|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:09AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2007
|
There's more reading on this specific art topic over in the Astrid's Parlor section of the boards. Critiques of older editions or fantasy in general, but also things desired in 4e.
Hadn't realized that Astrid's Parlor was the art forum, guess I'm off-topic here then. Oops.
Regardless, I have to wonder if in fact you are joking here. Having just gotten the books, I'm actually impressed with the representation (on multiple levels) in the artwork. PHB 297 is one of the coolest pics in the book...one of my faves actually. The woman is well painted, an active heroine, and there's nothing wrong (IMHO) with her being sexy.
Nope, being totally serious. While I agree that there's nothing wrong with sexy, there's no way in hell someone would go into a swordfight while showing off her bare belly like that.
Are you considering previous artwork in your evaluation?
To a degree. 4e doesn't seem nearly as bad as previous RPGs, but when you put Medieval Implants Chick right on the cover of the corebook I have trouble believing this is a big step forward.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:16AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2006
|
There's also a guy with his bare chest showing on the cover...
Personaly, I fail to see the problem. There are much more normaly dressed women in the book, and that's not even comparing to previous edition artwork. Since when do armor in a fantasy game have to make sense anyway?
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:17AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 16, 2003
|
HNope, being totally serious. While I agree that there's nothing wrong with sexy, there's no way in hell someone would go into a swordfight while showing off her bare belly like that.
You're new to the genre, aren't you?
Welcome to heroic fantasy, where your value to the story (and thus your lifespan) is more directly linked to how cool or iconic your equipment is then how it would work in real life because, again, this is not the real life, this is just fantasy. Caught in a landslide, this game's an escape from reality.
What armor you wear is based on how fun it is to draw, not the fact that you've exposed parts or that you are now covered with so many spikes and barbs that technically, you should be stabbing yourself when you walk. What weapon you use is based on how awesome you look posing with it? Sword and board? Get that crap out of here! Use this giant scythe instead. Or, if you insist on a boring sword, at least etch the crap out of it.
Sig to be rebuilt soonThe Descendants-- the webserial that reads like a comic book! World of Ere-- A campaign setting that puts style to the fore.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:20AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2007
|
Let's not forget here that the only thing D&D is missing as far as art goes now are good looking men in semi-provocative dress.
Here's hoping for some loin cloth/conan action in the barbarian class art.
as to the 4th edition samples listed as sexist... not one of those pictures depicted women as inferior to men in any way.
The only thing that could be said is that the armor not being "properly design to protect" is a problem... I say "magic exists, so our normal rules on things need not always apply... perhaps a component of magic armor is to have it not fully covering the body, turning the attacker's own overconfidence that they will cause harm into a protective energy field around the target"
Careful, man. That much logic might be illegal on the internet. - Salla
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:39AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2007
|
I find it sexist to portray these women in such blatantly exploitive fashion. There aren't, as has been mentioned, any loincloth-wearing Conan lookalikes.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:41AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2004
|
Hey, they say they know what their "target audience" wants, right? 
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:44AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 15, 2007
|
I'm a 25 year old male fantasy geek with disposable income and lots of time on his hands; I AM the target audience. :P
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:54AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jan 30, 2006
|
Really, it's not that different from how they're portrayed anywhere else. If you look at it this way, most of the movies and tv are sexist.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:56AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Feb 21, 2007
|
To actually be sexist, it would have to be exploitative, not just titillating and not just inexplicable nerd rage over impractical armor on magical demon women.
some people get offended when they see images of women that remind them of women who would not date them .. not saying thats the case here mind you.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Jun 10, 2008 - 12:56AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
The Male Dragonborn on the cover is showing more skin than the Female Human next to him.
The Male Tiefling Warlock on page 58 is wearing belts instead of a shirt. As is the Male Dragonborn on page 235.*
(small note: The cleric on page 258 is wearing pants. Unless she's really really sick or something and has discolored legs.)
I'm not even going to get into how many of the male goblonoids are wearing nothing but a loose loincloth.
*as an aside, this is the most awesome thing to cosplay.
|
|
|
