Johann
-
Posts
2,420 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Johann
-
-
24 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
So one of two things is going to happen tonight:
1) Biden is going to blow Bernie out.
2) The story is going to be "We have a frontrunner. But its a WEAK frontrunner."
____________Is it--bad that I'm kinda-sorta hoping now Biden blows Bernie out?
In the sense that it shows that Biden will probably do fine in November? Nah, it's fine. I voted Warren but after Super Tuesday, there really wasn't much of a question about who'd win the nomination. I do agree with the idea that Biden isn't especially inspiring and has a laundry list of serious flaws, but I don't think that's going to matter in November. Trump has burnt up all the good will that independent voters gave him and everything from the economy, the Corona Virus, and foreign affairs has been more fuel on the fire, with no sign of letting up.
I may have said this before, but I anticipate a Biden presidency basically being like a Dem version of Bush 2-- disappointing/underwhelming, but barring a major fuck up like Iraq, he'll mostly be remembered for being a gaffe machine.
-
10 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
Yeah, that would make sense. And Ike is arguably most popular male.
Yeah, no question about that. Lucina, Roy, and other CYL winners will probably see them sooner than later.
10 minutes ago, Anacybele said:Yeah, I don't actually expect Resplendent Freddy anytime soon, I just think he's possible in the future. When/if he does come tho, I think he should get a Nifl outfit! Because, well, he can be kinda cold. lol
I kinda like the idea of him getting an Order of Heroes outfit since one of his castle quotes has him admire the cloaks. Also then he'd match Cordelia, which would be neat. What matters most though is that they could finally add "Pick a god and pray!"
-
4 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:
It may simply be the case then that the problem of our day to be surmounted is that the technology to accommodate trans persons + let them live their best lives is still in its infancy.
If transitioning were that convenient, it'd definitely help, but the social stigmas in play are more tied to associating trans-ness to deviancy and an affront to God/natural order/whatever. Ultimately it's about controlling other people's lives, whether through gender norms, or restraint and violence. I'd have to do some googling to pull up sources, but there is plenty of statistical evidence showing that violent crimes against trans people occur in magnitudes far higher than cis people.
-
25 minutes ago, Anacybele said:
Sophia is a weird and random choice. 😕 Minor unpopular female.
But this does open the door for other unpopular characters like Frederick! If IS is willing to give men not named Ike anything, that is.
I was expecting a green or colorless male, if only to keep them diverse. I suppose the marketing strategy is that they lead with a popular 5* to start the month, and then follow up with whoever. Lyn and Cordelia are really popular, and putting them first was probably more about setting up expectations instead of establishing a trend.
Frederick would rule, though I kinda feel like they're gonna spread the love out across the games so it'd be a while. My gut tells me Takumi will follow Sophia, which people would like if just for CC.
-
15 hours ago, Jotari said:
That's what I assume, though it makes me feel a bit biggoted even suggesting that's how things would be viewed. I think it's because transgender issues have been wrapped up with homosexual issues and that whole sphere for a long time now and I'm not sure that's actually all that beneficial. Obviously there's some shared issues of generally fighting against intolerance, but I can't help think being transgender should be viewed more as a medical issue than a social one. If a gay person is trapped on a desert island the fact that there gay would be irrelevant, as the negative aspects of it comes from society's treatment. But if a transgender person is stuck on a desert then their transgenderness is still going to be an issue as it's a mix up of the brain and mind that still exists independent of what people actually think of it.
The real big overlap between queerness and being transgender is that both have dealt with social stigmas and misconceptions. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness by medical professionals for a very long time, for instance, and that's the sort of discrimination transgender people face today.
Keep in mind that not all transgender people will take hormones or get surgery, etc, and as such, being trans does not necessarily involve anything medical. Part of their struggle stems from gender norms telling them what they're "supposed" to be. This ties into how some trans people feel they need to do whatever they can to "pass" as the gender they identify as, while others do not. Societal pressure of what a man or woman is "supposed" to look like adds an extra dimension to what is often already a complex and sometimes ambiguous personal journey.
-
44 minutes ago, Othin said:
So is this retroactive, affecting reruns of past hero battles, or just future ones?
Just future ones. Existing battles would have changed in the update, but they still have the same stats.
-
13 minutes ago, XRay said:
Yeah. With a bonus unit, Kronya becomes a lot less reliable with only 1 AMH!Hector supporting her. For the past several Astra seasons, I can achieve about 1 or 2 deaths a week, although I still miss some of the Aether Structures, so I could not get that last single Lift battle in on the last day. I have seen less Infantry Pulse teams and my Kronya is at +7+5 now, so she stands a better chance when she does face them.
Are Kronya and Halloween Hector on all of your teams, or do you have more setups?
-
50 minutes ago, XRay said:
Hm... Maybe I will try running a bonus unit and bless it next week and see if that helps. Kronya will be losing a ton of damage support though, so I guess I will just run two versions of her team, and try to run the bonus team as often as I can if the enemy defense teams are not that powerful.
Have you been doing most weeks without a bonus unit?
-
3 minutes ago, Othin said:
What are the best ways to use flags strategically in gauntlets?
- Checking a score predictor and determining if your play schedule can line up with possible multipliers, and then skewing flag use for later hours if possible
- If your schedule doesn't line up with those hours, spend those flags when you can. It's also wise to not put too much stock in the predictors since they're often wrong, and early spending of flags helps avoid missing out on Same scoring rounds (particularly in evenly matched teams or the final round where that happens the most)
- Since the last round has more, some people save some extra flags til then, especially since the first round teams are smaller, making it easier to get a higher rank
- Alternatively, you might find it all more relaxing to just dump your flags whenever multipliers come and be rid of having to worry about any of it. Might be worth more than whatever joy you get from earning a few more feathers, I guess!
- As far as your team winning goes, the odds of a result hinging on a single person is so crazy small that there's not much point in stressing over it, I'd say. Still, if you're worried, you can save flags and ballots for the final hours, as to be one of the many that can help push your team when they need it most
Barring all that, try hacking the servers or getting a genie, preferably the one from Aladdin since he's the least likely to screw you over
-
Randomly decided to make Sophia despite not even having her at 5*. I remembered she was the very first unit I pulled in the game though, and I used her for a while at launch before I pulled more 5*s, so it's kinda nice to come full circle like that
-
On 2/21/2020 at 1:56 AM, mampfoid said:
@Johann Wow, Lucina looks great, congrats! One objection though, I like Galeforce better on her. ;- )
Haha well, her build isn't final! For now I'm content with Aether just for scoring purposes
On 2/21/2020 at 3:51 PM, Landmaster said:Congrats. She looks really good!
Thanks!
-
-
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.
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, XRay said:
It is valuable if it is advertised well. It is a liability if implemented horribly. In my opinion, advertising via annoying quest notifications is really, really bad.
Agreed. Getting more people interested in playing the game is better for them than trying to squeeze an extra $10 out of a few more folks.
-
1 hour ago, Landmaster said:
I just had an Epiphany that I need Lull Atk/Def, can we all vote for Duo Ephraim for free plzI'd dig Heavy Blade 4, so yeah I'll do it. I stopped voting after I saw those midterm results though.
-
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.
QuoteMaybe you need to go to bars or college housing more often.
Grow up. I expect better behavior from you.
QuoteI'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.
QuoteAnd? 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.
QuoteIn 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".
QuoteSexually 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.
QuoteI 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.
-
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.
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteActually, 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.
-
5 hours ago, Hilda said:
He is running 4x Mythic blessing buffs on Rutger so thats not his usual stats (unless he doesnt care about Score) and then on top of that Rutger is a bonus unit. every unit would look busted with that lol
Haha, let me have my moment! It's actually 3 mythics but the foe forgot their bonus structure. The stat boosts are just the +3 from Peony.
Interesting to see the new increases in structure levels, and I'm really glad that the Offense ones use Dew. Tactics Room Lv6 might mess with my usual Anima map build though. Oh well.
-
1 hour ago, Humanoid said:
In my experience with the game, there are really only two current units I consider game-changing, and they are legendaries Azura and Leif. They're such a big quality-of-life improvement that I feel everyone should have access to them, and if that's via winning this event then so be it. I'd have quit doing ARs at all some months ago without access to them, and they make Mjolnir's mode a lot more tolerable too. Supreme utility in all the less competitive game modes too.
I'd say Bridal Fjorm is a massive game changer for AR. Shutting down dancers unravels so many maps.
-
Are we going all in? I'll try to behave. Forgive me, @eclipse
1 hour ago, Wonderlandie said:If you look at the picture alone, Hawkeye is showing abs, his buffed arms and his whole upper body which media often define these factors as "appealing and attractive" upon males. What makes you conclude he isn't someone who isn't looked at as mere meat, per say. How do you consider male as sexually objectified? Because what you said about Hawkeye can be said about Loki. Is this design something we should also consider criticizing due to the amount of skin that is revealed?
You say Loki's poses emphasize her chest and butt; but Hawkeye's pose and the lack of upper clothing also emphasizing his abs, chest and arms.
Why is it ok for a man to show skin while if a female does it, it's suddenly a sin?As someone who have the same body type as Camilla (from FEFates) I did not mock or belittle the character that was shown in Fire Emblem. In contrast it was finally nice to see a character with relatable body type within a game. (Just because you know someone with big boobs say what you described, doesn't mean there isn't any other woman who will say otherwise.)
From a personal experience, trust me when I say: even if I am fully clothed people will ASSUME I am being a hoe asking to be a victim of something vicious. Just like how you just ASSUME in your last paragraph to whoever you were replying to while getting your popcorn.
Sexual objectification is very in-depth discussion that merits its own thread, though I think I would check with the mods before creating such a thread to ensure that it meets the site's guidelines, since there's a lot of content to be discussed that could potentially cross lines, and it's a subject that some people get pretty heated about.
Hawkeye, and many buff male characters like him, are not sexually objectified. He is not rendered a sexual object by the artist. A man without a shirt is not inherently sexual. His large muscles are more in line with the male power fantasy of strength than anything sexual. Furthermore, worldwide, men have more social power than women in practically all fields, so there's not the same impact in showing a half naked man compared to a half naked woman. There is a lot more to this than I can express here, and if you genuinely are interested in learning about sexual objectification and why skin exposure is not a 1:1 comparison between men and women, you should seek out people who have written much more and brilliantly than I can on the matter, due to their research and understanding.
Going from the second half of your post, you misunderstand me if you think this is a judgment towards women in any kind of revealing clothing. On the contrary, I support all women in their right to express themselves however they want. I'm not here to police how you feel about content, but to help stand up for people who are argued at or belittled to the point where they aren't comfortable joining the conversation. To be honest, I'm surprised that you'd look at Camilla and say "finally, a woman with big boobs" when there are countless examples in all media forms (let alone FE) of women having above average boobs that predate her, even by decades. If those are your feelings, that's fine, and if I've upset or offended you, I apologize. Please understand that there are a lot of people who argue in bad faith over these subjects simply as a means to harass women, so I'm accustomed to dealing with those kinds of people by being very direct, sometimes to the point where I may seem condescending.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:I'm a male and I think it's trivial to mention your gender about a subject.
A person's identity can shape who they are. How is that trivial, especially in a subject that is heavily influenced by gender? If you think it's trivial, then don't bother giving such an empty response.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:I don't understand what you're trying to disagree with here. You literally just reworded what I said.
It's virtually the same, if a real life actor's values do not align with the creator's creative vision, there'll be another to take up the mantle to make the product happen.
I have, and their fan base consists of more than just people who like what they're physically presented with, but you're free to believe the characters and their designs offer nothing more than eye candy and fanservice.
On the contrary, our statements are completely at odds. Expression exists only from the creator. Character actions and designs can do virtually anything, but none of it exists in a vacuum-- it depends on the creator to make those choices. It's really as simple as "it's what the creator wanted", whether those design choices have depth or are shallow. Characters do not make their own choices. Camilla or Loki or whoever doesn't "decide" to dress or behave as they do because they aren't real. Someone chose to make them dress and behave as they do. And to be clear, there are plenty of reasons people can enjoy these characters, even for those qualities, but that doesn't disqualify the criticisms against those design choices and their impacts.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:I never said he was intended to be sexually objectified. I said his with his character design he COULD BE sexually objectified, not that he isn't already because God bless artists and the Internet.
Also, you've completely skipped out on my question. What if there are a group of people are uncomfortable with topless men? Why do we not criticize and condemn the way Hawkeye is designed, is it because of the societal norm to allow males to be depicted like that? If so, then why is it all of a sudden rallies and pitchforks when females are presented in a scanty or sexualized way?
I don't know where you're going with mentioning this Project to me, 'cause I have no problem with men being sexualized or dressed in absurd outfits. You're telling Superman wearing tight, muscle defining full body spandex, wearing a red underwear on top is not absurd to you? Women aren't the only ones being put in weird costumes and exaggerated body images.
To sexually objectify Hawkeye would require a person to do so on their own, but understand that there's a difference between the creators of a game that has a major global platform vs a fan drawing art of him or even just viewing him as some sort of piece of man meat.
Here's the thing about shirtless men; culturally, it is something we are used to. When it comes to shirtless women, it depends where you go. Some countries/places allow women to be topless in public, whereas others do not. I personally think that women shouldn't be denied the ability to be topless, or in another way to view it, punished for exposure. Now, despite your hyperbole about rallies and pitchforks, you should keep in mind that there are different reasons why people would be uncomfortable with sexualized way. Some are in the puritan "think of the children!" camp, while others do not want to see female characters degraded to objects of sexual desire, which is something present in all forms of media worldwide. In most instances of sexualized fanservice, that objectification is present and it upsets a lot of people to see their characters treated that way. The issue is that the objectification is widespread for female characters. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but the people who are vocal about it in this thread are criticizing the objectification, not any puritanical viewpoint.
I mentioned the Hawkeye Project (upon checking it again, it's actually called the Hawkeye Initiative) because it showcases how stark the contrast is between designs of male and female characters. The idea is to get you to notice the trends in design choices and the disparity between genders. As a much more mild example, go through your Catalog of Heroes and observe how many female characters have exposed thighs, and then how many men. I'm not trying to stoke outrage here, but to get you to think hard about why it's such a recurring design choice.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:I don't know why you're explaining sexual objectification to me, as I'm fully aware of and acknowledge their existence within the game. In regards to sexist designs, I don't think anyone holds the authority to decide what is sexist for everyone.
If you see you're up against Loki, tap the screen while you're battling Loki and the battle instantly ends without seeing her battle art, assuming you don't want to turn the battle animations off. If you see her in trailers, you can skip to her skills or completely. If she's on a banner, I don't know why you'd be looking directly at breasts when she has a face and there are other units being promoted. If you pull her randomly, bad luck and as I've said before, bench, fodder and ignore her after. If you cannot stand looking at mini boobs on a chibi sprite, then I don't even know what to say at this point.
If an individual cannot handle at the sight of boobs and butts, then it is a personal problem. A game shouldn't have to tippy toe around someone because they can't stand the mere sight of breasts.
I explain these concepts because it seemed like you didn't understand them. But judging from the next sentence, it seems more like you don't like the idea of people even talking about it. If nobody is allowed to conclude that something is sexist, then all discussion about sexism is therefore dismissed. People have to be able argue for why something is sexist, or else everything is beyond reproach, and therefore sexism perpetuates.
The problem with stuff like Loki art isn't so much a "ahh, I looked! My eyes! Bring the holy water!" situation, but a constant reminder that this is what's the norm. If you were, say, a woman who deals with sexist shit all day and wants to escape from it all by playing a little Fire Emblem, then you're out of luck if you find that kind of design condescending to your entire gender. Part of the issue is that there isn't an alternative per se, whether you want to play Fire Emblem specifically, or just a strategy game on your phone, as these kinds of designs are everywhere.
Incidentally, I dunno if you've heard of it, but Final Fantasy had an issue where a male character was designed with revealing clothing, but was changed because of the extreme outcry. Go figure.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:Sounds like you just don't like the idea of Loki having interests in us other than the fact we're the self insert character.. Me bringing up Loki's other motivations is a perfect argument to your criticisms regarding her as a character and design choice.
If that's the case, then let them..? It's their franchise and they can do whatever they want as long as it's not harming anyone.
I'm going to defer you to The Thermian Argument, because that's what using in-universe details to defend design choices is. The point is that Loki's design and personality exist as they do because the creators chose to make her that way, and not due to a consequence of the story or or constraint of FEH's in-universe rules.
As for it not harming anyone, here's the thing-- sexist portrayals in media help reinforce sexist notions and worldviews. This is, like the subject of sexual objectification itself, a thread worthy subject, but the bottom line is that the media we are exposed to has influences on how we perceive things and think. There are global problems with how women are treated, including socially, professionally, and so on. Media of all forms have been and continue to be shaped by these problems, and in turn play a key role in maintaining the norms that perpetuate those issues. Through criticism, we can become aware of the influence media has upon us, to mitigate the negative and reinforce the positive. It's not to say people are bad for enjoying that stuff or anything that features it, but if you're paying attention to it and able to criticize it (or listen to criticism), then you'll be more self-aware of how it's affecting you and others.
59 minutes ago, thanny said:I don't think dismissing my opinions on the matter based on your personal experiences and assumption of people's opinions on characters proves anything. That popcorn would indeed come in handy for you when reading a more wide range of opinions on the Internet.
I brought it up because I have read a wide range of opinions on the internet, and it's overwhelmingly critical. As for the popcorn remark, well, that's what I get for trying to be cheeky on the internet, but I stand by the notion that you will see a lot of opinions in support of what I've said.
-
Feels really good to unleash a unit like this into the wacky world of AR
-
Added the partial results to the first post so it'll be easier to track them down
-
Obligatory:
Say, remember being a kid and thinking the government worked?
Fire Emblem Heroes General Discussion and Links
in Fire Emblem Heroes
Posted
Miracle's actually a choice worth considering for units who mostly don't need specials to get kills. Think of it this way: a damage special like Moonbow will fire off whether you need it or not, but if it's not ready when you do, then it's a problem. Meanwhile, Miracle acts as a security against a unit who is tough enough to survive the first hit but can't follow up on the 1 HP. Vantage Jeorge handles it well in AR since mages and fliers are so common that he should be ok to take a hit and survive, and Vantage proc most others. As @Vicious Sal said, knowing the AI is important; it's worth noting that the AI doesn't factor Vantage, Parthia's magic damage reduction, or Miracle into the damage calculations, which works in Jeorge's favor. That he mentioned Firesweep/Dazzling effects is another great point.