Jump to content
NegativeExponents-

Thoughts on FEH's fanservice

FEH and fanservice  

91 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you play FEH for the fanservice?

    • Yes, I play FEH mostly/entirely for the fanservice
      3
    • Yes, but I enjoy other aspects of the game
      19
    • No, but I don't mind the fanservice
      36
    • No, and fanservice sours my enjoyment of FEH
      20
    • I like fanservice, but FEH doesn't cater to me
      4
    • Fanservice doesn't affect my experience with FEH
      9
  2. 2. Do you, PERSONALLY, think FEH needs more fanservice?

    • Yes, I would like to see more fanservice
      10
    • No, I think fanservice is fine as is
      16
    • No, but it needs variety
      33
    • No, and I would like to see less
      20
    • I don't care either way
      12


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

Totally misconstruing what I've been saying. Who's talking about what's allowed or not? Where are you getting this? And to the last point, are video game/anime characters your standard for human behavior or something? I don't claim to know about your personal experiences but you sure as shit don't know a thing about mine. Stop trying to start shit and consider how ridiculous and childish your posts are.

41 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

If you read it that way, then you haven't understood anything. Read it again. You have a terrible habit of shifting conversations into being about what you want them to be about instead of what anyone is actually discussing, and you'd do better to just hit the Ignore User button if you can't keep up.

41 minutes ago, Ice Dragon said:

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?

Your questions are disingenuous and leading. I've been imploring you to think about why you're asking them in the first place. You argued a case for possible secret magic horse saddles in this thread, but my arguments are the ones with holes in them?

17 minutes ago, XRay said:

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.

He referred to a specific genre of books. The issues we've been talking about are present in all forms of media, including books, and the sexual objectification of women in various media and art has been around for millennia. We know war and murder are bad, but shifting the conversation to say what is worse or more impactful doesn't address the issues people are talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, XRay said:

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.

Thing I actually do agree with you here on every front. I don’t care if fan service is there or not. If it’s there it’s there, you’re not gonna see me complaining. The only time I see it as a problem is when it actively detracts from the writing quality like it’s inconsistent with the character/tone of the story. Like random tentacle rape scene in a tense sequence when a character is trying to escape. Other than that though I don’t see why people are making such a big deal over it.

As a hetero leaning bisexual male, I like girls that’s just how it is. I like cute anime girls with big tiddies. Is there anything wrong with that? No, not at all. Is there anything wrong with an artist pandering to my specific demographic? No not at all. Is there anything wrong with an artist pandering to any other demographic? No not at all. Creators should be allowed to do what they want so long as they aren’t hurting anyone, I do not see an issue. If I guy wants to make trashy anime game where all you do is try to woo hot anime girls with massive titties then he is well within his rights to. There is nothing wrong with that.

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Johann said:

He referred to a specific genre of books. The issues we've been talking about are present in all forms of media, including books, and the sexual objectification of women in various media and art has been around for millennia. We know war and murder are bad, but shifting the conversation to say what is worse or more impactful doesn't address the issues people are talking about here.

You were saying that sexual objectification of men in books are not equal to sexual objectification of women in other media.

2 hours 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.

You might not read romance novels, but plenty of people do. Twilight was pretty big. Jacob taking off his shirt to show off his chest and abs on the movie screen definitely is not targeted to most male viewers, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I am not worried about women developing an unhealthy expectation about men's body shape either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

I mentioned hitting the legs as you said that having exposed thighs wouldn't matter if someone had a shield, when hitting the leg would be a common tactic to deal with a shield-wielding foe. The upper body has all the vital organs, so a fighter could get around their opponents advantage by striking in an area that was usually less guarded and would still do some damage, even if it wouldn't immediately kill or disable their opponent. They could also feint low and strike high if it was practical to do so. How vulnerable attacking low would leave the upper body depends on the weapon and equipment being used and how the attack was made. A spear user attacking a sword user with a shield would be less vulnerable than someone wielding a one-handed axe, for instance. Even with a sword, a fighter can strike the legs in a way that still allows for a decent guard after swinging or stabbing.

Fighting an unarmored opponent without a shield is different than fighting an unarmored opponent with a shield; you just wouldn't have to deal with the pesky armor in either case. Tricking the enemy into guarding high and then striking low is still a viable tactic with the latter. Attacking the leg could still happen in the former, but simply as one option among many during combat.

5 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

The side guards several of the armor units wear would do little to protect against a stab or thrust from a spear or sword. Not every attack needs to be a swing. To be fair, that's a criticism that can be applied to several designs in the series, and not just the ones with exposed skin. It would still be difficult to hit the exposed area, but leaving it vulnerable is still a terrible idea, as it would do nothing to protect against a successful strike.

Fire Emblem in general could use more anti-armor moves (I don't necessarily mean doing effective damage in this case) when units attack an armored enemy, such as sword users using the mordhau technique instead of since simply bashing harder, as that would also be a waste of energy even if it does hurt the opponent. Or axes having a spike to do piercing instead of cutting damage. I do understand the production costs behind adding these animations, though, so this is more of a wish than a critique.

5 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

That depends on the weapon being used and if they have a shield, since weapons can have guards and blocking can protect the arms. I do agree that it is still a bad idea to leave those areas exposed, though.

5 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

Awakening and Fates would like to have a word with you.

5 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

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.

The point remains that it still a bad idea to leave that part of the body vulnerable.

And yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if chainmail being difficult to draw is the actual reasons for why no one wears it in Fire Emblem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, XRay said:

You were saying that sexual objectification of men in books are not equal to sexual objectification of women in other media.

You might not read romance novels, but plenty of people do. Twilight was pretty big. Jacob taking off his shirt to show off his chest and abs on the movie screen definitely is not targeted to most male viewers, and I do not think there is anything wrong with that. I am not worried about women developing an unhealthy expectation about men's body shape either.

The sheer volume of it is nowhere close to equal. While I have not read or seen Twilight, but that doesn't sound particularly sexualized, and might instead be sexual. I guess some context would help clarify that. Meanwhile, compare that to something like Game of Thrones where female characters are routinely raped (often with no other purpose or characterization), and the disparity among major media series is a bit more highlighted.

Keep in mind that Twilight and romance novels are largely seen as a sort of "female-only" niche and widely mocked for their audience demographics. I wouldn't call that particularly mainstream, and instead supports the idea that media is largely male dominated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as Anime and Manga is concerned there is a whole genre dedicated to stuff “aimed at girls” as it were called “Shoujo”(literally translating to “young girl” in English) which covers stuff like magical girl, Romance, slice of life, etc. It’s good stuff and there’s a lot of it. You just gotta look. Hell, there are also Otome games. Dating sim visual novels aimed towards a female Otaku market however niche it is. 

Edited by Ottservia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I most certainly didn't read Twilight, but when I was in undergrad my friend dragged me (and two other friends) to see it with her. It was so bad, the other two friends and I were just laughing so hard at it.

Honestly, from what I've seen, the majority of "female fanservice" seems to be written by women for a younger audience of young adult/teen girls in the form of YA novels that have a female protagonist and some handsome male protagonist.

Unfortunately, 99% of these books are shitty and give bad examples of relationships, human beings, and moral compasses, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. What may be more relevant is that a lot of YA books are "bad" because apparently they sell like hotcakes anyway? That seems to be doing a disservice to young girls just for the sake of getting their money. As well as not taking them seriously enough to give them things that are good and, you know, PROPERLY EDITED.

Edited by Sunwoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Feh is a precious creature and you will not lewd her!

...is there another Feh I'm not aware of? What is all this?

FEH is anacronym for fire Emblem Heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Fighting an unarmored opponent without a shield is different than fighting an unarmored opponent with a shield; you just wouldn't have to deal with the pesky armor in either case. Tricking the enemy into guarding high and then striking low is still a viable tactic with the latter. Attacking the leg could still happen in the former, but simply as one option among many during combat.

While it is viable, it is still inherently more risky to aim for the legs than aiming for closer target areas. Not as an absolute measure of viability, but as a comparative measure against other possible options.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

The side guards several of the armor units wear would do little to protect against a stab or thrust from a spear or sword.

Cloth in general (when it isn't layered) holds poorly against stabbing attacks, so there wouldn't be as much of a difference in comparison between wearing pants and not wearing pants in that situation. While a difference does, in fact, exist, the benefit might not be significant enough to matter. Historical armor does show cases of battle-ready (non-ornamental) armor having fashion-related features that are functionally detrimental, but where the detriment is not considered significant enough to remove the feature.

The reason I focused largely on swinging attacks and the side hip guards is because the lack of cloth does make a large difference for attacks intended to cut. Imperfections in the blade can catch on cloth, causing it to bunch up and become more resistant to being cut completely through, and that benefit is lost when not wearing cloth over a portion of skin. However, the presence of hip guards would presumably make horizontal swinging attacks less effective against the legs and compensate for the lack of cloth covering.

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

That depends on the weapon being used and if they have a shield, since weapons can have guards and blocking can protect the arms. I do agree that it is still a bad idea to leave those areas exposed, though.

Infantry axe users that aren't of the Hero class, which are the units I'm mostly referencing here, pretty much never have a shield, and axes do not have guards. Even for swords, the guard is mostly intended to protect the hands rather than the entire arm (though it does help a lot).

 

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

Awakening and Fates would like to have a word with you.

You'll have to give me some time to review their character designs as I am not very familiar with those 2 games. (But you might have to wait a few hours as I won't be back home until late tonight.)

Of the characters that show up in Heroes, though, none of them were problematic, granted it just Sully and Peri, I think. Though Peri does have the issue that she might have no protection near her knee at all (depending on what the material of that part is), which is kind of strange. (And I can't really take the damaged artwork's word for the material because both Laslow's and Selena's gambesons are incorrectly depicted as paper-thin.)

Edited by Ice Dragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johann said:

The sheer volume of it is nowhere close to equal. While I have not read or seen Twilight, but that doesn't sound particularly sexualized, and might instead be sexual. I guess some context would help clarify that. Meanwhile, compare that to something like Game of Thrones where female characters are routinely raped (often with no other purpose or characterization), and the disparity among major media series is a bit more highlighted.

Edward (the main vampire guy in Twilight) literally sparkles in the light as the main girl looks at his body. Her other guy of interest (yes there's two, that fight over her) is a werewolf that's constantly taking his shirt off to show his muscular physique, which the writer agonizingly describes in detail. (as she does everything, man her writing style was a slog to read) Both males are pretty much pieces of meat for females to fantasize over with rather blank slate self-insert female MC. A pretty stereotyped "hot guys fight over and save you" fantasy. (and there's nothing wrong with that) And it's one of the biggest selling book series, as well as the successful movie adaptations.

As for Game of Thrones, just like other torture and violence, the rape scenes rarely had no purpose I can think of. I would not call them sexualization for the sake of it in most cases, and even so, that fits the setting the series takes place in. The most controversial instance I can think of was even a turning point for one of the major female characters, for which she later gets revenge for as well. Rape is a horrible thing, but horrible things happening to people is pretty much one of the big things with that show. I don't think I need to mention the hoards of female fans of the series either, which, despite the points of sexualization/abuse for said female characters, still idolized and felt empowered by them.

I think your bone to pick with female sexualization in general is getting a bit slap happy at this point, and we're getting further from fanservice in FE lol. (how dare you make me remember Twilight) I'll just say I very much stand with @Wonderie's point of no double standard. I'm just fine with female sexualization and just as fine with any male equivalent, even if that's not aimed at me. And rarely does it hurt the integrity of characters to me, especially on the mild level of how FE implements it. Which is why my original comments were not to silence complaints, but just find the sensitivity and drama over it in the FE community excessive.

Edited by Alkaid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johann said:

The sheer volume of it is nowhere close to equal. While I have not read or seen Twilight, but that doesn't sound particularly sexualized, and might instead be sexual. I guess some context would help clarify that. Meanwhile, compare that to something like Game of Thrones where female characters are routinely raped (often with no other purpose or characterization), and the disparity among major media series is a bit more highlighted.

I have not read the books either, but there are quite a few scenes where the guys go topless in the movies. I do not think those scenes contribute anything to the story, but I do not think it detracts from it either. It is just there. If it pleases fans then all the better.

Wanton violence is not necessary either in a lot of media, but I do not think there is anything wrong with portraying it. Gunnthrá was like being freaking burnt to a crisp right in front of our eyes. Obviously, Heroes did not actually show her being burnt graphically, but the dialogue sounds pretty painful and vivid. I do not think I have ever felt such a strong emotional response in Fire Emblem before, and while they could have just killed Gunnthrá off screen, the emotional impact would be far less dramatic. Helbindi's sister was killed off screen for example, and it carries so little emotional impact when compared Gunnthrá's immolation.

I get that rape scenes can be triggering for people, and if that is the case, then those people should not be watching Game of Thrones. It is not like the series is trying to hide that it contains objectionable material, as there is even the rating/warning system telling people to watch out for sexual content. It is not the most comfortable thing to talk about, but the rape scenes are there to highlight the barbaric nature, monstrousness, and assholeness of certain people. Is it necessary to show it graphically on scene? Probably not, since they can just do it via dialogue or short flashbacks. But was it a useful tool to galvanize people's anger and make them hate those assholes? Definitely so.

1 hour ago, Sunwoo said:

I most certainly didn't read Twilight, but when I was in undergrad my friend dragged me (and two other friends) to see it with her. It was so bad, the other two friends and I were just laughing so hard at it.

It was not a masterpiece, but it was one of my first exposure to media targeted at women, and I thought it was pretty decent. It kept me entertained and I binged watched the rest of the movie series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ice Dragon said:

You'll have to give me some time to review their character designs as I am not very familiar with those 2 games. (But you might have to wait a few hours as I won't be back home until late tonight.)

Of the characters that show up in Heroes, though, none of them were problematic, granted it just Sully and Peri, I think. Though Peri does have the issue that she might have no protection near her knee at all (depending on what the material of that part is), which is kind of strange. (And I can't really take the damaged artwork's word for the material because both Laslow's and Selena's gambesons are incorrectly depicted as paper-thin.)

some skin showing on horseback does it truly matter it's a fantasy game and in terms of fanservice that's super minor stuff really. where talking about a games in wich we fight monsters,dragons pegasus knights and tranforming beasts. people throwing fireballs and lighting bolts it doesnt matter if such minor details are a bit off with reality. not to mention that the fanservice on horseback is way less visible I wouldnt even call that fanservice especially ingame. you can only really see that in the official art wich a ton of people didnt even see anyway in the original games that is.

I personally find the high school setting in the beginning of fe tree houses and you being a teacher a bit more disturbing towards the story in terms of fanservice especially when where looking at the game stories prior to that. it's different and a ton of people love it but i wasnt a big fan of it personally.

speaking of realism chalk boards wheren't invented till 1800+ let alone that fighting lessons for say knights would be anything close like what happened in tree houses. if anything is clashing with realism forget the clothing when riding on a horse, training units didnt happen in a high school esk setting like tree houses.

 

Edited by SwordsDude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wonderie said:

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? 

What I take is that you are arguing that it’s wrong that people being more outraged about female eyecandy than male eyecandy. Let me be clear on this point: I don’t care about that argument.

Quote

I hope you know power-fantasy is somewhat derogatory.

Once again, I don’t care. Hawkeye is still a power fantasy. His most prominent character trait is being the guardian of the desert. This involves beating up desert bandits and protecting his allies. He built up his muscles so he could be a strong fighter, not in order to make women swoon. The appeal of his character is that he is physically powerful. 

Quote

it is going off topic.
 

I believe I have made the link between fanservice and character development clear. If you don’t want to discuss character development, fine, but it’s not off-topic.

Quote

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? 
 

Are you saying that if I don’t like big breasts, it must mean I like small breasts? I’m a straight man, so I must care about what body type a woman has?

This is my point. Stereotypes are often subconscious, and so people use them when designing fanservice. None of that implies that stereotypes are always accurate.

Edited by Baldrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Baldrick said:

What I take is that you are arguing that it’s wrong that people being more outraged about female eyecandy than male eyecandy. Let me be clear on this point: I don’t care about that argument.

Once again, I don’t care. Hawkeye is still a power fantasy. His most prominent character trait is being the guardian of the desert. This involves beating up desert bandits and protecting his allies. He built up his muscles so he could be a strong fighter, not in order to make women swoon. The appeal of his character is that he is physically powerful. 

I believe I have made the link between fanservice and character development clear. If you don’t want to discuss character development, fine, but it’s not off-topic.

Are you saying that if I don’t like big breasts, it must mean I like small breasts? I’m a straight man, so I must care about what body type a woman has?

This is my point. Stereotypes are often subconscious, and so people use them when designing fanservice. None of that implies that stereotypes are always accurate.

If you don't care then this discussion shouldn't have started in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I still played Heroes, I don’t think about the fan service. 

Have not played it in nearly two years and I still don’t think about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Omg this topic... lol. I should've stopped reading a long time ago.

 

Anyway, I don't mind fan service. I play FEH for my favorites, and I am more of a collector than a completive player. I just ask for as many males as females in the fan service department. I also actually find some of the Camilla, Tharja alts and Loki etc. kinda campy, so I laugh lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ice Dragon

I was arguing against the point that exposed thighs would not matter if someone was using a shield, as historically, attacking the legs was a common way to get around a shield-wielding opponent. Similarly, exposing ones legs while on horseback is asking for any successful attack to do some damage. Instead of armchair armoring and having this debate last longer than it needs too, we may as well end it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FEH damaged artworks have actually been less fanservicey lately, perhaps due to prudes complaining? I dunno, but my hunch is that's why.

But I love how women in Fire Emblem hardly ever wear pants, and I hope it stays that way. And on that note let's also bring that trend back for guys in the games too. The look's been extinct ever since Kaga left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MixSchrecks said:

FEH damaged artworks have actually been less fanservicey lately, perhaps due to prudes complaining? I dunno, but my hunch is that's why.
 

Define "fanservice".  Igrene has a hell of a pose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MixSchrecks said:

women in Fire Emblem hardly ever wear pants

This actually describes a part of the problem really well. It's not just about the outfits that do show up, but also about the ones that show up less or not at all as a result. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eclipse said:

Define "fanservice".  Igrene has a hell of a pose.

"Less fanservicey lately" doesn't mean "no fanservice", but likely one or both of "lower levels of fanservice overall" or "fewer instances of fanservice". Either way, a single counterexample doesn't invalidate an argument that a trend exists.

 

6 hours ago, Othin said:

This actually describes a part of the problem really well. It's not just about the outfits that do show up, but also about the ones that show up less or not at all as a result. 

Pants were rare for women to wear in Western society until the 20th century. It wasn't until the World Wars that pants became normalized for women in the West.

Males not wearing pants generally references the periods in Greek or Roman history where pants were considered the clothing of barbaric peoples, but this significantly predates the Medieval period that most fantasy settings take their inspiration from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ice Dragon said:

"Less fanservicey lately" doesn't mean "no fanservice", but likely one or both of "lower levels of fanservice overall" or "fewer instances of fanservice". Either way, a single counterexample doesn't invalidate an argument that a trend exists.

I didn't go into the male side for a reason.  But IMO that also counts as fanservice, even if it's not aimed towards straight men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...