Yup, I'm done with Fire Emblem. Street Fighter has been removing clothes and performing boob jobs recently too, this was never why I got into SF and I don't want it. I don't mind "fanservice" games, but this stuff is polluting all kinds of games and it's a shame.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Why women criticise sexualised character designs |OT2| I have no pants and I must scream (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- OT
- Status
Nobody is objecting to characters being sexy or attractive, quit with the the straw manning on this point.
What people are objecting to is the huge portion of female character designs that are sexualised, exploitative, offered purely for titillation whether it makes any sense or not, while the camera makes it clear what aspects of them the director wants us to focus on. Even then it's not just any individual design, it's the clearly visible widespread trend that runs through a lot of genres, which is why your point of 'not every game is aimed at you!' isn't gaining any traction. If you like JRPGs or fighting games etc, this shit is now almost unavoidable and isn't a minor element when they trade on it in marketing female lead characters, cut scenes, poses, character design, every visual element in a highly visual medium.
I don't know how you can read the OP and not see how criticism of an endemic, sexist, templated and tired approach to packaging titillation isn't criticism of sexy and attractive characters. 'Sexy and attractive' is not the same as 'sexualised, modelled and animated purely for titillation'. Do you really not see how someone might find female characters consistently running around in their lingerie while the guys get normal kit to be 'dehumanising'? It's literally objectifying, treating them like walking sex objects first and human characters second.
As for finding fantasy worlds where the design of women is exploited/highly sexualised 'immersive', I've put thousands of hours into Monster Hunter. There's a reason why none of the normal, older female villagers selling potions and fish etc wear sexualised outfits due to culture etc but the pretty guild girls and the female armour choices often are, and it isn't to 'increase immersion' and suggest that's normal in a world where hunters fight massive dragons in hostile environments like volcanoes and deserts, it's purely for titillation for presumed-male players. The least they could do is allow a player to choose which armour set they want rather than have a player be stuck with shitty, templated tits mcgee design on their female character just because it's designed to appeal to guys. A player shouldn't have to choose a male character if they don't want their hunter to dress like an idiot.
MH's immersion comes from cohesive stuff like world design where everything is natural and built out of massive chunks of bone and wood and based around it's guild of superheroic adventurers as that's the resources this fantasy, monster-hunting society has on hand and so it makes sense. Not boobplates and stockings on female adventurers because players find it titillating. That's not immersion when it's one of the elements that feels distinctly out-of-place. If the MH world was a sexualised parody like Barbarella where instead of giant tusks holding up buildings it was giant monster cocks or something, I'd kinda see where you're going with this, but it isnt. You liking something more isn't 'immersion', it's preference.
Also, in the context of this thread, this is hilarious. The whole point of the discussion is about how sexualisation works, you're just only seeing it from the point of view of 'I like thing, ignore it if you don't like it' while ignoring reams of criticism of how genre-wide sexualised design continually offers a skewed idea of what's normal and/or valuable/worth highlighting about young female characters.
Last edited:
Thank you.
Some people seem to be completely unable to understand that "fully clothed" can be sexy and sttractive, so acting as if "sexy" or "attractive" were the problems is just wild. Those are entirely seperate spectrums.
I like sexualization. I play games that I like. If games have sexualized characters, I like them more.
You are either joking or unaware how does this works, so let me explain it to you how sexualization works. No, it doesn't make you constantly erect (or aroused), and no, sexualized games doesn't replace porn (it's not even about nudity or nude genitalia). I don't play sexualized games to masturbate either. Sexualized characters helps to feel attraction to them, by looking like something you would like to be or have near you. Personally, it helps me to feel immersion, although I understand it's not the case for everyone. It also accentues the idea of a fantasy world, by having characters with exotic clothes that you don't see in real life. They are not realistic and that's the intention. I think it helps to make everything more epic too.
_NRFPT_14.jpg&f=1)
I don't think everybody was aroused and fapping while watching Barbarella. But it was nice to the eye.
As I said before, I don't think every game should be sexualized; as the same way having no sexualized games at all would be good either. Sexualization has a market, it's ok to have non sexualized games and sexualized games altogether. And they can be good or bad games, we should play what we find it fun. But I see people criticizing sexualized games because most of them just sexualize women. I agree that's not good. I think that if there would be sexualization in a game, it should do it for both men and women.
I agree, if we're talking about trying to be realistic. But I don't think every game has to be realistic, we can have some fantasy here and there, less realistic bodies, and sure we can have some sexy outfits too. Games are about that, you know. Art is about experiencing other worlds, more marvelous that the real one.
Indeed, not the best example, a helmet would be more suited for the job. I indeed would enjoy the game less because the first one looks better. It's just my preference but maybe other people agree.
I don't see why such clothes can be dehumanising. Is it because people find it attractive? What's the problem of being an object of attraction? What's wrong with being sexy?
FFXIV is great at male sexualization. Too bad there are less sexy clothes for males than for females.
FFXIV gives all players all kind of choices for what they wear. Unless all armor turns into bikinis if a woman touches it there is nothing wrong with sexy options.
Personally those catboys also do little for me. Aymeric and Hien work when it comes to FFXIV. And that kind of shows men don't need to be half naked to be considered attractive.
That game gives you a private dinner date with one of the male NPCs too. During the main story even. Things like that work better than a potential half naked Kratos brigade.
I'm still playing and enjoying the newer ones (Awakening, Fates etc). If they keep the pandering the same and make them easy to avoid, then I can still enjoy the future ones even if they are more pandering unfortunately. The new switch FE doesn't look so bad so far. I haven't played Heroes but the art shared in this thread makes it look worse than all the previous games. I don't know how that would translate when you're actually playing it but it feels like it might cross the line for me.
I fear the day when FE becomes like Xenoblade 2 or worse...
With each Witcher game the romance options were greatly reduced.. and Witcher 1 was mainly aimed at the European market, where people don't have such a problem with erotic material - when the first Witcher game was released, there wasn't any fuss about the erotic cards, mainly even though every one knew they were really childish, immature but mainly no one took them serious and no one think that someone could interpret them as a vehicle for people to get the idea that because of them it means real women are nothing else than "things to have sex with" - and why are they in the game? Because CD Projekt RED didn't had the budget to make believable looking sex scenes, but they still wanted to have romance options - so to save budget they decided to use card art.. the idea wasn't to make a pokemon collecting collection game with the sex scenes.. of course that doesn't make them less immature or something, but atleast we know when they used them and not some cutscenes or make them in any other way.. and remember, in TW2 and TW3 Geralt can have sex with fewer and fewer characters, and most of the scenes are atleast somewhat good and believable looking.. and TW3 even mocks multiple times the players who would wanted more romance options and in the expansion pack Blood & Wine even CD Projekt RED makes fun of themselves when they mock those sex cards from TW1
And the number thing in TW3? Well, Kassandra (or Alexios) in ACO can have sex with 11 people in a single playthrough, so compared to Geralt's possible 4-5 romance options in the main game, the number is of course lower than that of Kassandra's.. so you have already a game where the female protagonist in a game can have sex with more characters than the "horny horse" that is in many eyes Geralt
BTW - the romance interactions in ACO are so, so poorly written.. but hey, atleast you can have sex with a character of your own or the opposite gender, that makes everything ok when the writing is bad, right?
Last edited:
Thats what you took from that? Not that she is in armour from neck to toe? Yet you want them half naked, but my quick find example should have a helmet?
I do not believe you are discussing in good faith with that response frankly.
Exactly!
Case in point I have always found Elena in Uncharted to be a sexy character, her voice, her personality. Everything about her has an attractive quality.
Didn't see her in a bikini once, imagine that!
Last edited:
On the "why not sexualize men too" argument, and why representation matters
This is not a solution to the issue. This doesn't acknowledge or remedy the issue in any capacity whatsoever.
Most major visual industries (gaming, television, and cinema) are male-dominated industries. This pertains to both who is creating the media (where men are writing, directing, and designing the content) and who the media is created for (male consumption and point of view). Most media is written by men, for men, and media meant for women has historically been regarded as its own genre (the "chick flick", so to speak). This means that the male point of view is the dominant, neutral, point of reference. In this sense, women must learn to appreciate art on men's terms or create their own art. When they do create their own art, it is often underappreciated or relegated to genre because a woman's point of view is often not taken seriously.
What this means in reference to your statement above is that most media produced is going to be produced by men, for men, and because of the sexism most men have internalized, their art is going to either exclude women entirely or make them sex objects. Some male creators won't even think to include women in their stories because male critics and audiences will laud them anyway (just look at Martin Scorsese). Because their media is consumed principally by male audiences they will not be challenged on the fact their media contains virtually no women at all. This is because - again - a female perspective is niche and not important. What you get instead is an extremely narrow male perspective on what women are or should be.
Comfortable people don't complain and men are not usually the ones made uncomfortable. If they are, they have other options, because media has prioritized them for thousands upon thousands of years. Women do not have these same options. Men are depicted differently across every genre and medium and never are men at a shortage of ways to see themselves depicted. Women do not have this luxury and never have.
In most media, women are either victimized (murdered as an inciting incident, or kidnapped if you want to be generous) or idealized (sexy eye candy who pine for the main character or tease the male viewer with sex appeal). Rarely have women been portrayed with any depth, realism, or meaning other than how in danger or how hot they are. This means women do not have other options to choose when they find a sexualized depiction distasteful.
Sexualizing men does not improve the status quo of how women are depicted in media. It ignores the problem completely. This flawed sense of pragmatism doesn't do anything to improve media inclusivity. You are proposing a solution that nobody asked for to a problem you are not acknowledging.
Because the truth is: if women had as many options to choose from as men did, this thread would not exist.
Depiction of women in general has gotten better over the last decade. In gaming, inclusivity picked up steam in the wake of eye-opening hate movements like GamerGate. The situation is improving, but it isn't fixed, and it hasn't just improved automatically. It improved because a lot of women complained. It improved because some men listened. It improved because people realized broader and healthier depictions of all types of people is a moral compulsion that should be satisfied and, if nothing else, is good for business. Ten years ago, if women's complaints for how they were represented in media was answered with "increasing male sexualization" literally none of their concerns would have been addressed and we would not be where we are today.
Furthermore, the cop-out that sexualizing men somehow makes sexualizing women better doesn't do anything to make media more appealing to women. Most women, and most men for that matter, do not pick and choose the games they like to play based on how hot the main character is and how often their ass is on-screen. Sexualized female characters in male-dominated stories are a symptom of unaccommodating male authorship that doesn't care if it makes women uncomfortable. Introducing more hot men doesn't challenge men to write more compelling female characters and doesn't do anything to address how the content they've created has made women feel unwelcome.
If this was an industry full of female writers, designers, and directors, we wouldn't need to have this conversation at all. But this is a slow status quo to change and happens from the ground-up. Asking for better representation in the meantime is change from the top-down because men already in positions of control have the opportunity to take some responsibility and produce content people other than heteronormative white men are asking for.
In all of human creation, there is no more powerful or influential tool than man-made media. Media is the foundation for every human religion, over which wars are waged and millions of people murdered. Media is the basis for all of advertising, the cornerstone of commerce through which entire corporate empires are built. Media is the vehicle for propaganda, for every day social correspondence between humans, for bringing news and information and ideas. Media is a uniquely human creation through which all of humanity is influenced and defined. Human existence as you know it would not exist without media. This is precisely because humans have mastered media as a means of conveying messages, consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, and other humans have listened.
How things are portrayed in media affects the way you recognize that same stimulus elsewhere. Seeing a commercial can make you want to buy something. Seeing a recruitment poster can make you want to join the army. A single movie can change the way an entire country of people perceive themselves. This is called The Godfather Effect. There is a reason the US Military and the Pentagon spend millions of dollars and lend equipment and expertise to Hollywood movies that depict the American Armed Forces in a flattering light. Media matters. Media makes a difference. Media shapes people and how they see the world - including other people.
People like to think they are smarter than their media. They like to think they decide what does and doesn't affect them. Certain people consume media more consciously than others by recognizing its faults and its dangers. They mitigate some of the conditioning by simply staying aware of the media they're viewing. But most people don't. Most people plug media directly in to their brain holes and don't think about it. They know they enjoy it and that's all that matters.
Seeing women only depicted as idealistic or endangered sex objects both reflects societal prejudices against women and also reinforces them. It fortifies the point of reference through which people relate to other people because the way your brain reacts to things is automatic. If you've been conditioned to see women as toys or dolls or objects through the media you consume you will continue to do so in the real world.
The comparison to violence is pointless. In your long life, it is highly unlikely you will ever pick up a gun and go on a killing spree. Humans are not born with guns and don't possess the natural impulse to go on a spree killing. This is not a biological function. It's not a basic human experience that happens automatically. But for most humans, sex is, and in your long life you will definitely see and speak to women. How you perceive women, and what you've been conditioned to think women are like and want, is going to affect how you interact with them and how you treat them.
Example: You have been influenced to think the answer to women's media problems are more hot men because your own media experience has taught you that it's a good thing that you like, so women must too. You assume women have as many options that you do and suggest they just play something else if they don't like it. But the point of this thread is to help you understand how people outside your personal experience might feel and what they might want out of their media. Instead, you are trying to give them what you think you would want.
As men, you and I already have everything we could want out of media. We have nothing to gain by denying others that same opportunity. I hope you realize that giving people more of what they like doesn't mean less of what you like. What you like does not need to be defended or preserved. It's not going anywhere. A lesson I wish more men would learn before they approach this thread is that it isn't about you.
Last edited:
Thank you for typing all of this. It perfectly explains how we, women, always feel. It gives me a bit of hope to know that there are still guys who get it.
Thank you for this great post. That took effort to write, and it shows :)
The way that people talk about Barbarella now with some sort of wistful reverence of the ultimate seduction (which I don't understand having watched it, Barbarella is kind of bad), you'd think they were.
I mean, what you're describing is a feeling of personal detachment. You give it a pass because nothing in that world is relatable, so objectification of any character, not just women, feels like some outlandish concept that doesn't make sense and thusly, you don't have to care about it. While I'd say that view is common, I'd also say it's the very thing that restricts progress and continues to have nearly every game with a fantasy setting portraying all of its women as sex bait. "We don't take it seriously, so neither should you" doesn't fly when every example of the archetype is guilty of doing the same thing.
For all of the people saying that the solution to the problem is to objectify men as much as the women are, know that that literally cannot happen, because the moment it does, gamers everywhere will whine in revolt and will threaten "ACTION" until it's removed.
You will never get a game where you are forced to play as a man that is as sexually objectified as a woman in a fantasy setting ever. Never ever.
Last edited:
Finale post is worth of being placed in the OP tbh.
This is especially such a good point IMO.
This is especially such a good point IMO.
Given the past 250+ pages, it seems most don't even want to read the OP and just want to come in swinging with their tired garbage.
Oh please, spare me with the "in Europe we are so ~enlightened~" nonsense. One, people didn't criticize the sex cards because of the "eroticism", but because of the blatant sexism of it. Two, the criticism was lowkey at the time simply because The Witcher 1 was a lowkey game, it wasn't yet the huge, award-winning video game franchise it became with the sequels.
*standing ovation*
(Someone remind me to add this to threadmarks when v2 rolls in.)
Hidden content
I criticized them when I first saw the game. I'm European.
Oops.
The idea that women in europe are more fine with this is BS, just like the idea that it's about "erotic material".
Wait, really? Whoa²!
Last edited:
Erotica isn't the issue. Erotica has or can have context. It's (hopefully) depicting two consenting adults doing erotic stuff together. Treatment of female characters that is purely objectifying & overly sexualizing is an issue, especially when so wide-scale and permeating everything from smut games like Senran Kagura to old franchises that used to be better at depictions of women, like Fire Emblem.
Goddamn. Haven't participated in this thread before because jebus this shit makes me exhausted, but goddamn. Reading this just made my morning.
Honestly, phone typing isn't that hard...though I have a physical keypad which makes it a lot easier.
Reminder that the sex cards were so out there that a good chunk of them did not make a lick of sense. Like having sex with a person accused of being a witch when right outside a mob is getting ready to storm down and kill her or the fact that one of your "cards" is a pleasure demon and despite logic dedicating otherwise, not only do you survive soul intact, but apparently are just that good in bed that the pleasure demon feels indebted to you. Like, wtf kind of bullshit is that?
Me too. The idea of dismissing comment by NA posters on the basis that they are 'prudes' or whatever and Europe is some sort of sexually enlightened wonderland where CDPR's efforts are recognised as the free-spirited efforts that they are is bollocks. Besides, opinions can vary enough within one country, let alone across 50. 'Europe' is a big and varied place, trying to draw any kind of sweeping statement about what 'Europeans' think is equally ridiculous.
I'm one of those weirdos without a smartphone, so I'll take your word for it. It just seems rather intimidating ^^
Indeed. The attitudes of italy (especially italian media) versus the attitudes in Germany versus the ones in Sweden, just to name some! The confusion over that is always adorable to see, like that one thread about the swedish advertisement group criticizing a certain meme being used ^^
I personally find it hilarious when posters go "well, it's cus you are American, if you were from Europe and not a prude...". I find it ridiculously hilarious - my fav example was when I was told that the c word was fine in the UK and not a gendered insult against women - I am from the UK, and a woman, and have definetly had it used against me in that way. They kept explaining to me (various posters) over and over again how I was wrong, and wrong to not be fine with the word.
Yeah, I don't get why it gets a pass either. I'm British and there's a reason it's generally seen as the top-level swear (as much due to the sharp phonetics as the problematic usage of the biggest insult being to call someone part of a woman's anatomy.) Male equivalents like 'dick', 'prick', 'cock' and 'tosser' all seem like pretty mild rebukes in comparison. The defence is usually that it can be a term of endearment between guys but I'm not sure what is effectively locker-room/pub 'banter' and it's juvenile habit of always trying to go one step further should be the defining judgement on what's OK and what isn't here.
Last edited:
I mean, it's addressed in the OP of this thread too:
The amount of Europeans who act like women asking to being treated like people is some sort of Americanism being shoved down the throats of the rest of the world is quite frankly amazing.
Great post Finale Fireworker !
Which is funny because it's not like we're anything close to the most Pro-women country right now anyhow.
Which is funny because it's not like we're anything close to the most Pro-women country right now anyhow.
The thing is, if your friends find it fine and it's part of your general banter that's fine - but please don't downplay me when I say that I've had it used in a horrible way against me as a woman and that's why I don't want to be called it constantly in a game which I want to use as an escape from real life. My experience was not worth less then theirs, and it wouldn't affect them if it wasn't in the game. This was before the numerous transphobic tweets from CDPR and I'm now not interested in CyberPunk unless something majorly changes. But the point still stands - just cus it didn't affect them, doesn't mean it didn't affect me. It's just another incident of a guy telling me I'm wrong about what affects women on this forum. The funniest was when they tried to explain to me how boobs work.
Yes but that would require reading the OP which apparently this poster thought he was above doing.
This is how I feel about it: maybe my reply won't matter to the person I reply to. It is difficult to change somebody's fully-formed opinion. But it could make a difference to the tens of thousands of people reading whose mind is not as completely made up. It could help someone who is reading without posting, and therefore has nothing to prove, come to an understanding they didn't have before. Every post we make on a public forum like this is host to innumerable eavesdroppers whose outlook may benefit from reading your perspective. That's why it's important to post even if you're not confident the other person will listen.
The post isn't just for them.
In any case, thank you everyone for receiving the post graciously.
He should've dressed it up as in-game "lore". They'll read it if they believe it contains the exact placement of BotW on the Zelda timeline.
Era just seems to have this problem that being able to jump over the very low bar of human decency should be commendable or some shit.
And even then the site doesn't manage to succeed to clear it 100%.
"I'm not a bad man because I haven't raped anyone. Please don't take my titty games away from me."
And even then the site doesn't manage to succeed to clear it 100%.
"I'm not a bad man because I haven't raped anyone. Please don't take my titty games away from me."
And was also temp banned a month ago for playing the "stop trying to censor my Video Games!" card!
"Most progressive gaming site!!!" Meanwhile members on this site will lay down the apology carpet for a rapist pedophile.
The thing is I've seen people post on this site that have claimed that the Resetera community is progressive and therefore if they find an issue fine, then there's not a problem. The community (particularly on the gaming side) isn't particularly progressive compared to other gaming communities, we just have a fantastic mod team that ban them when they go too far, and even then, that doesn't stop the numerous incidences I've seen on this forum of men telling women how women feel.
Absolutely... but you know full well most people who would benefit the most from reading it never even glance at the OP.
Oh, absolutely. Wow. I thought a male poster explaining to women in this thread how sexualisation works was bad!
'Most progressive gaming site' is kinda damning with faint praise at the moment, but that doesn't mean I don't have a lot of respect for the idealistic stance of the the admin/mod team for stopping discussions like this getting trolled to oblivion.
Last edited:
This is what I was going to say. I got issues with gaming side, but I respect the attempt that's made by the mods and admins.
However, gaming side is not progressive. I think that can be seen in any topic discussed within the confines of this thread vs. if you were to make a thread on it.
While nudity outside of sexual encounters is somewhat more commonplace in some countries of Europe or at least in some situations (i.e. Finnish people generally go to sauna nude even with relative strangers, unless it's some unisex workplace thing where people can a little more guarded over not being nude with bosses & coworkers), nudity isn't straight out the same thing as objectification/sexualization. Just because Finnish people go to sauna nude and don't make a big deal of all the hanging dicks & boobies doesn't mean we think boob armors & such are a really good idea and no different from the nudity we encounter in our lives.
I've said it before, but some people have a habit of conflating 'being sexually liberal' with 'being ok with all sexual content, regardless of tone or context'. When anyone says "This is just American puritism, Europeans wouldn't bat an eyelid", 90% of the time I'm thinking "A lot of us would, actually".
Some people seem to think the end goal of discussions like these are meant ban any sort of female character showing skin. And so of course they get scared and cry censorship. No, no one's trying to put some "puritan" rules around the media you consume. What people want are, like any storytelling, reasons for it to be there if you're seriously trying to tell a story and not just make porn.
Nothing being said here isn't something a movie critic would say about similar pieces of entertainment. You can see this in reviews for the transformer movies. Plenty of them mock or sneer at the amount of exploitive shots of Megan Fox in the films.
On the other side, you have movies that actually use partial or full nudity well. A friend of mine recently told me he finally got around to watching The Witch so I'll use that as an example. Near the end of the movie we see a bunch of naked women. I don't want to spoil anything but anyone here who has seen that movie understands the reason for the nudity and subtle themes behind it. Now I'm not saying you need that specific reason. Maybe you have a scene with a woman having sex with a love interest be the reason or your writing a story about a teenage girl discovering her sexuality. You just need to have a storytelling reason for it to happen.
Nothing being said here isn't something a movie critic would say about similar pieces of entertainment. You can see this in reviews for the transformer movies. Plenty of them mock or sneer at the amount of exploitive shots of Megan Fox in the films.
On the other side, you have movies that actually use partial or full nudity well. A friend of mine recently told me he finally got around to watching The Witch so I'll use that as an example. Near the end of the movie we see a bunch of naked women. I don't want to spoil anything but anyone here who has seen that movie understands the reason for the nudity and subtle themes behind it. Now I'm not saying you need that specific reason. Maybe you have a scene with a woman having sex with a love interest be the reason or your writing a story about a teenage girl discovering her sexuality. You just need to have a storytelling reason for it to happen.
Well to be honest, old Fire Emblem armour is worst compare to the new armour, realistic speaking, yea the new armour are sexier but AT LEAST have some real protection (in the case of Cherche, yes the back is not cover but all the front is cover in metal protecting his organs when in the case of Jill...all the soft belly and arms are completed exposed soo... is really bad) Also leather is NO armour (there are rare occasions that it was but normally it have 0 protection against cutting and trusting).
The worst armor in Fire Emblems is the Pegasus Knight (if it can be called armor) really you are charging against the enemy in that?
Just because is not sexy it do not mean is practical armor. There are no female armor because there were not female warriors in antiquity, only 1% of the warrior (AKA professional solders) could have being women and they probably use what all men were using and that is layer after layer of linen, metal rings and metal plate. After you put all this armor they lost the feminine shape and it will be look like any other other solder. That is why the designer make them without real armor to say "hey it is a women".
I will defend Tharja, she has a good design (all of Plegia have good design in my opinion) it is inspire of Egyptian paintings. The male and female solder of Plegia (the sorceress) does. So if you defend the old stile of old Fire Emblem based old Greek Mythology style then what is wrong with a new design based on old Egyptian style? Is the only new and interesting element of Awakening (that go to trash with the writing of the story and the fan service personality of Tharja). I am not saying it is not over sexualized but at least she add something new and interesting to the series (not like Camila) .
Last edited:
I don't think pointing out that she's based on Egyptian paintings is a defense.
But even with that said, just looking at the paintings and this:
There's a pretty big difference. Not to mention some of the statues that came out for Tharja, it's pretty clear what the focus of the design was.
But even with that said, just looking at the paintings and this:
There's a pretty big difference. Not to mention some of the statues that came out for Tharja, it's pretty clear what the focus of the design was.
I am not saying is the best example, but is not the worst in the series. It was clearly with fan service in mind but at least bout men and women have the same style.
I like more promote Tharja dress to be honest.
I like more promote Tharja dress to be honest.
- Status