved if an actual handicapped person did come later though). And even if it wasn't a handicap room, this campus only had you share a bathroom with someone else in that case, not the room itself. So maybe that was a factor in me not witnessing flirting too.

"Straight men like big breasts." As a flat chested woman, this stereotype pisses me off. I wish it would go away and in general, that more people would look beyond appearances. I didn't choose to be flat or look like a kid, and I don't want to be made to feel worthless because of it, thanks.

 

[DefyingFates]

3 hours ago, Johann said:

There's nothing sexual about Hawkeye's presentation in either FE7 or Heroes. He doesn't talk about anything remotely sexual, he doesn't behave remotely sexually. If the artist intended him to be a sexual object, they completely missed the mark. Meanwhile, Camilla and Loki's behavior is entirely designed around sex appeal directed towards the player (particularly through the avatar characters).

That's the key point here. However you perceive Hawkeye's design, you have to admit nothing about his personality or what he does is pandering whereas pretty much everything Camilla and Loki do does. I've even seen several people complain about Adrift!Camilla not because of alt overdose but because she's covered up and acting maternally instead (mostly on Reddit).

3 hours ago, Baldrick said:

Camilla's character development, i.e. the establishment of her identity outside of a sexual object for players to lust after, is inconsistent and poorly presented. Thus the suspension of disbelief is broken.

For a counter-example, take Xena, since @daisy jane brought her up before. Like Camilla, she is not real and has no agency. However, the writers did a much better job on developing her character, and the illusion that she does have agency is maintained! Therefore, Xena is actually empowering.

Ditto for all of this. As I said in an earlier comment, Camilla may have Supports that develop her as an actual person, but those are incredibly few and far between the smorgasbord of pandering the majority of her character is built around.

[Hawkwing]

4 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

In combat, exposing skin is not as much of an issue if you have a reliable means of deflecting attacks targeted at your legs. Shields, for example, in the hands of a skilled fighter are more effective at deflecting close-ranged attacks than one might expect (if all of your experience with armed combat comes from video games) to the point where armor on the body is really only a second line of defense and not a first. Combatants on horseback will also probably never aim for your legs. Not only are your legs farther away than your torso, but it is much easier to miss a person's legs compared to their torso.

Having exposed thighs while riding a grounded horse is obviously a case of the designer wanting that design. However, if someone in real life doesn't mind being uncomfortable while looking nice, then that's up to them. Furthermore, as this is a world with the existence of magic, who knows if there is some means of producing saddles that are more comfortable for riding?

Except that the legs were a common place to strike in historical warfare. Yes, even a small shield provides good coverage and protection against attacks, but shields have their own pros and cons, and a skilled fighter could use feints to get around them and strike in a vulnerable area, which was often the leg due to being less heavily armored than the head and torso. They may not contain any vital organs, but damaging the legs can still inconvenience, if not immobilize, the opponent, and again, there tended to be less armor there since the legs move around so much that small areas have to be left undefended so a soldier could have some decent mobility. Of course, exploiting the vulnerable areas of any armor is easier said than done, but that's a different discussion.

Even on horseback, showing skin is a terrible idea. Even discounting how difficult it is to attack a mounted unit without an effective weapon and setup, exposing ones thighs is just asking for someone to chop your legs off, or at least seriously injure them. It would also do jack against arrows, a common anti-cavalry weapon, which proper armor would defend against. I understand that Fire Emblem is fantasy and doesn't need to adhere to the rules of reality, but female cavaliers not wearing pants is case of fanservice being distracting for the wrong reasons, since even at a first glance there are no practical advantages towards doing so, and a lot of disadvantages.

***

As to the topic itself, I stopped playing Fire Emblem Heroes years ago after it got too big for my phone, and while getting certain characters was tempting, I never had a desire to go back. While I sympathize with people who have to deal with powercreep and IS's increasingly questionable business practices, the only reason I personally care about Heroes is to see artwork of characters I like, and to see what crazy ideas IS comes up with next for each event. I can see that with a simple internet search, so the gameplay side of things doesn't affect me much.

As for fanservice, I don't like it, but I understand that it's a part of certain works, so it depends on the execution. If it goes too far for my tastes, then nothing is stopping me from dropping the game or show in question, or simply not watching/playing it in the first place. Otherwise, I just deal with it. I'll praise tasteful and/or thought-out implementation of fanservice, and criticize moments that it's forced on the audience, even if I personally won't like it either way.

Fire Emblem Heroes has both good and bad examples of utilizing fanservice. As long as the bad aspects don't bleed into the mainline games, it doesn't bother me that much. Given the generally modest designs of classes in both Echoes and Three Houses (with some odd exceptions), I believe IS learned their lesson from the backlash of Fates, and is restricting their more ridiculous ideas for Heroes, where they can get away with it.

[Ice Dragon]

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Except that the legs were a common place to strike in historical warfare. Yes, even a small shield provides good coverage and protection against attacks, but shields have their own pros and cons, and a skilled fighter could use feints to get around them and strike in a vulnerable area, which was often the leg due to being less heavily armored than the head and torso. They may not contain any vital organs, but damaging the legs can still inconvenience, if not immobilize, the opponent, and again, there tended to be less armor there since the legs move around so much that small areas have to be left undefended so a soldier could have some decent mobility. Of course, exploiting the vulnerable areas of any armor is easier said than done, but that's a different discussion.

Aiming for the legs, however, leaves you vulnerable to a counterattack since the legs are farther away than other target areas and attacking low leaves your upper body exposed unless you are already near grappling range. Most of the grounded (infantry and armor) characters that have exposed thighs in Fire Emblem are not wearing armor in the first place, so there would be no need to target the parts of the body that simply tend to have less armor when the easier parts to reach don't have armor anyways. There's no reason to go out of your way and risk getting hit to hit a leg when you can hit an unarmored torso or arm.

In Heroes, the only grounded characters that have exposed thighs and are wearing a significant enough amount of armor on their torso to completely discourage attacks there (and don't transform) are Sharena, Anna, Gwendolyn, Amelia, Nephenee, and Effie. Sharena, Gwendolyn, Nephenee, and Effie all carry sizable shields. That leaves Anna and Amelia. Anna uses an axe and probably ascribes to the "axe users don't actually need armor" philosophy that male axe users seem to follow for no good reason because her outfit doesn't really make any sense (but makes more sense than theirs). Ignoring the fact that Amelia also uses an axe, I'm pretty sure her outfit is intentionally absurd since it's the over-the-top armor worn by the General class's battle sprite scaled down to fit Amelia and worn over her original Recruit outfit.

And if we ever get female Corrin with Yato, Corrin's outfit never made sense to begin with. My feet still hurt just thinking about it.

 

The characters that are more in trouble than the ones with exposed thighs are the ones with exposed forearms. Forearms and wrists are way easier to hit than legs and result in more debilitating damage due to the fact that they have much less flesh to cut through before reaching bone and the fact that it can completely prevent you from holding a weapon.

The almost complete lack of helmets is also horribly unrealistic, but that can be given a pass because it's kind of hard to make people care about Mostly-Faceless Person #15 and it leaves the few characters that do wear a helmet with a defining trait of wearing a helmet (which would be less defining if everyone wore a helmet).

 

Also as a complete aside, I was thinking about why so many characters, both male and female, only have armor over their chest (in a "can this actually be justified?" sort of way) and came to the realization that in a world where healing magic is easily accessible, it would make sense to have armor over parts of the body where injury would result in a quick death before healing could be administered while putting less priority to other parts of the body compared to real life. Of course, that means you'd probably want to gear up more when operating farther away from healing range, but requires additional art and ain't no one got the time for that. But now I'll keep this in mind for my own character designs.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Even on horseback, showing skin is a terrible idea. Even discounting how difficult it is to attack a mounted unit without an effective weapon and setup, exposing ones thighs is just asking for someone to chop your legs off, or at least seriously injure them.

That would be true if any of the characters with exposed thighs had no armor to protect the sides of their legs, but every character on horseback that isn't a ranged attacker, isn't wearing a joke outfit, and has their thighs exposed has armor covering the sides of their legs.

The only exception is Eirika, but she and Ephraim are literally just their infantry versions put on a horse since they didn't bother to create separate designs for their promoted versions. Wasted potential.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

It would also do jack against arrows, a common anti-cavalry weapon, which proper armor would defend against.

As Fire Emblem does not use full plate for its cavalry units, thighs would normally only be covered by cloth if not left exposed, and cloth is also ineffective against arrows anyways.

That said, one wonders why absolutely no one in Fire Emblem wears chain mail... other than the fact that it's a pain in the ass to draw.

[XRay]

I do not think there is anything wrong with sexual fan service in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with selling things based on sex appeal, violence, etc. If a person is really uncomfortable with fan service, then do not buy the product. I have pet peeve of avoiding buying things made in China unless there are no decent alternatives. Ever since LEGO opened a factory there, I have gradually and drastically reduced my spending on LEGO sets. Does it suck that my once favorite brand and company of all time are now supporting the piece of shit Pooh bear and his filthy corrupt tyrannical pigs? Yeah, but I move on and spend my time and cash elsewhere.

As for fan service affecting people's mind on sex, I do not really buy it. It has some influence, sure, but claiming porn and fan service has the ability to affect people to have unhealthy expectations about sex is bull shit. I can just as easily claim religion and God are worse than occultism and Satan due to all the wars and murders committed in God's name and all the recent mass shootings being conducted by Christians and Muslims, and therefore the Bible and Koran are inherently evil and it causes people to commit mass murder. God in the Old Testament was especially violent and petty, and reading the Old Testament can also cause people to be heartless killers too. As far as I am concerned, I have not heard of any Satanists committing murder lately but Christians have, so to be better safe than sorry, we should ban children from going to church and ban all foreign Christians from entering the country. Those statements I just made are completely absurd. Sure, a lot of nut jobs go to war over religion, but they are still a small minority; most religious people are not violent and can distinguish the difference between what is right and wrong.

I do not think fan service adds or detracts from how well written or not a character is either. A well written character is going to be a well written character regardless of how much skin the character is showing, just as being male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim, etc. are qualities that do not matter on a well written character. A well written character is not just a list of simple qualities that you can tick off.

As for Camilla being clingy towards mostly just Corrin, I do not think it is that immersion breaking. I am not clingy towards my family, but I am super clingy to my cat (when I sleep, it does not feel right if my cat is not near me). I do not have to be super clingy to everyone to be a clingy person. It is no different from a parent having a favorite child, or a child having a favorite parent.

[NegativeExponents-]

10 hours ago, Johann said:

Hawkeye Initiative

The Hawkeye Initiative is so dumb. It could be pretty good but to me it constantly fails to get its point across by always making the men even skimpier than the women or changing their facial expressions to goofy or uncomfortable one when the original had the women with a very serious expression on their face. If it constantly has to go out of its way to alter details to make the situation more awkward then it must not have not have believed that the original was actually that problematic if at all.

And this is something that can't really be helped I guess but it would really benefit it if the comparisons came from a copycat artist. A bit of a hyperbole but going from a mona lisa to a stick figure definitely loses a lot of its impact and would look ridiculous regardless of the situation.

[Johann]

9 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

Wearing clothing that exposes skin and flirting with people you find interesting or people you want to tease is not normal?

Camilla and Loki's attire and behavior is not normal in the majority of real-life settings and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

Quote

Maybe you need to go to bars or college housing more often.

Grow up. I expect better behavior from you.

Quote

I'm not sure you are understanding the type of avatar I'm speaking of, one that is not only inseparable from the person it represents, but actually is the person it represents. Or if you think the two can be separated without changing the nature of the character, then provide me answers to the questions from my previous post on the matter.

I understand completely. Unless it's non-fiction, it's a character. Characters don't make their own choices. Real people do. It's that simple.

Quote

And? Is there a problem with something standing out just because you're unfamiliar with it? There are just as many conservative outfits that can stand out just as much due to people not being used to seeing them.

What's with these "gotcha" responses? Come on dude, you know it's much more than something standing out or not. It's about asking why those design choices exist instead of turning off your brain because you're used to them.

Quote

In combat, exposing skin is not as much of an issue if you have a reliable means of deflecting attacks targeted at your legs. Shields, for example, in the hands of a skilled fighter are more effective at deflecting close-ranged attacks than one might expect (if all of your experience with armed combat comes from video games) to the point where armor on the body is really only a second line of defense and not a first. Combatants on horseback will also probably never aim for your legs. Not only are your legs farther away than your torso, but it is much easier to miss a person's legs compared to their torso.

Having exposed thighs while riding a grounded horse is obviously a case of the designer wanting that design. However, if someone in real life doesn't mind being uncomfortable while looking nice, then that's up to them. Furthermore, as this is a world with the existence of magic, who knows if there is some means of producing saddles that are more comfortable for riding?

As for flying mounts, it could be easily argued with simple physics that flying mounts are less likely to chafe due to the fact that the ride would be significantly smoother. The beating of wings occurs at a significantly slower rate and over much larger distances than hooves hitting the ground, resulting in significantly less chafing.

As for temperature, I'm the kind of guy that walks around outside in cargo shorts until well into November in Wisconsin and don't have much of a problem with it. I also wear a T-shirt year round and don't usually switch from a light jacket to a winter coat until December.

Also, really weird fashion choices have existed all over history, too.

Also, pants are harder to produce than skirts and wear out faster than skirts due to the fact that they necessarily rub against themselves a lot and cannot repair themselves like skin can.

This is a whole lot of nothing to excuse these design choices, which simply amount to "the creator chose to do that".

Quote

Sexually objective art of men is just as normalized as sexually objective art of women. You can see it all the time in the romance section of a bookstore or in the magazine racks in a grocery store.

The difference is the target audience. Romance literature is more commonly targeted at women. Video games and comic books are more commonly targeted at men.

Also BL doujins.

The romance section of a bookstore, compared to most movies, TV shows, video games, music videos, magazines, commercials, and so on. Yeah, totally equal.

Quote

I didn't excuse Loki's design, though. She's still obviously designed as waifu bait.

Influence is not a binding constraint, but it does set up expectations from the audience. When those expectations are supported or subverted, the audience will take notice, and it can add or detract from the audience's experience. Furthermore, using name recognition to set up expectations is a good way of familiarizing the audience with a character without the need to waste time doing so. A character named Loki will be expected to be mischievous. A character named Merlin will be expected to be a wizard. A character named Hercules will be expected to be strong. A character named Courage will be expected to either be brave or be obviously subverted to be cowardly because it's been done so many times.

None of what you said matters in regards to the restrictions a creator has. They can create literally any kind of character with any name. Whatever case you make for a source of inspiration doesn't change that, nor is it a defense against criticism.

8 hours ago, Wonderie said:

I was referring to more in a visual aspect as opposed to diving into their personality. However I don’t recall Camilla being sexually assertive or have sexual conversation either. Her voice however (JP version) may appear sexually provocative though which, I admittedly enjoy. I did read somewhere that you haven’t played FEfates so I can see why you may not know the full details. Which is fine and one of the main reason why I was mainly referring more onto the physical appearance in case one party didn’t play the other FE platform.

The main problem is when people have sour taste to the naked cleavage, etc which is fine, but what about naked men in the series? I see no heat in that area but suddenly there is for ladies?  I disagree with the double standard  and not with the choice or the intention of character design. And it’s made clear you support both gender to dress freely so I don’t see anything to go on from there. 

I can understand it can get tiring responding and I take no offence as I can empathize where your coming from. Even deleting it took a while just to retain my part of the reply; doesn’t help I am on an IPad though. In contrast I’m glad my part is shortened. 

I agree with the last point, I like to see more diversity in body type and both genders, or all genders in the game. 

The bottom line, which I think you'd agree with, is that both individually and as a society, there's a lot we can all learn and explore about design choices, sex, the human body, relationships, and so on. There are major media platforms that have an opportunity to spearhead some of that learning and exploration, but I think the ball is too often dropped in favor of whatever may seem the most profitable. Things like body type diversity is an example of that, for sure.

[Ottservia]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

I do not think fan service adds or detracts from how well written or not a character is either. A well written character is going to be a well written character regardless of how much skin the character is showing, just as being male or female, black or white, Christian or Muslim, etc. are qualities that do not matter on a well written character. A well written character is not just a list of simple qualities that you can tick off.

It depends honestly. Most of the time it doesn’t but sometimes(like in SAO) it can lead to really big disconnects between the show and the viewer like the scene where Asuna tries to escape only to almost get tentacle raped for some god forsaken reason. And the way the scene is shot and directed is very reminiscent of actual hentai. Like a scene like this shouldn’t be there in this context. You want to animate tentacle rape fine but it doesn’t belong here. The same goes for the Camilla cutscene in Birthright. You wanna animate titties fine but save it for the beach DLC please!!

 

2 hours ago, XRay said:

As for Camilla being clingy towards mostly just Corrin, I do not think it is that immersion breaking. I am not clingy towards my family, but I am super clingy to my cat (when I sleep, it does not feel right if my cat is not near me). I do not have to be super clingy to everyone to be a clingy person. It is no different from a parent having a favorite child, or a child having a favorite parent.

I have no issue with the clinginess personally. What I do have an issue with the way it’s handled in some instances. In their supports especially, it comes off as less overly doting and protective older sister and more as the developers going “hey you want the big onee-chan to smother you with her gigantic tits, don’t you?” Which should not be the case for this particular context.

[Ice Dragon]

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Camilla and Loki's attire and behavior is not normal in the majority of real-life settings and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.

Because behaving abnormally is apparently now a crime. Okay. I see. No one's allowed to deviate from what you consider normal.

Yes, they do not behave in the way that most people do. But 2 people is not most people.

I've said this before and I'll say this again. You need to go out and meet more people who are different from you and see just how wide of a spectrum of personalities exist in the world.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

Grow up. I expect better behavior from you.

You're the one who's been refuting all of my responses with, "None of what you say matters. I'm right. You're wrong and you know it," without actually having any substance behind it to back it up. I would say I expect better from you, but knowing how my arguments with you tend to go, this is more or less exactly what I expected.

 

1 hour ago, Johann said:

What's with these "gotcha" responses?

It means that either your arguments have holes in them or your arguments are not articulated enough to get what you intended to mean across. If I see holes in an argument, I'll be sure to pounce on them. That's how rebuttals work.

Now are you going to answer my questions or not?

Edited February 6, 2020 by Ice Dragon

[XRay]

6 minutes ago, Johann said:

The romance section of a bookstore, compared to most movies, TV shows, video games, music videos, magazines, commercials, and so on. Yeah, totally equal.

Books are not a medium that is as obscure you are making it out to be. I have two whole bookshelves crammed with books. In contrast, my friends and I hardly watch television (except for sports, which I do not really watch anyway), but a lot of us do read, but that does not mean television is a more obscure medium than books. Game of Thrones, Harry Potter, Twilight, etc. all started out from being a huge hit as books before being ported to other mediums.

Even if books are more obscure, I would still argue they are equal for the following context.

People have been blaming the newest media and the content in those mediums for generations. It was first the printing press, then radio, movies, rock music, tabletop RPGs, etc. Just because rock music has some anti-authority lyrics or D&D featuring demons does not mean they are causing all the ills of society we are seeing today. The impact of morally objectionable content from mass media is way overblown, and I can just as easily flip that argument to say that the Bible and Koran are even worse than videogames. Those two books have caused a shit ton more damage throughout history via various nut jobs waging wars and committing mass murders, and it is still happening today.

In fact with how those two religious books still affect the world today, I would argue books are far more impactful on society than videogames will ever be.

53 minutes ago, Ottservia said:

It depends honestly. Most of the time it doesn’t but sometimes(like in SAO) it can lead to really big disconnects between the show and the viewer like the scene where Asuna tries to escape only to almost get tentacle raped for some god forsaken reason. And the way the scene is shot and directed is very reminiscent of actual hentai. Like a scene like this shouldn’t be there in this context. You want to animate tentacle rape fine but it doesn’t belong here. The same goes for the Camilla cutscene in Birthright. You wanna animate titties fine but save it for the beach DLC please!!

I guess I just do not see fan service as a big deal compared to others. If I see it, I see it. I do not really give it another thought. To me, people complaining about fanservice just sounds like people complaining about how Avatar uses white people instead of Asian people or Gods of Egypt is full of white people. I can see it from the view that it is immersion breaking, but claiming that it is so bad that it ruins a character or movie just sounds like over exaggeration.

1 hour ago, Ottservia said:

I have no issue with the clinginess personally. What I do have an issue with the way it’s handled in some instances. In their supports especially, it comes off as less overly doting and protective older sister and more as the developers going “hey you want the big onee-chan to smother you with her gigantic tits, don’t you?” Which should not be the case for this particular context.

Most friends do not slap each other's butt or grab each other by the crotch. My friends and I do it. We know it is uncommon, but it is not unheard of. I am pretty sure we started the butt slapping thing from Niga Higa's Bromance video, but I am certain we started the crotch grabbing thing by ourselves way before Trump ever considered running for office. People have different levels of preferred physical intimacy. I do agree that while Camilla does come off stronger than most people, she is rather tame by my standards.