test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Big Girls Need Love Too!
Archived Post
Posts: 1,156,071 Arc User
There is a massive (pun intended) discrepancy between male and female characters in this game.
Namely, the huge imbalance between how much altering the Body Mass slider affects the size of a male character compared to a female one.
First, let's look at the boys' team. Nothing of these characters were altered other than the bodymass.
Fully Default Male
Male with Maximized Body Mass
Quite a dramatic difference. You can do anything from a immovable sumo-esque brawler to your classic whipcord-taut Golden Age hero just by shifting the mass and then adjusting the muscle bumpmapping to fit. Very impressive range of variety here, Cryptic.
Now for the girls' side. I repeat, nothing other than bodymass was altered for these images.
Fully Default Female
Female with Maximized Body Mass
Hey wait a second... is that it? That's all the change women can get from a maxed-out bodymass? She just goes up a dress-size or two? Even tweaking the muscle bumpmaps doesn't have much effect if that's all the increase of size we can get to put it on. If thats all the increase there is, why have it at all?
No chance for a massive Amazonian war-goddess, or a bulky she-bear werebeast, or even just a chubby wizard who enjoys conjured pastries a bit too much. Heck, you can't even shift the height down to make an amply-endowed female dwarf, though her barrel-shaped male counterpart is easily done.
I know some might argue the reason is that there's not a whole lot of BBW-type characters in comics, but come on... there's not many big fat guy characters either, but those are able to be represented no problem.
Come on, Cryptic, show some love.
Namely, the huge imbalance between how much altering the Body Mass slider affects the size of a male character compared to a female one.
First, let's look at the boys' team. Nothing of these characters were altered other than the bodymass.
Fully Default Male
Male with Maximized Body Mass
Quite a dramatic difference. You can do anything from a immovable sumo-esque brawler to your classic whipcord-taut Golden Age hero just by shifting the mass and then adjusting the muscle bumpmapping to fit. Very impressive range of variety here, Cryptic.
Now for the girls' side. I repeat, nothing other than bodymass was altered for these images.
Fully Default Female
Female with Maximized Body Mass
Hey wait a second... is that it? That's all the change women can get from a maxed-out bodymass? She just goes up a dress-size or two? Even tweaking the muscle bumpmaps doesn't have much effect if that's all the increase of size we can get to put it on. If thats all the increase there is, why have it at all?
No chance for a massive Amazonian war-goddess, or a bulky she-bear werebeast, or even just a chubby wizard who enjoys conjured pastries a bit too much. Heck, you can't even shift the height down to make an amply-endowed female dwarf, though her barrel-shaped male counterpart is easily done.
I know some might argue the reason is that there's not a whole lot of BBW-type characters in comics, but come on... there's not many big fat guy characters either, but those are able to be represented no problem.
Come on, Cryptic, show some love.
Post edited by Archived Post on
0
Comments
Yeah, there's a slider called 'waist' but that is not what it changes. That changes the hips.
/epic signed!
Having never made a female character, I'm stunned by the (lack of) difference in those two pictures for the female, compared to the male!
I like to make my characters nice and curvy... I don't think I have ever had the "waist" slider anywhere other than all-the-way-to-the-right-100% on any of my characters. This is meant to be a fantasy after all, and my fantasy doesn't involve any skinny little anorexic girls
EDIT: ME WANT SNOO SNOO!!!!!!!
Would love to see the ability to make a plus sized female character, some of us envision our heroes with more realistic body types. (not everyone gets a body makeover with their powers after all.)
I wouldn't mind some greater divesrity in the female form as represented in this game, but unfortunately in the genre it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Give women a mostly svelte or amazon-ish physique and you're objectifying women. Make more realistic or even 'large' women and it's misogyny. It never seems to matter as much with male characters (more problems occur in this direction with other forms of stereotyping then it does anything else)
Mind, this mostly focuses on center-stage characters, which for the most part every character we make here is.
Doesn't stop me from /signing this thread, though. More variety, always good! Gigas could stand to look a bit bigger both in and out of the armor.
It didn't work. Not even a little.
/signed. repeatedly. in ink. or human blood, if that would help.
(The maximum-mass female image there is more Hollywood Pudgy [caution: TVTropes link].)
I'm just wanting what all the other people who have made - and in the future will continue to make - threads about things like how the costume parts are unevenly organized or how the Huge/Huge Beast character stances need to be usable for both genders... namely, I want the sexes to have balance.
And yet, this one very obvious IMbalance is one I have yet to see addressed.
We can make all manner of mighty meatshield men, but can't make an equally-intimidating she-giant. We can make rotund unstoppable walking boulders, but can't even make a slightly-chubby woman.
The scales are tipped terribly.
It's a crazy double-standard. It's okay for Conan to be a shirtless bronzed, oiled meat god. But Red Sonja objectifies women.
Boggles the mind a bit. I'd also love a second Beast stance for female characters similar to how males have two (not that I have any personal character concepts that would use it at the moment, but I'm bound to at some point and I can think of a milliion different ways to do it with a Nemesis that I'd downright love to).
But I think that's another thread. I still agree fully that we should be able to make bigger female characters. It sometimes bothers me that every female in-game (from PCs to NPCs) all have almost the exact same body type, and that no matter what I do a lot of my characters end up looking the same (despite all of them having vastly different heights/sliders in general).
EDIT: Heck, half the thing I use to tell my characters apart, generally, from NPCs is the fact I can't see over most of them (them being the NPCs).
S'all good mang.
This^
The lack of a real waist slider (one that actually adjusts the waist, instead of the hips) is something that has always bothered me since I started playing the game, but I've sort of learned to live with it. Still would be nice to have an actual waist slider to mold our character's waist a bit.
Also, in regards to the OP, it's not just the Body Mass slider that's different between male and female characters, but also a couple of face sliders as well. Male characters actually get more facial sliders than female toons. And while some of these sliders work on defining features that tend to be a bit more prevalent in males, such as jaw width and length, females have them too (in real life I mean, not in the game), and they are facial elements that can help create distinctiveness in a character's facial features.
Female characters simply don't have as much slider variety as male character's do. I've even heard people comment that all female faces look the same--which isn't entirely true, but it's not far from the truth either. So...
/Signed for a wider range Body Mass slider
and..
/Signed for more sliders in general for female characters as well
Heheheh, I've often wondered about this as well.
Yeah, females probably need the "Huge" stance as well, since the Huge Beast stance is kind of an offshot of Huge.
Exactly. Hard as I try, a lot of my characters seem to have very similar bodies (unless I take the sliders to extreme points, and even then, its only so much difference). I think that the body mass slider is part of this issue. But I also think that the lack of a waist slider is part of the issue as well, since being able to modify a character's waist can go a long way towards reshaping their figure, allowing us to either increase or reduce the hourglass effect without taking our chest width and hip (currently labled "waist") sliders to extremes.
FAT MOMMA! FAT MOMMA!
I'M HERE TO SAVE THE DAY!
FAT MOMMA! FAT MOMMA!
I'LL TAKE YOUR FOOD AWAY!
oh lord, i'm ashamed to admit i recognize that.:(
Ahh but you see the difference is this.
Conan is not portrayed as a sexual object, he's not posing in pinups or really thought of as 'hawt' or a true ideal for men. he's not really eye candy, he just happens to dress as he does...it's more about power with his character.
You can't quite say the same for Red Sonja, especially with her 'any man who beats me in combat gets to have sex with me' code. Her chain metal bikinis, and the kid of situations she get's herself in does lead to objectification.
Now granted that's just my perception...but I' thought I'd weigh in on the double standard issue, because I think for men, it's not really that bad. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's just not as prominent in the media.
I could be wrong though.
Um... I'm going to have to disagree with you there. You put a big muscly man in a teeny tiny little loin cloth, and it's basically softcore pornography. And I don't know who you asked, but looking like that is certainly the physical ideal for a man... it certainly isn't Cheesecake Joe with his beergut and manboobs.
Yes but is he marketed as a sexual object? Do men complain about Conan being such?
I've never actually heard any man complain, about being objectified due to a character in a loincloth. Actually I've never heard about men complaining about being objectified at all.
All I'm saying is that if it does exist, it's not nearly as prominent, I'm just not hearing it from men themselves.
Any forum fellas here that want to weight in on this?
Not trying to be combative by the way....I hope this doesn't come off as such. This is just a topic that I find really interesting...no harm intended. ^_^
Oh and /epic signed again....just for good measure.
Frankly, if the idea is this popular, I wonder why nobody's said anything before now.
Then again, as obvious as it is, I wonder why Cryptic themselves hadn't done it to begin with.
To determine what the male flipside of that is, we have to ask what appeals to women. While lots of women like beefcake, you'd be interested to know that if you showed them a buffed up comic book character, most of them are probably going to say he's too big. Curiously enough, those men aren't made to appeal to women, but other men (not necessarily gay men, mind you), because men consider that kind of physique to be their ideal. So, I don't consider Conan an example of male objectification because Conan is made to appeal to the male fantasy of themselves.
That's not to say that it doesn't exist though. You just have to look in a different place. To find your male objectification, look not at physique, but status and personality. Look at primetime dramas where the men are ludicrously bold and confident to an extent that your average man would be hesitant to attempt in real life, where the men have a sharp and witty retort for every exchange, and where the men make every ****ing day a magical adventure. At that point, the men cease to be people, but vehicles to carry women's fantasies.
**** those guys, is what I'm saying.
In regards to the topic, yes, agree totes. I think Ebony looks pretty tough, but I'd love to add a little mass to her core.
Oh and back to the OP...can I sign this again? Just for good measure?
We should be able to make sexy men and women of any size in CO...it just makes sense. ^_^
Go right ahead... I don't mind at all. Spread the love. Support Equal Size!
But he is marketed as a sex object.
Just look at the golden age for action heroes. You would never see the current James Bond or Jason Bourne in a golden age action movie. What purpose did it serve having a bulky guy playing the part of jungle assassin. I certainly didn't admire him for his muscles.
However, it did make it easier when trying to convince our wives and girlfriends to join us for these movies.
What happened, where did the bulks go?
Well, the image of masculine sex appeal changed in women. They don't want hairy bulks anymore. They want sensitive yet mysterious adventuring types. (State Farm commercial with the girls describing what kind of guy they want, didn't mention bronzed muscular statue).
And BAM, what do we get.... we get Jason Bourne and movies like Taken, where guys are impossibly skilled, talented at turning a lady into mush (well, not Bourne, but there are countless others), and James Bond turns from believable charming deniable dangerous, to serious dangerous and deniable charming.
I suppose I could go deeper into the instinctual preference for females to feel safe, and the fact that dangerous males make females feel safe, but that's just tangent. Except maybe mentioning that the image of dangerous has changed over the last 60 years (thanks a lot super spy cold war assassin).
Last time I checked, the amount of guys that can jump 20 feet between 5 story buildings are very rare, but now it seems even some lousy Tourist can do it.
I don't mean to say that this was consciously intentional. However, I would like to suggest that it may have been subconscious or even indirect, as guys wanted to be Rambo, because girls wanted Rambo.
Fortunately my wife feels pretty safe with a beastly man like me (maybe I could pass as Beast, just need blue skin), than she does with some sparkly vampire, but she's a more practical woman, so her instincts are more practical.
Imagine how every U.S.A. action movie goes. The villains are always foreigners with an accent and the heroes are U.S., the majority of the U.S. are residents and are the major demographics, any immigrants residing there would just shake their heads and either watch it or just don't. At least in the game they didn't tamper with the stats between male and female.
Comedies don't count. I'm looking at you, Rush Hour.
I guess there are exceptions like James Bond, Arnold, Bruce Lee.
I don't think that's how that works.
Practical perception and superficial perception, result in different fulfillment of instinct.
One person may feel safe with tons of money, another may feel safe with a bodyguard. Both are instinctively seeking safety.
90
And now for the part I may get criticized for.
The effect you guys are looking for isn't really a real "waist slider, but what you guys are actually looking for is a body-fat slider to increase or decrease the amount of body fat in between that gap of the bottom ribs and the Iliac crest of the pelvis.
And thus concludes my little lesson
(Disclaimer: I am not a doctor or medical physician. In fact I recently graduated High School).
That's part of the issue - in modern American culture, males period are rarely seen as sex objects. It's a term that generally only applies to women for the most part, though obviously there are exceptions to the rule. Because of that, no matter what you do with a female character (in movies, video games, or comic books) it will have people screaming objectification whether or not that was really the point behind the design (more often, the case is just that they went with what is most aesthetically pleasing for the character and what was more likely to appeal to the masses - double standard rearing it's head again).
Fair warning - I may be snipping this (dunno, doing it as a run-and-gun post) here and there, though I did read the entire thing. I just wanted to get it out of the way that I'm going to be replying to it in what I find are some of the more significant bits, and I apologize in advance if in doing so I make it sound like I'm mis-representing your argument (last thing I wanna do).
If we want to get technical about the entire Conan issue, the problem isn't just that he's an oiled, bronzed man-mountain of beef in a loincloth, furry boots, and Glamrock hair. He's portrayed somewhat often as a 'lusty barbarian' type, as well as the quintessential fantasy genre bad boy (mercenary, outlaw, thief, brutal warrior). He's designed to be (or has evolved into; I can't say which specifically) to be a heroic male ideal - which is to say, badass to the nines and a glimmering, muscley object of desire for womens. All the womens, all of them.
I'd almost say it's disingenuous to state he's not a classic and common example of male objectification.
That doesn't fly either, as there are a lot of complaints (in the past and presently) that Barbie both objectifies women and reinforces negative body association in young girls the world over by supporting an unhealthy body image (waifish but with a large rack). You'd be hard pressed to say that anything she wears necessarily is designed to interest boys, but that doesn't stop a lot of people pointing it out. There's also the problem that similar ideals are perpetuated in media aimed exclusively at women in magazines, fashion anything, and pretty much any fictional media where women are displayed as well (how many sigificant, even mildly overweight female actresses have we had since Roseanne and Rosie O' Donnel quit the scene, that have had anything even remotely approaching the same appeal as someone like say... Cate Blanchett, or similar. Brain quit on me in trying to find examples here, but the main point is Hollywood and normal media are aiming thinner. Bette Midler probably wouldn't do as well today either).
This doesn't happen as often with men (note: It does happen, key word there is often), and even in the standard sitcom setup it's very rare that the woman is the more heavyset of the pair (it's almost always often the man).
While there has been a bit of a shift in what women generally find hot, it's still not entirely the slender emo badboy look that appeals to women. It's actually shifted somewhat closer to the reasonably well-muscled d-bag frat boy style of things then it has anything else, which we can see in a number of media. Brad Pitt (especially in the movie Snatch) is still in the running, and probably a bit better off as people shift away from Arnold Schwarzenagger and Sylvester Stallone and more into athletic-but-reasonable types (though Vin Disel and Dwayne Johnson still get a lot of work, and are considered 'hot' by a significant quotient of female viewers, so it's not like beefcake has gone out of style. It's a timeless eye-meal for any generation!).
I would still say that Conan qualifies even there. He has an epic tale of legend longer then most small countries have history, is a 'king' more often then not, and is still Hulking it out something fierce in his old age.
Still Conan. Except for the part about making every day seem like a magical adventure - that's just part and parcel with what he does, and I think it would be fair to discount that portion. Again, while he's generally there as a vehicle for male fantasy, being an object of desire for women (and one of envy for other men) is a male fantasy.
Similarly, it's a female fantasy to have guys drool all over you, but somehow it's still more acceptable for the male half of the equation then it is the female. Double standard! That's all I'm pointing out here.
I'll grant that Red Sonja is probably a bad side-by case, but I was having a devil of a time coming up with anything realistically in the same category as Conan that directly applies to women. Though there is still the 'Alright, why is this objectification and this isn't?' factor to be had in the comparison. Essentially, it's impossible to have a female hero fantasy ideal that doesn't scream 'objectification', but there are tons of case examples of male hero fantasy ideal that can be rightly viewed as objectification of men that are generally ignored or handwaved (NOTE: not what's going on here - I think you're doing a solid job of representing your side of the debate here).
...also sorry for the derail ChaosWolf.
Actually, we're looking for an overall mass-increase like the men have, not just a waist slider.
Hey, no problem, Long as it doesn't go too long or get out-of-hand, I don't mind a little derailing. It's an interesting discussion, especially as I'm a big Conan fan myself.
EDIT: Also not to be the bearer of bad news, but what your suggesting would imply remaking the model used for female toons, which would require re-tweaking ALL the costume parts for the female model. Which if I'm not mistaken there are over 3,000+ parts for characters to choose from, and I know I'm not a Cryptic employee, but I pretty sure trying to add this would get in the way of other content, that this game desperately needs.
As a side note.... Can haz a bronze muscled athlete with the old British touch and charisma of Sean Connery?
-drooool-
Although I'd like to see Cryptic improve the character customization in general (More options and etc). It's already the best out there, so why not make it even better to prevent competitors from catching up?
*nods* Lots of good points here.
I can attest that personally, as a woman, I'm not into skinny weepy emo boys, or d-bag frat boys.
It's interesting when you actually sit, and think about what you really do find attractive versus what the media is currently pushing as 'attractive'. It can be wildly, and vastly different for individuals of both genders.
Beauty really is int he eye of the beholder....
...and what we need in CO is some extra sliders so we can make beautiful women of any size.
/epic signed...one more time!
...though I will say Brad Pitt and Val Kilmer were kinda hot back in the day. While generally uninterested in the male half of the population on a personal level, I can at least appreciate aesthetics.
EDIT: And again - seriously signed. I want at least the option to beef up some of my characters and actually have it apply a meaningful visual difference (and I have two that would benefit from being able to be a bit more statuesque - I can't even do a proper Grondbuster or 70's Spacesuit thing on Gigas, for example, because I can't make the armor beefy enough).
... Seconded...
Edward Cullen... Urrrrghhhhhh, where's my stake!?
Attachment not found.
Of course, there's some historical contingency here. Men weren't the submissive gender. They did not have to have a massive social movement lasting >100 years to get near equality, and they don't have to battle against social expectations that they conform to unspoken pre-movement gender ideals.
In part objectifying women necessarily references pre-feminist ideals about a woman's proper place, jobs, duties, etc... These things are all rightfully declaimed against. There is certainly the implicit submissive nature of a woman who dresses up in a way that is specifically pleasing to men, and its even worse when there is *absolutely no reason to dress that way except to please men*. (Depictions of women in comics fail pretty hard here. Large breasts + spandex outfits with no support = totally impractical and obviously pandering to men). And since submission to men was the original problem, and what hte feminist movement was against, any submission is flagged as bad.
Men, otoh, have historically been the dominant gender, and getting objectified in those roles isn't something that most men have any cause to complain about.
Of course, feminists mostly flub answering questions such as 'what about women who enjoy dressing for men (or women who enjoy depicting women that are pleasing to men in art)' or 'what about women who want to live in an historical gender role'. The whole point of feminism was about *female choice*, to not be constrained by a dominant male heirarchy, but that necessarily means that a woman should be able to choose a submissive role if she wants to. Of course, men aren't even allowed to participate in this discussion, and certainly not produce art that so characterizes women, which sort of damns most comic art from the get go.
anyway, /signed, i want more body shape options for women too =P
Maybe, but spending a week or two putting the new costumes on hold to work on balancing body sliders and doing other character-creator tuneups like evening out the number of parts between genders (the only parts that should be gender-specific are male facial-hair and the female Harajuku set, but this is not the case) arguably would be a much nicer use of their time than spitting out a new theme pack every month - what good's new parts if they can't be used to the fullest?
/signed with both hands and feet.
What I meant by content was actual playable content. Sure they are coming out with a new lvl 20 arch, BUT I've basically been playing the same content for months and it gets a bit dryer with each character (note: I have 4 lvl 40s, workin on my 5th, she's at lvl 26.)
That's what I'm saying - have the art department or whoever's in charge of such things work for a little while on balancing things out instead of slinging a new costume set our way. New gameplay content is different folks.